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

[rjpalmer]

***bump***

I understand that Keith doesn't care to cooperate with Diary skeptics, but if he's monitoring these boards, I wonder if he could confirm what hospital or clinic Anne Graham worked at 'near Sydney' in around 1973-1975?

Shirley Harrison implies that it was at the 'Caringbah Hospital,' but no such hospital exists, and it is not clear from Shirley's writing if Anne confirmed this, or whether it was just Steve Powell's suggestion.

I can eventually find out on my own, as Australian nurses needed to register each year, and these registration papers almost certainly still exist, but it would save time.

Thanks.

[caz]

What I said was a simple statement of fact. Don't you like facts?

Or are you perhaps confusing me with Keith Skinner?

Didn't Keith once call for Anne Graham's handwriting to be analyzed, and didn't he even say that the diary's supporters should pay for it?

Was he similarly wasting everyone's time twenty years ago when he made a similar 'complaint'?

My own comment was to challenge a false impression. You have stated many times that the diary cannot be shown to be in either Maybrick's handwriting nor in Mike's nor Anne's. Sometimes you're more adamant than that.

Yet, this is deceptive; the best handwriting experts and document examiners in the world specifically checked Maybrick's handwriting against the diary and kicked it to the curb, whereas no such comparison was ever made to Mike or Anne's. The experts weren't asked--for obvious reasons. Therefore, it's a false equivalency, but I suspect you knew that when you wrote it.

I certainly don't know that a highly qualified handwriting expert couldn't compare disguised handwriting against a person's 'normal' handwriting and come up with a compelling or intelligent assessment. Some claim (including, if I recall, Dr. Giles) that a person can't entirely disguise their handwriting. So yes, I think it is possible, and would be worth doing, but the question is whether it would be conclusive in a legal sense. That's a big problem, isn't it?

Can you appreciate that any such attempt at a comparison would almost certainly lead to legal complications? I suspect Anne Graham wouldn't like it, and we would have to rely on Keith's treasure trove of examples of Anne's writing, so he, too, might find himself entangled unless he could obtain Anne's explicit permission. [If I recall, you yourself complained, didn't you, when David 'Orsam' uploaded a sample of Anne's private correspondence?] So, while I suspect someone with Dr. Giles' experience could attempt such a comparison, and give us an intelligent assessment, would they be willing to go on record and risk a libel suit if it can't be conclusively proven?

Maybe that's why Keith never proceeded with this twenty years ago?

So, you're quite right. All we have is amateur opinion. It is very likely that is all we will ever have¹. And your own opinion falls squarely into that category: amateur.

I wish I could be as confident as you are that the writing isn't Anne's. I really wish I could be.

But I'm not.


1. Unless it's after the death of the party concerned. One can't libel the dead.

All this is a roundabout way of agreeing with me and Herlock that all we have is 'amateur' opinion - Palmer's being no better or worse than mine - and we are never likely to get the professional one we would need to inform us whose amateur comparisons are on the money and whose are wide of the mark, even if that were possible.

Keith once believed and may still believe, as Palmer does, that it would be worth a try, if legal obstacles could be overcome, and I have no idea now either way, because he who must be obeyed and is always right has insisted it is impossible for anyone, professional and amateur alike, to positively identify a forger who has disguised their handwriting - luckily for Anne, or convenient for anyone falsely accusing her - so Palmer needs to take that one up with Herlock, not me. I'm caught between two stools - or a word that rhymes with 'stools'.

[Iconoclast]

Ready?

I'm trying to get downstairs for the build up to the Lionesses, but if I must ...

[Totally irrelevant list of quotations from Caz mentioning the word 'printed' ...]

Did you do that lot from memory, Rain Man?

No, of course not, you just used the built-in search facility. But to what end? To show that Caz had used the word 'printed' loads of time to absolutely no-one's surprise except perhaps yours.

[Totally unhinged rant about more quotations from Caz mentioning the word 'printed' ...]

And then we get ...

Yet Michael Barrett is supposed to be the person who can't comprehend English.

Just ask the question, Mike - just ask Mr Earl the question then maybe all this unhinged nightmare will finally go away. Oh, please just ask him the obvious question, "Does it have '1891' machine-printed on every page or even handwritten on every page, Mr Earl?".

What's also particularly interesting is how, from 2023, in most of her posts on the subject, she changes her wording of the description of the red diary from it having mere "printed dates" to it suddenly having "printed dates throughout", obviously attempting to align with Keith's "dated 1891 throughout", but, by improving upon what Keith had written, she was implicitly acknowledging that Keith's description was defective in that it was not sufficiently clear and needed improving.

OMG - would all of this unhinged verbal diarrhoea clear up if we all just said what you are so desperate to hear? "Yes, Herlock, you're right after all!". I have no ******* idea what the question is anymore and I'll bet few others do either. I'm exhausted!

Above all, we see clear evidence in her posts, especially those of 7 May 2020, 28 May 2020, 5 June 2020 and 15 January 2024, that she was claiming that Martin Earl would have told Mike in advance about the "printed" pages before he accepted the diary. I mean, she literally says in her 15 January 2024 post that Earl "would have" described the tiny diary to Mike "with its printed dates throughout", once again modifying Keith Skinner's own apparently defective description which used the word "throughout" but did not, of course, use the word "printed". In her 7 May 2020 post, she even, would you believe, quoted Earl in some fantastical imaginary dialogue as telling Mike that the diary had "dates printed on every page".

OMG - he's still going on about it. You lost us at "Hello", man - what the hell are you trying to show us you're right about this time???

Finally, in case you're wondering, Ike. Did you ever do the same thing? Oh yes, you did. In an imaginary dialogue between a fictional Earl and a fictional Barrett, you posted on 4 July 2020 in #5461 of "One Incontrovertible":

Oh religious-guy-on-bike! Now he's including quotations from me! Let's see where this leads us ...

"Earl: "Well this one isn’t exactly blank, Mr Barrett. As I said, it has the dates printed on every page – 1891, on every page, three or four times on each page.”

Quick reminder, dear readers, Herlock is quoting from a conversation that I imagined might have happened! Let's see what amazing conclusions he draws from this made-up dialogue of mine ...

The interesting [Ike: debatable] thing about this is that, despite the words "As I said", the fictional Earl had not, in fact, told the fictional Barrett that the dates were printed on every page earlier in the imaginary dialogue. What he'd done was read out verbatim Keith's Skinner's description of the red diary which didn't exist in March 1992 but which includes "Nearly all the pages are blank" (a statement which would appear to contradict the statement that the dates are printed on every page, as Caz acknowledged) plus "dated 1891 throughout" which date of 1891, to the extent anyone being told of this understood how its existence was consistent with nearly all the pages of the diary being blank, could, in theory, have been written in pencil by the owner at places throughout the diary, but not necessarily on every page.

Dear readers, please just say, "Yes, Herlock - you're right after all". He might stop!

To repeat my original point. There is no evidence or good reason to think that Mike was told by Martin Earl that there were 1891 dates printed on every page of the diary. Even Keith Skinner did not use the words "printed on every page" in his own full and detailed description of that diary which, unlike Earl's supplier, he wrote knowing its significance to Mike's claimed forgery plot. So it cannot possibly be claimed that Earl's supplier must have said that the dates were printed on every page of the diary in his own full description of the diary.

I need to stop here because I am genuinely pissing myself - figuratively and nigh-on literally. Have you ever in all the years the Casebook has been running seen much a truly pointless waste of someone's time? And - although I could have been - I'm not referring to mine!

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong So - Honestly - Just Tell Him He Wasn't and Go and Watch the Lionesses Instead. That is, Get a Life.

[Iconoclast]

***bump***

I think it might be reasonable to assume he ain't going to be telling you, RJ. Just wanted to save you the wait.

[caz]

If you can point to where I have ever said that Anne "thought her own disguised handwriting might bear some relation" to Maybrick's I will provide the explanation you've asked for. But I'm confident I've never said anything like that Caz. On the other hand, you categorically said that "she'd have known it didn't resemble Maybrick's" and I asked you to tell me how you she would have known this, but you haven't been able to do so.

I explained that the chances of Anne disguising her handwriting and it resembling Maybrick's by pure chance, if she'd never seen any examples, are as near to zero as could have made any difference, and she'd have known that unless she was brain dead.

Put on your own thinking cap and imagine trying to disguise your own handwriting, without ever seeing mine, when writing out a hundred times:

'My name is Caroline Anne Brown and I must not write any more limericks on the blackboard about my teacher, Mr Banks.'

Tell me you know it wouldn't resemble my handwriting, and can't imagine how it might - seeing as there is nothing you don't know or can't imagine.

Right now, I suspect there are a few readers making up their own limericks.

[Iconoclast]

What nonsense is this now, Ike? Where did I ever say that Earl and Barrett were "in a rush"?

No, I've decided the Lionesses can wait and that I should not let you away with this mince ..

By definition ...

By whose definition?

... it must have been relatively quick call. Earl's purpose was to inform Barrett that he had a diary available. He would have described the diary. That's it. Mike then would have had to respond. Either he wants the diary or he doesn't.

So far, so good, unexpectedly.

He would have had to think fast, on his feet.

And then there it is - the made-up bit to suit your argument. Why on God's good earth would he need to think fast? Why could he not think normally?

Of course he did. He didn't have the luxury of 20 years of thinking about it, like you have.

Well, it is true that I have had a lot longer than he had because - even in those days - 'phone calls were not twenty years long, but this is clearly not the point. The point is that Barrett was not having to think fast at all. There are no grounds whatsoever for you to assert that what could be a short call had to be a short call. You just said that for effect, and we all know you did. You know you did but you're never knowingly wrong so you've already rationalised it (it a truly irrational manner, I have to say).

The short point is that it is nuts to say with hindsight, knowing what the red diary looked like, and with 20/20 hindsight vision, that Mike must have asked certain questions of Earl if he was genuinely attempting a forgery.

Again, dear readers, note that the poster has set up a straw man here - if you agree with him you must be nuts! I don't think - to play Sholmes' game - I've ever said Barrett must have asked certain questions, have I? But I have definitely said he must have asked critical questions, chief amongst which would be "Does it have the year printed on every page?". It's like he was off to the Wirral for the first time (maybe to plant his watch) and you imagine he got on the first bus that came along and didn't think to ask the driver, "Is this bus going to the Wirral and what have you, Wac?".

No, he must not. Earl had never even seen the diary. So questions were pointless from the very start.

You must be incredibly easy to fleece, mate. Whether I knew Earl had seen the diary or not, I would not be agreeing to shifting him £66 without first asking a few questions and seeking clarification. Why is your version of events so fundamentally pivoted upon Barrett doing it the truly stupid way? Ah, yes, it's because you need him to be truly stupid otherwise your scenario immediately falls apart. And he may well have been truly stupid, but you also believe a few days later he wrote a hoax the renowned scriptwriter Bruce Robinson said would have been his personal greatest work (pedant alert: or words to that effect).

But that assumes any questions had even occurred to Mike who'd likely been told that nearly all the pages in the diary were blank.

Only one question needs to occur to Barrett - "[thinks] I wonder what Mr Earl means by nearly all the pages are blank? If I wasn't having to think so fast, I would probably just ask him".

Despite seeming to agree with Roger about the futility of theorizing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin that's all you seem to want to do.

My dear, dear readers, who around here is constantly using 'could', 'might', 'would'?

We do not and cannot know exactly what Earl said to Barrett ...

We can make an educated guess based upon what Martin Earl reported in writing in 2020, though, could we not? Caz has just reported it (again) so the educated amongst us could take a quick deeksie and make some informed decisions on that basis.

... and we do not and cannot exactly know how Barrett interpreted what he was being told.

That is true but - again - based upon Mr Earl's testimony in 2020, the intelligent amongst us could make some educated guesses because we know that Mr Earl was simply describing an 1891 diary not the quantum mechanics of a universe springing spontaneously out of a state of nothingness.

That's all there is.

And with Martin earl's testimony in 2020 coupled with our understanding of the blindingly obvious, that's more than enough.

I'm not making any positive point about the Earl/Barrett conversation or the red diary. You're the one who has been attempting to make a positive point based on no evidence and it has failed.

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong

[rjpalmer]

I think it might be reasonable to assume he ain't going to be telling you, RJ. Just wanted to save you the wait.

Thanks for letting me know, Ike.

Keith's strictly protectionist stance towards the diary is difficult to comprehend considering that he's stated many times that he is only after the truth--no matter where it leads.

Ah well. I'll go with Plan B and get there in the end.

RP

[Iconoclast]

Right now, I suspect there are a few readers making up their own limericks.

Now, genuinely, I spat my tea out!

That was possibly your funniest gag yet, kidda.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for letting me know, Ike. Keith's strictly protectionist stance towards the diary is difficult to comprehend considering that he's stated many times that he is only after the truth--no matter where it leads. Ah well. I'll go with Plan B and get there in the end. RP

I don't think it's actually that difficult to comprehend, RJ. I don't think I'm being indiscrete when I say that I think Keith no longer trusts you not to twist the information he gives you into something which no-one could reasonably recognise as the truth anymore.

Tough love, mate, but someone's gotta tell ya. Look at it this way, it'll save you a Christmas card.

[rjpalmer]

You're pathetic, Tom.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will if you will.



You're getting yourself mixed up again regarding form and function. Everyone knows that if someone said to them "What are the characteristics of a diary you would find in WH Smiths", they would all give the same answer, "It's a book with spaces for each of the days of the year and generally speaking it's dated. That's what I think of when you say the word 'diary' to me. Some diaries might not have the year on every page but generally they do. Some diaries might not be dated at all, but simply have the days of the year printed. Of course, something - like a notebook, say - can also function as a 'diary' both when it is still blank and also after it has been written in; but I wouldn't think of one of those if you said the word 'diary' to me. It's a bit like if you said to me 'don't think about a pink elephant' - I have no choice but to think of a pink elephant. Same if you say the word 'diary' - I can't stop my brain from imagining a book with dates and spaces for each day of the year, even though I know that doesn't have to be what you yourself actually meant and even though I know my options are actually wider than that".



Why would our Liverpool scally think of anything other than that which every one of us thinks about when we hear the word 'diary'? And - more relevant to our discussion - why on earth would he not simply ask the critical question if someone offered him one from an impossible year for the murderous thoughts of James Maybrick?



No, such a person would have no choice because the default form of a diary which we all immediately think of when we hear the word was not yet in existence. Obviously.



Asked and answered.

As has already been mentioned, we're not talking about walking into Smiths to buy a new diary, we're talking about obtaining a historical second hand diary over the telephone.

It's absolutely untrue that "every one of us" thinks of a diary the way you do. When I think of someone's diary, either modern or historical, I think of a personal diary written in what I would call an exercise book (but could also be called a notebook or journal, if you prefer) with no printed dates, just handwritten entries. You've been told by other members of this forum the very same thing.

Now we get down to the key question. You admit that a 1791 diary could "obviously" be used to create a 1788 diary. But why "obviously"? Surely it's only because you know there were no commercially pre-printed diaries in existence before 1812. How was Mike Barrett supposed to have known that? How can you possibly know that he didn't think that an 1888 diary would be the same as an 1788 diary? How do you know in his mind whether or not he thought printed diaries only started in the 20th century?

After all, to remind you of what you prefer to ignore, the only actual evidence we have of what Mike Barrett thought a diary looked like is in the large black leather bound volume which had no date on the cover and not a single printed date on any page. Yet he told Doreen it was a "diary".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Honestly, only you.



The logic holds that all that matters is that impossible years were requested and accepted which is why I focused in on 1890 for years. I most certainly did not change my phraseology to 1889 and 1890 because of something you said - it occurred to me perfectly naturally, but how very you to claim otherwise.

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong

PS After Caz's heroic #1481, I don't think any of us have anything else to add. She absolutely eviscerated the argument in favour of Barrett seeking a diary to hoax James Maybrick's thoughts into. And I'm not just saying that because she's got a huge switchblade in her pocket.

I won't waste time arguing about your reason for changing your objection from 1890 to 1889 and 1890 shortly after I pointed out the inherent illogicality of just focusing on 1890. The fact that you admit to having changed your mind in 2025, over 20 years after Keith Skinner located the advertisement, is sufficient to demonstrate the invalidity of your criticism of Mike Barrett for not being able to immediately get everything right in March 1992.

As for Caz's post to which you fawningly refer, have you noticed that she's abandoned her claim that Earl sent the diary to Barrett "on approval"? What a humiliating climb down. And no more silly claim about Anne having had a choice not to pay the cheque in May 1992. Everything else she's said has already been dealt with and explained many times. It's all just the usual speculative waffle. As she's addressed Roger I won't bother responding. Not that there's anything worth responding to. If you think there is, Ike, tell me what it is because I couldn't see a single thing of value, although it was, of course, amusing to see another desperate reference from her to those "printed dates".

[Herlock Sholmes]

All this is a roundabout way of agreeing with me and Herlock that all we have is 'amateur' opinion - Palmer's being no better or worse than mine - and we are never likely to get the professional one we would need to inform us whose amateur comparisons are on the money and whose are wide of the mark, even if that were possible.

Keith once believed and may still believe, as Palmer does, that it would be worth a try, if legal obstacles could be overcome, and I have no idea now either way, because he who must be obeyed and is always right has insisted it is impossible for anyone, professional and amateur alike, to positively identify a forger who has disguised their handwriting - luckily for Anne, or convenient for anyone falsely accusing her - so Palmer needs to take that one up with Herlock, not me. I'm caught between two stools - or a word that rhymes with 'stools'.

Roger doesn't need to take anything up with me, Caz.

I don't disagree with him at all that a professional assessment of the handwriting by an expert could be of value. That is what he is saying. What I've said is that the expert won't be able to positively identify the author so that you will be satisfied. Because you will never be satisfied with anything less than 100% proof.

As to the limitations of the ability of an expert to identify a disguised hand, I refer you to a 2021 article: "The authorship of disguised handwriting written with the unaccustomed hand: A preliminary study" by Anita Rani, Formerly Senior Research Fellow, Department of Forensic Science Punjabi University, Patiala Mohinder Singh Formerly Government Examiner of Questioned Documents Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, India and Om Prakash Jasuja Department of Forensic Science, Chandigarh University Gharua, Punjab, India.

The authors state in their conclusion:

“The identification of writings disguised with the use of the unaccustomed hand is a difficult task; unless a sufficient number of unconscious lapses of the writer is found between the questioned and the standard writings, a definite opinion regarding their common or different authorship may not be possible.”

They add:

“Although there may be certain similarities in the formation of several handwritten strokes, due to the presence of usual unaccustomed hand characteristics in the questioned disguised writings – such as angularity, hesitations, abrupt directional changes, hair line connections, uncertain movements, as well as tremulous strokes – it is not safe to make conclusions about the authorship of that writing.”

What is absolutely certain is that to even have a chance of identifying disguised handwriting to any form of degree, which will rely on the person disguising their handwriting not doing it very well (so it's not really disguised), an expert will need plenty of samples of the suspect's handwriting. These do not exist at the moment - we only have a few pages of Anne's - so we're definitely not going to get any form of positive identification.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm trying to get downstairs for the build up to the Lionesses, but if I must ...



Did you do that lot from memory, Rain Man?

No, of course not, you just used the built-in search facility. But to what end? To show that Caz had used the word 'printed' loads of time to absolutely no-one's surprise except perhaps yours.

And then we get ...



Just ask the question, Mike - just ask Mr Earl the question then maybe all this unhinged nightmare will finally go away. Oh, please just ask him the obvious question, "Does it have '1891' machine-printed on every page or even handwritten on every page, Mr Earl?".



OMG - would all of this unhinged verbal diarrhoea clear up if we all just said what you are so desperate to hear? "Yes, Herlock, you're right after all!". I have no ******* idea what the question is anymore and I'll bet few others do either. I'm exhausted!

OMG - he's still going on about it. You lost us at "Hello", man - what the hell are you trying to show us you're right about this time???



Oh religious-guy-on-bike! Now he's including quotations from me! Let's see where this leads us ...



Quick reminder, dear readers, Herlock is quoting from a conversation that I imagined might have happened! Let's see what amazing conclusions he draws from this made-up dialogue of mine ...



Dear readers, please just say, "Yes, Herlock - you're right after all". He might stop!



I need to stop here because I am genuinely pissing myself - figuratively and nigh-on literally. Have you ever in all the years the Casebook has been running seen much a truly pointless waste of someone's time? And - although I could have been - I'm not referring to mine!

Herlock Sholmes
Never Knowingly Wrong So - Honestly - Just Tell Him He Wasn't and Go and Watch the Lionesses Instead. That is, Get a Life.

If my post was "a waste of time", Ike, it was only because I was having to educate you on something which you were obviously pretending not to understand while attempting to bamboozle your "dear readers" (who are as imaginary as your fictional conversations) that I was saying something I wasn't.

If, incidentally, you weren't pretending not to understand then you need to check into A&E immediately.

If you would only concede straightforward propositions from the start, and not mis-state and mis-interpret my posts, such extended humiliations of you as I was forced to post in my #1483, wouldn't be necessary.

You are the one wasting time by arguing that night doesn’t follow day. It’s that obvious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I explained that the chances of Anne disguising her handwriting and it resembling Maybrick's by pure chance, if she'd never seen any examples, are as near to zero as could have made any difference, and she'd have known that unless she was brain dead.

Put on your own thinking cap and imagine trying to disguise your own handwriting, without ever seeing mine, when writing out a hundred times:

'My name is Caroline Anne Brown and I must not write any more limericks on the blackboard about my teacher, Mr Banks.'

Tell me you know it wouldn't resemble my handwriting, and can't imagine how it might - seeing as there is nothing you don't know or can't imagine.

Right now, I suspect there are a few readers making up their own limericks.

What a ridiculously long way of admitting that you should have written that Anne would likely have assumed that her disguised Victorian handwriting didn't resemble Maybrick's than known it. You already admitted (in #1127) that "known it didn't resemble Maybrick's" wasn't the best way of putting it, so god only knows why you've come back to defend it Caz.