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

[Herlock Sholmes]

May as well get ahead of this one, dear readers: remember, we are talking about Herlock's belief that Mike Barrett purchased the Maybrick scrapbook on March 31. We are NOT talking about the overwhelming evidence that he received (or first saw it) on March 9. Remember, my dear readers, a really simple fact of life which some people (well, one person, on his own, out in the wilderness) around here seem incapable of grasping - no argument on the planet can ever explain why someone was describing a 'diary' on March 9 when he didn't (apparently) purchase it until 22 days later on March 31. It can't be backward-engineered. A mistake is a mistake and no amount of wailing and bleating from Sholmes is going to change the fact his trousers were right down around his ankles (and, technically, will be for as long as he seeks to keep up this pathetic re-engineered display of tantrum and tale-telling).



See what he's done here, dear readers? He's got confused and thinks we are discussing the Battlecrease provenance when - in reality - we are discussing the fact that he thinks Mike Barrett called the Maybrick scrapbook a 'diary' because he had it in his hands when he rang Doreen Montgomery on March 9 (remember, dear readers, he said that calling it a 'diary' was proof that he thought a book with no dates in was still a 'diary' which is true but one made out of thin air because he hasn't yet bought it is hardly a 'diary' yet now is it?).



With a scrapbook that Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes say he must have purchased on March 31, 1992, remember, dear readers.



On March 9, 1992, before he had purchased the Maybrick scrapbook that Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes say he must have purchased on March 31, 1992, remember, dear readers.



And which indeed didn't either on March 9, 1992, when - according to Mike Barrett, Lord Orsam, RJ Palmer, and now Herlock Sholmes, remember, dear readers - he had no more than a telephone and thin air in his hands.



A figurative piece of marketing which - actually - publisher Robert Smith came up with - well, he would, wouldn't he? (Tills ringing and who can blame him?)



Proving that he called thin air a 'diary' on March 9, 1992, and took a scrapbook to Doreen on April 13, 1992, proving further that - yes - anything can retrospectively function as a diary. What's your point caller? (His point, dear readers, is to desperately try to get his trousers back up but he's been caught with them down and he just can't bring himself to admit it which should make us all very wary indeed of trusting his so-called 'logic' and his truly embarrassing Lord Orsam impersonation.)



I don't think any of us are in any doubt, dear readers, that almost anything can function as a 'diary' - it's what we call something that (often inadvertently) ends up functioning as what we all know we mean when we hear the word 'diary'.


.

Confidentially, Ike, I suspect your "dear readers" are as confused as I am about your level of comprehension skills.

As far as I can make out, you seem to think I've made some kind of mistake in referring to the solid evidence regarding Mike's belief about Victorian diaries.

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I've told you I was talking about his state of mind when he walked into Doreen's office on 13th April 1992 holding what already he'd promised her was Jack the Ripper's diary. It doesn't even seem to matter that I quoted from my original post when I made this clear. I can't seem to shake from your head the strange and certainly false belief that I was thinking he'd seen the diary on 9th March.

If you think I ever said that here’s a challenge for you, please do find one quote of mine where I did. You won't be able to of course because I never have.

But if you want to play this silly game I'm happy to turn it around.

You must think that when Mike saw the "scrapbook" on 9th March after Eddie Lyons gave it to him, he regarded it as a Victorian diary even though not a single printed date is to be seen throughout the scrapbook nor any identifying year on the cover. Yet he told Doreen that he was in possession of "Jack the Ripper's diary".

Now, Ike, under your own theory, please explain how Mike could have thought he was holding a "diary" if, as you claim, he would have believed (wrongly) that all Victorian diaries had printed dates on all their pages.

Can you do it? I really look forward to reading your answer, Ike, but fear there will be none, just the usual uncontrolled verbiage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think Michael Banks may actually be a bit somewhat disingenuous, what do you think, dear readers? He just keeps citing the bits of posts he likes and ignores the bits he doesn't like. For example, I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one) but that no-one in their right mind who has that aim (to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts) would blindly buy something that had been described as an '1891 diary' without asking the blindingly obvious clarification question around whether the document he was being offered had '1891' emblazoned all over it as the 1891 diary in question did.

That's actually primarily all we're debating here, dear readers (we've just got into an endless mind loop because Banks won't admit he was caught with his pants down so we have to be distracted for a while longer yet, it seems). We're not actually debating what Michael Barrett thought a 'diary' might look like (that's just Sholmes' distraction tactic) - what we're debating is whether even he (Barrett) would be stupid enough to agree to accept such a document without first checking on its suitability for what Sholmes thinks was its purpose. In my book, therefore, this shows that Barrett had some other purpose for the 1891 diary he didn't ask detailed questions about. It's obvious, but it shatters the hoax theory into a million pieces (and this is all ignoring for now the fact that Barrett claimed that it was his wife Anne who sought out and ordered the 1891 diary - a claim which he made in his otherwise impeccably uncorrupted affidavit of January 5, 1995, you know, the one written by Alan Gray in much the way all of Mike's hard-hitting trash mag 'articles' were written by Anne according to Anne [see SocPill2 one day]).

But this is all distraction tactics, dear readers, because he just doesn't want to have to say, "Yes, you caught me with my pants down, Ike, you got me there - I got it wrong about Barrett describing the Maybrick scrapbook as a 'diary' to Doreen Montgomery because - of course - in my world he didn't actually acquire it until March 31, 1992". No amount of bluff and bluster is going to alter the fact that he was caught with his pants down and the fact that he can't just say so should be a warning to you regarding how far you get into bed with his deeply flawed line of reasoning.

Oh I love this bit:

"I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one)"

Ike, your gaslighting skills are beyond compare. I can only admire them; it’s a wonder Scott hasn’t pointed them out. In fact, I admire them so much that I'd love to share them with your "dear readers".

This is how the debate between us started on 2nd July (and forgive me for referring to myself in the third person):

Herlock, #974

"You're going to have to explain to me Ike, in simple words I can understand, why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for a fake 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #976

"Honestly, I don't even know where to start. It was an 1891 diary. Which bit of that am I missing?"

Herlock, #979

"You're missing the bit which explains why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for an 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #980

"Our understanding is that Michael Barrett was informed that an 1891 diary was available and he accepted it. He couldn't possibly have meant to use it as a hoaxed diary of James Maybrick because it couldn't be."

At the start of this month, therefore, you were telling me that Barrett "couldn't possibly have meant to use" an 1891 diary for a fake 1888/89 diary.

Today, however, an 1891 diary: "could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary...'"

Do you see the difference between "couldn't possibly be used" and "could be used"?

If you said, "they are the complete opposite, Herlock", you win the prize.

But, apparently, so you tell us, you "keep saying" that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary.

I could continue with multiple quotes as our discussion progressed in which you continued to deny point blank that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary and in which you referred to an 1891 diary as "an impossible diary" with 1891 being "an impossible" year but it would just be tedious and I imagine there's only so much humiliation one person can take.

Give it up Ike, your desperate attempts to spin your embarrassment into some kind of victory are about as genuine as the diary….and we all know that that’s a proven forgery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apologies for the twenty minutes, RJ, and I'm in complete agreement with you regarding the waste of time this entire exercise has become but I am determined to not let Sholmes off the hook. He had a logic fail and wasn't man (or woman) enough to admit it. Now, you and I as grown adults would have given ourselves a shak [sic] (as they say in the beautiful city of Aberdeen) and admitted that we'd had a moment of brain fog and gone away with our tails between our legs for a post or two then come back cutting and thrusting like two brave musketeers of yore. But not Sholmes - he absolutely cannot be seen to be wrong and it seems to stem from some psychological weakness on his part in which he associates being wrong with being stupid.

Actually, I think I will just give it up because he's shown himself to be unable to be wrong and - if you're unable to be wrong - you can't expect people to have a sensible argument about anything with you.

None of it has altered the fact that Michael Barrett (in my world) ordered a diary from potentially 1889 or 1890 and eventually accepted one from 1891 and he didn't blink the eye the rest of us undoubtedly would have had to blink if we were planning to use an 1891 diary for an 1888 series of murders; or Anne Barrett (in your and Sholmes' world) as Mike said so in Alan Gray's January 5, 1995, affidavit, and who am I to sit here questioning the veracity of such a tight legal document?

I've been off the caffeine addiction for some years now, RJ. I drink Rooibos decaffeinated tea these days but Mrs I and I do have a cafetière of filter coffee most mornings. By evening, I'm just about back down from the ceiling. That woman uses tablespoons 'cos she thinks the smaller ones are just for tea.

"I am determined to not let Sholmes off the hook. He had a logic fail and wasn't man (or woman) enough to admit it."

Oh please don't let me off the hook, Ike. I always do so enjoy it when you tie yourself up in knots based on your unfathomable misunderstandings.

Do keep it coming but, hey, perhaps you could try adding (a) some logic (b) some facts (c) some reality and (d) some sanity.

[John Wheat]

Oh I love this bit:

"I keep saying that - in general - an 1891 diary or 'diary' could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary' even if it didn't start life as one)"

Ike, your gaslighting skills are beyond compare. I can only admire them; it’s a wonder Scott hasn’t pointed them out. In fact, I admire them so much that I'd love to share them with your "dear readers".

This is how the debate between us started on 2nd July (and forgive me for referring to myself in the third person):

Herlock, #974

"You're going to have to explain to me Ike, in simple words I can understand, why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for a fake 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #976

"Honestly, I don't even know where to start. It was an 1891 diary. Which bit of that am I missing?"

Herlock, #979

"You're missing the bit which explains why an 1891 diary would not have been suitable for an 1888/89 diary."

Ike, #980

"Our understanding is that Michael Barrett was informed that an 1891 diary was available and he accepted it. He couldn't possibly have meant to use it as a hoaxed diary of James Maybrick because it couldn't be."

At the start of this month, therefore, you were telling me that Barrett "couldn't possibly have meant to use" an 1891 diary for a fake 1888/89 diary.

Today, however, an 1891 diary: "could be used to hoax an 1888 record of someone's thoughts (which might then be called a 'diary...'"

Do you see the difference between "couldn't possibly be used" and "could be used"?

If you said, "they are the complete opposite, Herlock", you win the prize.

But, apparently, so you tell us, you "keep saying" that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary.

I could continue with multiple quotes as our discussion progressed in which you continued to deny point blank that an 1891 diary could have been suitable for an 1888 diary and in which you referred to an 1891 diary as "an impossible diary" with 1891 being "an impossible" year but it would just be tedious and I imagine there's only so much humiliation one person can take.

Give it up Ike, your desperate attempts to spin your embarrassment into some kind of victory are about as genuine as the diary….and we all know that that’s a proven forgery.

Hi Herlock

I think it's highly likely that the majority of posters don't post on the Maybrick threads because its a proven forgery. And frankly they regard posting on the Maybrick threads as a waste of time.

Cheers John

[Lombro2]

Yaada yaada yaada nada.

We don’t know how the red diary was described but Mike had to keep it and not return it because it was sufficiently described although we don’t know how it was described but it was described sufficiently to confuse Mike but not too sufficiently as Ike would say because not even Mike can be that confused.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Herlock

I think it's highly likely that the majority of posters don't post on the Maybrick threads because its a proven forgery. And frankly they regard posting on the Maybrick threads as a waste of time.

Thank you for these profound insights. So is "Herlock" wasting his time as well?

[John Wheat]

Thank you for these profound insights. So is "Herlock" wasting his time as well?

Quite possibly. Although is stating the truth ever a waste of time?

[The Baron]

I think it's highly likely that the majority of posters don't post on the Maybrick threads because its a proven forgery. And frankly they regard posting on the Maybrick threads as a waste of time.

Cheers John

That must be why the Bermuda Triangle has fewer tourists than Disneyland. And sure, Bury's threads are so quiet you can hear a Victorian ghost sigh, but that’s probably just him waiting for someone to notice he wasn’t Jack the Ripper either. Don’t worry though, I’m sure this theory will gain traction any decade now.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for these profound insights. So is "Herlock" wasting his time as well?

Would you like to explain to everyone why “Herlock” is in quotation marks Scott? Another underhand dig.

[John Wheat]

That must be why the Bermuda Triangle has fewer tourists than Disneyland. And sure, Bury's threads are so quiet you can hear a Victorian ghost sigh, but that’s probably just him waiting for someone to notice he wasn’t Jack the Ripper either. Don’t worry though, I’m sure this theory will gain traction any decade now.



The Baron

But Bury may well have been the Ripper. I'd suggest there is less interest in Bury than there could be because he was an ordinary loser type rather than a top hated toff.

[Observer]

But Bury may well have been the Ripper. I'd suggest there is less interest in Bury than there could be because he was an ordinary loser type rather than a top hated toff.

Who believes the Ripper is a "top hated toff"? Would that be Randolph Churchill? Top politicians are often hated, I've hated a few in my time.

Seriously though, the only people nowadays who believe he was a toff who wore a top hat, are those who have no in depth knowledge of the case.

[Observer]

Before the pedants move in, I am of course referring to Winston's father

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock,

Just a bit of idle conversation since we are all wasting our time anyway....

I only have a dim idea of your age, but if you don't mind me asking, do you remember how UK phone bills 'worked' in the early 1990s?

From what I understand, a call from Goldie Street to Oxford in 1992 would have been long distance and there would have been a separate charge. The way it worked in the U.S. is that these separate long-distance calls were itemized, call by call, on one's monthly phone bill. I have distinct memories of my parents scrutinizing their phone bills back in the day, with my father saying something along the lines of 'who the hell called Los Angeles and talked for ten minutes? Who do we know in Hollywood?"

In Ripper Diary we learn that Anne Graham held the purse strings on Goldie Street. She had the checking account, and she paid the bills. Anne also complained about how tight money was. Is it at all plausible that Barrett could have made a long distance call to Oxford in March 1992, long enough to make an intimate description of what he wanted, and Anne Graham wouldn't have been aware of it when April's bill showed up?

And not long after this Barrett needs to bum 25 pounds so he can pay for a useless 1891 diary?

I'm more than a little skeptical that Anne could only remember that the book cost 20 pounds.

And why Oxford? The 1991 UK census lists Liverpool's population at over 450,000 and the greater 'urban area' at over 800,000. Surely there were several local bookstores that would have been more than happy to search for rare books and without the necessity of a long-distance call on Barrett's part if he wanted to keep his inquiries secret from his wife.

My idea is that Barrett feared that when it became known in the local news media that a Liverpool bloke had "Jack the Ripper's Diary" --and news coverage would obviously have been bound to be more extensive in Liverpool than anywhere else--the local booksellers would remember his inquiries. Hence, he decided to look for the raw materials out-of-town. Maybe not even in London, since he was dealing with a London literary agent. So, he chose Oxford--a bookish city, but more out of the way.

Hunting for a blank diary in such an out-of-place way wouldn't have made any difference in Caz or Tom's theories of the red diary and indeed would have been rather pointless in the former theory since Mike was supposedly trying to determine if Eddie, stationed in Liverpool, could have easily obtained a blank diary. Nor has Caz ever explained why Barrett needed to buy the damn thing once he learned that a blank diary COULD be obtained. Everything points in the same direction.

[rjpalmer]

An objection will be made that, according to his own account, Barrett eventually did buy a blank 'diary' locally, which would put him at risk.

But the inherent risk of buying a photograph album anonymously at an auction with cash and then pawning off the album as a 'diary' (which might not ring any bells) is far less than leaving one's true name and number with booksellers around town--especially for such an unusual request. And, at any rate, once he failed to get what he wanted in Oxford, he may have become more reckless.

[The Baron]

Here’s the thing, I still believe the diary is a hoax. But credit where it’s due, the diary defenders have absolutely outclassed the anti crowd in this debate. And that’s the real embarrassment, isn’t it? I mean, when the people defending a forgery are making more sense, better arguments, and showing more composure than those supposedly standing for ‘truth’.. it kind of makes you wonder who’s really off the rails.

At this point, some of the anti-diary responses feel less like rational skepticism and more like a group therapy session for people who can’t handle being out-argued. It’s like watching someone lose a chess match, then accuse the board of being haunted.

Being right doesn't count for much when you present it like a drunk uncle at a wedding.. loud, repetitive, and somehow still losing the room.


The Baron