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’?

[rjpalmer]

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.

It's already been asked and answered, Ike, but isn't it extremely relevant to point out that---unlike Martin Earl---Keith gave his description of the maroon diary knowing that Barrett had presented the world with a sensational document purporting to be from 1888-1889 and thus much hinged on whether the diary was "dated 1891 throughout"?

Hindsight is 20/20.

There is no evidence that Earl had seen this diary--he was passing along information from a third party--and, although he would certainly have informed Barrett that the diary was from 1891, he couldn't have known Barrett's intention was to forge a diary from 1888-1889 so he would hardly have thought to warn Barrett of its unsuitability for this purpose!!!


And it is even less likely that Earl would stress printed dates considering that Barrett gave him an eleven-year range of acceptable years, 1880-1890, so specific dating hadn't been requested or stressed. As long as the diary was in the ballpark and more or less blank, Earl would have assumed it met Barrett's needs and not given any particular thought to the dates being repeated "throughout."

You're confusing an ex post facto description given by a fully cognizant observer (Keith) with an unknown one given by a man who was mainly in the dark (Martin Earl).

Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

You're confusing an ex post facto description given by a fully cognizant observer (Keith) with an unknown one given by a man who was mainly in the dark (Martin Earl).Cheers.

You're either not keeping up, RJ, or you are being deliberately evasive.

What I was doing was pointing out that what Herlock said Keith had NOT said was actually pretty much EXACTLY what he did say. This has nothing to do with Martin Earl or anyone else. This was about a poster making a claim about what someone did NOT say when - unless the pedant police have lost their cell keys - no-one could possibly be drawing that conclusion.

• Herlock stated that Keith had NOT said, "the dates are printed on every page".
• Keith actually stated, "dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page".

Are you claiming to be that guy who says the words weren't the same therefore neither was the sentiment everyone else understood from them?

And let's not do the 'talk about something else as if that was the point' thing when you know your pal has been caught with his pants down. It's quite unbecoming of you, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

And let's not do the 'talk about something else as if that was the point' thing when you know your pal has been caught with his pants down. It's quite unbecoming of you, RJ.

Any attempt to equate Keith's known description with Earl's unknown description has limited value, Ike, and I think that's worth stressing even if it falls outside the limited scope of your on-going argument with Herlock. Your debate is somewhat akin to theorizing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, since we have no idea what was actually said by the Earl of Oxford.

And while I understand the pedantic "gotcha!" point you're trying to make, I already wrote a day or two ago, "I think what Herlock is suggesting is that if Earl had said something along the lines of "nearly all the pages are blank" (as Keith did) Barrett might have assumed that the pages had no print on them. In Keith's description he does say 'three or four dates to a page" but we don't know that Earl made a similar comment and even if he did, Barrett might have understood this to mean handwritten dates on blank paper."

Your insistence that Barrett couldn't reasonably assume that he meant handwritten dates on blank paper is based on your assumption that you and Barrett share the same strict definition of what a 'diary' is, but I don't think there is any reasonable reason to believe that. And if these were handwritten dates, that would mean (to Barret's mind) that other pages were entirely blank.

(We also have Yab's point to consider: that some memoranda books have blank pages in the back)

That's how I see it.

But I've said my piece and will stay out of it, as I have little interest in wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Cheers.