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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

The philosophical discussion you seem to want to engage in about whether a scrapbook is always a scrapbook is miles from the point.

What we know for an undisputed fact is that Michael Barrett told Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 that he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary. He did not say he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's scrapbook, did he? When he arrived in London a month later, he presented her with what he had said was Jack the Ripper's diary. It was, of course, the former photograph album, or what you call "scrapbook". But he was calling it a diary. Yet it didn't have the year of 1888 or 1889 printed on the cover, did it? It didn't have any dates printed on its pages, did it? So Mike clearly didn't have any problem with a diary not having any printed years or dates on it, did he?. And, indeed, many historical diaries don't have any printed years or dates on them, so why should he have had a problem with it?

I asked you yesterday:

"I seem to recall that your best friend once posted a string of examples of images of such diaries where the date is only known through the handwritten diary entries, which can easily be removed. Can you please tell me that you understand this?"

You didn't answer to confirm that you understood it. Please confirm that you do understand this. Your ignorance about what constitutes a diary is seriously troubling me because if you don't understand this simple and basic concept it's no wonder that you appear to misunderstand everything I say and continue to spout nonsense.

[Lombro2]

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

Can I call you John Wheaties?

[Lombro2]

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

You still don't know what it is and Michael Barrett knew in 1992.

He knew it was a cheque/receipt stub book that would be used in an office and Maybrick would have to replace the items that were tacked in the book and replace them in another similar stub book to make it look like it was just misplaced.

On the outside it looks like a regular cash book/ledger but there are no bookkeeping lines inside so how would he know it was suitable for an office?

Advanced office knowledge.

[Lombro2]

But at the same time as he knew what an office receipt book was, Barrett didn’t know what a Victorian Diary might look like. As in, it might have dates so he should try to remember when James died, or he should ask for a blank journal of the right time period instead.

Why do I feel like a bumbling purveyor of nonsense?

[John Wheat]

You still don't know what it is and Michael Barrett knew in 1992.

He knew it was a cheque/receipt stub book that would be used in an office and Maybrick would have to replace the items that were tacked in the book and replace them in another similar stub book to make it look like it was just misplaced.

On the outside it looks like a regular cash book/ledger but there are no bookkeeping lines inside so how would he know it was suitable for an office?

Advanced office knowledge.

Yes of course Barrett knew what it was after all him and Ann penned it.

[Iconoclast]

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

Oh, get a room the two of you ...

[Iconoclast]

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.

It may be a judgement call, RJ - but the more outrageous the inferencing and guesswork and wishful thinking required to sustain one half of that judgement call, the less meaningful the discussion becomes. I honestly think you could twist anything and everything into a Barrett-Hoax position. One day, I have no doubt, you'll see in Mike's dreadful cardigan evidence of the hoaxer's instinct. I can't do that, Old Boy. I just look at what we know and my brain runs through all of the reasonable options, including the ones which don't work for my beliefs. Maybe I push the envelope occasionally - the reason for Barrett wanting the diary and the blank pages, and certainly my idiosyncratic view of the GSG - but generally speaking I stick to what can be reasonably interpreted from what little evidence we have. Maybe I'm biased, but I find you anti-diarists to be sociopathically obsessed with seeing mendacity at every turn of the tale. Maybe I'm too gullible. Maybe you lot are too suspicious.

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

I haven't got it on Mull, RJ, but I'll send a tenner to charity if Anne Graham ever told Paul Feldman that her name was not Anne Barrett.

I find the episode extremely bizarre. I think it puts Anne in a bad light.

Well, I think we need to assess the facts before we start condemning her.

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.

I think you're getting mixed-up with her story of being in a relationship with a British army officer serving undercover in Northern Ireland?

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.

Just call canny before you make mileage out of this fairly innocent situation. As I recall, Anne was trying to put Feldman off the scent for some reason (I don't recall it all without the books) and she laughed when her little charade rapidly fell apart. Now, if I do what you do, I'd be citing this as an example of how poor Anne is at deception, but I just see it as a moment not a trend and would not dream of trying to imply anything more than that in order to support an argument I know deep down I should not be using it to support.

Enjoy your vacation and forget about this Maybrick ballyhoo.

That is very kind of you, sir. I think Mrs I regrets my casually 'looking in' yesterday. Usually fatal and I should have known.

[Iconoclast]

Try to concentrate Ike.I asked you four questions, none of them numbered ...

Goodness, just as well for me that I didn't say they were, then. Come on, get focused here. Try to concentrate when you're attempting to create your own thoughts.

Your answer to the first question reveals that you have no idea when (if at all) Melvin Harris received Mike's affidavit from Alan Grayand, 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?

I'm on the Isle of Mull with my wife, FFS. I hope there's no leak here in this apartment because not only have I not brought my 800+ folders and 35+ books, I haven't brought a wrench either.

You've ignored my question as to why it was Harris's responsibility to provide a copy to Keith Skinner.

I don't even remember the question, but right now I'm struggling to work out what relevance it had. Why could it possibly be the viper's responsibility to send anything to anyone, I wonder?

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?

Now I'm getting genuinely intrigued. Did I suggest that the viper should have sent a copy of the affidavit to Keith Skinner? I must have had too much island ale, I really must.

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.

Here's the thing, I don't have to answer every question put to me. If I do so, be grateful, mate, but don't whinge if I don't. It's a bit cringy.

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.

To draw the parallel, who exactly was the viper seeking to keep sweet to plunder the depths of the knowledge that was out there that he didn't have? Alan Gray? If so, the evidence from Gray's comments to Barrett is that it was the viper calling the tune to Gray so I think your parallel is poor.

Perhaps he regarded it as not his to give to anyone.

Oh, there's me auntie growing bollocks again.

If Barrett had wanted it circulated, Harris might reasonably have thought, that was up to him to do it.

Because of all that integrity he had?

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.

A dead man who did more damage to this story in defence of his own book which was on its way to publication and then had the arrogance and temerity to imply he was doing so out of 'integrity'? You have to be joking.

[Iconoclast]

The philosophical discussion you seem to want to engage in about whether a scrapbook is always a scrapbook is miles from the point.

It is not as far from the point as you suggest which tells me that you either don't understand it or you do and you are doing the anti-diarist twist. Which is it?

What we know for an undisputed fact is that Michael Barrett told Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 that he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary.

That's right. The purpose of the call was to tell her he (thought) he had Jack the Ripper's record of his crimes. Rather than say "record of his crimes" he said what most of us would have said because it's a handy shorthand and the choice of final word was irrelevant in that moment. The thing is, everyone reading this knows this and yet you just keep on keeping on as if somehow magically you are going to convince us all that the key is the word 'diary' rather than the words 'I think I might have Jack the Ripper's ...'.

To illustrate the nonsense you are spouting, imagine how you'd have reacted if you'd been Barrett and Doreen had replied with, 'A diary? You have a diary? Is it a dated diary with a year on the front or maybe an undated one with the year on the front? Or is it more like a scrapbook or a notebook or maybe a photo album? Could it be a notebook that was used as a 'diary'? Can you be more precise about the document? Is it more of a guard book, whatever one of those is?'.

In reality, all that mattered were the words, "I think I might have Jack the Ripper's ..." and all of us know it. Please save yourself by dropping this terribly desperate piece of 'evidence' you are attempting to build in defence of an impossible bind you are in.

He did not say he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's scrapbook, did he?

He didn't, no. That's because the accurate description of the document was not the point of the call, and - again - everyone knows this so please save yourself now before you dig a deeper hole here.

When he arrived in London a month later, he presented her with what he had said was Jack the Ripper's diary.

But if the scrapbook had been empty, he would have called it a scrapbook. Once again, it's all about form versus function. I can't believe that you are the only poster who doesn't realise this. The scrapbook was full of the ramblings of James Maybrick so Barrett - correctly - called the contents a 'diary'. The scrapbook was still a scrapbook, though. You get that, right? Everyone knows that a car is not a hotel but you seem to be genuinely struggling with it.

It was, of course, the former photograph album, or what you call "scrapbook".

Wow. Johnny-Come-So-Lately-He-Doesn't-Even-Know-It-Was-a-Scrapbook! It might have been used as a photographic album (we don't know), but it's form versus function again. It was a scrapbook and still is a scrapbook. I'm staggered you didn't know that.

But he was calling it a diary.

Form versus function. Look it up if you don't understand the difference that everyone else understands intellectually and instinctively.

Yet it didn't have the year of 1888 or 1889 printed on the cover, did it?

No, because it came in the form of a scrapbook not a diary.

It didn't have any dates printed on its pages, did it?

No, because it came in the form of a scrapbook not a diary.

So Mike clearly didn't have any problem with a diary not having any printed years or dates on it, did he?

It was a scrapbook which was functioning as a diary (a record of events). It was not actually a diary. It's one of the quaintest things about the English language that we have words which mean two or more things. Indeed, we even have a word - cleave - which means the very opposite of itself!

And, indeed, many historical diaries don't have any printed years or dates on them, so why should he have had a problem with it?

I'm not sure what differentiates these from notebooks but I won't argue the point as it isn't the point at hand. The point at hand is that we call things according to their form and according to their function and neither is wrong if used in the correct context. Mike Barrett correctly referred to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' because that was clearly its function (more accurately, it was a 'journal' but that's just nitpicking) but when he was seeking a Victorian document he specified a diary because he wanted a diary. One word, two meanings: one based upon form and one based upon function. If he had wanted a document that could serve the function of a diary, he did not need to say "diary"; indeed, he shouldn't have said "diary". He should have been sneaky like your sneaky shop customer who didn't ask to be pointed towards the diary section but - sneakily - asked to be pointed towards something that could be used as diary. If you went into a shop wanting pots and pans for your kitchen, would you go to the camping section first?

I asked you yesterday:
"I seem to recall that your best friend once posted a string of examples of images of such diaries where the date is only known through the handwritten diary entries, which can easily be removed. Can you please tell me that you understand this?"
You didn't answer to confirm that you understood it.

Seriously, are you actually taking the piss here? Given everything I have written over the last two days, this is little short of trolling.

Please confirm that you do understand this.

You know, you're coming across as really rather needy now - uncomfortably controlling. Are you a teacher by any chance?

Your ignorance about what constitutes a diary is seriously troubling me ...

Seriously troubling you? Do you never read the news? That's where you'll find stuff to seriously trouble you, man - not an internet discussion group about some loser from the 1880s.

... because if you don't understand this simple and basic concept it's no wonder that you appear to misunderstand everything I say and continue to spout nonsense.

Now, that is definitely plagiarised from Orsam. I knew you wouldn't get through a post without doing so.

[Iconoclast]

Yes of course Barrett knew what it was after all him and Ann penned it.

He and Anne penned it.

Ike
Pedant

PS Yes, I know, I know - now you have the evidence that I believe it was a hoax ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may be a judgement call, RJ - but the more outrageous the inferencing and guesswork and wishful thinking required to sustain one half of that judgement call, the less meaningful the discussion becomes. I honestly think you could twist anything and everything into a Barrett-Hoax position. One day, I have no doubt, you'll see in Mike's dreadful cardigan evidence of the hoaxer's instinct. I can't do that, Old Boy. I just look at what we know and my brain runs through all of the reasonable options, including the ones which don't work for my beliefs. Maybe I push the envelope occasionally - the reason for Barrett wanting the diary and the blank pages, and certainly my idiosyncratic view of the GSG - but generally speaking I stick to what can be reasonably interpreted from what little evidence we have. Maybe I'm biased, but I find you anti-diarists to be sociopathically obsessed with seeing mendacity at every turn of the tale. Maybe I'm too gullible. Maybe you lot are too suspicious.



I haven't got it on Mull, RJ, but I'll send a tenner to charity if Anne Graham ever told Paul Feldman that her name was not Anne Barrett.



Well, I think we need to assess the facts before we start condemning her.



I think you're getting mixed-up with her story of being in a relationship with a British army officer serving undercover in Northern Ireland?



Just call canny before you make mileage out of this fairly innocent situation. As I recall, Anne was trying to put Feldman off the scent for some reason (I don't recall it all without the books) and she laughed when her little charade rapidly fell apart. Now, if I do what you do, I'd be citing this as an example of how poor Anne is at deception, but I just see it as a moment not a trend and would not dream of trying to imply anything more than that in order to support an argument I know deep down I should not be using it to support.



That is very kind of you, sir. I think Mrs I regrets my casually 'looking in' yesterday. Usually fatal and I should have known.

Do you have any memory at all, Ike?

It wasn't that long ago, on 16th December 2024 (#31 of "The One Where James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper thread), that you asked Roger:

"When did Anne claim to be a member of MI-5?"

You even implied in that post that Roger was thinking of Anne's claim to have been in a relationship with a serving officer in Northern Ireland, and you wrote, rudely: "you really mustn't claim that Anne did this or Anne did that simply because you think no-one will notice it isn't actually correct."

In his reply (#54), Roger quoted from "Inside Story" (p.106) in which Anne is recorded as having said:

"His [Feldman's] air of mystery and the ridiculous conclusions he had drawn affected my rather macabre sense of humour and at one time I think I convinced him I was working for MI-5!"

As usual, when shown to have been wrong, you stuck your head in the sand, didn't apologise to Roger, and obviously erased the entire episode from your memory banks, so here we are today going round in circles like goldfish.

[Iconoclast]

As usual, when shown to have been wrong, you stuck your head in the sand, didn't apologise to Roger, and obviously erased the entire episode from your memory banks, so here we are today going round in circles like goldfish.

Roger's gonads are big enough. He doesn't need apologies, and neither do I. Just the truth of the matter is fine with me. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I don't need teacher to tell the whole class how crap I am.

[John Wheat]

He and Anne penned it.

Ike
Pedant

PS Yes, I know, I know - now you have the evidence that I believe it was a hoax ...

Pointless SPAG post.

[rjpalmer]

I haven't got it on Mull, RJ, but I'll send a tenner to charity if Anne Graham ever told Paul Feldman that her name was not Anne Barrett.

Good morning, Ike.

You can send the tenner to the Sunderland Black Cats' Widows' fund. If that's too much trouble, just convert the tenner into Guinness or some other liquid and drink it down.

"Feldman told Keith Skinner that he had a new theory. Anne had said she was not Anne Elizabeth Graham. Paul now believed her real name was Emma Parker." (Inside Story, p. 109, last paragraph)

There's a second source, if I'm not mistaken. I'm still trying to hunt down the citation, but I'm fairly certain that Anne admitted to telling Feldman this, but her deceit is written off as her 'macabre sense of humour' or some such phrase.

What I find strange is that Anne would in any way encourage Feldman's conspiratorial thinking, even briefly, considering the hell he had put her in-laws through.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

Caz Brown: Incontrovertible thread 02-06-2024, 07:36 AM

“Palmer can water this down as much as he likes, to suggest that Eddie was just like any other chap receiving a cold call, who would jump at the chance to support a film producer's provenance if there was money in it. But the irony is delicious, when we consider Feldman's promise a year later to make Anne Graham a millionaire if she would similarly 'help' with his provenance."

* * *

But I hope Caroline hasn't thrice stated this as a fact based on nothing more than idle speculation from a wounded Shirely Harrison, upset that Anne had contacted Feldman before contacting her. It is a strange coincidence (?) that on the bottom of page 137 of Inside Story, Shirley Harrison speculates that such an arrangement had been struck up:

“He (Feldman) probably promised a share of the megamillions,” [Shirley] believed.” (Emphasis added)

I've failed to find any other source for this bombshell allegation.

I see now that I owe Caroline Brown a firm apology for thinking that the source of this was Shirley's idle speculation. After rereading my 'Maybrick' books last night, I see that Anne did confirm to her sister-in-law Lynne Richardson that Feldman had promised financial inducement during his initial phone call in 1994.

"He's going to give me a million dollars like if I tell him what he wants to know and I said I'd play him along a bit...." (Inside Story, p. 210).

I'm still astonished that this financial inducement was never stressed (or even mentioned) back in 1995-2002 when there were various attempts to lend credibility to Anne Graham's provenance story, though the public was finally alerted to it when Inside Story appeared in 2003.

We also get this:

According to Shirley Harrison, Lynn Richardson "spoke of a meeting, at which Anne, Barrett, Billy Graham and herself were present, when Anne told them that Paul Feldman had offered to make her a millionaire if she would say that she had given the Diary to Tony Devereux and was descended from James Maybrick." (p. 267)

(Anne, contradicting her sister-in-law, claims this was just an 'off-the-cuff remark' and denies any such meeting).

QUESTION.

Doesn't this pretty much put the 'Battlecrease' provenance to bed?

If, behind-the-scenes, Feldman was offering financial inducements for people to "tell him what he wants to hear," how can we possibly know that Feldman didn't make a similar offer to one of the electricians when he was investigating the work done in Dodd's house? Surely, proving the diary came out of Battlecrease would have been hitting the jackpot for Feldman.

Is this the true genesis of Eddy Lyons supposedly asking Feldman 'what it was worth' if he admitted taking the diary from Battlecrease? Feldman had offered him money, too?

As I say, Feldman would hardly admit in print that he had made such an offer. The possibility that he projected his own inducements onto Eddy must be given serious weight.