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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning Ike,

Mike could have been prompted by something Anne or Doreen had said at the time, to try and obtain a genuine Victorian "diary", and not just any book with blank pages that was old enough.

If he wasn't giving Anne a straight story of how he got the scrapbook, which was very likely if he lied to Doreen about getting it from Devereux in 1991 because the truth was a whole lot worse, Anne's worry would have been that if he had already blabbed about his "find" down the pub, for instance, he could bring its rightful owner straight back to Goldie Street on the heels of the diary itself - or the police, if it had recently been stolen and Mike had rashly associated himself with it. Mike would have been the one in possession if Anne thought someone was using him in this way. But if she didn't know, because Mike wasn't being straight with her, she might have realised it was better for her personally not to know.

Her question to Mike in February 1993: "Did you nick it, Mike?", asked in front of a group of strangers who had come to Liverpool to investigate the diary's origins, would have come in the 'nick' of time [ha ha], if she had suspected something of the sort back in March 1992, but had wisely kept her trap shut until that moment. Mike's comment about not splitting "on a mate", when Martin Howells was sceptical of the Devereux story and they had just learned about the electrical work done in Dodd's house, gave Anne the ideal opportunity and excuse to get in quick, in case her suspicions were about to be proved correct. She could then claim that the thought had never occurred to her when Mike was showing off the diary in London. She would be protecting herself from accusations of guilty knowledge, knowing there was nowt she could do to protect Mike, if they uncovered evidence to show the diary had indeed been "nicked".

If Anne knew it hadn't been nicked, either because she had given it to him via Devereux or they had faked it together, using a photo album bought legitimately from an awesome auction, what purpose was achieved by her question, apart from annoying Mike and putting him on the defensive, quite unnecessarily?

Love,

Caz
X

I agree with you entirely, Caz. Ike's explanation for Mike wanting to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages is so embarrassing that it's best not mentioning it at all. We should pretend it hasn't happened.

So let's suggest something completely different like, "Mike could have been prompted by something Anne or Doreen had said at the time (what?), to try and obtain a genuine Victorian "diary", and not just any book with blank pages that was old enough." If only I could make sense of that sentence it might solve the puzzle of why Mike had no interest in obtaining a Victorian diary unless it had a minimum of 20 blank pages.

[John Wheat]

I agree with you entirely, Caz. Ike's explanation for Mike wanting to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages is so embarrassing that it's best not mentioning it at all. We should pretend it hasn't happened.

So let's suggest something completely different like, "Mike could have been prompted by something Anne or Doreen had said at the time (what?), to try and obtain a genuine Victorian "diary", and not just any book with blank pages that was old enough." If only I could make sense of that sentence it might solve the puzzle of why Mike had no interest in obtaining a Victorian diary unless it had a minimum of 20 blank pages.

Why would someone suspected of having written a fake diary have been looking for a Victorian Diary with a number of blank pages? Unless it's the coincidence of all time.

[Iconoclast]

I really, REALLY don't want to engage with you but I have no choice because you are misrepresenting what I said. Can't you concentrate or something?

He is admitting to being in possession of a stolen diary and is handing it back to its rightful owner ...

Show us where I said that Barrett would be handing back the original (what you call 'stolen') scrapbook or even admitting to having it. He would be denying that he had that, and he would be showing the 1891 diary when asked "Have you recently received an old document?". For the record, he wouldn't be handing the 1891 diary over either. Why would he need to? He just needs to SHOW it. "Here's the old document I recently received - no, you can't keep it, it's mine and I have the receipt to prove it".

I cannot believe the degree to which you have misrepresented what I said. It is for reasons such as this that I really REALLY don't want to engage with you.

... or, rather, in your bizarre scenario, to "anyone" who came asking for it, whether they could prove it was theirs or not.

Look, when you type up an idea, you have to expect some latitude. I don't have all day (as you seem to have) to check off every little misunderstanding you might look for in what I post. I trust that people will apply their brains and realise that things are being summarised for speed and simplicity. But, now that you've pedantically asked, obviously nothing is getting handed over to anyone so it literally doesn't matter who the hell comes knocking at the door (pedant alert: or maybe contacts Barrett in some other way). So my 'bizarre' scenario is suddenly less 'bizarre' because I have taken the time to fill in the thinking that you don't appear to be able to do.

Not only is the police officer, or other person asking about the diary, going to immediately say "That's not the stolen diary, it looks nothing like it, I don't care how many blank pages it has", but, by handing over an obvious substitute, Mike has now put himself bang in the frame by admitting that he is in posession of a stolen diary. It will then immediately be apparent that he is hiding the real stolen diary. There could be no other explanation for his behaviour.

How is Barrett admitting to being in possession of a 'stolen' diary???????????????????????????????

How will it then immediately be apparent that he is hiding 'the real stolen diary'??????????????????

He's not going to come out and ******* tell them, for goodness sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's you that is, Ike. A complete joke.

I think we can all see who is erring badly and - possibly worse - either unable to understand an argument or keen to deliberately misrepresent one to compromise it.

---------------------------------------

For those who can understand ideas, this is how it could've gone:

Barrett [thinks]: I really don't want to lose this scrapbook - it's clearly worth a fortune to me. What can I do to prevent having to give it back if I'm confronted by the owner, or the police? Well, I could obviously hide it. That's an obvious thing to do so I'll do that. Here's a cracking idea - maybe I could get hold of an old Victorian diary quick as chips and if anyone knocks at my door (pedant alert: or maybe contacts me in some other way) wanting it back I'll show them the one I buy and say that's the only old document I've received, ever. I'll even have the receipt to prove it. Then I'll tell them to '**** off and don't come back'. Nice one. I'll do that as well. It might not work, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. Obviously, I'll have to show the old scrapbook to people eventually, but right now's probably the most risky time if it's nicked like I assume it was.

---------------------------------------

Now, dear readers, we all know in advance that Herlock Sholmes is going to say he can't understand any of this, it's gibberish, it's a joke, I'm a joke, etc., so let's ignore him (we know it's coming). What I want you all to do is let me know if you don't understand this point. I'm sure you do because it's incredibly simple, but just in case you don't, let me know. If you want to do so privately, please drop me a note to historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com.

[Iconoclast]

Why would someone suspected of having written a fake diary have been looking for a Victorian Diary with a number of blank pages? Unless it's the coincidence of all time.

I'm genuinely wasting my time here, I really am, but - sighs - he wanted a Victorian diary from BEFORE OR AFTER JAMES MAYBRICK DIED, because he wanted to say "Yes, here's my recently-acquired old document, officer". He wanted at least twenty blank pages because that's what he already had in his possession (pedant alert: yes, technically he should have asked for EXACTLY 17 blank pages but he didn't, get over yourself.)

Now, if you can't understand this - you don't even have to agree with it - then I am genuinely wasting my time. In that event you should and indeed will stick with the theory you prefer because it fits your preferred scenario. You aren't actually wishing to think here, you just want to wish the scrapbook away. I think we all get it.

I have already included a Barrett-Hoax as a potential provenance. How about the likes of you acknowledges that maybe the Barrett-Hoax is not the only theory in town and that no theory has yet been categorically proven (and certainly not by ambiguous phrases in the Maybrick scrapbook)? Can you even do it?

[John Wheat]

I'm genuinely wasting my time here, I really am, but - sighs - he wanted a Victorian diary from BEFORE OR AFTER JAMES MAYBRICK DIED, because he wanted to say "Yes, here's my recently-acquired old document, officer". He wanted at least twenty blank pages because that's what he already had in his possession (pedant alert: yes, technically he should have asked for EXACTLY 17 blank pages but he didn't, get over yourself.)

Now, if you can't understand this - you don't even have to agree with it - then I am genuinely wasting my time. In that event you should and indeed will stick with the theory you prefer because it fits your preferred scenario. You aren't actually wishing to think here, you just want to wish the scrapbook away. I think we all get it.

I have already included a Barrett-Hoax as a potential provenance. How about the likes of you acknowledges that maybe the Barrett-Hoax is not the only theory in town and that no theory has yet been categorically proven (and certainly not by ambiguous phrases in the Maybrick scrapbook)? Can you even do it?

I actually think myself, Herlock and RJ are wasting our time. The Diary is fake it wasn't written by James Maybrick and was in all likelihood written by the Barretts but the Maybrickians wont have it. I don't care about any fictitious theories I'm only interested in the truth.

[caz]

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.

This one was originally addressed to Ike, and I don't know if it has been dealt with in posts I have yet to catch up with. Unlike some, I am not permanently glued to the site, waiting to pounce on every new diary post as it appears, with the confidence of one who thinks they know what they ain't had time to learn [are you ready, boots? Thank you, Nancy Sinatra].

I understand it was indeed Feldman who first alerted Keith to the existence of a red Victorian diary which had been in Anne's possession, but my timeline is telling me that she handed it over to Feldman, who had passed it on to Keith by 27th August 1995. Apologies if anyone was misled by my suggestion that Anne gave it directly to Keith when he asked her about it. At least it shows how much attention to detail matters, whoever is posting. And it makes a change from Anne's claim to have involved a middle man with that other diary, by giving it to Tony Devereux, who handed it straight over to Mike like a good boy, without ever breathing another word about it to a living soul.

Anyhoo, if it was Melvin Harris who tipped off Feldman about the existence of the red diary in Anne's possession, would Harris have been tipped off directly by Mike Barrett, do you think, or was there another middle man, in the form of Alan Gray, who had typed up the details he was given by Mike in his affidavit dated 5th January 1995? Considering we have Gray on record telling Mike in December 1994 that Harris was urging him to get a detailed statement sworn, would it not be wildly unlikely if Gray had not passed on the results of that urging to Harris, hoping he might get paid for his pains, when Mike was clearly paying him sweet FA? Would Harris not have asked Gray for a progress report on the statement, if he had heard no more about it until a frustrated Mike could finally wait no longer to contact Harris himself and kick up the sh*t with the red diary? I suspect Harris had read the affidavit typed up by Gray very early on, but had his reasons for not broadcasting any of the details until his attention was specifically drawn to the red diary, and it was just too juicy a morsel not to dangle in front of Feldman's nose. Mike was clever, very clever. It remains to this day the one morsel that every Barrett hoax believer has to hang onto for dear life, because without it they have nothing - nothing at all - to support a liar's claims to have obtained the other diary from an auction sale.

[caz]

Why would someone suspected of having written a fake diary have been looking for a Victorian Diary with a number of blank pages? Unless it's the coincidence of all time.

Er, Mike was not suspected of having written a fake diary when he tried to obtain a genuine one from the 1880s with a number of blank pages.

If he suspected someone else of having faked the diary claiming to be by Jack the Ripper, he'd have had good reason for wanting to know if it was dead easy to obtain diaries from the right period with enough blank pages for that purpose.

[John Wheat]

Er, Mike was not suspected of having written a fake diary when he tried to obtain a genuine one from the 1880s with a number of blank pages.

If he suspected someone else of having faked the diary claiming to be by Jack the Ripper, he'd have had good reason for wanting to know if it was dead easy to obtain diaries from the right period with enough blank pages for that purpose.

This is bilge. Mike was clearly after Victorian diaries because he wanted to create a fake Ripper diary.

[Iconoclast]

This is bilge. Mike was clearly after Victorian diaries because he wanted to create a fake Ripper diary.

Regurgitating a claim over and over and over again cannot make it true. You are not pursuing 'truth' (as you claim) - you are simply trying to shout down anyone who does not buy in to the Barrett-Hoax theory.

[John Wheat]

Regurgitating a claim over and over and over again cannot make it true. You are not pursuing 'truth' (as you claim) - you are simply trying to shout down anyone who does not buy in to the Barrett-Hoax theory.

But it is true and Dismissing it does not make it false.

[Iconoclast]

But it is true and Dismissing it does not make it false.

You're sounding like a child, man. Yes, you have bought into the hoax theories, and that's fine, but buying into something hook, line and sinker is the mark of a restricted mind (or an undeveloped mind).

You have to be able to say there are other perfectly valid theories until such time as you can say, 'this is what categorically proves this belief to be actually true'.

Just thinking something looks like an obvious hoax is not enough for serious thinkers. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you wish to be taken for a serious thinker or just an acolyte of something as yet unproven.

[John Wheat]

You're sounding like a child, man. Yes, you have bought into the hoax theories, and that's fine, but buying into something hook, line and sinker is the mark of a restricted mind (or an undeveloped mind).

You have to be able to say there are other perfectly valid theories until such time as you can say, 'this is what categorically proves this belief to be actually true'.

Just thinking something looks like an obvious hoax is not enough for serious thinkers. The question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you wish to be taken for a serious thinker or just an acolyte of something as yet unproven.

The great majority of posters on this site know that it's an obvious hoax and don't even bother with this thread. It's just I have plenty of time on my hands and get bored easily. So I post on this thread.

[Lombro2]

Most of the people on this forum don’t follow or can’t follow the arguments being debated. As tedious and repetitive as they are, I can follow them.

So I have to thank Caz for coming back again and again to clean house. She, for one, does come up with new ideas and questions like, Why would Anne pay for a useless item? It must have some use. Oh yeah…

Some people are Fountainheads. Most of the rest are “secondhanders”.

[John Wheat]

Most of the people on this forum don’t follow or can’t follow the arguments being debated. As tedious and repetitive as they are, I can follow them.

So I have to thank Caz for coming back again and again to clean house. She, for one, does come up with new ideas and questions like, Why would Anne pay for a useless item? It must have some use. Oh yeah…

Some people are Fountainheads. Most of the rest are “secondhanders”.

This is utter garbage. People don't post on this thread because the diary is an obvious fake.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I really, REALLY don't want to engage with you but I have no choice because you are misrepresenting what I said. Can't you concentrate or something?



Show us where I said that Barrett would be handing back the original (what you call 'stolen') scrapbook or even admitting to having it. He would be denying that he had that, and he would be showing the 1891 diary when asked "Have you recently received an old document?". For the record, he wouldn't be handing the 1891 diary over either. Why would he need to? He just needs to SHOW it. "Here's the old document I recently received - no, you can't keep it, it's mine and I have the receipt to prove it".

I cannot believe the degree to which you have misrepresented what I said. It is for reasons such as this that I really REALLY don't want to engage with you.



Look, when you type up an idea, you have to expect some latitude. I don't have all day (as you seem to have) to check off every little misunderstanding you might look for in what I post. I trust that people will apply their brains and realise that things are being summarised for speed and simplicity. But, now that you've pedantically asked, obviously nothing is getting handed over to anyone so it literally doesn't matter who the hell comes knocking at the door (pedant alert: or maybe contacts Barrett in some other way). So my 'bizarre' scenario is suddenly less 'bizarre' because I have taken the time to fill in the thinking that you don't appear to be able to do.



How is Barrett admitting to being in possession of a 'stolen' diary???????????????????????????????

How will it then immediately be apparent that he is hiding 'the real stolen diary'??????????????????

He's not going to come out and ******* tell them, for goodness sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I think we can all see who is erring badly and - possibly worse - either unable to understand an argument or keen to deliberately misrepresent one to compromise it.

---------------------------------------

For those who can understand ideas, this is how it could've gone:

Barrett [thinks]: I really don't want to lose this scrapbook - it's clearly worth a fortune to me. What can I do to prevent having to give it back if I'm confronted by the owner, or the police? Well, I could obviously hide it. That's an obvious thing to do so I'll do that. Here's a cracking idea - maybe I could get hold of an old Victorian diary quick as chips and if anyone knocks at my door (pedant alert: or maybe contacts me in some other way) wanting it back I'll show them the one I buy and say that's the only old document I've received, ever. I'll even have the receipt to prove it. Then I'll tell them to '**** off and don't come back'. Nice one. I'll do that as well. It might not work, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. Obviously, I'll have to show the old scrapbook to people eventually, but right now's probably the most risky time if it's nicked like I assume it was.

---------------------------------------

Now, dear readers, we all know in advance that Herlock Sholmes is going to say he can't understand any of this, it's gibberish, it's a joke, I'm a joke, etc., so let's ignore him (we know it's coming). What I want you all to do is let me know if you don't understand this point. I'm sure you do because it's incredibly simple, but just in case you don't, let me know. If you want to do so privately, please drop me a note to historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com.

Floundering badly alert!

It's you who need to read what I said properly, Ike.

I didn't claim that you said Barrett would be handing back "the original scrapbook" (which you are wrong to think is what I called "the stolen scrapbook"). In your own scenario, it was Barrett who was tamely handing back what was supposed to be the stolen diary. And in your scenario no-one mentioned a "scrapbook". According to you, the question was "Have you recently come into possession of an old book?" to which Barrett says "yes" and hands over a Victorian diary with blank pages.

Well, you actually said he handed over the "1891 diary" which only reflects your confusion as to what you were supposed to be addressing which was Mike's desire to acquire a diary from 1880 to 1890. When he formulated this plan in early March 1992 he couldn't possibly have been thinking of handing over an 1891 diary, so you are hopelessly muddled from the start.

That aside, your theory as set out in your #1293 involves the following:

1. Barrett knows that the Jack the Ripper diary was stolen (or, in your inefficient expression, "certainly liberated without the legal owner's knowledge").

2. Someone comes looking for it. You don't explain who.

3. Barrett is asked if he has recently come into possession of the stolen diary (which you refer to coyly and madly as "an old book" or, now, inconsistently, as "an old document").

4. Barrett says he has recently come into possession of such an item and hands over a genuine Victorian diary, clearly acknowledging it be stolen otherwise why is he handing it over?

That's why my accurate summary of your theory was that Barrett, "is admitting to being in possession of a stolen diary and is handing it back to its rightful owner".

Now that I've explained your own theory to you, and have already explained why it makes no sense, let's look at where you are going wrong in your latest post.

You say to me that Barrett would be denying that he had the "original scrapbook". But that is nowhere set out in your #1293. Nowhere do you say that Barrett is asked about a scrapbook and nowhere to you have Barrett denying that he had such a scrapbook. Surely there is a very good reason for that. For, if Barrett is asked "Do you have a stolen scrapbook?" and he replies "No", what is the point of him then producing, and handing over, an irrelevant Victorian diary? Because that's not what the person has just asked him about!

No doubt to get around this problem you worded the question in the way you did - "Have you recently come into possession of an old book?" - which, with the answer being yes, means that Barrett was not required to deny anything at all.

If you want to re-do your theory so that Barrett is first asked about an old scrapbook please do so, because I'd love to read it, but that's not what you did in your #1293 to which I was responding.

Your theory becomes even more muddled when you say that Barrett just needed to show the diary. Your own words were that he handed over the 1891 diary (i.e. "Yes, I have, and here it is" (handing over 1891 diary)." Now that's changed and simply showed his interrogator the 1891 diary.

So now I have no idea what is going on.

We need to recap to try and make sense of what you are now saying:

1. As of 9th March 1992, Barrett anticipates being chased by someone looking for the stolen Jack the Ripper diary/scrapbook/photograph album.

2. Barrett anticipates someone (magically) tracking him down and asking him if he has recently come into possession of that same stolen item.

3. Barrett plans to deny having recently come into possession of that stolen item.

4. Instead, Barrett is planning to say that while he hasn't recently come into possession of the stolen item being sought, as it happens, here's a funny thing, he did recently obtain a Victorian diary which happens to contain some blank pages (although he can't draw attention to this because he's not supposed to know anything about the stolen item) and will show it to the person, who will then go away.

Is that what you are telling me?

For, if that's the case, what is the purpose of him showing the Victorian diary? Surely all he needs to do is say that, no, he has not come into possession of the stolen item that the person is looking for. Clearly, the Victorian diary is not what the person is looking for and the fact that Mike might have recently obtained it makes absolutely no difference to the question of whether Barrett has received the stolen item that the person is seeking. Surely that is obvious. The Victorian diary has not assisted him one jot and has certainly not, in your scenario, enabled plausible deniability of anything.

So what was Mike's purpose in obtaining the Victorian diary? It's not making any sense. And why does he care about it having 20 blank pages? Because you're telling me he's not identifying his Victorian diary as the stolen item. So it doesn't need 20 blank pages! It doesn't need to resemble the stolen item at all. Because Mike isn't trying to pretend it's the stolen item.

Let's take a look at your final insight into Mike's thinking:

Barrett [thinks]: I really don't want to lose this scrapbook - it's clearly worth a fortune to me. What can I do to prevent having to give it back if I'm confronted by the owner, or the police? Well, I could obviously hide it. That's an obvious thing to do so I'll do that. Here's a cracking idea - maybe I could get hold of an old Victorian diary quick as chips and if anyone knocks at my door (pedant alert: or maybe contacts me in some other way) wanting it back I'll show them the one I buy and say that's the only old document I've received, ever. I'll even have the receipt to prove it. Then I'll tell them to '**** off and don't come back'. Nice one. I'll do that as well. It might not work, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. Obviously, I'll have to show the old scrapbook to people eventually, but right now's probably the most risky time if it's nicked like I assume it was.

What is immediately striking about this is that there is no mention of any blank pages. Instead, you have Mike thinking, "maybe I could get hold of an old Victorian diary quick as chips". But, Ike, that's the whole point. He didn't want an old Victorian diary unless it had a minimum of 20 blank pages. The fact that you've entirely wiped this crucial requirement from Mike's mind, shows how utterly inconvenient that requirement is to you.

The other problem in this scenario is that he didn't need a diary from 1880 to 1890. The Ripper scrapbook/photograph album itself is not dated other than by the diarist. So why does he care about getting a diary from that decade? It's entirely unnecessary if all he wants to be able to do is say "this is the only old document I've received".

So you haven't grappled with the problems you were supposed to be grappling with.

Plus, simply producing an irrelevant old diary doesn't provide him with any "plausible deniability" of being in possession of the stolen diary, does it? It is no more plausible than saying I've not received any old documents in my life. Why doesn't he just say this?

And then what is going to happen when he publishes the Jack the Ripper diary with Shirley? You say he thinks: "Obviously, I'll have to show the old scrapbook to people eventually, but right now's probably the most risky time if it's nicked like I assume it was." If he's going to get nicked, he's going to get nicked as soon as he admits to having the stolen diary isn't he?

Sorry, Ike, this is all utterly ridiculous. I'm not sure who envisage your "dear readers" to be but if you think they are going to swallow a single word of this you must think them to either be morons or children under the age of five.

It's pure Chewbacca: "None of this makes sense and because none of this makes sense you must believe it's what happened".