The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would take the opposite view here, and say that it's sometimes not worth the bother of us responding to contributions or questions which take little or no account of the information already freely available.

Contribute away, Herlock, but you may not always get a response. Before suggesting it's because nobody can answer your questions or challenge your arguments, ask yourself if they may already have been addressed, explored or dealt with, by posters on all sides of the debate - which I can tell you for nothing they almost certainly will have been, a hundred times over and in forensic detail.

Love,

Caz
X

You'll have to forgive me Caz for holding view that questions of mine which aren't answered are not answered because there is no answer to them or because to answer them honestly would involve an admission of error or uncertainty. On any other thread refusal to answer would surely be considered in the same way?

One example of this is a quote showing that Melvin Harris was seeking a copy of Barrett's affidavit, as Ike claimed. I'm still waiting for that quote. His failure to provide it leads me to believe that it doesn't exist. It can hardly be a time consumer just to post a quote?

If you think that any particular question I've asked has been answered before, please feel free to identify that question but do bear in mind that, unless I'm asking for factual information, I want to know what the particular person I'm addressing thinks right now, not what they, or someone else, might have thought many years ago. After all, you did tell Roger only a few days ago not to assume that your own views haven't changed over the years, and you told him that all he needed to do was ask you questions to establish your current views rather than assume what they may be based on what you'd said in the past. If you want me to quote that post, just let me know.

I also find it strange that when John Wheat posts to say that the diary is a fake, Ike often responds to criticize him for not giving reasons, but when I post to say that the diary is a fake and give reasons, Ike seems to be equally unhappy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that's not what he actually asked for, or went on to order and receive, was it?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, to answer the first part of your question, a diary containing authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders was precisely what Barrett asked for.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say that it wasn’t?

My understanding of events was that Barrett didn't "order" the 1891 diary. Rather it was offered to him, sight unseen, because the supplier couldn't source one from the 1880s and it was the only one available. So it was the 1891 diary or nothing.

When he saw it - assuming he was the forger - he must then have realized that the paper couldn't be made scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders but only because it had printed dates on it.

Absent that, it seems to me, and I'm not sure how you can possibly dispute it, the wording of the request for a diary from the decade of the Ripper murders containing blank pages is consistent with an attempt to get hold of was authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders.

Surely?

[rjpalmer]

What exactly is sacred about a theory which 'fits all the facts' but doesn't actually prove anything and which cannot have holes punched in it because there is no evidence to disprove it?

Ike

Martin Fido addressed this in a companion piece to his above "scenario"; it's in the second and third paragraphs below, while his first paragraph was addressed to Caroline's single question about Mike's handwriting.

It seems strange that you would question the validity of forming a hypothesis but, then again, considering that Diary Belief a Faith-Based Religion, that demands that it be DISPROVED, by one, single solitary fact, perhaps I do understand it.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock.
I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??
It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

Just for completeness, RJ, which facts does your theory fit which are not otherwise accommodated easily by other theories? You write as though we are all sitting on the edge of our seats awaiting the moment when a theory comes along which is able to account for the very small amount of what we know went on in 12 Goldie Street between March 9, 1992 and April 13, 1992 (and before then and after then), but the reality is that no-one is sitting on the edge of any seat awaiting the solution to some conundrum which your theory magically resolves. We all just resolve any quandaries we may have by fitting them into our own theories which only get holes punched in them when commentators desire to operate to different values for themselves than they apply to others.

"I like that theory because it fits how I want the truth to be. I don't like that theory because it does not fit how I want the truth to be."

What exactly is sacred about a theory which 'fits all the facts' but doesn't actually prove anything and which cannot have holes punched in it because there is no evidence to disprove it?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock.

If you don't mind, let me turn your attention for a brief second to Martin Fido: Oxford graduate, Oxford don, successful broadcaster, prolific author of books on subjects ranging from Chaucer to the Kray Twins, lecturer at Michigan State University and Boston College, writing teacher, one of the earliest researchers of the Maybrick Hoax and a man who had full access to Feldman's research and communications, as well as a man who had the respect of people on both sides of the aisle.

He sounds like someone we might want to listen to...

What was Fido's theory of the Maybrick Hoax?

Martin's theory was the diary was a modern fake, written primarily or entirely by Anne Graham, possibly as piece of fiction, and it was afterwards turned into a hoax by Mike Barrett.

In short, he had the same general theory as I do, independently conceived, with a few minor variations. If my ideas are incoherent and insane, as has been suggested, I'm happy that I am in same padded cell as someone as accomplished as Martin.






I can't agree with Martin's last idea that Barrett was the penman (although in theory Mike could have sought out a helper), but I know why Martin suggested this

Based on remarks made elsewhere, Martin believed Anne was too literate to have been the pen person--that she wouldn't have made the spelling and grammatical errors we see in the diary. But Martin based this assumption on one single, solitary document: the "professional" research paper on Liverpool laundries that Anne had written for Feldman.

If Martin had had access to the same personal writings of Anne's obtained by David Barrat, would he have made the same assumption? I doubt it. They show the identical careless errors and mistaken homophones as we can see in the diary. Thus, there was no need for Martin to substitute Mike as the penman.

Other diary theorist weave speculations about Mike and Anne out of thin air and also operate from the mistaken principle that Anne, if involved, wanted the diary to succeed.

This is one of their primary errors and they repeat it again & again in their objections.

I don't see it that way. Anne constantly said she didn't want the diary published, and in this instance, I believe her. Anne also believed--based on her own testimony-- that once Mike brought the diary to London, the literary agent would 'just send Mike packing.'

I've hammered this point home many times, but it falls on unwilling and deaf ears. I think Anne cooperated on that principle, convinced that no one would take the diary seriously, and because of that, the handwriting NOT being Maybrick's was only one more good reason for believing that Mike's scheme would never work. As such, what was the harm with helping him and keeping peace in the house??

It makes perfect sense, fits all the facts, and no one has been able to punch a single hole in it. She cooperated, but only on the assumption the whole thing would quickly implode.

And if I'm wrong, and I doubt that I am, it only means Anne was a willing accomplice rather than the unwilling one theorized by Martin.

Martin also understood that because Anne was a sympathetic person, a single mother, she avoided the skepticism and scrutiny that was aimed at Barrett. That's still the case. Even now, all the diary debaters can talk about is Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett, Mike Barrett. The low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

So no, there is no contradiction in the idea that Anne was both a collaborator and a woman who was terrified when she realized the diary was going to be published.

Did she try to burn it? I have no idea. It could be a pork pie, certainly. But Caroline Barrett remembers her parents fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, and that's an odd thing to 'coach' a child. Why would they have coached her about a fight behind the scenes? It would have only raised red flags.

Here's to the memory of Martin Fido. I don't think he was entirely correct--but he was very close.

Cheers.