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

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Should we really just rely on one poster as a source? It seems patently obvious to me, when read carefully, that the part about "Bumbling Purveyor" was written by Hugh J. Didcott, the London agent of Jenny Hill, who placed the advertisement in the Era. So perhaps you are on a different planet?

What we don't know is who Didcott was speaking about and why he referred to this unknown person (who apparently wrote "inane doggrel" about Jenny Hill) as a "Bumbling Purveyor".

Hi Herlock,

Why would I give a rat's arse if it was a Londoner, rather than a Scouser, whose reference to a 'Bumbling Purveyor' of inane doggerel appeared in print in November 1888?

The original argument was that the dictionary stated the word was obsolete by then, except for certain regional dialects. It was clearly still being used, as Gary's examples [plural] prove, so I'm not sure why it matters where it cropped up.

The only thing that matters to me is that the word's supposed obsolescence had previously been used as sound evidence that the Barretts had 'tripped over' by putting it in their diary to describe Maybrick's doctor. He is referred to as a 'buffoon', which nobody could have had a problem with, and is also described in the diary as a 'meddling' buffoon, which could give a hint as to the intended meaning of 'bumbling' to refer to the same person - but only the author could tell us what they had in mind.

I can only repeat, for anyone still not getting it, that if the Barretts put the 'bumbling' in the diary they dodged a bullet, because the word was alive and kicking in 1888, if not widely seen in print, and could therefore have referred to anyone felt to be deserving of the adjective, regardless of what meaning was attached to it.

[Lombro2]

I think I still have to sit on a fence on this issue.

[rjpalmer]

Are you referring to the same 'secret' Victorian diary regarding which Anne gave Shirley and Keith EVERY ASSISTANCE in locating the source of (Martin Earl) and which inevitably led Keith to tracing the advertisement in December 2004 when she had no good reason to…

I don’t think you’ve thought this through, Ike, which is why your statement is imprecise and misleading.

While Anne did admit to Keith that Barrett had bought the maroon diary from Earl (what choice did she have?) and give him the cheque stub showing the ‘book’ was purchased in MAY (misleading in itself) it is not proven and wildly unlikely that Anne could have known that Earl had placed an advertisement back in March 1992 documenting exactly what Barrett had requested and when. So it is crass to imply that Anne had helped Keith trace the advertisement. That was his initiative, not hers. It is most unlikely that Anne had any knowledge of Martin Earl’s methods.

Indeed, the wording of Earl’s advertisement makes mincemeat of the idea that Barrett “wanted to see what a Victorian diary looked like”—-the claimed rationale of why the purchase was made and a rationale that satisfied the diary friendly folks for many a year. I know. I remember some of them repeating it and accepting it as plausible.

It would have been interesting to know what Anne’s reaction would have been if she was confronted by the advertisement itself. To this day, has that ever happened?

Further, your wide-eyed acceptance of Anne’s candid and accommodating cooperation is a little hard to take seriously since your own theory of the Battlecrease Caper has her lying repeatedly to Keith over a period of many years. Thus, Anne becomes whatever you need her to be depending on what argument you’re making in the moment.

You have an Anne problem.

Regards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've linked the wrong comment. For 'a one 'off' instance' I said, "and you believe implicitly in a 'truth' which can almost certainly never be confirmed". And I meant it. Amongst any 'horribly ambiguous' examples, the attempt to purchase a diary for the year AFTER James Maybrick died was a very good one. You want it to be one way so you look at it one way. That's your trick: one-way vision. Funnily enough, it's EXACTLY like Orsam's one-way vision. And I mean, EXACTLY like it.



Oh, dear God, make it make sense, man! Are you referring to the same 'secret' Victorian diary regarding which Anne gave Shirley and Keith EVERY ASSISTANCE in locating the source of (Martin Earl) and which inevitably led Keith to tracing the advertisement in December 2004 when she had no good reason to had it formed an unused element of the grand hoax that you and your sort say she and her hubby had just pulled off? Someone said not that long ago that she would have feared the truth coming out via her bank. Well, that would be the end of that particular institution if it revealed the private financial information of a customer without their permission, but - go ahead - fall back on that mad gem of reasoning if you are struggling (which you really ought to be at this point). Oh, I know - here's one for you - Anne just wanted to implant herself in the scene of her crime! Yes, she helped 'break' the 'secret' so that she could stand at the yellow 'crime scene' tape and gawp at her genius. "If I do this, they'll never think it was me", et cetera.



Given that there was absolutely NOTHING secret about the provocatively-termed 'secret' diary, I am tempted to say that one could only see it as even vaguely suspicious if one's head is fixed in one direction - like a statue.

Please, please, please, make it make sense. Here's a hint: consider ALL of the facts in the case before you rush to judgement.

But can a statue change its view of its own volition, I wonder, or does it require others to do the work for it before it can do so?

I look forward to your latest Orsamesque-response.

What do you mean I've "linked to the wrong comment"?

In your #932, you quoted me saying:

"On the other hand we can prove that the diary wasn't written by James Maybrick.
We can also prove that Michael Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.
That's good enough for me and anyone else that looks at it without bias."

Your response was that I am too easily persuaded by "often horribly ambiguous" evidence.

My response to your #932 in my #933 was that there is nothing "horribly ambiguous" about "one off instance" which proves that the diary wasn't written by James Maybrick.

There's also nothing "horribly ambiguous" about the fact that Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

I was just stating facts. And linking to the right comment.

Do you seriously challenge the fact that Michael Barrett secretly attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992? That Keith Skinner managed to find out about it TWELVE years later, after Barrett and Harrison published a book which was supposed to tell the whole story about the diary, and, indeed, after Keith Skinner himself had published a book about the diary, certainly does not mean that the attempt to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages wasn't secret in March 1992.

Did Doreen Montgomery know about that attempt at any time in 1992. Did Shirley Harrison? Of course, they didn't because it was a secret. Did Anne voluntarily tell anyone about it at that time? Of course not! We probably wouldn't even know about it today had not Michael Barrett himself confessed to doing it in his 1995 affidavit.

Perhaps you should abandon your Orsam obsession and focus more on the subject at hand?

[Iconoclast]

There's nothing "horribly ambiguous" about "a one off instance", mate. Just the worst of multiple giveaway mistakes by the forger.

You've linked the wrong comment. For 'a one 'off' instance' I said, "and you believe implicitly in a 'truth' which can almost certainly never be confirmed". And I meant it. Amongst any 'horribly ambiguous' examples, the attempt to purchase a diary for the year AFTER James Maybrick died was a very good one. You want it to be one way so you look at it one way. That's your trick: one-way vision. Funnily enough, it's EXACTLY like Orsam's one-way vision. And I mean, EXACTLY like it.

Nor is there any ambiguity about the fact that Barrett did secretly attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.

Oh, dear God, make it make sense, man! Are you referring to the same 'secret' Victorian diary regarding which Anne gave Shirley and Keith EVERY ASSISTANCE in locating the source of (Martin Earl) and which inevitably led Keith to tracing the advertisement in December 2004 when she had no good reason to had it formed an unused element of the grand hoax that you and your sort say she and her hubby had just pulled off? Someone said not that long ago that she would have feared the truth coming out via her bank. Well, that would be the end of that particular institution if it revealed the private financial information of a customer without their permission, but - go ahead - fall back on that mad gem of reasoning if you are struggling (which you really ought to be at this point). Oh, I know - here's one for you - Anne just wanted to implant herself in the scene of her crime! Yes, she helped 'break' the 'secret' so that she could stand at the yellow 'crime scene' tape and gawp at her genius. "If I do this, they'll never think it was me", et cetera.

Not suspicious at all according to you.

Given that there was absolutely NOTHING secret about the provocatively-termed 'secret' diary, I am tempted to say that one could only see it as even vaguely suspicious if one's head is fixed in one direction - like a statue.

Please, please, please, make it make sense. Here's a hint: consider ALL of the facts in the case before you rush to judgement.

But can a statue change its view of its own volition, I wonder, or does it require others to do the work for it before it can do so?

I look forward to your latest Orsamesque-response.