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

[Iconoclast]

Please. Make. It. Make. Sense. Man!

[Yabs]

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?

I guess it depends how the diary’s description was passed along from third party to Earl and from Earl to Barrett.
It certainly wasn’t by forwarding emails and screenshots so was Earl just passing on a description given by phonecall via another phonecall to Barrett?
What we do know is that the red diary fitted Barrett’s request in every way except it was dated slightly later than the requested time bracket.
Before making his request Barrett no doubt thought that “blank pages” meant exactly that, wasn’t expecting dated blank pages, and if he was told it was from 1891 perhaps he thought all he had to do is remove a date from the front cover.
Without knowing exactly how it was described to the budding writer, who presented to the world the ripper diary we’ll never know.

[Iconoclast]

I guess it depends how the diary’s description was passed along from third party to Earl and from Earl to Barrett.
It certainly wasn’t by forwarding emails and screenshots so was Earl just passing on a description given by phonecall via another phonecall to Barrett?
What we do know is that the red diary fitted Barrett’s request in every way except it was dated slightly later than the requested time bracket.
Before making his request Barrett no doubt thought that “blank pages” meant exactly that, wasn’t expecting dated blank pages, and if he was told it was from 1891 perhaps he thought all he had to do is remove a date from the front cover.
Without knowing exactly how it was described to the budding writer, who presented to the world the ripper diary we’ll never know.

Okay, but do the dialogue between the supplier and Earl and then Earl and Barrett. Actually do the dialogue.

You won't be able to.

It's an impossible scenario. I've tried but apparently imagining dialogue tells us nothing, and yet the lack of a dialogue tells us everything!

[Iconoclast]

Just saying "this could have happened" and "that could have happened" is just another way of saying that you do not have any idea whatsoever about how such an impossible scenario could - in the real world - have played out.

So you have to ignore the difficult bit (the actual discussions) and just wish-it-all-away with casual dismissals.

[Iconoclast]

Supplier: Good news, we have located a diary with blank pages.
Earl: That's brilliant news - I'll let the customer know.
...
Earl: Good news, I have located a diary with blank pages.
Barrett (Anne or Mike): That's brilliant news, thank you.

Now, was that the sum of the two conversations or do we need to add in any more dialogue?

Do let us know, Barrett-Believers and Apologists.

PS Oh, and do ensure that your additional dialogue is consistent with the supplier and Earl being true professionals whose profitability depended upon just this sort of transaction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Ike,

The question of why Mike accepted an 1891 diary is over. It's closed. Caz has already told you that an 1891 diary could have been used to create an 1888 diary. You've not challenged her. If you continue to puzzle over this question, I suggest you take it up directly with her. That's the debate we all want to see.

The unknown supplier of the diary undoubtedly did provide a full description of the 1891 diary. I don't know why you think he did not. But a "full description" of the diary doesn't include the words "the date printed on every page".

If you don't believe me, why don't you just ask Keith Skinner? Because he wrote a very full and detailed description of the 1891 diary which did not include those words! And, unlike the supplier of the 1891 diary, he was fully aware of the context as to why Mike claimed he wanted the diary.

You might as well ask why Martin Earl didn't tell his clients that the books he sold had words printed on every page. Do you think that kind of level of detail would be provided in a book description by a telephone book seller?

In a trade of second hand books, the key element of the description is the condition because that's where the value is. Other things such as colour, size and number of pages are secondary but will, of course, have been included in any description, as would the year of publication (or diary year). We can be pretty sure that Mike was told that almost all the pages in the 1891 diary were blank, because, apart from the year, that was his one requirement, and, as a result, we can conclude that THAT was the thing he focused on in his mind which would have made him think that the diary might be useable if he could just see it with his own eyes

[Herlock Sholmes]

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).

You know, Ike, it takes a certain kind of personality to be so utterly humiliated and resoundingly defeated on a certain issue but then to pretend that humiliating defeat didn't happen.

Let me remind you of what Caz said 12 days ago in her #1142:

"The one located, for the year 1891, met the definition of a 'partly used diary', with nearly all its pages unused, so in theory it could have had no printed dates, as long as at least one of the used pages had contained a diary entry dated by hand."

So, according to Caz, an 1891 diary was clearly not an "impossible year" for an 1888 diary.

If you are going to boringly continue to label 1891 as "an impossible year", why don't you take up the issue with her?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, but do the dialogue between the supplier and Earl and then Earl and Barrett. Actually do the dialogue.

You won't be able to.

It's an impossible scenario. I've tried but apparently imagining dialogue tells us nothing, and yet the lack of a dialogue tells us everything!

What are you babbling about, Ike? Do you really need someone to give you fictional dialogues before you can understand anything?

It's not difficult:

Supplier to Earl: "I don't have any diaries from 1880 to 1890 but I do have an 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book in good condition, size 2.25 inches by 4 inches with a red or maroon cover and four days to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and, at the end of the diary, are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'. I'll sell it to you for [£20]".

Earl to Barrett: "I haven't been able to locate any diaries from 1880 to 1890 but I can offer you an 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book in good condition, size 2.25 inches by 4 inches with a red or maroon cover and four days to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and, at the end of the diary, are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'. The cost to you will be £25."

Barrett to Earl: "Okay if that's all you can find I'll take it. It's great that nearly all the pages are blank which is what I asked for. Please send immediately and I'll pay once received."

Earl to Barrett: "No problem, will do."

Happy now?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello Caz,

Congratulations for remembering a post of mine and stripping it of all context.

In the post you are referring to (#1088) I was asking Ike a specific question which was: "would it be fair to say that if Mike had NOT been told by Martin Earl that there were irremovable printed dates on each page and that the year of 1891 was irremovably emblazoned on the diary’s cover, he could reasonably have expected to have used the 1891 diary he was being offered as an 1888 Ripper diary?"

I only wanted an answer to this question which dealt specifically with "an 1888 Ripper diary", i.e. a hypothetical 1888 Ripper diary, not THE 1888 Ripper diary that we all know and love.

I then added a sentence in parenthesis to avoid that point being lost and the question being jumbled up between the hypothetical and the actual. I said:

(Let's ignore the size because a small diary could still have been used to create an 1888 Ripper diary, even if not the one which was presented to Doreen.)

It's funny how you remember only the first four words of that sentence but have forgotten the rest of it, and the entire context.

I've dealt with the issue of the diary size many times. I do not ignore it. Normally I'd repeat it but, like you always tell me, you can search for it yourself in the archives if you're interested in my views.

And you can keep on wondering to your heart's content why Mike didn't ask for this and didn't ask for that but the fact of the matter is that what he did ask for is a diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages and, to your obvious frustration, you can't explain why he did so.

You only have to explain two things, Caz: the period 1880-1890 and the minimum of 20 blank pages. Your last attempt failed to explain, or even mention, either!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Caz,

As you've replied to Ike's post from this morning, can I expect a reply to a post I asked you in this thread three days ago (#1342) as to what you can hear on the "fifty fifty" tape recording? A post which repeated questions I first asked you in the other diary hoax thread three months ago, on April 15th 2025 (#767).

As I find it hard to believe that Seth Linder had a better copy of the recordings than Keith Skinner, I'm wondering if Linder made notes of those recordings in which he filled in the gaps of things he couldn't hear, based on what he thought might have been said, but later, when the book was being written, forgot he'd done this and muddled up his own speculation with what he could hear on the recording. That's why it's important that you tell us what you can hear on the recording so that we know we're all listening to the same thing.

This is particularly important now that you seem to want to continue to claim that Mike said that he wrote the diary manuscript fifty/fifty with Anne, as opposed to the diary, because I don't hear anything of the sort being said on the recording myself.

[rjpalmer]

and if he was told it was from 1891 perhaps he thought all he had to do is remove a date from the front cover.

Of course. But apparently that is a forbidden thought.

We must banish it from our minds, even though Dr. Baxendale reported that some sort of label had been 'peeled' from the cover of the photo album Barrett soon afterwards brought to market.

[Iconoclast]

Barrett to Earl: So the pages are blank, brilliant. Blank as in there are no dates on each page?
Earl: I didn’t ask.
Barrett: It’s kind of critical. Could you ask?
Earl: Easily, of course.
Barrett: Okay, please do that and get back to me.
Earl: No problem, at all quick 'phone call and I'll get back to you.

[Iconoclast]

What are you babbling about, Ike? Do you really need someone to give you fictional dialogues before you can understand anything?

It's not difficult:

Supplier to Earl: "I don't have any diaries from 1880 to 1890 but I do have an 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book in good condition, size 2.25 inches by 4 inches with a red or maroon cover and four days to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and, at the end of the diary, are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'. I'll sell it to you for [£20]".

Earl to Barrett: "I haven't been able to locate any diaries from 1880 to 1890 but I can offer you an 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book in good condition, size 2.25 inches by 4 inches with a red or maroon cover and four days to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and, at the end of the diary, are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'. The cost to you will be £25."

Barrett to Earl: "Okay if that's all you can find I'll take it. It's great that nearly all the pages are blank which is what I asked for. Please send immediately and I'll pay once received."

Earl to Barrett: "No problem, will do."

Happy now?

By the way, this is EXACTLY the dialogue that almost certainly did happen because Barrett was NOT seeking a document to create a hoaxed record of JtR’s thoughts. Thank you for clarifying that. But what would he have asked if he WAS seeking a document to create a hoax?

PS Oh God, frantic edit for the pedants: because neither Barrett nor his wife were attempting to create a hoaxed record of JtR's thoughts. (You have to get in quick with the pedant army.)

PPS Not convinced this is unambiguous enough for the pedants so let's go with: because Barrett wanted a document of a similar time period with a similar number of blank pages to the Maybrick scrapbook he had suddenly come into possession of.

PPPS Oh God, that'll still not be precise enough for the pedants so let's go with: because Barrett wanted a document of a similar time period with a similar number of blank pages to the Maybrick scrapbook he had suddenly come into possession of so that he could show that to anyone accusing him of having recently come into possession of an old document with Jack the Ripper's 'diary' in.

PPPPS Because Barrett wanted a document of a similar time period with a similar number of blank pages to the Maybrick scrapbook he had suddenly come into possession of so that he could show that to anyone accusing him of having recently come into possession of an old document with Jack the Ripper's 'diary' in. He wouldn't be giving it to anyone - merely showing them it to show that he had indeed recently acquired such a document. He even had the invoice to prove it was 'recent' if he needed to go there.

Have I covered all of the possible hole-picking possibilities in my attempt to be brief?

[Iconoclast]

So Barrett accepted the 1891 diary because:

1) He was not seeking to create a hoaxed record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts - though, for all he knew, that's exactly what he had recently acquired from Eddie Lyons; and
2) By the time he was having the second conversation with Martin Earl at the end of March, almost 3 weeks had passed and - as no-one had so far come to his door - he was inevitably less worried about it happening. He still took it for insurance purposes (his original intention still prevailing), but you can imagine how much less concerned he was that a knock was going to come to his door.

This is such a better interpretation of his known actions than that he did not think to clarify if the 1891 diary had 1891 emblazoned all over it.

Discussion closed. The Barrett hoax theory is dead in the water, where it has actually always been.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Barrett to Earl: So the pages are blank, brilliant. Blank as in there are no dates on each page?
Earl: I didn’t ask.
Barrett: It’s kind of critical. Could you ask?
Earl: Easily, of course.
Barrett: Okay, please do that and get back to me.
Earl: No problem, at all quick 'phone call and I'll get back to you.

So your entire objection to the 1891 diary hinges on the fact that, in your mind, Barrett simply must have asked the question: "Blank as in there are no dates on each page?". You cannot conceive of any possible alternative scenario in which Barrett did not ask that question? Is that seriously what you're telling us?