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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could you clarify where Keith wrote a very full and detailed description of the 1891 diary and made it clear he was fully aware of the context as to why Mike claimed he wanted the diary as I'm sure Keith will want to check the accuracy of your claim? You are presumably referring to Mike's January 5 1995 affidavit? In the affidavit, Mike puts the responsibility of buying the 1891 diary on to Anne and that when it arrived, Mike assessed its potential and rejected it because "...it was very small." On the strength of that information, are you of the opinion that Mike had absolutely nothing to do with Martin Earl (and that it was Anne who had any discussion with him)?

Now, I need to be clear that these are questions directly from Keith himself so I trust I have represented them accurately.

Now what are you babbling about?

Caz first posted Keith's full and detailed description of this diary on 4th August 2020 in #5701 of the "One Incontrovertible" thread, again on 7 September 2020 (#6108) and then for a third time on 24 June 2021 (#6295) which was actually the first time she revealed that it was Keith's description of the diary as opposed to the one Martin Earl gave Barrett.

I think you already knew this, Ike.

And of course when Keith wrote this description, unlike the supplier, he knew of the significance of the 1891 diary and that, according to Mike, it was originally intended to be used to create the fake Maybrick diary.

Please do check this with Keith. Knock yourself out.

As for your question asking me if Mike had "nothing to do with Martin Earl", I've never claimed this to be the case, so its baffling that you ask me.

I've always assumed that Martin Earl confirmed that he dealt with Mike Barrett rather than his wife and that this is what he told Keith Skinner. If that's not the case and Earl said he dealt with Anne, and sold her the diary, please do let me know because that would be important. But whether it was Mike or Anne doesn't matter for this purpose. The point is that when he wrote the description of the diary, Keith fully understood why it was significant to Barrett's forgery claim, not least because he was aware from as early as July 20th 1995, before he'd even seen the 1891 diary, that Mike was claiming that the receipt for that diary "proved Anne wrote the diary", yet he still didn't write "dates printed on every page" when he wrote his description of it.

And that itself is only illustrative of the fact that "dates printed on every page" cannot be assumed to be part of any full and detailed description of the diary.

As for the size, I've already explained what I think happened. As soon as the red diary arrived, and he took it out of the envelope, Mike saw that it was far too small to be of use. So, although when subsequently looking through the diary, he would have seen the printed dates, that was only a secondary factor. He'd already decided he couldn't use it. Speaking to Alan Gray more than 2 years later, and without the benefit of seeing the 1891 diary to refresh his memory, the thing that might easily have stood out in his memory was the size. That is understandable. I mean, there can't be any doubt that he saw the 1891 diary in March 1992, so he would definitely have known about the dates printed on every page. The only reason for him not mentioning the dates in 1995, whether he was lying or being truthful, can surely only be that he'd forgotten and that it was the small size that stood out in his memory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why would you ask if I am 'seriously' telling anyone this? Does it not strike everyone as the very core of the issue if one is seeking a diary from that period to write a hoaxed Jack the Ripper record into and one has been informed that an 1891 diary with blank pages is available? To be clear, then, let me state it this way: I am aware that Mike Barrett accepted an 1891 diary from Martin Earl and that - if he was seeking it to hoax a record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts into - I cannot foresee any scenario at all whereby he would fail to check that it was suitable for this purpose. If told that there was an 1891 diary available, it seems inexplicable to me that that simple level of detail would not be requested unless Barrett was genuinely not thinking straight (there's your Get Out of Gaol card, right there, by the way). I would add, however, that accepting such a diary is actually strong evidence that he had some other purpose for it than simply seeking to hoax a record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts into so it would take a great deal more than "he just wasn't thinking straight" to shift me on this. Others may be less sturdy.

Obviously, we are at cross purposes (as Keith has reminded us): you - aligned as you are to the Jan 5, 1995, affidavit - must actually believe that it was Anne who did all the hard yards. Does Anne strike anyone as stupid enough to order up an 1891 diary without asking first what evidence there is in it that it is for 1891 or was she simply not thinking straight rather than Mike? Or do you not believe that bit of Alan Gray's Jan 5, 1995, affidavit either?

I desperately want you to wake up to the very real scenario here whereby you have created a series of apologetics for Michael Barrett who - in reality - had nothing whatsoever to do with the hoaxing of the James Maybrick scrapbook (if hoax it be). I can see that I am making little progress which surely reflects very badly on one of us (if not both)?

The reason why I ask if you were "seriously" saying it, is that you cannot possibly be serious.

Have you never been in a conversation where you later think "Oh, it never occurred to me to ask"? It's absolute madness if you think that it couldn't possibly have failed to occur to him to Mike to ask if the pages he'd been told by Earl were "blank" were not in fact blank.

Also, as I've said about a million times, as much as you would like it to be the case, I'm not "aligned" to the Jan 5 1995 affidavit in any way. I've also said about a million times that it would have been drafted by Alan Gray who didn't fully understand what had happened in 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, of course you don't. But, then, you would say that, wouldn't you?

It's odd that you say this, Ike, because I invariably do respond to your posts and answer all your questions.

On this occasion, though, with your #1408, I literally couldn't understand a word of it. The first paragraph especially was impenetrable, and re-reading it I still haven't got a clue what it means. Then the multiple postscripts were bizarre and unfathomable. They were more indicative of someone losing his mind in a very public breakdown than a sane person putting forward any kind of rational argument

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's try again.

Your dialogue (above) is EXACTLY the dialogue Barrett might very well have had with Martin Earl. How are you getting on so far? Keeping up?

It is the dialogue of a man who does not need a document to write up a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper ... Still with me (James Maybrick died in May 1889, you see)?

... but - rather - is the dialogue of a man who wants a document he can produce if someone accuses him of recently coming into possession of a document bearing the records of Jack the Ripper's thoughts ... I know this is where I'll have lost you - but that's your one-way vision troubling you rather than my inability to explain a simple idea simply.

So your dialogue shows us clearly why a diary from 1889 or even 1890 was ordered and why one from 1891 was accepted: it was because he just wanted an insurance policy - plausible deniability if asked if he had recently come into possession of the record of Jack the Ripper's thoughts.

It's beautifully simplistic though I know in advance that even this simplicity will not seep into even the periphery of your one-way vision.

PS As I said the other day, yes, he would very soon have to show the real thing to Doreen Montgomery, but it was inevitable that the genie would be out of the bottle at that point whereas it was not necessarily inevitable that he would have to hand his priceless scrapbook back between mid-March and mid-April 1992 if he was able to source something he could try to pass off of an old document he had recently received which was marked by it having at least twenty blank pages. You can say it's gibberish or stupid or you can't understand it - do so all you like - but it works better than your desperately implausible notion that it is evidence that Barrett was creating an original hoaxed Jack the Ripper diary.

No, Ike, what I gave you was not "the dialogue of a man who wants a document he can produce if someone accuses him of recently coming into possession of a document bearing the records of Jack the Ripper's thoughts" because he was not being offered and was not agreeing to purchase, "a document bearing the records of Jack the Ripper's thoughts". You've also divorced the dialogue from its context which was that Mike had specifically asked Earl to find him a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages and was now being offered a diary outside of that period with nearly all its pages blank.

If someone (you don't say who) had accused him of recently coming into possession of a document bearing the records of Jack the Ripper's thoughts, I'm unable to see the purpose of him producing a nearly blank Victorian diary which did not bear the records of Jack the Ripper's thoughts. That's the part you need to explain to me. Don't just parrot "plausible deniability" because the diary he was purchasing wouldn't have enabled him to deny anything, let alone plausibly.

But it's pretty irrelevant really. You asked for a dialogue between the supplier and Earl and Earl and Barrett. Despite claiming that it would not be possible for anyone to produce such a dialogue, it took me a couple of minutes to produce one. That dialogue is entirely plausible. It might well have happened. It would explain why Mike accepted the 1891 diary. I don't care if it could also relate to a million other scenarios. The fact is that it is consistent with Mike seeking to obtain a diary in order to create an 1888 Ripper diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All Mike Barrett has to wonder is whether someone will come to his door stating that they understood that he had recently received an old Victorian document with Jack the Ripper's confession in and a load of blank pages at the back. They could say it was primarily black and had loads of oily stains on it. They might even say they thought there was a corner of a photograph torn off in the binding and even what looked like charcoal there too. They could say all of that, or they could say a lot less than that (I think they'd be a bit more circumspect given how unlikely it would have seemed that he had an alternative).

All Mike Barrett had to know was that he could simply deny all knowledge of such an old document - but, then, he wouldn't know that Eddie Lyons hadn't admitted that he'd sold it to Barrett.

All Mike Barrett then had to think was what could he possibly do to keep possession of the Maybrick scrapbook in the event that he felt really cornered. He could say that he did have it but that he'd thrown it away. He could certainly have said that.

Or he might have thought that it would be so much better if he could agree that he had recently received an old Victorian document which did indeed have a load of blank pages at the back (at this point, he could not know what the eventual purchase would look like). Maybe he could throw his accuser off his scent that way?

It doesn't matter what you and I thought was or think is rational.

Ah, we're back to the Chewbacca Defence. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, does this make sense? Think about it, Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Does that make sense? Of course it makes no sense. Absolutely none. And that is precisely why the diary is genuine".

We only need to imagine the possibility that Mike Barrett might have thought it was. That's all you have to get your head around whether you think my thinking it is 'barking mad' or not.

Yes, and it's impossible to imagine the possibility that Mike Barrett could have thought for even a millisecond that the only thing a person who suspected he might be in possession of a stolen "Victorian document with Jack the Ripper's confession in" knew about that document was that it had "a load of blank pages at the back". He has to genuinely think that this person, who knows about the blank pages, would have had no idea that it was also in large black leather bound volume which contained a load of pages with Jack the Ripper's handwriting in it. How could that even be possible for one second? Sorry, for one millisecond. It's nuts, Ike. Utterly nuts.

And then, even though this unnamed person was asking about a (stolen) Victorian document with Jack the Ripper's confession in, Mike is planning to say "Well, it's a funny thing, as it happens I recently purchased this here Victorian diary not half an hour ago from an Hoxfordshire establishment but it's not the one you're looking for, although it 'appens to 'ave some blank pages in it, and surely that proves that I don't have the one you're looking for because I have no interest in Victorian diaries.....er....well apart from the one I have in my hand right now".

Tell me, Ike, how will the production of such a diary in Mike's mind help him any better than if he just said "Eff off, I've never seen a Victorian diary with Jack the Ripper's confession in it, I don't have it, go away"?

Please tell me.

And I don't even understand why Mike's "scent throwing" Victorian diary even needs any blank pages, unless he's trying to tell his interrogator that he actually does have the document that the person is looking for which, in your new scenario, he isn't!

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way, Barrett Believers, if Earl's ad had stated 1880-1888, I'd have still been able to pursue my 'other Victorian document' theory, but - honestly - I'd have been stretching.

It is the phrasing of the ad which is inexplicable if he is seeking a diary to do his hoaxing worst in - as is the request for a 'diary'. And, then, he compounds this all by agreeing to take an 1891 diary - actions which can only be explained if he truly is stupendously thick (okay, we might be getting somewhere there ...).

But, then, he goes and reveals the truth in his Jan 5, 1995, affidavit. No forgetting dates this time - this time he reveals for the first time that his wife Anne Barrett had ordered an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepted an 1891 one without any difficult questions like "Would it actually work for a hoax?".

Nope, the ad should have said, "Brainless Scouse scally is seeking a DOCUMENT from no later than 1888 - the year that Jack the Ripper famously murdered those women in London and Manchester. Must have quite a lot of pages to write in. I wonder why?".

To save money, he could instead have just asked for, "Document from no later than 1888 with at least twenty blank consecutive pages".

The fact that he didn't simply has to be a problem for the Barrett Hoax Believers.

I think it's been explained about a million times that Mike was wanting a diary with genuine paper from the period so it didn't need to be from exactly 1888.

It's also been said about another million times, and I think you've even accepted, that the actual Jack the Ripper diary could be contained in a document manufactured in 1891.

This means the Ripper diary could be contained in what you would describe as "an impossible document" but we still can't say it's fake for that reason because there is no evidence on it of the year of manufacture.

Likewise, if Mike had acquired an 1890 diary with no evidence on it of the year of manufacture, he could have used it for an 1888 Ripper diary.

You seem to be reasonably intelligent, Ike, all things considered. How is it that you still haven't grasped this extremely simple concept?

[Iconoclast]

Where is that brewed nowadays? Not close to Newcastle I bet... last time I had a bottle of dog it was grim compared to when it was brewed in the North East.

Wiki says:

"Newcastle Brown Ale is no longer brewed in Newcastle. Initially brewed in Newcastle upon Tyne, production was moved to Tadcaster, North Yorkshire, at the John Smith's Brewery in 2010 [heresy!]. Heineken, who owns the brand, also brews it at their Zoeterwoude brewery in the Netherlands and, for the North American market, at Lagunitas Brewing Company's facilities in Petaluma, California, and Chicago, Illinois."

Of course, in the 1970s (when I first started going to the Cathedral on the Hill), it was brewed at the Scottish & Newcastle Breweries site across the road on Barrack Road and you could be intoxicated by the smell of malt wafting in the air long before you got the same from the skills of Malcolm MacDonald (by far the greatest player ever to wear the black and white shirt and the famous no. 9).

The day I first went to Edinburgh for the day (with my mate who wanted his USA visa stamped at the old American embassy) in the summer of 1987, I got out of his car at the old George Square car park (nowhere near the embassy) and was immediately assailed by the smell of malt in the air all the way from Scottish & Newcastle Breweries at Fountainbridge, not a million miles away from Tynecastle Park and the home of Heart of Midlothian, and I knew I was home. Bizarrely, three months later I fluked a place at Edinburgh University as a postgrad. Fate, me lads, t'was all Fate.

Also bizarrely, there's a chemical in a bottle of dog that seriously plays with my head - makes me go a bit mental. I really ought to call that stuff 'Maybrick'. Unlike this place, I tend to stay away from the original as much as I can ...

[Lombro2]

“The 1991 Diary was too small.”

These guys are admitting that Michael Barrett, and even Anne, after reading Tales of Liverpool and, doing months if not years of research, still didn’t know that Maybrick died in 1889.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“The 1991 Diary was too small.”

These guys are admitting that Michael Barrett, and even Anne, after reading Tales of Liverpool and, doing months if not years of research, still didn’t know that Maybrick died in 1889.

“The 1991 Diary was too small.”

I'm pretty sure you mean the 1891 diary, but can I ask you something Lombro.

Have you understood a single word of any of the posts I've made today?

Have you even read them?

Michael Barrett as the forger, of course, knew that James Maybrick died in 1889. But an 1891 diary without any markings of "1891" would have been perfectly suitable to to create an 1888 or 1889 diary.

Just to make you feel warm and comfortable: Caz has already accepted this.

[Lombro2]

Right, Mike knew what an office receipt stub book is but he didn’t know that, by saying diary, people usually think daily diary and, if someone says, I have an 1891 Diary, it’s probably a daily diary.

Reading alone doesn’t help comprehension when there is so much that is incomprehensible...

Stub book, stubby “stubs and pubs” savant Mike.

[Lombro2]

Here! Let me help you make it make sense?

”We got the 1891 Diary and knew right away, it wouldn’t work for Maybrick because he died in 1889. He couldn’t have ordered a diary and planned murders that far ahead.

“We thought for a while about switching to Jacob Levy who died in July of 1891. But then we got the journal and decided to go ahead with our original plan.”

Thank you, Michael, for your help making it make sense. Why didn’t you say that the first time? I believe you now.

[Scott Nelson]

Please take note and stop inventing things.

This from one of the biggest gaslighters on these threads. Why can't you just piss off?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This from one of the biggest gaslighters on these threads. Why can't you just piss off?

You keep throwing out that silly phrase in the complete absence of answers. You misquoted me and I pointed it out. Get over it and stop being so precious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right, Mike knew what an office receipt stub book is but he didn’t know that, by saying diary, people usually think daily diary and, if someone says, I have an 1891 Diary, it’s probably a daily diary.

Reading alone doesn’t help comprehension when there is so much that is incomprehensible...

Stub book, stubby “stubs and pubs” savant Mike.

Nothing in the text of the diary even hints that it's written in an "office receipt stub book", and the only person I've ever seen describe it as such is you.

Caz calls it "a scrapbook" so why not have a fight with her about what it's supposed to be?

Yes, an 1891 diary was likely to have been "a daily diary". One in which someone wrote their account of each day's events throughout the year of 1891. But that doesn't mean that the year 1891 would have been indelibly marked on it. As I've demonstrated, with examples, there are numerous historical diaries which don't have the dates or year(s) printed or stamped on them them. I even referred you to a 1900 diary in which the year 1900 appears nowhere in it, not even in the handwritten text, and certainly not on the cover. Perhaps Mike Barrett knew more about Victorian diaries than you do. Ever considered that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here! Let me help you make it make sense?

”We got the 1891 Diary and knew right away, it wouldn’t work for Maybrick because he died in 1889. He couldn’t have ordered a diary and planned murders that far ahead.

“We thought for a while about switching to Jacob Levy who died in July of 1891. But then we got the journal and decided to go ahead with our original plan.”

Thank you, Michael, for your help making it make sense. Why didn’t you say that the first time? I believe you now.

Tell you what, Lombro, why don't you ask Caz if it makes sense?

She's already accepted that it does.

You and Ike may be the only two people in the world who pretend they can't grasp what is, after all, a very simple concept.