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

[Lombro2]

But he would understand the principle, Lombro2.

I agree. It was more a play on the name Michael.

Up to now, I was maintaining Playsible Deniability.

[Iconoclast]

You posted this when you were under the strange belief that an 1891 diary would have been no use to Barrett and that as soon as he knew it was an 1891 diary he would have had to have rejected it if he wanted to use it to create an 1888 Ripper diary. Now you positively need to embellish Earl's answer, and work with evidence we don't have, because you've suddenly realized that an 1891 diary could have been converted for use by Mike to an 1888 diary.

Stop, stop, stop! What ******* planet are you on, pal? When did I say an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 diary? Let me be clear, an 1891 diary is an 1891 diary for a reason and no amount of tricky wordplay from you will will one into existence.

Earl hadn't even seen the diary when he spoke to Mike and, while he would obviously have told him that it was an 1891 diary, it's pure embellishment to speculate that he told him that 1891 was printed on the cover and/or that the dates were printed on the pages. It seems to me to be entirely possible that this wasn't regarded as relevant information by his supplier who was merely confirming that he was in possession of an 1891 diary with multiple blank pages.

Of course the supplier would have given Earl full details of the 1891 diary. It may well seem to you that such an act would not be seen as relevant, but you have a very clear agenda here to serve and it is blatantly obvious to everyone else that that is what is driving your desperate special pleading.

What are you doing, man?

And why do you have to ferret around in historical posts to try to find a position where your adversary is a complete wanker and therefore not to be trusted? Leave the old posts along, son. Stay here in the moment. Just take it from me that someone who says a diary is an 1891 diary does so for a reason. If I could not explain something in 2016, well perhaps I can explain it now, so stop with the smartarse search function to 'trip me up', I never ever read those parts of posts because I see it as the strongest possible evidence that someone has no evidence to back up their argument (so they have to go looking for anything to muddy the waters of their adversary's argument - it's pathetic).

The gaslighting now is that your position has fundamentally changed. You've accepted that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for a fake 1888 diary.

An 1891 diary could be used for an 1888 diary but no-one would believe it. I'll say it again, what are you doing, man? Why are you literally misrepresenting my views?

Everything now hinges on the specific details of the 1891 diary. Does it have 1891 on the cover? Does it have 1891 dates printed on the pages? Yet, Mike Barrett hadn't seen the diary when he agreed to buy it. He didn't necessarily know these things. There's zero evidence he did. Earl has never said so. You've introduced unsupported assumptions and speculation into your argument.

And you know that how? How do you know Earl has never said so. Have you asked him or have you access to any interview in which he has said so?

Seriously, I used to laugh when Orsam and RJ did that mixing-up-information and producing what they claimed was a cogent and meaningful argument. I'm afraid you can't do it so it's not even funny when you try.

I remind you of what I said myself a few days ago, and repeat it:

"Mike's agreement to purchase the 1891 diary is (quite clearly) not necessarily inconsistent with a desire to use it for a fake Ripper diary of 1888."

Only in a world where there is no logic does such a premise stand on its long long road to a valid conclusion.

Unless you can negate that statement and show that Mike's agreement to purchase the 1891 diary is incontrovertibly inconsistent with a desire to use it for a fake Ripper diary of 1888 (as to which I'd love to see you try), the little game you've been playing for so many years, of pretending that Mike couldn't possibly have agreed to purchase an 1891 diary for use as his fake Ripper diary of 1888, is well and truly over.

Well, it's clear to everyone reading this that my argument that an 1891 diary is rather inappropriate for an 1888 diary of Jack the Ripper is not enough for you so I honestly don't know what other evidence there could be. I have a sneaking feeling that my contribution to this debate is not yet 'well and truly over', though.

Earl: Mr. Barrett, I'm struggling with the whole 1880-1890 diary thing.
Barrett: Have you got anything at all?
Earl: I've been told by a supplier that they have a diary.
Barrett: Brilliant. What year?
Earl: I didn't ask. I'm amazed you did. Quite a good question actually. You should be doing my job.
Barrett: Well, is it blank?
Earl: Damn, I should have asked them that as well.
Barrett: Does it have at least twenty blank pages though?
Earl: ****. I'm really rubbish at this, aren't I?
Barrett: It's no use to me if it was made in 1889 or later or if it was made in 1888 but sold in 1889 or later as a diary.
Earl: I can't think how I can help you, Mr. Barrett.
Barrett: Could you ring them back?
Earl: Good Lord - yes, I could ring them back!
Barrett: When you ring them back, make sure to ask if there is anything about it that prevents it being used as an 1888 diary.
Earl: Will do. What you planning to use it for? A hoaxed Jack the Ripper diary? Ha ha! (Don't worry, my memory's ****, I'll never remember this conversation.)
...
[Some days later]
Earl: Good news, Mr Barrett, I got through to the supplier.
Barrett: Brilliant, what did they say about the diary they've got?
Earl: They said they can send it to you directly, missing me out.
Barrett: Great, but what did they say about the diary itself?
Earl: Oh bollocks, it didn't occur to me to ask.

[Iconoclast]

For those people who are in some doubt, an 1891 diary is an 1891 diary for a reason, not simply because someone calls it that.

[Iconoclast]

What would be the point? The Maybrickian's are so closed minded they have to be to believe the obvious forgery was written by Maybrick.

Ridiculous post.

[Iconoclast]

Earl: Mr. Barrett, I'm struggling with the whole 1880-1890 diary thing.
Barrett: Have you got anything at all?
Earl: I've been told by a supplier that they have a diary.
Barrett: Brilliant. What year?
Earl: I didn't ask. I'm amazed you did. Quite a good question actually. You should be doing my job.
Barrett: Well, is it blank?
Earl: Damn, I should have asked them that as well.
Barrett: Does it have at least twenty blank pages though?
Earl: ****. I'm really rubbish at this, aren't I?
Barrett: It's no use to me if it was made in 1889 or later or if it was made in 1888 but sold in 1889 or later as a diary.
Earl: I can't think how I can help you, Mr. Barrett.
Barrett: Could you ring them back?
Earl: Good Lord - yes, I could ring them back!
Barrett: When you ring them back, make sure to ask if there is anything about it that prevents it being used as an 1888 diary.
Earl: Will do. What you planning to use it for? A hoaxed Jack the Ripper diary? Ha ha! (Don't worry, my memory's ****, I'll never remember this conversation.)
...
[Some days later]
Earl: Good news, Mr Barrett, I got through to the supplier.
Barrett: Brilliant, what did they say about the diary they've got?
Earl: They said they can send it to you directly, missing me out.
Barrett: Great, but what did they say about the diary itself?
Earl: Oh bollocks, it didn't occur to me to ask.

Right, let's put this one 'well and truly' to bed once and for all time. Here's my challenge: someone please come up with a plausible discussion between Earl and Barrett at the end of which Barrett agrees to receive a small 1891 diary with '1891' all over it, on every page, without knowing that he has just agreed to receive a small 1891 diary with '1891' all over it, on every page.

If anyone can do that, I will be genuinely impressed. Not a 'mocking' dialogue - an actual dialogue between the two of them that could possibly have resulted in Barrett agreeing to receive a small 1891 diary with '1891' all over it, on every page, without knowing he has.

Get yer thinking caps on, lads and lasses!

PS You should work on the assumption that I can't.

[rjpalmer]

You've rather answered the your own question parenthetically. If the 'blankness' of the 'at least twenty pages' was not discovered by Keith Skinner until around 2004, no-one in the world could have asked him those challenging questions.

Are you suggesting Barrett fell over dead in 2004?

Why couldn't Keith or someone else living in the UK have asked him in 2004 or later? Didn't Barrett live for another decade or more?

We hear of people talking with Mike in his final years (not necessarily Keith) and I am bemoaning the fact that none of them seemed to have asked him the truly probing questions, so we are left with guesswork. As such, all the public gets is partisan supporters dreaming up imaginary conversations. You do it again in your response.

Anne had apparently asked Mike why he'd ordered the $90 diary that was useless. I imagine he said....

The word "apparently" is carrying a lot of baggage.

Why should I or any other reasonable person believe Anne Graham's account? She also said her name wasn't Anne Elizabeth Graham and that she was a member of MI-5 and that she took no interest in seeing The Diary of Jack the Ripper as a teenager, along with any number of internal contradictions.

What you "imagine" Mike said is also worthless. That's the whole point.

The plain fact is that we know a lot more about the Diary, and about Mike and Anne's relationship to it, than we did in 2002.

Anne should be reinterviewed, but she won't be. She let it be known back in 2002 that she has nothing but contempt for anyone interested in the Whitechapel Murders (a rather convenient attitude and another contradiction, since she was fine with Messrs. Feldman and Skinner) so there's only about three people in the entire world that she might talk to, and neither you nor I am one of them.

Maybe your auntie has enough gonads to confront her?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll be anticipating an answer to this question given how diligent you are at following up your own.

I'd hate my dear readers to think you've run away from it 'in shame'.

You really want an answer to that moronic question?

We already know that Martin Earl doesn't remember what he said to Mike Barrett over 33 years ago, so asking him again would be more than stupid wouldn't it?

And I'm not in any way "unhappy" with Earl's answers. I've cited his answers myself to Caz. So your entire moronic question is based on a false premise.

Tell you what, Ike. In the absence of Earl remembering what he said to Barrett, why don't you fill in the evidential gap from the very depths of your overactive imagination. Perhaps you can treat us to yet more imaginary, fictional conversations between Earl and Barrett to add to the extensive and remarkably pointless collection which already exists on this forum.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

Bear with me a moment.

A common misconception is that, after 1994, Barrett was uniformly 'the bad guy'--the drunken guy that claimed that he and his wife had faked the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

But it's far more complicated than that.

There were stretches after 1994--indeed, long stretches--where Barrett denied having faked the diary, insisting it was either real or that he had received it from Tony and that's all he knew. I call this the 'Good Mike'---at least from the point-of-view of the diary's supporters. At these uncomfortable moments, it is the diary defenders who become "Barrett Believers."

There is even a fairly long passage in Inside Story where a sad and contrite Barrett accepts Anne Graham's claim of having seen the diary in the 1960s and also accepts that she had somehow kept the knowledge of its existence from him for years and had played dumb about having given the diary to his best friend Tony. He puts on a great show of feeling betrayed by Anne. At this brief moment, at least, Mike was entirely in the Anne Graham/Paul Feldman 'camp.'

Yet, as far as the available record shows, this 'Good' Mike Barrett was never asked why he needed a blank Victorian diary with at least twenty blank pages. [It's fair to point out they didn't yet know Mike's minimum page requirement].

It appears that Mike was only challenged when he was 'bad' Mike--the 'good' Mike wasn't asked the tough questions.

And because of this, the public will never know what Mike's own 'innocent' explanation would have been for the red diary---we only have Ike or someone else attempting to providing him with one. Ike is, in effect, assuming the role of Mike's jail house defense attorney. He's telling Barrett to keep his gob shut while he explains it all away.

As far as I can tell, Barrett's own feet were never held to the fire when he was in his 'good' or cooperative mood.

Similarly, I believe I am right in saying that by the time Keith Skinner had traced Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookdealer, he was no longer in communication with Anne Graham.

So, similarly, Anne's feet were never held to the fire, either. She was never asked to explain her own explanation that Mike 'just wanted to see what a diary looked like' in lieu of the fact that we now know Mike wanted a minimum of twenty blank pages--rendering her 'explanation' facile and nonsensical.

Anne, too, ducked the hard questions once all the information was made available.

And that's the trouble with this 'debate.' The people who REALLY should have been asked these questions about the red diary never were: Mike & Anne.

And there's not a damn thing we can do about. Mike's dead and no one can make Anne talk.

--I thought it might be worth pointing this out.

RP

Hi Roger,

No, you're right, I don't believe Anne has ever been asked to explain the contraction between her claim that Mike merely wanted to see what a Victorian diary looked like and the wording of the advertisement which contradicts this.

Incidentally, on that point, did you spot the amusing statement that Ike made in 2016, which I posted just now, when he wrote:


"If he took an 1890 or 1891 journal, though, he may as well have taken a WH Smith A4 refill pad because neither would have passed muster as a possible journal of James Maybrick so the question does remain that the purchase of an 1891 diary makes no sense except in the context that he wanted to know what one looked like."

It's so funny because Ike's now abandoned the claim that Mike "wanted to know what one looked like". But, far from the purchase of the 1891 diary making "no sense" to him, as he claimed would be the case in 2016, he's come up with some of the most absurd reasoning for it that anyone could hope to die laughing from.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stop, stop, stop! What ******* planet are you on, pal? When did I say an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 diary? Let me be clear, an 1891 diary is an 1891 diary for a reason and no amount of tricky wordplay from you will will one into existence.



Of course the supplier would have given Earl full details of the 1891 diary. It may well seem to you that such an act would not be seen as relevant, but you have a very clear agenda here to serve and it is blatantly obvious to everyone else that that is what is driving your desperate special pleading.

What are you doing, man?

And why do you have to ferret around in historical posts to try to find a position where your adversary is a complete wanker and therefore not to be trusted? Leave the old posts along, son. Stay here in the moment. Just take it from me that someone who says a diary is an 1891 diary does so for a reason. If I could not explain something in 2016, well perhaps I can explain it now, so stop with the smartarse search function to 'trip me up', I never ever read those parts of posts because I see it as the strongest possible evidence that someone has no evidence to back up their argument (so they have to go looking for anything to muddy the waters of their adversary's argument - it's pathetic).



An 1891 diary could be used for an 1888 diary but no-one would believe it. I'll say it again, what are you doing, man? Why are you literally misrepresenting my views?



And you know that how? How do you know Earl has never said so. Have you asked him or have you access to any interview in which he has said so?

Seriously, I used to laugh when Orsam and RJ did that mixing-up-information and producing what they claimed was a cogent and meaningful argument. I'm afraid you can't do it so it's not even funny when you try.



Only in a world where there is no logic does such a premise stand on its long long road to a valid conclusion.



Well, it's clear to everyone reading this that my argument that an 1891 diary is rather inappropriate for an 1888 diary of Jack the Ripper is not enough for you so I honestly don't know what other evidence there could be. I have a sneaking feeling that my contribution to this debate is not yet 'well and truly over', though.

Earl: Mr. Barrett, I'm struggling with the whole 1880-1890 diary thing.
Barrett: Have you got anything at all?
Earl: I've been told by a supplier that they have a diary.
Barrett: Brilliant. What year?
Earl: I didn't ask. I'm amazed you did. Quite a good question actually. You should be doing my job.
Barrett: Well, is it blank?
Earl: Damn, I should have asked them that as well.
Barrett: Does it have at least twenty blank pages though?
Earl: ****. I'm really rubbish at this, aren't I?
Barrett: It's no use to me if it was made in 1889 or later or if it was made in 1888 but sold in 1889 or later as a diary.
Earl: I can't think how I can help you, Mr. Barrett.
Barrett: Could you ring them back?
Earl: Good Lord - yes, I could ring them back!
Barrett: When you ring them back, make sure to ask if there is anything about it that prevents it being used as an 1888 diary.
Earl: Will do. What you planning to use it for? A hoaxed Jack the Ripper diary? Ha ha! (Don't worry, my memory's ****, I'll never remember this conversation.)
...
[Some days later]
Earl: Good news, Mr Barrett, I got through to the supplier.
Barrett: Brilliant, what did they say about the diary they've got?
Earl: They said they can send it to you directly, missing me out.
Barrett: Great, but what did they say about the diary itself?
Earl: Oh bollocks, it didn't occur to me to ask.

Talking to you, Ike, continues to be like speaking to a collective of different people who all say different things from one post to the next.

Your latest bewildering question is :

When did I say an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 diary?

The answer is: earlier today!

I asked you this direct question in #1083:

"do you now accept that a partly used 1891 diary with nearly all its pages blank could potentially have been useful for the creation of an 1888 Ripper diary?"

Your answer, posted this morning (#1084) was:

"If you are asking me whether documents other than diaries can be used to record one's thoughts into ("this is my notebook which contains my diary") or if you are asking me if diaries are produced which have no dates in at all ("this is my five-year diary which I decided to start in 1992 but could have started in any year of my choosing"), then - of course - I would say that this is perfectly possible.

In the abstract case, therefore, I agree with you."

I believe I can speak and read English so your agreement with me, in the abstract, that an 1891 diary could have been useful for the creation of an 1888 Ripper diary must mean you were accepting that an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 diary.

If I'm somehow wrong, please explain it to me in clear English. Please state your position clearly as to whether you do or do not accept that a partly used 1891 diary with nearly all its pages blank could potentially have been useful for the creation of an 1888 Ripper diary.

Its not much to ask.

[Iconoclast]

If I'm somehow wrong, please explain it to me in clear English. Please state your position clearly as to whether you do or do not accept that a partly used 1891 diary with nearly all its pages blank could potentially have been useful for the creation of an 1888 Ripper diary. Its not much to ask.

Asked and answered. It's not about the abstract case, it's about the specific case.

Except that doesn't work for you because you cannot conceive of a conversation between Earl and Barrett that would end in Barrett agreeing to accept an 1891 diary for an 1888 hoax. No amount of semantics or wordplay can bring your argument in any way back from the cliff edge. You're done.

Come up with the convincing dialogue or run away in shame.

I'm done with you until such time as you produce the dialogue for this specific case which convinces us all - scrapbook deniers and scrapbook supporters.

Of course, I can tell my dear readers in advance that no-one can do this so please don't hold your breath, guys. Some people can only live in the abstract because you don't need any plausible rules in the abstract world - you can just wish away what we know and imagine some anodyne world where people function regardless of context. We should call it SholmesWorld, I think.

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous post.

No it's not but yours clearly is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right, let's put this one 'well and truly' to bed once and for all time. Here's my challenge: someone please come up with a plausible discussion between Earl and Barrett at the end of which Barrett agrees to receive a small 1891 diary with '1891' all over it, on every page, without knowing that he has just agreed to receive a small 1891 diary with '1891' all over it, on every page.

If anyone can do that, I will be genuinely impressed. Not a 'mocking' dialogue - an actual dialogue between the two of them that could possibly have resulted in Barrett agreeing to receive a small 1891 diary with '1891' all over it, on every page, without knowing he has.

Get yer thinking caps on, lads and lasses!

PS You should work on the assumption that I can't.

An imaginary fictional discussion would be entirely useless. It's strange that you don't understand this.

But what can easily be imagined is that Earl told Barrett that he'd located a supplier in possession of an 1891 diary who was willing to sell it. He would naturally have told him the size, colour, condition, and the fact that nearly all the pages were blank, which is what the supplier would have told him. That, in a normal world, would have been a sufficient description. Earl would not have had a clue why Barrett wanted the diary, nor would his supplier. If Earl's customer was a diary collector, as the supplier would probably have assumed him to be, that is the relevant information a diary collector would want.

But whatever Mike was actually told, it's entirely possible that what stood out to him were the words "nearly all the pages are blank" (or however this was expressed). That was precisely what he was looking for from a Victorian diary. To the extent that he was worried that the year 1891 was somewhere on the diary, Mike might have hoped to be able to physically remove it. He couldn't ask Earl any questions because Earl hadn't seen it and Mike might have wanted it in a hurry. So Mike agreed to buy it although, of course, he didn't pay for it and, who knows if he ever would have paid for it had not his wife agreed to write a cheque.

I can't, of course, say that this is definitely what happened, only that it's entirely plausible, which is all I need. There is certainly no evidence at all to show that it didn't happen this way.

[Iconoclast]

No it's not but yours clearly is.

Ridiculous post.

[Iconoclast]

An imaginary fictional discussion would be entirely useless. It's strange that you don't understand this.

But what can easily be imagined is that Earl told Barrett that he'd located a supplier in possession of an 1891 diary who was willing to sell it. He would naturally have told him the size, colour, condition, and the fact that nearly all the pages were blank, which is what the supplier would have told him. That, in a normal world, would have been a sufficient description. Earl would not have had a clue why Barrett wanted the diary, nor would his supplier. If Earl's customer was a diary collector, as the supplier would probably have assumed him to be, that is the relevant information a diary collector would want.

But whatever Mike was actually told, it's entirely possible that what stood out to him were the words "nearly all the pages are blank" (or however this was expressed). That was precisely what he was looking for from a Victorian diary. To the extent that he was worried that the year 1891 was somewhere on the diary, Mike might have hoped to be able to physically remove it. He couldn't ask Earl any questions because Earl hadn't seen it and Mike might have wanted it in a hurry. So Mike agreed to buy it although, of course, he didn't pay for it and, who knows if he ever would have paid for it had not his wife agreed to write a cheque.

I can't, of course, say that this is definitely what happened, only that it's entirely plausible, which is all I need. There is certainly no evidence at all to show that it didn't happen this way.

As RJ Palmer would put it:

The word "apparently" is carrying a lot of baggage ... What you "imagine" Mike said is also worthless. That's the whole point.

I think we have exhausted this exchange. If posters are buying in to your argument, that's their loss.

[Iconoclast]

Just on a parting note regarding the conversations regarding the 1891 diary, here is the briefest it could have been:

Supplier: Mr. Earl, we could not locate an 1880-1890 diary but we have located an 1891 one and it is basically blank.

...

Earl: Mr. Barrett, I could not locate an 1880-1890 diary but I have located an 1891 one and it is basically blank.

Barrett [Thinks]: Not a problem, £66 is a lot of cash for a 'sight unseen' diary but I'll just remove any very unlikely references to '1891' in this 1891 diary. There probably aren't any anyway. Sheer bloody good luck.

Barrett: That's perfect, I'll take it.

Hope that helps the simpleminded get a grip on how Mike Barrett came to commit himself to £66 ($90) for a totally useless diary whilst planning to hoax a record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts.