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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whenever you’re ready, by the way …

I've already answered it by saying that there is evidence as to what Mike thought of as a Victorian diary, namely that such a diary could be undated throughout. So the premise of your question is false. Plus he did not have "a tiny diary with "1891" in his hands" when he told Doreen that he had Jack the Ripper's diary.

If I've misunderstood what you're saying I'll be happy to answer any question you have if you could rephrase it so that it makes sense.

[Iconoclast]

I thought that we were all allowed 10+ years like you and your opportunities to rebut ‘one off instance’?

Come, come, Herlock. There is no such rule which makes me suspect that you've thought, "****, I've been caught out good and proper with my pants right down this time so I need to attempt a bit of distraction and hope I never have to admit that I just didn't think that one through properly".



Also: "But, he's right, I did say that Barrett called the scrapbook a 'diary' when he contacted Doreen Montgomery on March 9, 1992, and - of course - he can't have done because according to my Love Dad he didn't actually get his hands on it until March 31, 1992, so he would have to actually be calling 'thin air' a 'diary' on March 9, 1992, and I think that's a step too far even for me to try to pull off".

[rjpalmer]

It's arrogance on stilts to believe that Keith would consider Palmer to have the keys to unlock the truth, when he has shown himself to be pathologically incapable of looking at any evidence objectively and asking himself if he might, just possibly, have been 100% wrong about Anne Graham's role in the diary affair.

This is truly a bizarre comment. I'm merely asking where a woman worked in the 1970s, because I'm following up a rather strange lead. It might even conceivably help the diary's cause rather than hurt it--I have no idea. I'm just looking into it to get at the truth. I have a bloke in Australia that can help me, but I thought it might save a little time if the diary folks would cooperate, but clearly independent thought is not allowed---one must be part of the inner sanctum. Ah well, no skin off my nose.

The weirdest part is that I'm supposedly "100%" wrong about Anne Graham, yet Caroline's own theory dictates that Keith Skinner--who spent hundreds of hours in Anne Graham's company---was entirely wrong to believe Anne's 'in the family story,' when he told this forum, more than once, that he did believe her. As such, why should I or any rational person trust the judgment of people just because they knew Anne? According to Caroline's own theory, they knew her just to be deceived by her.

It's bizarre.

[Iconoclast]

I've already answered it by saying that there is evidence as to what Mike thought of as a Victorian diary, namely that such a diary could be undated throughout.

Yes you did, and the evidence you cited was Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'dairy' when he contacted Doreen Montgomery but - of course - he didn't get it until 22 days later (according to you and your Love Dad and Love Uncle).

So the premise of your question is false.

Oh, do clarify how.

Plus he did not have "a tiny diary with "1891" in his hands" when he told Doreen that he had Jack the Ripper's diary.

This error - IIRC - was caused by my thinking about Doreen's letter to him of April 8, 1992, trying to check if he had a similar discussion with her after March 31, 1992, at which point I suddenly realised it was irrelevant because he had had that conversation with her on March 9 and that was all that was relevant here.

If I've misunderstood what you're saying I'll be happy to answer any question you have if you could rephrase it so that it makes sense.

I'm thinking a Scotty Nelson is in order here, what do you think, Scotty?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes you did, and the evidence you cited was Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'dairy' when he contacted Doreen Montgomery but - of course - he didn't get it until 22 days later (according to you and your Love Dad and Love Uncle).



Oh, do clarify how.



This error - IIRC - was caused by my thinking about Doreen's letter to him of April 8, 1992, trying to check if he had a similar discussion with her after March 31, 1992, at which point I suddenly realised it was irrelevant because he had had that conversation with her on March 9 and that was all that was relevant here.



I'm thinking a Scotty Nelson is in order here, what do you think, Scotty?

You've got totally the wrong end of the stick, Ike.

I think I've already made it clear and am not sure I can spell it out any clearer but I'll have one more go.

Yes, I am fully aware that, under my version of events, Mike would not have had Jack the Ripper's diary in his hand on the day he told Doreen he had "Jack the Ripper's diary".

If that's your big point it doesn't help you.

I'm not necessarily talking about what was in Mike's mind as at 9th March 1992. I'm talking about what was in his mind on 13th April 1992 when he brought the old photograph album down to London under the guise of it being "Jack the Ripper's diary". How could he have presented it to Doreen as the Ripper's diary, having already told her he had the Ripper's diary, if, in his mind, he believed all Victorian diaries had printed dates on every page and/or the year printed on the cover? That's the point.

So, when he walked into Doreen's office with what he had already described as "Jack the Ripper's diary" he must have believed he was holding something which plausibly looked like a Victorian diary.

So THAT is the best evidence we have as to what Mike thought a Victorian diary looked like.

And yes, I'm aware that by 13th April 1992 he had seen one real Victorian diary but that didn't prevent him from presenting Doreen with something which looked nothing like this, which he'd already described as a diary and must have expected her to regard as a diary.

Now if anything is not clear about this, please tell me what is not clear and I'll do my best to explain but please don't pretend not to understand.

[Iconoclast]

You've got totally the wrong end of the stick, Ike.

Of course I have - it's a Herlock Sholmes post.

I think I've already made it clear and am not sure I can spell it out any clearer but I'll have one more go.

Watch him try to pull his trousers back up, everyone!

Yes, I am fully aware that, [now that you've pointed it out, Ike] under my version of events, Mike would not have had Jack the Ripper's diary in his hand on the day he told Doreen he had "Jack the Ripper's diary".

I think that's bollocks but on you go ...

If that's your big point it doesn't help you.

Of course it helps, man - March 9 and 10, 1992, are the only days we have Barrett on record referring to the James Maybrick document as a 'diary'. There is no other record that I am aware of until well after April 13, 1992, when everyone was calling whatever he turned up with that day as a 'diary' so we don't know his unique position on the Maybrick scrapbook, only what he said on March 9 and 10, 1992, a day you tell us he could NOT have been referring to the Maybrick scrapbook.

I'm not necessarily talking about what was in Mike's mind as at 9th March 1992. I'm talking about what was in his mind on 13th April 1992 when he brought the old photograph album down to London under the guise of it being "Jack the Ripper's diary".

Well, we know what was in his mind on March 9 and 10, 1992, but we don't know what was discussed on April 13, 1992. There is no record (that I am aware of) of Mike Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' after March 10, 1992, until such time as everyone was calling it a 'diary'.

How could he have presented it to Doreen as the Ripper's diary, having already told her he had the Ripper's diary, if, in his mind, he believed all Victorian diaries had printed dates on every page and/or the year printed on the cover? That's the point.

No, that's not the point, that's just your desperation to be seen to be right when you were clearly wrong. Barrett turned up with the Maybrick scrapbook and he therefore - given what he had said on March 9 and 10, 1992 - had to go along with the 'this is a diary' notion: it had to be baked-in as a necessary claim whether he really believed fit was a 'diary' or not. But - either way - there is no evidence that he ever thought of the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' in your interpretation of what happened!

So, when he walked into Doreen's office with what he had already described as "Jack the Ripper's diary" he must have believed he was holding something which plausibly looked like a Victorian diary.

Nope. He had to present what he had as 'diary' but there's no evidence that he actually believed it. The evidence lies on March 9 and 10, 1992, not April 13, 1992, but your hoax belief does not permit that to be a comment about the Maybrick scrapbook because in your theory he wouldn't acquire it for another three weeks.

So THAT is the best evidence we have as to what Mike thought a Victorian diary looked like.

See, this is you adopting the 'less than 100% is still proof' position which obviously gets you out of every difficult spot you've ever been in in your life (in your head). THAT is not evidence of anything because we have no record of what he said, only what he did, and - in your interpretation of events - he had no choice but to present the Mabrick scrapbook as the thing he had a month earlier first referred to as a 'diary' even though he hadn't seen it at that point.

And yes, I'm aware that by 13th April 1992 he had seen one real Victorian diary but that didn't prevent him from presenting Doreen with something which looked nothing like this, which he'd already described as a diary and must have expected her to regard as a diary.

None of this is proof that he believed the Maybrick scrapbook to be a 'diary'. Only that he had no choice (if he was to keep the April 13 meeting) to say that this was what he had been referring to.

Now if anything is not clear about this, please tell me what is not clear and I'll do my best to explain but please don't pretend not to understand.

Hey, hold your horses, pal - you are the king of the I-don't-understand-the-awkward-posts! It's perfectly clear what you are saying - it is, 'Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong'.

Now, obviously, everyone knew you weren't going to be wrong. You never are, are you? I don't think you even understand the concept. I don't trust a word you say because I know you will never admit to an error of any sort.

I'm not going to go back through your posts - I leave that for people with no other life to lead - but I'm confident that your argument was never that, having told Doreen on March 9, 1992, he thought he might have Jack the Ripper's 'diary', Barrett's eventual arrival with the old scrapbook on April 13, 1992, was evidence that he genuinely believed diaries had no dates thereby backing-up your 1891 diary fantasy. If it was a hoax, he turned up with whatever he could get his hands on and that doesn't imply evidence that he thought the 1891 diary would be blank. In truth, of course, he turned up on April 13 with what he had on March 9 so - yes - I will agree that he must have called the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' in the real world (as opposed to your world), but clearly it buggers up the whole hoax theory if he had the scrapbook before he had the 1891 diary so I wouldn't gloat too quickly if I were you.

Hope you can understand all of the above, though the good money is on 1) you saying you don't and 2) us all being inflicted with another one of your ugly 'look at what you said on this day and that day' posts so that you can go to bed tonight thinking how clever you've been. The rest of us saw you with your pants down and they're still down, but that won't bother you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course I have - it's a Herlock Sholmes post.



Watch him try to pull his trousers back up, everyone!



I think that's bollocks but on you go ...



Of course it helps, man - March 9 and 10, 1992, are the only days we have Barrett on record referring to the James Maybrick document as a 'diary'. There is no other record that I am aware of until well after April 13, 1992, when everyone was calling whatever he turned up with that day as a 'diary' so we don't know his unique position on the Maybrick scrapbook, only what he said on March 9 and 10, 1992, a day you tell us he could NOT have been referring to the Maybrick scrapbook.



Well, we know what was in his mind on March 9 and 10, 1992, but we don't know what was discussed on April 13, 1992. There is no record (that I am aware of) of Mike Barrett referring to the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' after March 10, 1992, until such time as everyone was calling it a 'diary'.



No, that's not the point, that's just your desperation to be seen to be right when you were clearly wrong. Barrett turned up with the Maybrick scrapbook and he therefore - given what he had said on March 9 and 10, 1992 - had to go along with the 'this is a diary' notion: it had to be baked-in as a necessary claim whether he really believed fit was a 'diary' or not. But - either way - there is no evidence that he ever thought of the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' in your interpretation of what happened!



Nope. He had to present what he had as 'diary' but there's no evidence that he actually believed it. The evidence lies on March 9 and 10, 1992, not April 13, 1992, but your hoax belief does not permit that to be a comment about the Maybrick scrapbook because in your theory he wouldn't acquire it for another three weeks.



See, this is you adopting the 'less than 100% is still proof' position which obviously gets you out of every difficult spot you've ever been in in your life (in your head). THAT is not evidence of anything because we have no record of what he said, only what he did, and - in your interpretation of events - he had no choice but to present the Mabrick scrapbook as the thing he had a month earlier first referred to as a 'diary' even though he hadn't seen it at that point.



None of this is proof that he believed the Maybrick scrapbook to be a 'diary'. Only that he had no choice (if he was to keep the April 13 meeting) to say that this was what he had been referring to.



Hey, hold your horses, pal - you are the king of the I-don't-understand-the-awkward-posts! It's perfectly clear what you are saying - it is, 'Herlock Sholmes, never knowingly wrong'.

Now, obviously, everyone knew you weren't going to be wrong. You never are, are you? I don't think you even understand the concept. I don't trust a word you say because I know you will never admit to an error of any sort.

I'm not going to go back through your posts - I leave that for people with no other life to lead - but I'm confident that your argument was never that, having told Doreen on March 9, 1992, he thought he might have Jack the Ripper's 'diary', Barrett's eventual arrival with the old scrapbook on April 13, 1992, was evidence that he genuinely believed diaries had no dates thereby backing-up your 1891 diary fantasy. If it was a hoax, he turned up with whatever he could get his hands on and that doesn't imply evidence that he thought the 1891 diary would be blank. In truth, of course, he turned up on April 13 with what he had on March 9 so - yes - I will agree that he must have called the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' in the real world (as opposed to your world), but clearly it buggers up the whole hoax theory if he had the scrapbook before he had the 1891 diary so I wouldn't gloat too quickly if I were you.

Hope you can understand all of the above, though the good money is on 1) you saying you don't and 2) us all being inflicted with another one of your ugly 'look at what you said on this day and that day' posts so that you can go to bed tonight thinking how clever you've been. The rest of us saw you with your pants down and they're still down, but that won't bother you.

It's all in my #984 from 3rd July, Ike. Here's what I wrote by way of reminder, just to be helpful:

"There is only one thing we know for an absolute fact about Mike's knowledge of 19th century diaries. It is that he believed a 19th century diary could be written in an old undated book without any date on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist.

How do we know this?

Simple. Because he told Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 that he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary before presenting her on 13th April 1992 with an old undated book without any year on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist."

Let me just add that there is a total flaw of logic in what you are trying to argue at the moment.

If you start off an argument by saying, "In your version of events Mike hasn't seen Jack the Ripper's diary on 9th March 1992....." then the premise is that my version of events is correct, which means that we don't need to bother to go on consider what Mike thinks about Victorian diaries. We already know, in this scenario, why he was seeking one.

Conversely, if I start off my argument by saying, "In your version of events Mike has seen Jack the Ripper's diary on 9th March 1992 yet still calls it a diary...." then the premise is that your version of events is correct, which means that the diary already exists and, again, we don't need to bother to consider what Mike thinks about Victorian diaries. We know that, in this scenario, he wasn't seeking a Victorian diary to do the forgery.

This is why, for the purpose of this argument, we need to take a neutral approach and all we can say is that Mike told Doreen on 9th March 1992 that he had Jack the Ripper's diary and then turned up at her office with Jack the Ripper's diary on 13th April 1992, thus providing evidence that he believed a 19th century diary could bewritten in an old undated book without any date on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist.

Ultimately though, Ike, none of this matters because the bigger picture is that you cannot possibly discount Mike, as at 9th March 1992, as having a belief that Victorian diaries didn't have printed dates.

Your bizarre argument seems to be that "everyone" knows that Victorian diaries had printed dates, hence Mike knew that Victorian diaries had printed dates.

A worse argument in both fact and logic can hardly be found. We have no idea if Mike was even aware as at 9th March 1992 that pre-printed diaries existed in 1888, just like they did not in 1788. Perhaps he thought they weren't sold until the 20th century. I mean, we literally cannot say.

There is no evidence as to what Mike was told by Martin Earl about the 1891 diary - it is all speculation - and the only thing we can reasonably say he was told was that nearly all the pages were blank because blank pages was one of his two requirements.

But, as we don't know what he thought a Victorian diary would look like, it's simply not possible to say what he thought about the one he was being offered or if any questions popped into his mind. Just can't be done.

That being so, we have to leave the 1891 diary and return to the real question: Why was Mike seeking a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages during March 1992? I can only think of one reason and that is why he is a prime suspect for being involved in forging what is known to be a fake diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would you care to explain why a "decoy" would "only need to be the equivalent of a Victorian document with at least twenty blank pages"?

Why would blank pages be useful in any way for this purpose?

And is it your case that, say, a Victorian rent book with 20 blank pages would have been a suitable "decoy" for Jack the Ripper's diary?

Who is supposed to be falling for this "decoy", incidentally? A blind person? Or do they need to be dumb as well as blind?

Whenever you're ready, by the way....

[Iconoclast]

It's all in my #984 from 3rd July, Ike. Here's what I wrote by way of reminder, just to be helpful:

And this certainly was indeed helpful because I couldn't be arsed to look for it - but knew you would for me (ahead of your attempting to spin it, of course). You ain't let me down.

"There is only one thing we know for an absolute fact about Mike's knowledge of 19th century diaries. It is that he believed a 19th century diary could be written in an old undated book without any date on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist.
How do we know this?
Simple. Because he told Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 that he was in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary before presenting her on 13th April 1992 with an old undated book without any year on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist."

It doesn't logically follow, does it? He didn't have the Maybrick scrapbook in his possession (according to you) on March 9 so when he told Doreen Montgomery he had the diary of Jack the Spratt McVitiie, he couldn't possibly be referring to the one he took to London on April 13. For the record, though (if it makes you feel better), I don't have an issue with him calling the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' because that was what its function had become. The only real issue is whether that was by the hand of Maybrick or some other. Either way, there's absolutely no evidence that he didn't have it in his hands when he rang Doreen on March 9.

Let me just add that there is a total flaw of logic in what you are trying to argue at the moment.

Let me just add that there is no way you can anti-logic your way out of the bind you've put yourself in. You thought he had the Maybrick scrapbook on March 9 and and therefore thought Barrett thought that was the very definition of a 'diary'. But he couldn't have and still bought it at the O&L auction of March 31. Hmmm, real problem for you. Please see my post of earlier, by the way, as I really don't want to laboriously repeat myself at your whim and - frankly - childish desperation to avoid being seen to have been wrong. Caught with your pants down, no less!

If you start off an argument by saying, "In your version of events Mike hasn't seen Jack the Ripper's diary on 9th March 1992....." then the premise is that my version of events is correct, which means that we don't need to bother to go on consider what Mike thinks about Victorian diaries. We already know, in this scenario, why he was seeking one.

But if your version of events is the true one then he hasn't set eyes on the Maybrick scrapbook yet so his comments to Doreen on March 9 have no relevance to what he eventually took to London on April 13. Come on - you're in a bind - let it go. I know, try to change the subject, that should get you out of this.

Conversely, if I start off my argument by saying, "In your version of events Mike has seen Jack the Ripper's diary on 9th March 1992 yet still calls it a diary...." then the premise is that your version of events is correct, which means that the diary already exists and, again, we don't need to bother to consider what Mike thinks about Victorian diaries. We know that, in this scenario, he wasn't seeking a Victorian diary to do the forgery.

Correct. In my version of events, no-one needs to worry about what Mike thinks of Victorian diaries because none of that matters regarding why he attempted to buy one from 1889 or 1890 and eventually settled for the absolutely impossibly crazy year of 1891.

This is why, for the purpose of this argument, we need to take a neutral approach and all we can say is that Mike told Doreen on 9th March 1992 that he had Jack the Ripper's diary and then turned up at her office with Jack the Ripper's diary on 13th April 1992, thus providing evidence that he believed a 19th century diary could bewritten in an old undated book without any date on the cover or printed dates on the pages, with the only date being handwritten by the diarist.

No, no. no. He took what he had on April 13, but he can't have been describing it on March 9 if the 1891 diary is evidence that he was plotting a hoax. So he took what he took on April 13, and that's all we can know about what he thought Victorian diaries looked like.

Ultimately though, Ike, none of this matters because the bigger picture is that you cannot possibly discount Mike, as at 9th March 1992, as having a belief that Victorian diaries didn't have printed dates.

Correct - but that doesn't alter the fact that Martin Earl described an 1891 diary to him in late March and he lapped it up. Must be a different reason than the one you’re so badly trying to sell, I suggest.

Your bizarre argument seems to be that "everyone" knows that Victorian diaries had printed dates, hence Mike knew that Victorian diaries had printed dates.

No, only that the 1891 one he was offered must have caused him to dig deeper and find out more about its suitability for a hoax, but he did not so he was not looking for a hoax.

I deleted the rest of your post because I want to go to bed and I think it's just a repetition of your tediously-flawed logic which isn't really logic but more of that amazing less than 100% proof you so love.

That being so, we have to leave the 1891 diary and return to the real question: Why was Mike seeking a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages during March 1992? I can only think of one reason and that is why he is a prime suspect for being involved in forging what is known to be a fake diary.

Ah ha - I told you he was going to try to change the subject, dear readers - don't fall for it!

[Iconoclast]

Whenever you're ready, by the way....

When we've settled the 1891 diary debate. We all see what you're trying to do but we'll address other issues later. Right now, I'm off to bed.

PS The cacophony of support for your position is starting to give me tinnitus. Give those Barrett Believers their due - they might be wrong but they sure ain't stupid!

[Iconoclast]

and that is why he is a prime suspect for being involved in forging what is known to be a fake diary.

I meant to add that this is a hardly an incontrovertible truth coming from a man who accepts less than 100% 'proof' as absolute proof.

When it's been proven to be a fake or hoax, we'll all know about it and it'll be 100% not 99% or 33% or even 3% in Herlock's case.