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

[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.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

We appear to be at cross purposes I wrote: "The diary is presented as a text written by James Maybrick". You seem to agree with me. So it's a forgery. I thought you were disputing that in an earlier post but it's good that we both now agree it's a forgery. Obviously, the diary is not an art forgery, so different principles apply in terms of style.

As for Baxendale's opinion, you've repeated the very thing I was attempting to correct! He didn't say that the earliest date of origin was 1945. He said that the diary ink had originated "since 1945" which, to my understanding, rules out a 1945 creation

It was presented by Mike Barrett, as a text purportedly written by James Maybrick. I don't believe the handwriting is Maybrick's, but I don't believe it's Anne's either, in which case Mike would not have known if it was or wasn't written by James Maybrick when he presented it. That is what he would have been expecting to learn, but he had no money for any tests, so he had to leave that side of things to others, if they were prepared to invest theirs.

Oh my goodness, how hard can this be? I quoted Baxendale's actual words! In his 'opinion', he only considered it 'likely' that it originated since 1945. If you are picking me up because I should have given his earliest date of origin as 1946, and not 1945, then I stand corrected. Put me on the naughty step and dock my pocket money.

Apparently, in Mike Barrett's affidavit, a year or three either way for the creation of his diary is absolutely fine and only to be expected. Give that man a bonus for trying to get it right through Scotch mist.

Love,

Caz
X