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

[Iconoclast]

I happen to consider it possible that Anne and Mike Barrett didn't write the diary, and I certainly don't think Maybrick wrote it.

Hi Scotty,

This is a point which needs to be emphasised and what have you: If you don't believe that James Maybrick wrote the James Maybrick scrapbook then it does not follow that you therefore assume that Mike and Anne Barrett wrote it. I think those who do therefore believe that Mike and Anne Barrett created the James Maybrick scrapbook are simply homing-in on the only people they can think of. Yes, Mike Barrett claimed he and Anne created it but - deep down - no-one really trusts a word he ever said, and the only evidence they can produce in support of it is Mike's ordering of an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepting an 1891 one which - obviously - makes a mockery of the claim that he was planning a last-minute hoax having got Doreen Montgomery on the hook.

If you don't have a copy of Cluedo, don't worry, there's a new game out called Semantics in which you win by being the biggest pedant in the room which will suit certain people around here. Claiming that Mike Barrett wasn't listening when Martin Earl said he had located an 1891 diary gets you 10 points. Claiming that he must have thought an 1891 diary meant a notebook with no printed dates in it will earn you 5 points. Claiming that he planned to cover over somehow any years in the 1891 diary but didn't ask how many there were will earn you 3 points.

But be careful that your opponents don't play their Reality Check card! If they do, and you can't explain why the original supplier had not fully described the totally useless tiny 1891 diary to Martin Earl and therefore why Martin Earl had not fully described the totally useless tiny 1891 diary to Michael Barrett (ensuring that he very much was listening by repeating this fact until he acknowledged it because his business would soon collapse if he wasn't a little less indolent than people around here have attempted to argue) will wipe out 25 points from your tally - one for every pound Mrs Barrett ended up having to pay to keep her husband out of gaol.

My favourite is the Desperation card which you can play at any time by simply coming-up with desperately implausible reasons for why people do things we know they have done. For example, explaining why Napoleon led his forces into a Russian winter will get you 7 points. You can then Double Down by explaining why Hitler did exactly the same thing (another 7 points). Or you can earn a whopping 150 points and thereby be allowed to say (this is Semantics, after all!) you've won the game by explaining why Mike Barrett effectively sought an 1889 to 1890 diary and then accepted an 1891 one for a man who may have committed certain well-known murders in 1888 and who definitely died in 1889 without finding out for certain whether it would do the job or not.

But watch out for the Contradiction card which allows any player to offer a plausible explanation for any irrational explanation you've offered - they gain 10 of your points!

Watch out too that you don't inadvertently pick up or receive the Muddy Mud card, though, everyone. RJ has passed it on successfully a while ago - but to whom? Work that out and it's another 25 points!

Semantics: The Game for Making Up the Rules as You Go Along!
Iconoclast Enterprises
Available in all good stationers, auctioneers, and certain websites

[Iconoclast]

If you are interested in purchasing the brilliant Semantics, I should clarify that it goes under different names in different countries. For example, in the Independent State of Geordieland, it is known as Bongo: The Game Where Logic Gans Reet Oot the Winda, Man.

If you want to take advantage of our Summertime Special offer and get 99% off the RRP, just present the code HONESTLYILLBELIEVEANYTHING2025.

PS I should have added that the RRP is £10,000.

[caz]

Morning Ike,

A reminder may be in order of what Mike claimed about this little red herring in his affidavit:

'In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary... she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of £25... When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small.'

I seem to recall reading a post by Herlock, which ended with a small passage in parentheses, beginning: ['Let's ignore the size...'] and for some reason I immediately thought of a loser applying to be a 1970s male porn star. But I digress.

The Michael B who is the star of our story could not, and did not, ignore the size of the red diary when it arrived. He gave it as his reason for deciding it was of no use to anyone planning to write Maybrick's diary.

I also seem to recall the second Michael B acknowledging that a full description given to Mike over the phone would have included the size of the 1891 diary. I don't know whether it did or didn't, and we know where assumption can lead, but if Mike was given no indication of size and didn't think to ask, if he may have missed or misheard what was said, or if it was misdescribed as larger than it turned out to be, then I wonder what Michael B2's explanation will be in either case? Did Mike only realise that page size was rather important for his funny little hoax when he saw the funny little diary?

Why did Mike not tell Martin Earl that he wanted an unused or partly used personal diary - you know, the kind of diary people used for writing, possibly at length, about events that had already happened and the writer's thoughts and feelings, and not one for planning ahead, jotting down birthdays, public holidays, weddings or other social events, meetings and appointments, which would not typically have had the space to ramble on about anything? Did he ask about the payment options if anything was located, or was it case of suck it and see?

Love,

Caz
X

[Yabs]

Considering it was a third party that was in possession of the red diary, had Martin Earl even seen the diary when he described it to Barrett?
Would Martin Earl only order and see the diary once Barrett had agreed to take it and was Earl just passing on a description given to himself by the owner?
If so, who knows how accurate or detailed his description of the diary was.

[Iconoclast]

Given that this was their business, Yabs, how accurate do you imagine they would be? Would the supplier mention at any point that it was for 1891? And would they mention that it was very small?

Or would the two parties have just said and accepted “We’ve got a diary and it’s got blank pages in it?”.

How do you see that discussion going? (And please bear in mind that I am playing my Reality Check card here so you have to give a believable, plausible answer to secure any points.)

[Yabs]

Even in this modern day of the internet we refine our searches all the time.
Im sure we’ve all searched online and google has returned results that have a lot of irrelevance- so, we search again and fine tune our search to eliminate results that we don’t want.
Without the benefit of the internet-
Requesting a blank, or partially blank diary from 1880-1890 with at least 20 blank pages is certainly a good starting point if intending to forge a Victorian diary.
Had Barrett not found an alternative then maybe his next refined search would have including book size or a request for undated blank pages.
I think an 1891 diary would absolutely be worth a punt for someone who didn’t have the luxury of seeing it before ordering it.

[rjpalmer]

Considering it was a third party that was in possession of the red diary, had Martin Earl even seen the diary when he described it to Barrett?
Would Martin Earl only order and see the diary once Barrett had agreed to take it and was Earl just passing on a description given to himself by the owner?

You are correct, Yabs.

But there is no evidence that Martin Earl EVER saw the red diary. In another post, we are informed by C.A.B. that Earl's customers were often sent their orders directly from the third party.

Thus, we have a man who never actually saw the diary describing it to an impetuous day drinker, but are supposed to believe there was no chance of Barrett jumping to a wrong conclusion, the diary being inadequately described, etc. etc.

It's ridiculous. The only part of this transaction that is adequately documented is the advertisement placed by Earl, showing what Barrett wanted to obtain just prior to his visit to London.

The rest is smoke & mirrors.

[Iconoclast]

Even in this modern day of the internet we refine our searches all the time.
Im sure we’ve all searched online and google has returned results that have a lot of irrelevance- so, we search again and fine tune our search to eliminate results that we don’t want.
Without the benefit of the internet-
Requesting a blank, or partially blank diary from 1880-1890 with at least 20 blank pages is certainly a good starting point if intending to forge a Victorian diary.
Had Barrett not found an alternative then maybe his next refined search would have including book size or a request for undated blank pages.
I think an 1891 diary would absolutely be worth a punt for someone who didn’t have the luxury of seeing it before ordering it.

And I have a bridge to sell you, mate.

You are trying far far too hard to win playing these Benefit of the Doubt cards and Special Pleading cards - there are only so many in each box, you know!

There is no 'good starting point' in seeking a diary from 1889 or 1890 and then compounding your stupidity by accepting one from 1891 and no amount of bollocks can in reality turn my auntie into my uncle.

He clearly wasn't that fussed about the year of the diary, Yabs - so we can conclude from this that he just needed one from as close to 1888 as possible. I appreciate that that will be frustrating you so much that you are willing to bend the rules of the game, but this is Bongo not Bendo so you have lost, I'm afraid. Better luck next time.

[Iconoclast]

You are correct, Yabs.

But there is no evidence that Martin Earl EVER saw the red diary. In another post, we are informed by C.A.B. that Earl's customers were often sent their orders directly from the third party.

Thus, we have a man who never actually saw the diary describing it to an impetuous day drinker, but are supposed to believe there was no chance of Barrett jumping to a wrong conclusion, the diary being inadequately described, etc. etc.

It's ridiculous. The only part of this transaction that is adequately documented is the advertisement placed by Earl, showing what Barrett wanted to obtain just prior to his visit to London.

The rest is smoke & mirrors.

When you say 'it's ridiculous', it would be great if you weren't simultaneously referring to something that genuinely is ridiculous. Just bending the rules to try to get that pesky 1891 diary into the frame somehow.

[Iconoclast]

I'd love a Barrett Believer to give us an imagined dialogue between the supplier and Earl and then Earl and Barrett in which this tiny 1891 diary being ordered is the end product.

[Iconoclast]

The Michael B who is the star of our story could not, and did not, ignore the size of the red diary when it arrived. He gave it as his reason for deciding it was of no use to anyone planning to write Maybrick's diary.

And yet this in itself was simply untrue: there are no rules (that I am aware of) in this world which state that a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper has to be a certain size. It may have been very small, but what was to stop him creating a smaller diary of Jack the Ripper to fit the pages he had available to him if he was in such need of a suitable document?

No, it wasn't the size of the diary that was the issue for his affidavit, it was the impossible year that was emblazoned on every page of the tiny wee thing.

So the obvious reason for his neglecting 'Anne's' 1891 diary is ignored (of course he was never going to mention that bit!) and the size (which was irrelevant) becomes the reason for him discarding it in the expectation that an auction at O&L in a few days time would provide him with the size of document his unwritten hoax required in his brilliant, creative mind (him being a journalist and all).

[rjpalmer]

Hi Scotty,

This is a point which needs to be emphasised and what have you: If you don't believe that James Maybrick wrote the James Maybrick scrapbook then it does not follow that you therefore assume that Mike and Anne Barrett wrote it. I think those who do therefore believe that Mike and Anne Barrett created the James Maybrick scrapbook are simply homing-in on the only people they can think of.

Where, when, and why did you come up with this brainstorm, Ike?

It's utter drivel. Even the diary's first great debunker, Melvin Harris 'thought of' other suspects, including Tony Devereux and Gerard Kane. Other names people dreamed up have included a well-known 'Ripperologist,' whose name I will not mention, and a friend of Steve Powell's. I've heard Harry Dam's name mentioned.

To my mind, Mike and Anne are the prime suspects because the evidence indicates that they should be the prime suspects.

Is the only reason you think Maybrick wrote it (which he obviously didn't) because he's the only name you can think of?

Do get more sleep, Old Man. We worry about you.

[Iconoclast]

Where, when, and why did you come up with this brainstorm, Ike?

I was referring to the modern-day armchair warriors, RJ, though I accept I didn't make that clear.

[Iconoclast]

1891, man!!!!!!!!!!

[Iconoclast]

It totally buggers up any argument that Mike Barrett was planning a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper and - deep down in places you don't talk about at parties - you know it.