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

[caz]

Dang. I accidently read the message boards without logging-in and came across this post.

I thought the concept was fairly simple, but to make sure I ran it past my friend's ten-year-old daughter. Yup--she understood it right away.

What does it take, children, to challenge handwriting? Any guesses?

Yup, exemplars---significant samples of the person's handwriting.

So, if the hoaxer was convinced that Maybrick had been dead long enough that no significant samples existed (as was apparently the belief of Paul Feldman's team), and even made whatever unknowable inquires that convinced them of this, then how could the handwriting be challenged? What was Dr. Audrey Giles going to compare it against, tea leaves?

Of course, the hoaxer might have worried that samples of Maybrick's handwriting might eventually be traced, and IF that happened, gave some thought to 'Plan B' --hoping that Mabrick's history of drug use would be a suitable explanation. The diary's text is certainly filled with erratic writing, references to drugs, a big SIR JIMMAY in letters three inches, high, etc.

And lo and behold, when the Diary's handwriting was examined by Dr. Audrey Giles, as previously noted, what did Mike Barrett ask? He asked if Maybrick's drug use could have altered his handwriting.

I thought that was a fairly simple concept. My apologies if some were confused.

Was the hoaxer clever enough to have thought this out in advance? As some commentators around here like to say, "only Anne knows."

Ciao.

Right, so according to Palmer, the Barretts had managed - we are not told how - to convince themselves by April 1992 that Maybrick had been dead long enough that no significant handwriting samples had survived, but they nevertheless thought up the 'drug use' excuse 'in case' the handwriting was 'ever' challenged, but Palmer then asks 'how could' it be when there was nothing to compare it against?

Considering Mike's claim to have added sugar to the ink, a comparison between the handwriting and tea leaves might not have seemed as insane to him as it would to normal mortals.

If the Barretts were 'clever enough' to have thought this one out in advance between them, what is Palmer's 'excuse' for Anne's total inability to think of a dozen alternative solutions, after trying and failing to destroy the diary, which would have obviated the need for future excuses or a Plan B when Doreen had not sent Mike packing?

Palmer's arguments may appear balanced and mature in isolation, while seeking to reduce my intellect to that of a nine-year-old, but how well do they work in practice, when put back in the context of what was happening in Goldie Street at the relevant time?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you familiarised yourself with the finer details of the Barrett theory, based loosely on Mike's affidavit of 5th January 1995 and adapted to take care of all the internal contradictions and errors in the dating, timing and order of events, and various changes in his story from June 1994 onwards?

It wasn't an original observation of mine that hoaxes are not necessarily created for financial gain. I was educated in this regard by others who were posting an awfully long time ago, including some who argued for the diary being a late 20th century production. Maybe I was misinformed, and they were covering all the bases in case they had to look beyond the Barretts for their hoaxer(s), because there is no evidence that a third party was waiting for the lion's share of the proceeds and had to watch Mike squandering every penny he received and killing the golden goose by claiming it as his own work.

Love,

Caz
X

I truly don't know what you mean by the "finer details of the Barrett theory". The concept of the Barretts having created the diary seems very simple to me.

But just to be very clear. I'm not saying the Barretts did create the diary. I don't know who did, nor do I care very much. All I know is that the diary is a modern creation, and that the Barretts are obvious candidates for consideration. I certainly don't think I've seen any good reason why it couldn't have been them.

[caz]

I tend to agree with you Roger. For all we know, the forger was entirely satisfied that no examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed and was surprised to discover later that this wasn't the case. I just can't see how the fact that the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's can possibly be used to support an argument that the diary isn't a forgery. It's an bit Alice in Wonderland, I feel.

Er, hang on a minute, Herlock.

Firstly, did RJ Palmer really try to argue that the Barretts could have been 'entirely satisfied' in 1992 that no examples of Maybrick's handwriting had survived? Why on earth would anyone come to that conclusion about a real historical figure, who died in infamous circumstances, without bothering to check if that was even likely to be the case?

Secondly, has anyone used the fact that the handwriting doesn't match Maybrick's to support an argument for it being his own work? Or did you just pluck that out of nowhere?

It would be Alice in Wonderland with knobs on to use the fact that the handwriting doesn't match Mike's or Anne's to support an argument that it's a Barrett forgery, but I'm not sure anyone has gone that far.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies, Herlock. My paraphrasing was overly generous to Baxendale. In his own words [with emphasis where due]:

'My opinion, therefore, is that the ink does not date from 1889. An exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945.'

His observation that the diary ink was 'freely soluble' was not enough for him to conclude that it 'does not date' back as far back as 1945, or he'd have said so. He considered it likely that the earliest date of origin was 1945, based on having detected the presence of nigrosine in the ink, which he mistakenly believed was not in use before WWI and only became common after WWII. However, according to The Science Library, London, it was commercially patented in 1867 and in general use in writing inks by the 1870s.



I'm at a loss here. If you believe the diary could be a Barrett forgery, how can you say it isn't an example of a forger presenting their own work as an example of someone else's - in this case James Maybrick's? The text doesn't mention him by name, but there are enough internal clues to identify who 'Sir Jim' is meant to be. The point I was making was that an art forger generally has some idea of the style to adopt for their own painting or sculpture before setting to work and trying to pass it off as the handiwork of a known person. You have to compare like for like, otherwise there was no point in you bringing art forgers into the discussion to begin with.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[caz]

Hi Caz

I don't think my suggestion that the forger went to all that trouble does conflict with an argument that the forger only used a few books to research Maybrick and Jack the Ripper. It may be a relative matter but that in itself still involves going to the trouble of obtaining and reading those books. Then the forger needed to obtain the photograph album, the ink and the nibs. That alone involves quite a bit of time, trouble and presumably expense. Then the text of the diary had to be drafted and then written out in longhand. To me that is quite a lot of time and trouble and suggests a financial motive. In the post you're replying to you, I asked if you could think of any reason why a forger in the latter part of the 20th century would have gone to all that trouble to make it, absent a profit motive. Is that a question you're still pondering or can I take it that you can't think of any other reason? I’m struggling to think of one.

Have you familiarised yourself with the finer details of the Barrett theory, based loosely on Mike's affidavit of 5th January 1995 and adapted to take care of all the internal contradictions and errors in the dating, timing and order of events, and various changes in his story from June 1994 onwards?

It wasn't an original observation of mine that hoaxes are not necessarily created for financial gain. I was educated in this regard by others who were posting an awfully long time ago, including some who argued for the diary being a late 20th century production. Maybe I was misinformed, and they were covering all the bases in case they had to look beyond the Barretts for their hoaxer(s), because there is no evidence that a third party was waiting for the lion's share of the proceeds and had to watch Mike squandering every penny he received and killing the golden goose by claiming it as his own work.

Love,

Caz
X