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

[rjpalmer]

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

Don't keep it vague with your proclamations, Baron. Be specific. Give examples.

What arguments by the diary supporters do you find persuasive? Could you spare some time away from your Lechmere fiction to explain Tom Mitchell's "doppelganger" theory so it makes sense?

Give us some examples of how their arguments are rational.

Thanks!

[rjpalmer]

Hi Tom,

From Dr. Thomas Bonds' report to Sir Robert Anderson, 16 November 1888, describing the murder of Mary Kelly. This report was thought lost until 1987, and it took several more years until it was widely known.

"The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows & ears being partly removed."

Partly removed.

From 'Maybrick's' confessional photo album, describing his murder of Mary Kelly.




"like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."

Discuss.

[The Baron]

The nose comparison doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny as disproof.

First, the phrasing is too vague to form a meaningful contradiction. Bond’s report says the nose was 'partly removed' .. not how much, or in what way. The diary says ‘cut off the bitch’s nose, all of it this time.’ The difference between ‘partly’ and ‘all’ might seem stark at first glance, but we’re talking about a highly mutilated corpse described by a doctor in restrained language versus a dramatized confession. It’s entirely possible for both to be referring to the same injury from different perspectives, especially given the ambiguity of ‘partly removed’ in a report where the entire face was described as 'gashed in all directions'.

Second, this assumes a level of precision in Bond’s note that it may not have. We're dealing with a mutilation scene so extreme that even the mortuary photographs show significant facial destruction. Interpreting exactly what was meant by 'partly removed' over a century later, and treating that as an absolute, surgical measurement is a shaky foundation for a disqualifying claim.

At best, this is a stylistic mismatch. It’s not strong enough to disprove anything, certainly not on its own.

More importantly, if the diary is genuine, its description reflects the killer’s personal recollection, which wouldn’t match the clinical tone of Bond’s official report. The diary’s 'all of it this time' expresses the murderer’s own memory or emphasis, not a forensic assessment.

So this discrepancy doesn’t disprove the diary, it could either point to a hoaxer working with partial info or to an authentic source recalling events differently from a medical professional.

Tragic, really.. all that butchery, and the case unravels over a disagreement about nasal surface area. At this point, the anti-diary crowd’s specialty isn’t solving mysteries.. it’s spectacularly losing arguments over and over like it’s an extreme sport.



The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

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

No. You don't use your real name when you post.

[rjpalmer]

Interpreting exactly what was meant by 'partly removed' over a century later, and treating that as an absolute, surgical measurement is a shaky foundation for a disqualifying claim.

If you find the term 'partly removed' difficult to interpret 'exactly,' perhaps you should find another hobby?

What can 'partly removed' mean, other than partly removed? Are you implying it was fully removed, and Bond was inaccurate?

Dr. Bond was specifically brought in by Dr. Robert Anderson due to his expertise in examining extremely horrific crime scenes, including the Battersea Mystery of 1873-74, the Rainham case (1887), and the Whitehall Mystery the previous month. That Bond is using "restrained language" in describing the injuries to Mary Kelly's face is precisely why we should accept his report without reservation.

He is detailed, clinical, and unsensational. The victim's face, unlike her viscera, was not dissected, nor where her ears, eyes, nose, or eyebrows amputated. It was 'gashed' indiscriminately and no parts were removed. There is no room for reasonable doubt, no matter how the special pleaders wish to muddy the Thames.

Indeed, I would suggest it is a disservice to the victims to play semantic games in defense of an undeniable hoax.

What you left out of your analysis is equally telling. The hoaxer is comparing his mutilations in the Kelly case to the previous murder, that of Kate Eddowes. This is significant.

"like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."

Not only is he inaccurately boasting of having completely cut off Kelly's nose, and stressing "all of it" (which we know is not true) he states that he did it "this time" with the obvious implication that he had failed the previous time. Which is historically true.


In the previous murder Kate Eddowes' nose was also severed (the only other victim so mutilated) but most of it was still attached and only tip was removed and he is demonstrating knowledge of this.

"The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the winds of the noise join to the face."

To paraphrase: "This time I am cutting the nose all the way off."

So, there is no wriggling room; he is insisting that he cut the nose completely off--he is stressing it---and this flies in the face of Bond's medical report.

This is no "stylistic mismatch.' No rational person can, with any credibility, describe this as anything other than an error.

certainly not on its own.

Who said it stands on its own?

In describing the Kelly murder, the hoaxer is also wrong about leaving the breasts on the bedside table and fleeing with 'the key' that Abberline proved was non-existent because Barnett had lost it some days or weeks earlier.

Or do you also wish to defend those errors in a document that is not even in Maybrick's handwriting?

[rjpalmer]

I think it would be very difficult to credibly argue that 'Maybrick' could accurately recall that he hadn't cut off all of Kate Eddowes' nose in the brief, dark encounter in Mitre Square but somehow got confused and later wrongly boasted of cutting all of Mary Kelly's nose during a longer encounter in a room in which there was a fire.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No. You don't use your real name when you post.

Your words - “"Duplicate" was Lombro's word in #4 for one of his suggested reasons to buy a second diary.”


So you think that Lombro is his real name or Abby Normal or Ike. Only I get the quotation marks though.

So you’ve called me “Herlock” and Banks. What have I always called you…Scott.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Roger,

I was just a babe-in-arms in 1990. Ok, not far off….I was 25, but it’s all a bit of a blur. I do seem to recall itemised bills though but not in much detail.

One thing I can't help wondering is if Mike called Earl immediately after speaking to Doreen. I seem to recall that Caz said she was working late on 9th March 1992 and, with Martin Earl conducting his business from home, he might well have answered a call after 6pm. This, I think, would have made the call cheaper.

There was an interesting discussion between Keith Skinner and David Orsam in the "Acquiring a Victorian Diary" thread in January 2018 in which Orsam had calculated that Earl needed to have sent off his request to Bookdealer in the first class post on Tuesday 10th March for it to have made it in time for inclusion in the issue of 19th March which would be consistent with Mike calling Earl during the evening of 9th March (but also of course with calling during the next day).

As to that, it has been pointed out that Mike's affidavit states that Anne bought the diary. I've found an old post from Shirley Harrison in which she reported that Martin Earl had written her a letter dated 23 June 1999 which stated:


"I can confirm that in 1992 we had an inquiry from a Mr Barrett who asked us to locate a Victorian Diary.

We did locate such a diary for 1891 and that was supplied to Mr Barrett on March 26th 1992.

I can also confirm that as far as I can recollect we were advertising in the Yellow pages at that time& it is quite possible that Mr Barrett obtained our details from that source.

I can also confirm that this type of request is unusual. As an out of print Booksearch company the majority of inquiries are for published out of print titles."

The thing I find odd about this is that Earl doesn't seem to confirm that Mrs Barrett played no part in the purchase. Given the wording of Mike's affidavit, I would have thought he would have been asked about this by Shirley. Earl also doesn't explain whether he was going from memory and positively remembered speaking to a man or if he was using documents which confirmed it. Certainly what he says seems determinative but it's hard to be sure.

I did read Orsam saying that he'd searched the Yellow Pages for Liverpool and Oxford from 1991-2 but Martin Earl wasn't advertising in it at that time.. Whether that means anything I don't know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What would anyone think if the hypothetical situation below occurred…


Poster X says that Bury considered a good suspect - I post saying that Bury is one of the stronger of the named suspects - Poster X suddenly says that Bury is a joke suspect.

Poster X says that Cross is an appalling suspect and ‘Lechmerians’ cannot be believed on anything - I post a long piece on why Cross is a poor suspect - Poster X says that Cross is now a super suspect.

Poster X has never commented on the Van Gogh theory - I comment on what a laughable theory it is - Poster X suddenly finds it an intriguing and valid theory.

Poster X is fervently (and I do mean fervently) anti-diary - I post agreeing that the diary is a forgery - Poster X suddenly finds the merit in the previously insulted diary side and that those posting against the diary are now the ones deserving criticism

[Lombro2]

I’m sure Poster X would rather be wrong for the right reason than being right for the wrong reason.

Doesn’t that means he places a premium on reasoning correctly?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m sure Poster X would rather be wrong for the right reason than being right for the wrong reason.

Doesn’t that means he places a premium on reasoning correctly?

Or it means Poster X is not telling the truth, has absolutely no interest in who is reasoning correctly, and merely wants to adopt an adverse position to mine due to his or her own personal agenda.

I’ll leave it at that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you find the term 'partly removed' difficult to interpret 'exactly,' perhaps you should find another hobby?

I’d suggest that ‘partially’ means ‘not fully’ and that ‘removed’ means ‘taken away.’ So Roger, I deduce that ‘partially removed’ means ‘not fully taken away.’

Do I win a cigar…that was really tricky.

What can 'partly removed' mean, other than partly removed? Are you implying it was fully removed, and Bond was inaccurate?

Maybe Dr Bond didn’t have access to a dictionary?

Dr. Bond was specifically brought in by Dr. Robert Anderson due to his expertise in examining extremely horrific crime scenes, including the Battersea Mystery of 1873-74, the Rainham case (1887), and the Whitehall Mystery the previous month. That Bond is using "restrained language" in describing the injuries to Mary Kelly's face is precisely why we should accept his report without reservation.

He is detailed, clinical, and unsensational. The victim's face, unlike her viscera, was not dissected, nor where her ears, eyes, nose, or eyebrows amputated. It was 'gashed' indiscriminately and no parts were removed. There is no room for reasonable doubt, no matter how the special pleaders wish to muddy the Thames.

Indeed, I would suggest it is a disservice to the victims to play semantic games in defense of an undeniable hoax.

Absolutely correct Roger.

What you left out of your analysis is equally telling. The hoaxer is comparing his mutilations in the Kelly case to the previous murder, that of Kate Eddowes. This is significant.

"like the other whore I cut off the bitches nose, all of it this time."

Not only is he inaccurately boasting of having completely cut off Kelly's nose, and stressing "all of it" (which we know is not true) he states that he did it "this time" with the obvious implication that he had failed the previous time. Which is historically true.

I’m getting the impression that this ‘diary’ is a forgery Roger.

In the previous murder Kate Eddowes' nose was also severed (the only other victim so mutilated) but most of it was still attached and only tip was removed and he is demonstrating knowledge of this.

"The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the winds of the noise join to the face."

To paraphrase: "This time I am cutting the nose all the way off."

Couldn't be clearer Roger.

So, there is no wriggling room; he is insisting that he cut the nose completely off--he is stressing it---and this flies in the face of Bond's medical report.

This is no "stylistic mismatch.' No rational person can, with any credibility, describe this as anything other than an error.

They certainly couldn’t. It’s another glaring error in this forged diary.


Who said it stands on its own?

In describing the Kelly murder, the hoaxer is also wrong about leaving the breasts on the bedside table and fleeing with 'the key' that Abberline proved was non-existent because Barnett had lost it some days or weeks earlier.

Or do you also wish to defend those errors in a document that is not even in Maybrick's handwriting?

The list is an extensive one Roger. The diary is a modern forgery and should be accepted as such by all.

[Scott Nelson]

Your words - “"Duplicate" was Lombro's word in #4 for one of his suggested reasons to buy a second diary.”


So you think that Lombro is his real name or Abby Normal or Ike. Only I get the quotation marks though.

So you’ve called me “Herlock” and Banks. What have I always called you…Scott.

No idea what you're on about.

[Lombro2]

This guy (no quotations) gets hypersensitive over every perceived slight.

It makes sense because they fight sword duels with paper. And we have to die from the perceived paper cuts they inflict. All the blood of course is just cherry juice!

[Lombro2]

We know who just wants to be “right”. They never admit to faulty reasoning after throwing out lists of their “reasons”.

1. Why do you need a list?
2. How were you right every time?

But they’re right and so they’ve arrived. Who cares how they got there? It’s the destination, not the journey.