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.

[Iconoclast]

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.

But Keith did write (as far as I can tell from Caz's post on the Incontrovertible thread which you directed us all to):

'...a small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book… 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page'.



I'm struggling to understand why what Keith wrote is not effectively the same as what you said he didn't write. I think a lot of my dear readers will be similarly perplexed by this.

[John Wheat]

The Diary wasn't written by James Maybrick most notably because it contains the phrase one off which was not in use in 1888.

It is clear to all but a few that Anne and Mike Barrett wrote the diary because Mike Barrett admitted to being one of the writers of the Diary. Also it is noteworthy that the writing bears a significant resemblance to Anne's writing although it is clear she has attempted to disguise the handwriting. I believe there is currently a discussion on JTR Forums about this. Also Mike Barrett was looking for Victorian Diary's and it is obvious he was doing this because he wanted to create the fake diary.

I have made this post as others have asked for a lengthier post from me explaining my position. Although frankly it was a bit of a chore and I'm expecting some to try and shoot down the post.

[Iconoclast]

I have made this post as others have asked for a lengthier post from me explaining my position. Although frankly it was a bit of a chore and I'm expecting some to try and shoot down the post.

It absolutely comes with the territory - when you post, your post will get deconstructed by someone because they may not agree with the premises which underpin your conclusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Keith did write (as far as I can tell from Caz's post on the Incontrovertible thread which you directed us all to):

'...a small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book… 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page'.



I'm struggling to understand why what Keith wrote is not effectively the same as what you said he didn't write. I think a lot of my dear readers will be similarly perplexed by this.

I know he did, Ike. But he didn't say that 1891 was printed on every page.

And, of course, Keith Skinner's description of the diary wasn't what was read to Mike Barrett.

As I said, when Keith Skinner wrote his description, he was fully aware of the significance of the 1891 diary in respect of Mike's forgery claim. So he highlighted what he thought was important. Martin Earl's supplier wouldn't have been similarly aware and would have had different priorities.

Have you noticed that Keith didn't think to mention the colour of the diary in his description? Nor did he include anything about the condition of the diary, something which would surely have been a priority for Earl's supplier. Also, nothing is said about the font colour of the print in the diary. Why? No doubt because that doesn't seem to be relevant but if someone had particularly wanted a diary with the dates in a blue font colour it would have been important.

When I wrote my own supplier description, at your suggestion, in the invented dialogue, I described it as an: "1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book... four days to a page." That is very similar to what Keith wrote but even more ambiguous, yet it could easily have been what Earl's supplier said in his own description, not understanding that, for Mike, the pages needed to be literally blank with nothing at all on them.

Keith also said in his description that: "Nearly all of the pages are blank". So he regarded the pages in your image as blank. Are those pages blank or are they not blank? Different people could answer that question differently. It's a matter of perspective and shows how the same words could potentially mean different things to different people, especially if they hold different beliefs as to what a historical diary looks

[Iconoclast]

I would ask you what Keith could possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ but you won’t give the answer that everyone else would give because that’s not where your argument is going.

That said, what could Keith possibly have meant when he said ‘dated 1891 throughout’ if NOT ‘printed on every page’?