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

[Lombro2]

I don’t know, Ike, but I think we’re meant to become Wheaties’ disciples. I think he only has 10 so far. And then we’re supposed to find 12 of our own and so forth and so on. We can become the 2 Sons of Socrates. Ignorance is bliss.

All men are created equally ignorant but some men are more ignorant than others.

These guys are so exceptionally Socratic, they don’t even know what Socratic is! I think they confuse Socratic with Sarcastic.

[Iconoclast]

I don’t know, Ike, but I think we’re meant to become Wheaties’ disciples. I think he only has 10 so far. And then we’re supposed to find 12 of our own and so forth and so on. We can become the 2 Sons of Socrates. Ignorance is bliss.

All men are created equally ignorant but some men are more ignorant than others.

These guys are so exceptionally Socratic, they don’t even know what Socratic is! I think they confuse Socratic with Sarcastic.

Very good - socratic for sarcastic!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t know, Ike, but I think we’re meant to become Wheaties’ disciples. I think he only has 10 so far. And then we’re supposed to find 12 of our own and so forth and so on. We can become the 2 Sons of Socrates. Ignorance is bliss.

All men are created equally ignorant but some men are more ignorant than others.

These guys are so exceptionally Socratic, they don’t even know what Socratic is! I think they confuse Socratic with Sarcastic.

In case you missed it, Lombro:

"I think the use of the word 'fence' is causing some confusion here. Mike Barrett was not a fence." Iconoclast (#1211 of this thread).


He was talking about you.

He was basically saying you've been spouting complete nonsense by continually referring to Barrett as a fence.

And, as you've not confused me, because I know what a fence is, nor, I think, have you confused Ike, it's likely the only person who's been confused by the term "fence" is you.


Perhaps try asking yourself some basic questions to stimulate critical thinking before posting in future. Is that Socratic enough for you?

[Iconoclast]

He was basically saying you've been spouting complete nonsense by continually referring to Barrett as a fence.

Why so unnecessarily pejorative when all I was saying was that Barrett was not a fence. To be a fence, he'd have had to receive stolen goods and then pass them on to someone else. L2 was simply using the word inappropriately. It's surely not a crime already?

To use the expression 'spouting complete nonesense' shows us all how much contempt you have for decent debate, and shows up your other expressions such as 'gibberish' for what they are - cheap shots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why so unnecessarily pejorative when all I was saying was that Barrett was not a fence. To be a fence, he'd have had to receive stolen goods and then pass them on to someone else. L2 was simply using the word inappropriately. It's surely not a crime already?

To use the expression 'spouting complete nonesense' shows us all how much contempt you have for decent debate, and shows up your other expressions such as 'gibberish' for what they are - cheap shots.

Are you serious, Ike?

Lombro's been banging on since 2023 about Mike having been a fence, gibbering away about a "fence theory", and, recently, he's been saying it on an almost daily basis. Here are a few examples:

"we should thank RJ and O for explaining to us the reason why the thieves fenced the document to Mike or more likely gave it to him to fence, thinking he’d know what to do".(22 November 2023, One Incontrovertible...#10389)

"The real threat that they obviously seemed to fear would come from ratting out or exposing a thief or a gang of thieves. That helps the Fence Theory again" (5 February 2025, Old Hoax, #263)

"How does the Red Diary help the Forgery Theory more than the Fence Theory?" (5 February 2025, Old Hoax, #264)

"Mike was already a dealer in scrap metal and we know he was a thief. So dealer and thief equals fence or, at least, it strongly suggests the possibility....So now it looks to me like there's a good possibility that Mike was a regular fence and dealer in stolen property," (9 February 2025, #16)

"Exactly how does this help the Barrett Forgery Theory more than the Barrett Fence Theory" (17 February 2025, Old Hoax, #690)

"But now question now is, How does it help the Barrett Forger Theory over the Barrett Fence if it’s authentic or Anne never considered it might be a stolen forgery?" (18 February 2025, Old Hoax #692)

"That's how I see it too, with the Fence Theory." (18 February 2025, Old Hoax #700)

"I think the idea of a scrap metal dealer and a purse thief also being a fence, and getting a stolen item and then pretending it wasn't stolen is preposterous." (8 March 2025, google ngrams #459)

"So journalist = fence in our quick, objective survey, not based on personal opinion." (11 May 2025, Old Hoax, #830)

"The Judge was probably a big wig lawyer once and so he probably has no friggin' clue about the criminal classes either and wouldn't know a fence if he sat on one." (18 June 2025, Old Hoax, #858)

"A fence would admit it because it's part of their plausible deniability. That's how a fence gets away with it." (3 July 2025, Old Hoax, #1005)

"Michael wouldn’t know the meaning of the words Plausible Deniability. And he was a fence" (6 July 2025, Old Hoax, #1071)

"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):...Plausible Deniability..." (6 July 2025, Old Hoax, #1065)

"Why do these guys think a fence needs a perfect facsimile of the stolen item?....If you don’t understand what a fence is by now and how they work, maybe you never will."(10 July 2025, Old Hoax, #1192)

As you can see, most recently Lombro taunted me by saying that if I don't understand what a fence is by now and how they work I never will.

But now, at last, for the very first time, you admit that he's wrong and has been using the word "inappropriately". That's one way of describing it. Another way is that he's been continually and repeatedly spouting utter nonsense about Mike having been a fence.

Furthermore, Mike supposedly having been a fence is an integral part of Lombro's incomprehensible "plausible deniability" theory. He expressly told us that "plausible deniability" was a reason for "a Diary Fence" to buy a second Diary. So I don't see how it's possible to divorce the two. If Mike wasn't a diary fence, as you now admit he was not, Lombro's entire "plausible deniability" argument collapses at the first hurdle.

As you know, my response to the unarticulated and unexplained "plausible deniability" claim is that it's gibberish. Sadly, to your eternal shame, you've now adopted "plausible deniability" even though you clearly can't explain it and probably have no idea what Lombro means by it, bearing in mind that he thinks it's got something to do with Mike having been a fence.

[Iconoclast]

Two people who believe the Maybrick scrapbook was not created by Mike and/or Anne Barrett disagreeing about the use of a simple word like 'fence' just shows the strength of our position: we don't have to be 100% aligned. Just the other week, Caz (also a Not-Barrett believer) openly questioned my reference to the 1891 diary costing '£66'. These are examples where Not-Barrett believers are able to disagree or question one another without rancour or awkwardness.

What you did, above, was just list a load of occasions where L2 used the term 'fence', in my view inappropriately. You knew this was unsubstantive so you threw in the claim that he was 'taunting' you to attempt (scurrilously) to justify your accusing him of 'spouting complete nonesense'. Why do you feel the need to do that? He wasn't spouting nonsense at all. He was just using a word 'inappropriately'. Maybe where he comes from, a 'fence' is different to one in the UK? Either way, it's not grounds to be so pejorative. As I say, I don't know why you feel the need to do that.

By the way, the more you go on bleating like a baby that you haven't had L2's 'plausible deniability' explained, the less motivated anyone is going to be to relieve you of your ignorance in this matter - coupled with a certain disbelief that anyone can be as genuinely obtuse as you are portraying yourself over this matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Two people who believe the Maybrick scrapbook was not created by Mike and/or Anne Barrett disagreeing about the use of a simple word like 'fence' just shows the strength of our position: we don't have to be 100% aligned. Just the other week, Caz (also a Not-Barrett believer) openly questioned my reference to the 1891 diary costing '£66'. These are examples where Not-Barrett believers are able to disagree or question one another without rancour or awkwardness.

What you did, above, was just list a load of occasions where L2 used the term 'fence', in my view inappropriately. You knew this was unsubstantive so you threw in the claim that he was 'taunting' you to attempt (scurrilously) to justify your accusing him of 'spouting complete nonesense'. Why do you feel the need to do that? He wasn't spouting nonsense at all. He was just using a word 'inappropriately'. Maybe where he comes from, a 'fence' is different to one in the UK? Either way, it's not grounds to be so pejorative. As I say, I don't know why you feel the need to do that.

By the way, the more you go on bleating like a baby that you haven't had L2's 'plausible deniability' explained, the less motivated anyone is going to be to relieve you of your ignorance in this matter - coupled with a certain disbelief that anyone can be as genuinely obtuse as you are portraying yourself over this matter.

I already know the reason why "plausible deniability" hasn't been explained, Ike. It's because it's utter gibberish. It has no meaning. It cannot be explained.

But I do love the way you now call it "L2's plausible deniability". LOL! Sorry, Ike, but two days ago you said: "I lie heavily towards the 'plausible deniability' view". You've already adopted the gibberish. It's too late! Stop wriggling.

We've established that Lombro doesn't know what "fence" means. It looks like both you and he don't know what the words "plausible" and "deniability" mean either.


And while we’re at it Ike, considering the virtual non-stop digs that you’ve had at me since I’ve posted on this subject, isn’t it about time you just stuck to the subject? If you spent less time making snide comments and pointless insults and much less time thinking up increasingly desperate excuses for this fake diary then exchanges might be clearer and less drawn out. The points that I’ve made are perfectly legitimate and based on the posts that have been made, yours and Lombro’s responses have been nothing but a combination of waffle and digs. Perhaps you should learn to treat this subject for what it is and not to keep reacting to every post as if your family honour has been challenged. You clearly have too much invested in this subject Ike. It’s too personal; too emotional to you. Your every response proves this.

[Lombro2]

Fence is derived from the word fence because the fence is there to protect the thief.

[Lombro2]

Konrad Kujau invented his own fake fence so he is legitimately a fence. But not according to you.

So Barrett is not a fence like Kujau.

Maybe you like the term Agent or maybe Patsy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fence is derived from the word fence because the fence is there to protect the thief.

As Ike has already explained to you, Lombro, you've been using the word "inappropriately".

"Mike Barrett", he confirms, "was not a fence".

If you still maintain that Barrett was a fence, I suggest you take it up with him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Konrad Kujau invented his own fake fence so he is legitimately a fence. But not according to you.

So Barrett is not a fence like Kujau.

Maybe you like the term Agent or maybe Patsy.

I prefer ‘forger.’ Or ‘co-forger.’

Who are you talking to? Me or Ike btw.

[Lombro2]

Why wound I care what Ike thinks anymore than you? I’m not in his one-man, one-off cult of one-offs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why wound I care what Ike thinks anymore than you? I’m not in his one-man, one-off cult of one-offs.

It's a very fair point Lombro. Ike does talk a lot of nonsense, doesn't he?

So you think he's gone badly wrong, do you, when he says that Mike wasn't a diary fence and that you've been using the word fence "inappropriately"?

Was he also wrong when he attempted to answer the question I asked you about why Mike didn't want a diary from 1888-1890 with 17 blank pages? Is it because you think he couldn't count properly from one to seventeen, and that when he counted the Jack the Ripper diary pages he mistakenly came up with 20?

But why did he want a diary with the same number of blank pages as the Jack the Ripper diary in the first place? Can you explain it?

And while we're at it, how was obtaining a diary from 1880 to 1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages going to enable "plausible deniability". What was Mike expecting to be able to deny by acquiring such a diary, and to whom?

[Iconoclast]

Don't tell him, Pike!

[Iconoclast]

Don't tell him, Pike!

I'll bet Caz is kicking herself that she didn't get in quicker with, "Don't tell him, Ike!".

[Thank you, Captain Manwairing!]