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

[Scott Nelson]

But do it anyway. Short run down, who conceived the story, who wrote it in the diary, when and where? What's the significance of the small red diary, etc. Stuff like that.

[Lombro2]

Or at least say, I know it’s a forgery because Bury is Jack.That would at least make sense logically on the surface.

[Iconoclast]

Or at least say, I know it’s a forgery because Bury is Jack ...

And then wait for me to say 'Ridiculous post' after every comment you make.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But do it anyway. Short run down, who conceived the story, who wrote it in the diary, when and where? What's the significance of the small red diary, etc. Stuff like that.

Really Scott? Tuis has been gone over and done to death so many times. Does John really need to repeat everything that I, Roger and many others have said over the years? I mean, honestly, "what's the significance of the small red diary?" Are you serious?

[rjpalmer]

And then wait for me to say 'Ridiculous post' after every comment you make.

I'm sorry, Ike, but I do get a chuckle out of the strange mental mechanisms of the "far-M" Maybricnicks.

"Or at least say, I know it’s a forgery because Bury is Jack. That would at least make sense logically on the surface."

Why would John want to acknowledge this paranoia?

Can you imagine what would have happened if Melvin Harris had presented a similar argument 30+ years ago? Or Evans & Gainey? Or Martin Fido?

"I know it's a forgery because David Cohen was the Ripper!"

Feldman & Harrison & Company would have blown a gasket. This was their not-so-secret suspicion, after all. That Harris, etc., only trashed the diary because they had competing suspects.

Completely delusional.

It wouldn't even be logical argument let alone a reasonable one, because--however far-fetched--theoretically the diary could have been proven authentic and Maybrick still wasn't the Ripper.

It's certainly not an idea that I would spend time on, but according to Paul Feldman, his chief researcher believed the diary was genuinely written by James Maybrick, but it was his "fantasy journal" and he wasn't actually the Ripper.

In reality, the document examiners and other folks who quite rightly dismissed the diary did so on its own merits, or lack thereof. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Rendell, Casey Owens, Giles, Baxendale, Chittenden, etc. etc. had any general interest in the Whitechapel Murders or had any opinion on the identity of the murderer.

Regards.

[Iconoclast]

This has been gone over and done to death so many times. Does John really need to repeat everything that I, Roger and many others have said over the years?

**** me, talk about irony alert.

[Iconoclast]

I'm sorry, Ike, but I do get a chuckle out of the strange mental mechanisms of the "far-M" Maybricnicks.
"Or at least say, I know it’s a forgery because Bury is Jack. That would at least make sense logically on the surface."
Why would John want to acknowledge this paranoia?
Can you imagine what would have happened if Melvin Harris had presented a similar argument 30+ years ago? Or Evans & Gainey? Or Martin Fido?
"I know it's a forgery because David Cohen was the Ripper!"
Feldman & Harrison & Company would have blown a gasket. This was their not-so-secret suspicion, after all. That Harris, etc., only trashed the diary because they had competing suspects.
Completely delusional.
It wouldn't even be logical argument let alone a reasonable one, because--however far-fetched--theoretically the diary could have been proven authentic and Maybrick still wasn't the Ripper.
It's certainly not an idea that I would spend time on, but according to Paul Feldman, his chief researcher believed the diary was genuinely written by James Maybrick, but it was his "fantasy journal" and he wasn't actually the Ripper.
In reality, the document examiners and other folks who quite rightly dismissed the diary did so on its own merits, or lack thereof. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Rendell, Casey Owens, Giles, Baxendale, Chittenden, etc. etc. had any general interest in the Whitechapel Murders or had any opinion on the identity of the murderer.
Regards.

Ridiculous post.

[rjpalmer]

Ridiculous post.

Agreed, but only insofar as the entire 'debate' is ridiculous and has ceased to serve any useful purpose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

**** me, talk about irony alert.

Would you care to explain what the irony is?

[Iconoclast]

Agreed, but only insofar as the entire 'debate' is ridiculous and has ceased to serve any useful purpose.

The scrapbook is obviously genuine and clearly not written by Mike and Anne Barrett.

[Iconoclast]

Would you care to explain what the irony is?

Irony - you know, 'when events or words are the opposite of what is expected' and what have you.

Who amongst us would have suspected for even a moment that you (of all people) would question the right of someone to request answers to something which was already posted - often many times over?

You, the Great Requester of That Which was Already Posted!

And, no, I'm not going to tell you where you've done that (that would be seriously ironic)!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Irony - you know, 'when events or words are the opposite of what is expected' and what have you.

Who amongst us would have suspected for even a moment that you (of all people) would question the right of someone to request answers to something which was already posted - often many times over?

You, the Great Requester of That Which was Already Posted!

And, no, I'm not going to tell you where you've done that (that would be seriously ironic)!

The idea that I've been asking questions which have already been answered comes out of your imagination, Ike. You've never identified those questions, and, surprise surprise, you fail to do so again.

On the other hand, following a recent lengthy discussion between us, from which you appear to have run away in shame, about why Mike would have wanted the red 1891 diary, which is only the latest of many such discussions on the subject over the past ten years on this forum, it is literally unbelievable that Scott wanted to John to explain its significance.

[Iconoclast]

The idea that I've been asking questions which have already been answered comes out of your imagination, Ike. You've never identified those questions, and, surprise surprise, you fail to do so again.

Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong.

On the other hand, following a recent lengthy discussion between us, from which you appear to have run away in shame ...

In shame! Fantastic ...

... about why Mike would have wanted the red 1891 diary, which is only the latest of many such discussions on the subject over the past ten years on this forum, it is literally unbelievable that Scott wanted to John to explain its significance.

Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong.



In shame! Fantastic ...



Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong.

Time for a bit of housekeeping I think, Ike.


I've done a bit of digging in the archives because I was certain the topic of what nineteenth century diaries look like had come up before.

Nearly 10 years ago on 19^th September 2016, you asked in your long thread (#1951):

"Do most diaries not have evidence of the year on every major page? Isn't that kind of the point of a diary?"


Dusty Miller replied (#1955/6):

"No….Modern diaries, yes, Victorian, not usually."

He attached an image from a Victorian diary.


You replied (#1965):

"But would Mike Barrett have known that?

Actually, there are diaries today without the year on each page. Are you sure that what you posted isn't just a Victorian example of one which does not?"


In #1971, David Orsam posted five images of Victorian diaries, none resembling the 1891 diary.


Your totally baffling response in #1976 was:

"These look like notebooks which have been used as diaries?"


Orsam replied (#1978):

"Yes, but what you are missing is that that's what diaries are, or can be, and always have been. They don't need to be printed by Letts & Co, or some similar publishing company, to be a diary. They don't need the 365 days of the year printed inside them. A diary can be any form of book in which it is possible to write."


Graham posted #1984

"When in years gone by, as a snotty youth, I actually kept a 'diary', I never used one of those Letts 'page a day' things or whatever they were called. I used to buy hard-cover 100-page exercise-books from the Midland Educational in Birmingham, and write the date of each day as I went along at the top of a fresh page."


Dusty Miller then replied to you in #1994:

"… all I can say is, a significant portion of Victorian diaries are not as you described them in your post i was responding too."



You then, as you always do when times get tough, gave up and abandoned the topic. No-one, not a single person, disagreed with Orsam or Miller or supported your delusional claim that most diaries have evidence of the year on every major page. Despite this, here we are nearly 10 years later, and you're still spouting the same old guff about all diaries being emblazoned with irremovable dates and, worse, claiming that "everyone" knows this. It simply isn't true.

[Lombro2]

A journal turned into a diary is not a diary until you make it one. Obviously it can be used for other purposes.

Reasons for a Diary Fence to buy a second Diary. ( A diary fence who’s too dense to know one date in a journal does not make the journal the same as an official diary used for that strict purpose but not dense enough to know about receip stud journals for offices):

1. Plausible Deniability
2. Find out how much they’re worth
3. Find out what a real one looks like
4. Create a “duplicate”
5. Other (dense, drunken Barrett reason of your choice)