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

[Lombro2]

First you say that they had to pay for the red diary because it was "as described". Then you say they may not have described it fully or clearly, but they still had to pay for it.

They couldn't send it back when it had 1891 on every page, whether or not "as described", and was "useless" in your estimation? That is the only possible reason for them to keep it?

Caz, are you agreeing with them that they had to pay for the diary because "buyer beware" of misunderstandings? This must be the first time you agree with them then. They must be happy after all those drubbings.

[Herlock Sholmes]

First you say that they had to pay for the red diary because it was "as described". Then you say they may not have described it fully or clearly, but they still had to pay for it.

They couldn't send it back when it had 1891 on every page, whether or not "as described", and was "useless" in your estimation? That is the only possible reason for them to keep it?

Caz, are you agreeing with them that they had to pay for the diary because "buyer beware" of misunderstandings? This must be the first time you agree with them then. They must be happy after all those drubbings.

Lombro, I have to ask: have you actually been reading my posts or are you just guessing at what I've said?

Nowhere I have stated about the red diary that Martin Earl or his supplier "may not have described it fully or clearly". In fact, I've said the very opposite. They did provide a full description of the diary.

Just look at my #1401 for proof of this. In that post I wrote:

"The unknown supplier of the diary undoubtedly did provide a full description of the 1891 diary."

The point is that a full description of the 1891 did not need include the words "the dates are printed on every page", just like a description of any book sold by Martin Earl would undoubtedly not have included the description "there are words printed on every page".

Good evidence of this is found in the fact that Keith Skinner wrote a full and detailed description of the red diary which did not include the words "the dates are printed on every page", even though, unlike Martin Earl's supplier, he was fully aware of the significance of that diary to Mike's forgery claims.

Nowhere have I said that the red diary was useless. It wasn't, but it was useless for the purposes of forging an 1888 Jack the Ripper diary. That's not something which Mike could have complained about.

What Caz has accepted is something different, namely that an 1891 diary could, in theory, have been used to create an 1888 Jack the Ripper diary.

[Lombro2]

But then they received it in the mail.

You must think nobody understands or is attentive. That way you can talk over them and sound convincing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But then they received it in the mail.

You must think nobody understands or is attentive. That way you can talk over them and sound convincing.

Yes, Lombro, the 1891 diary was, indeed, sent to 12 Goldie Street in the post. Well done for working that out.