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

[Lombro2]

Obviously Feldy didn't speculate on the Anne as Fence theory. So they might have been worried about the purchase. Who cares?

I can speculate on Anne as a Fence and say it's a red herring and only a herring picker would pick this out of the bin of unsmoked herring.

The red diary is the "ripest" cherry in this vast and profound field of research. But I say:

If it walks like a canard and quacks like a canard, it's a canard.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, she could have, Ike. If she was stupid.

She was middle class and convent educated so she self-evidently wasn't stupid, that's for sure.

I know that you are an honest man, Ike

I am indeed an honest man, RJ, and never less honest than any other person I know but not ...

because you have a horribly difficult time imaging the mental workings of a dishonest person who is backed into a corner.

I wasn't a copper when I worked at New Scotland Yard, but I talked to scores of them and saw unpleasant things and I labour under no illusion around the criminal mind. None whatsoever, young man.

She was asked about the red diary---out of the blue--by a man she knew to be an exacting professional researcher, a human terrier out to dig up the truth--but also a sympathetic ear (I think that's fair to say, based on what Keith has written about Anne).

Frankly, I'd be quite scared of getting on the wrong side of Anne Graham. She strikes me as a very determined lady and that influences my opinion about what she would and wouldn't do. Chief amongst the would-do would be the ability to use her ample brain power to escape 'detection' if she was a hoaxing genius. However terrierlike and unleashed you might imagine Keith's questions may have been, you must surely recognise that all she had to say was, "Yep, Mike bought an 1891 diary" and then deny any other knowledge or interest or evidence to support it?

So, is she going to risk not telling this dogged researcher that no such purchase was made (knowing Mike must have been saying otherwise) or is she going to avoid that risk and instead come up with an 'innocent' explanation that he might believe? Aren't half-truths safer than outright lies?

But she isn't guilty of what you're trying to make her guilty of, which explains why she quite happily gave Keith everything she had. She clearly had nothing to fear from his tenacious pursuit of the truth.

And I don't write this in any condescending way. I never met Anne Graham. From what I've seen, she must have been very persuasive in person, because she certainly convinced a lot of people. Maybe I would have been taken in, too.

One man's taken-in is probably another man's conviction. Neither proves anything.

But seen in the cold, harsh light of objectivity, she certainly seems to have contradicted herself many times and told any number of lies---once even telling Feldman that her name wasn't Anne Graham.

When did she tell Feldman her name wasn't Anne Graham?

And what were these 'any number of lies'?

For the record, I suspect strongly that she lied about the source of the Maybrick scrapbook. The evidence points heavily towards a Battlecrease provenance which she did nothing to contradict until such time as her alcoholic and abusive husband suddenly launched into full confessional mode - so I do not blame her in the slightest for claiming what she claimed. It was a lie of convenience, and - yes - perhaps a lie of gain but who amongst us could blame her given her parlous circumstances in 1995 and the promise of potential redemption in the form of Paul Feldman? Certainly not I.

But any other lies - as I would have to accept them if I were correct - were simply backing-up the in-the-family claim so really that's of no great surprise. Yes, she attempted to side track Feldman with her IRA story, but these are all very understandable untruths. How many of them were hurtful, vindictive, destructive untruths? You know, the sort her husband was trying very badly to put about the town?

[John Wheat]

Well, it is Thursday, Wheato.

Just so you know I've never been called Wheato before how original of you.

[Iconoclast]

A few questions arising, Ike.

Can you remind me: a) when did Alan Gray send Mike's affidavit to Melvin Harris and b) were there any confidentiality conditions attached to it being sent to him? Naturally providing the evidence for both answers rather than just making assumptions as you did last time I asked.

Is it true that Melvin Harris tipped off Paul Feldman about the existence of the 1891 diary prior to July 1995? How does that square with the supposed secrecy?

Why do you imply that it was a responsibility of Melvin Harris to provide documents in his possession to anyone else?

Finally, isn't it true that you refuse to provide myself and RJ Palmer with documents in your possession because you say you don't have permission to share them. Can you explain to me why the rules of document sharing would have been different for Melvin Harris?

Let's stay focused on the diary issue, shall we? We can rehash the viper Harris' role some other time, but right now is not the time. Stay focused. Don't get distracted.

Some quick responses nevertheless:

a) I've no idea, I'm not Alan Gray;
b) I've no idea, I'm not Alan Gray;
c) Oh, you stopped giving your questions letters (lack of focus again, mate) ...

I don't know why you keep asking question that have already been answered but here's another attempt to clarify the issue of what information I have: I could share any amount of this information (and one day well into the future I may do so) but - for two reasons - I do not; the first being that (unasked) I said to the providers of it that I wouldn't and the second being that I have not yet exhausted the well of what is available and I wish to keep my providers sweet so that they see no reason to stop. It is not really about permission as such: it is pure, dirty, scheming, conniving self-interest that keeps my gob shut and my mouse idle despite the battles I'd love to wage. I lose no sleep over it (indeed, I pride myself on my capacity for self-control when others might waver under certain provocations).

RJ asked me for some information recently but I couldn't provide it because it wasn't mine to give (in my opinion). Information that I have personally researched, I have previously shared freely with those who may actually disagree with me vehemently, and (again unasked) received similar largesse in return. That's how good research works. Protect your sources but be generous with what you have no one to answer to for.

[Iconoclast]

Just so you know I've never been called Wheato before how original of you.

Okay, how about 'Wheaty'? Or 'The Wheatster'? Or 'The Wheatinator'?

Just let me know, Wheato.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I made a note to address this one, which was posted back in February, so apologies for the belated response.

If Mike didn't have the 'luxury' of spending months searching around the country for a book he could use for Jack the Ripper's diary, he would only have had himself to blame, for stupidly telling Doreen on 9th March 1992 that he already had it, and it had been in his possession since 1991!

I've known some chumps in my time [thank you, Half Man, Half Biscuit - appropriate track too: 'Jack's Been to the National' ], but why would Mike have put himself under any pressure at all? If he'd been planning this diary for some considerable time, obtaining a suitable book at the earliest opportunity would have lessened the chances of anyone remembering it when he finally went public, and he could then have spent his sweet time researching the story and tinkering at his word processor, with only the handwriting left to do, and plenty of time in which to do it and get it right before committing himself.

The argument against this used to be that Mike would not have wanted the additional expense of sourcing a suitable book, in case there was no interest in a diary by Jack the Ripper. But we know it was Anne who ended up paying the equivalent of £66 in today's money for a totally unsuitable 1891 diary, and Mike claimed that her father paid for the photo album, so it's wildly unlikely that Mike would have spared a moment's thought on their behalf about the cost, before phoning Doreen and getting the green light.

Thanks for responding to my post Caz although, for some reason, you ignored my question, which, as you've quoted, was: "Who has said that Barrett "was under no pressure whatsoever"? Please tell me. Where do I find this said?" I take it from this non-answer that you cannot find anyone saying that Barrett was under no pressure whatsoever?

Of course Mike "would only have had himself to blame" if he couldn't find a Victorian diary. There's no doubt about that. But so what? Are we in the business of apportioning blame to dead people for poor decisions they made over 30 years ago?

Isn't the answer to your question as to why he put himself under pressure very simple? To create a decent fake Jack the Ripper diary would have involved spending money on materials to create the diary, as you acknowledge. Why do that if you're not sure anyone's going to be in the slightest bit interested? So I can well see that he wanted to ensure that there was interest from a literary agent first, before committing to spending the money. But the only way to get that interest was to tell the literary agent that he was already in possession of the diary. There wasn't any other realistic option. And it doesn't make any difference whose money was going to be spent. I can't see the relevance of the fact that Anne, or her father, paid for some of the material (you skip over the expenditure for the nibs and ink as if it was of no consequence). Why spend their money on a fake diary if no one was going to be interested?

Plus it's not as if there was any peril to him if he couldn't find a genuine Victorian diary. It would have just meant that the plan would have to be knocked on the head.

[John Wheat]

Okay, how about 'Wheaty'? Or 'The Wheatster'? Or 'The Wheatinator'?

Just let me know, Wheato.

Been called Wheaty countless times. Probably been called 'The Wheatster' before. Pretty sure I've never been called 'The Wheatinator' before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Honestly, your posts are really weak when you aren't just parroting Orsam's.



Clearly, if you walk into a shop and phrase it like that, then - yes - you are very likely to get sent off to the notebook section. For about 9 months of every year, notebooks would be pretty much the only answer to that question. But is that what I said? Spoiler alert: no it isn't so you ave attempted to scupper my argument by changing my argument. Now that's very Orsam, by the way.



Absolutely, if you change the argument and pretend this was mine then you are correct.



Where is your evidence for this latter claim? You - the king of demanding evidence - would be the first to expect it of others, so where is yours for this outrageously unprovable claim?

But - note - these are not diaries until someone starts putting their thoughts into them. Then they become 'diaries'. They take on the usual principal characteristic of a diary and - not unreasonably - people call them 'diaries'. It's form versus function. A diary has the form and a 'diary' has the function.

And remember, you only got a notebook because you walked into a shop and asked the very carefully staged question, "Do you have anything I could use to write a personal diary?". "How about a ******* diary, sir?" would be the response you'd get from me if you tried to be such a smartarse when I was behind the counter.



No idea what relevance this has. Mike was trying to acquire a diary from 1880 to 1890. Obviously he would know it was probably already used! You really need to get back to plagiarising Orsam, mate, because your arguing skills are not at his level at all. If Mike had wanted any old Victorian document from 1880 to 1890, he should have asked for - oh, let me think - I know, "Could you find me something from 1880 to 1890 which I could use to write a personal diary?". But he didn't.



If we are referring to the document then we are not referring to the contents of the document! If the document is a notebook then we are talking about a notebook (form) as opposed to the contents of the notebook (function). Seriously, you just can't keep up when you're doing it for yourself, can you?



Addressed already so I won't repeat myself. You need Mike to think blank documents were diaries. If you didn't, you wouldn't say such a thing. No-one would say such a thing unless they were reaching, and you're reaching and you know it.



Herlock, I'm embarrassed for you. Form versus function. When Maybrick's scrapbook was blank, was it a diary or was it a scrapbook? I can tell you're struggling so I'll help you out - it was just a scrapbook. After Maybrick had used it to record his inner thoughts, it could reasonably be described as a 'diary' but - either way - it doesn't matter. Mike could have called it a 'journal' because it was functioning as a journal or he could have called it a 'diary' because it was functioning as a diary. It's not relevant. The 'Jack the Ripper diary' is not etched in stone somewhere as its God-given name! That's just what it was called for convenience. Have you ever noticed how I never refer to it as a 'diary'? That's because it's not really a diary - it's a journal - but I don't go on about it because it doesn't matter! It doesn't matter one jot what Mike Barrett or anyone else called it.



So - here, I'll play along with you - why did he not request of Martin Earl, "Do you have anything I could use to write a personal diary?"?



And you're good at that - arguing in favour of something which is utterly unknowable. It's sort of like 'making it up' with knobs on.



I think I was very clear that what I was saying was that I know what would be in everyone's mind when they hear the word 'diary'.



That's because you're a Johnny-Come-Lately who doesn't know what was argued or proposed before.

All three positions were argued in posts here on the Maybrick section of the Casebook. Please don't say your question hasn't been answered when - in fact - you just weren't reading the answers and now don't know how to find them.

If only I got a £1 whenever you parroted the name Orsam I’d be a Johnny-Come-Wealthy Ike.

The evidence for my "outrageous" claim?

I've just performed a simple Google search for "images of historical diary covers". Gruelling intellectual work it was too. The results are here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=images%20of%20historical%20diary%20covers &udm=2&tbs=rimg:CbgdIipnJOP2YeM0W_1SHV1f6sgIAwA IA2 AIA4AIA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBoQuIIBahcKEwigk8v1pKGOAx UAAAAAHQAAAAAQBw&biw=2844&bih=1412&dpr=1.35

In what must be nearly a hundred images of diary covers, I can only see one which has a year printed on it.

The rest of your post is very strange. We're not discussing a situation whereby someone walks into a shop and asks for a brand new diary are we? So what are you going on about? You say that what Mike should have done is asked "Could you find me something from 1880 to 1890 which I could use to write a personal diary?". That's pretty much exactly what he did do! Substitute "which I could use to write a personal diary" for "I need a minimum of 20 blank pages" and it's virtually the same thing.

No, if a notebook becomes a diary, it doesn't get referred to as a notebook any more. Do keep up, Ike.

I don't need Mike to think blank documents were diaries, only that it's plausible that he believed that what started life as a blank book, in which someone from the nineteenth century had written some diary entries, would now be more commonly described (and sold) as a historical diary. In other words, we can't rule out the possibility. It's you who is saying we can. But we can't possibly do that when the only evidence as to his knowledge of 19th century diaries involves something which started life as a large empty book with no year or dates printed anywhere on it.

When Maybrick's diary was blank it was either an empty scrapbook or an empty photograph album. Of course it was. That's exactly what I've been saying. But if someone had ever used it as a diary it would have become a diary.

I can't see the relevance of the question in any case because the 1891 diary wasn't "blank". Nearly all the pages were blank but as I already said this suggests that some pages had been used as a diary, thus making an otherwise blank book a diary.

Mike was planning to commit a fraud so it would be odd if he had told Earl what he was planning to do. But, as I've already said, asking for a diary with blank pages was the equivalent of asking for something he could use to write in. This silly game you play of asking "why didn't he do this, why didn't he do that?" is pointless, and uses hindsight which is inappropriate.

I have to repeat that you have no way of knowing what was in Mike's mind. I'm certain you are as wrong as anyone can possibly be to say that "everyone" would envisage a historical personal diary from the nineteenth century as having a printed year on the cover and/or printed dates on the pages. If anything, I'd say the opposite is true (and I suspect that more actual personal historical diaries don't have such printed dates) but it doesn't matter because the only relevant mind is Mike's of whom we know for a fact that he regarded an old undated photograph album with no year on the cover or printed dates on the pages, but with writing in it, as a "diary".

You must have forgotten that you and I directly discussed the question earlier this year of why Mike wanted a diary from 1880-1890 with blank pages and you failed to come up with anything remotely sensible that would explain both the decade requirement and the need for blank pages. That is no doubt why you avoid mentioning what the explanation is and try to pretend it's been answered elsewhere

[Iconoclast]

Been called Wheaty countless times. Probably been called 'The Wheatster' before. Pretty sure I've never been called 'The Wheatinator' before.

'The Wheatinator' it is, then, Wheato!

[Iconoclast]

When Maybrick's diary was blank it was either an empty scrapbook or an empty photograph album. Of course it was. That's exactly what I've been saying. But if someone had ever used it as a diary it would have become a diary.

I'm off out now with Mrs I to wander the tranquil streets of Balamory, but just wanted to say en passant that a scrapbook is always a scrapbook because that is its form. If it functions as something else, one may refer to it as that something else but - clearly - one is then referring to its function not to its form.

If someone sleeps in their car one night, does that mean it's no longer a car but a hotel?

[John Wheat]

I'm off out now with Mrs I to wander the tranquil streets of Balamory, but just wanted to say en passant that a scrapbook is always a scrapbook because that is its form. If it functions as something else, one may refer to it as that something else but - clearly - one is then referring to its function not to its form.

If someone sleeps in their car one night, does that mean it's no longer a car but a hotel?

Wether it's a scrapbook or a diary it wasn't written by Maybrick.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whether it's a scrapbook or a diary it wasn't written by Maybrick.

A proven forgery John. Black and white.

[John Wheat]

A proven forgery John. Black and white.

Absolutely Herlock. I couldn't agree with you more.

[rjpalmer]

However terrierlike and unleashed you might imagine Keith's questions may have been, you must surely recognise that all she had to say was, "Yep, Mike bought an 1891 diary" and then deny any other knowledge or interest or evidence to support it?

No; I certainly do not recognize it.

I've never met Keith, but from his messages to these boards, as well as from his books, and what people say about him, it is clear that he is a careful and enthusiastic collector of documentation. We all owe him a debt for collecting and recording materials that would have been otherwise lost. He doesn't trust the 'anti-diarists' and is reluctant to share his collection with us, but that's his decision and we still owe him a debt of gratitude for his efforts in preservation. If I recall, he even forked out a rather high sum to get hold of Bongo Barrett's battered copy of the Sphere book.

In the UK, banks keep canceled cheques for something like 7 years (it might be slightly more or less--I once looked it up), and once Anne admitted to the existence of the red diary, and knowing that Anne held the purse strings in the marriage, Keith would have instantly known that further documentation almost certainly existed, and I am confident that our human terrier would have been keen to get hold of it. You'd have to ask him. Therefore, it would have been strange if Anne then refused to cooperate further by chasing down the actual documentation at the bank. I don't see this as meaningful and cooperative as you do.

But what you're still missing is that Anne was over a barrel, so you're giving her far too much credit. She would have known that Keith must have learned of the red diary from someone else (ie. Mike), but what she couldn't have known for certain is how much Mike remembered. Even if Mike only remembered it was a bloke in Oxford who sold the book it could have been dangerous to deny it outright. And saying Mike paid cash and there was no record could also have backfired in a big way.

I never crunched statistics for Scotland Yard, but I had an older relative who was a Bonafide sociopath, so I know every trick in the book first-hand.

Has it occurred to you that the date on the cheque---May 1992---worked to Anne's advantage? If she could leave the impression that the purchase had been made after Barrett had already taken the diary to London, and she seems to have done so, wouldn't that have diffused any lingering suspicions about the red diary? That greatly complicates things--her 'cooperation' could have been only to leave a false impression.

Has it further occurred to you that Anne might have deliberately let Mike become a 'late payer' back in March 1992 so the cheque would be misleadingly postdated to a harmless month?

We have been informed by Caroline Brown that at that some point Anne muttered something along the lines of she 'thought' the diary was purchased 'pre-Doreen' but I see that as little more than an escape route if it became necessary. Considering that twenty-five quid was a fair amount of money, that she allegedly 'threw' the signed cheque at Mike in anger, and that the Barretts had been sent a chasing letter or letters by Martin Earl, I find it extremely difficult to believe that Anne didn't remember Mike was a late payer. Yet she didn't explicitly tell this to anyone, and Keith ultimately learned it from Earl---not from Anne.

It's a judgment call, Ike, if you want to cozy up to Anne's honesty or hold her feet to the fire, it's your decision. I go the latter route, but then, I have my sociopathic relative to lean on. I've seen evasions and half-truths again and again.

When did she tell Feldman her name wasn't Anne Graham?

You have the book in your collection, Ike. I've seen you mention it. Ripper Diary: Inside Story.

I find the episode extremely bizarre. I think it puts Anne in a bad light. Feldman had strange theories about people not being who they said they were. He also harassed Anne's in-laws, including one episode where he brought Anne's sister-in-law to tears.

As such, one would think Anne would have been very careful not to encourage Feldman's bizarre theories. Instead, she once went along with his craziness and told him her real name was not Anne Graham. I'll chase down the exact reference if I get the time later tonight. It was apparently around the same time she nearly convinced Feldy she was a member of MI-5.

The Inside Story authors seem to shrug it off, suggesting it was an example of Anne's wicked sense of humor, but I find it abnormal. It makes me question her judgment, yet we've been told she was level-headed.

Enjoy your vacation and forget about this Maybrick ballyhoo.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's stay focused on the diary issue, shall we? We can rehash the viper Harris' role some other time, but right now is not the time. Stay focused. Don't get distracted.

Some quick responses nevertheless:

a) I've no idea, I'm not Alan Gray;
b) I've no idea, I'm not Alan Gray;
c) Oh, you stopped giving your questions letters (lack of focus again, mate) ...

I don't know why you keep asking question that have already been answered but here's another attempt to clarify the issue of what information I have: I could share any amount of this information (and one day well into the future I may do so) but - for two reasons - I do not; the first being that (unasked) I said to the providers of it that I wouldn't and the second being that I have not yet exhausted the well of what is available and I wish to keep my providers sweet so that they see no reason to stop. It is not really about permission as such: it is pure, dirty, scheming, conniving self-interest that keeps my gob shut and my mouse idle despite the battles I'd love to wage. I lose no sleep over it (indeed, I pride myself on my capacity for self-control when others might waver under certain provocations).

RJ asked me for some information recently but I couldn't provide it because it wasn't mine to give (in my opinion). Information that I have personally researched, I have previously shared freely with those who may actually disagree with me vehemently, and (again unasked) received similar largesse in return. That's how good research works. Protect your sources but be generous with what you have no one to answer to for.

Try to concentrate Ike.

I asked you four questions, none of them numbered, the first of which was in two parts, broken down into (a) and (b). So that's why there was no (c).

Your answer to the first question reveals that you have no idea when (if at all) Melvin Harris received Mike's affidavit from Alan Gray and, most importantly, you have no idea if there were any confidentiality conditions attached. That being so, how can you possibly criticize Harris for not providing a copy to Keith Skinner?

You've ignored my question as to why it was Harris's responsibility to provide a copy to Keith Skinner. I might also ask how he could have known that Skinner didn't have his own copy. Even Skinner's co-authors of "Inside Story" thought he'd seen it in 1995, so why shouldn't Harris have believed this too?

You've also ignored my question about Harris tipping Feldman off about the existence of the 1891 red diary. I believe he did tell him about this, and Feldman told Keith, which was how Keith knew to ask Anne about it.

Finally, you've waffled defensively about your inability to share information because it isn't yours to give without apparently showing any awareness that Harris might have been in exactly the same position with Barrett's affidavit. Perhaps he regarded it as not his to give to anyone. If Barrett had wanted it circulated, Harris might reasonably have thought, that was up to him to do it.

So perhaps less of the "one rule for me and one rule for thee" attitude and a little bit more focus on matters in hand rather than this silly constant criticism of a dead man who isn't able to answer back.