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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'll deal with this one when I next get time to visit the boards, but you took two quotes, attributed to Keith by Shirley in her book, out of their context and isolated them for your own ends, and then accused me of doing something similar. I couldn't speak for Keith at the time, and you didn't give your readers enough context for anyone to know if Shirley had added more context herself, or was even quoting him verbatim, both accurately and in full, so it would have been unfair to expect me - or Erobitha - to give you full answers regarding both quotes, when you may only have provided half the information needed to do so. In future, selective quoting of someone's presumed position is best avoided if you expect anyone to comment fully on that person's actual position.

A little tip for you Caz. Whenever anyone moans that a quote has been taken out of context but then doesn't go on to provide the missing context, you know they are full of it.

There is no context to those quotes attributed to Keith Skinner that changes their meaning, and what you've failed to acknowledge is that in my post to Erobtiha I gave the page reference to where they can be found in Harrison's 2003 book, so anyone, including you, could have looked it up themselves.

But if you really want the entire thing, here it is within a section headed "ANNE'S STORY" regarding the recorded message she had left on 31st July 1994 in which she broke her stunning yarn about the diary having been in her family for many years having not said a single word about this to any of the researchers before that day.

"Anne has explained her actions now many times. She wrote to me with obvious distress in July 1997 saying that from the time the contracts were signed our contract had always been with Michael So far as she was concerned we were just 'the people in London'. She certainly didn't think of us as friends or even colleagues at that stage. Her life was in turmoil; as a Catholic the concept of divorce as horrific and she could not share her problems with anyone, certainly not with us.

"I also worried that the research waters had been muddied, but I was extremely relieved to learn later how closely Keith had been involved with the unravelling of the plot because I trust his integrity implicitly. Keith has said to be on many occasions, "I was involved from the very first and I was present at most of the meetings of Paul and Billy. If the story had been forced I would have detected it by now. If I had detected it I would have exposed it.

'Those who believe Anne is lying, or that she has been bought by Paul must include me in the plot as well," he claims. In his inimitable, pernickety way he has, at times, tested Anne's patience with his minute cross-examination of every second of the journey that led her to make the confession. Keith's honesty and fervour is very persuasive. Anne's defection and seeming obliviousness to her professional and personal responsibility to us and indeed to the Devereux family distressed me, but on balance I see now how it could have happened."

Is that enough for you or do you want me to reproduce the entire book?

And, by way of reminder of the context for my exchange with Erobitha into which you interjected yourself, this all came about because Erobitha posted in #1164:

"I trust Keith’s view and interpretation of how Anne interacted with him. That’s first-hand experience which cannot be so easily brushed off as some might think. It needs to be considered. She actively assisted Keith with many things related to the research on the diary."

The point at issue is whether Keith's view and interpretation of how Anne interacted him can be trusted. The evidence suggests it cannot. I was pointing out that he trusted Anne's story before, and pretty much staked his own reputation on the fact that she was telling the truth, according to the quote attributed to him by Shirley Harrison.

If you have anything sensible to say about any of this do go ahead but please spare us the constant moaning and smear attempts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, you do. You also believe there is a connection between Sasquatch and UFO sightings.

If some of the diary crowd weren't so damned disagreeable, I might find their support for the hoax almost endearing. It really doesn't matter that a few souls still believe in the Flat Earth or the Cottingley Fairies or a spaceship crashed in Roswell. I'm no Melvin Harris. I don't think the world will end if a few people believe in fairy stories.

I draw the line at deliberate fraud, though. People shouldn't create bogus historical artifacts, and other people should have enough sense not to promote them.

I do try to remind myself that the diary supporters are victims. Or at least once upon a time they were. They were bamboozled by the hoaxers, but these days they are mainly fooled by themselves.

The only person that should really be answering questions still lives in Liverpool. Aloof and unconcerned. Instead, we indulge in the surrogate activity of bashing each other's brains in.

I couldn’t agree more Roger. And then they try and make out it’s those on the other side that are the culprits when we’ve discussed the subject ant hand only. It should be about the subject and nothing more. We’ve had a desperate attempt at refuting ‘one off instance’ which has been categorically proven wrong and yet we have two people (well, three) who simply refuse to accept what has been shown in black and white.

[Lombro2]

The majority of Cryptozoologists who are in the mainstream believe there is no connection between UFOs and Sasquatch. Because the majority believe it's a biological creature.

Thank you Mr. Majority and Mr. Mainstream for pointing out that I am once again in the minority and not in the mainstream like you are.

If the analogous shoe fits you, you shouldn't try to shoehorn it onto someone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The majority of Cryptozoologists who are in the mainstream believe there is no connection between UFOs and Sasquatch. Because the majority believe it's a biological creature.

Thank you Mr. Majority and Mr. Mainstream for pointing out that I am once again in the minority and not in the mainstream like you are.

If the analogous shoe fits you, you shouldn't try to shoehorn it onto someone else.

Any chance of discussing the subject at hand Lombro? I don’t know why you keep trying to score points over this word ‘minority.’ I simply stated something that is a fact. That in Ripperology those who believed in the diary are in a small minority. I didn’t say that it makes them bad people…I didn’t say that those in the minority shouldn’t have an opinion…I merely stated a fact.

[Lombro2]

The subject at hand is irrelevant since you agree with Caz on inauthenticity and also agree with her that maybe someone else forged it besides Barrett.

It's also irrelevant since it's a detail being discussed about something that I don't believe is proven in the first place, so why would I want to know the details. I know I once was convinced by someone who explained the lighter-than-air dynamics of dragon-flight to believe in dragons, but that was a long time ago. Prove your theory first to someone and then provide details when asked for them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The subject at hand is irrelevant since you agree with Caz on inauthenticity and also agree with her that maybe someone else forged it besides Barrett.

It's also irrelevant since it's a detail being discussed about something that I don't believe is proven in the first place, so why would I want to know the details. I know I once was convinced by someone who explained the lighter-than-air dynamics of dragon-flight to believe in dragons, but that was a long time ago. Prove your theory first to someone and then provide details when asked for them.

You're mistaken Lombro. Caz doesn't think "that maybe someone else forged it besides Barrett", she is certain that someone else forged it besides Barrett, which is our point of disagreement.

If she agrees that the diary is inauthentic, it's remarkable that she argues against every mistake in the diary, without exception, showing it to be inauthentic.

Basing a conclusion on the handwriting alone, which is ultimately a matter of opinion, is not something I agree with, so there's another area of disagreement.

Ultimately, though, you might have noticed that apart from replying to you when you're not off hunting for the Loch Ness Monster (or Ike when he's not crying in a corner somewhere), I haven't been making any positive posts about the diary recently. I spend most days replying to Caz's endless non-stop almost unreadable ramblings addressed to me, full of evidence-free speculation about what Mike and Anne would have been thinking and doing in 1992, and then scratching my head as to why most of our discussions seem to end immediately after I ask her a difficult question which never gets answered.

[Lombro2]

You’ve never won an argument against her certainty and in favour of your uncertainty.

I’m sure of it. But I’m not sure how you can be sure of the opposite concerning your uncertainty.

But I agree there can be no certainty for or against with the handwriting. So authenticity is still the main issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You’ve never won an argument against her certainty and in favour of your uncertainty.

I’m sure of it. But I’m not sure how you can be sure of the opposite concerning your uncertainty.

But I agree there can be no certainty for or against with the handwriting. So authenticity is still the main issue.

Of course I won the argument against her certainty. Even Ike now admits that there's no reason that the Barretts couldn't have produced the diary. Caz certainly hasn't been able to produce one. Nor has she been able to produce a plausible reason as to why Barrett was seeking a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages during March 1992.

I'm not uncertain of the inauthenticity of the diary which has been fully proven. The handwriting is one element, the multiple mistakes in the diary are another, the ink solubility test result is yet another, but the absolute clincher is the use by the forger of the modern expression "a one off instance" which is known not to have existed in 1888.

[Iconoclast]

Even Ike now admits that there's no reason that the Barretts couldn't have produced the diary.

To be absolutely clear, I don't think there is anything that I can think of off the top of my head that precludes the possibility that the Barretts produced the Maybrick scrapbook; but let me be also very clear that I know that there is absolutely no categorical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did and I believe there are very good reasons for believing that they did not.

Mike's attempt to order an 1889 or 1890 diary coupled with his acceptance of an 1891 diary is the deal-breaker for the one piece of evidence your Love Dad has claimed is his reason for thinking that they did: it is borderline impossible that Mike could have thought a small 1891 diary (however blank he might have thought it was) could be a suitable vehicle for a hoaxed 1888 record of James Maybrick's thoughts and no amount of twisting and turning by you or anyone else can make it any less implausible.

Yes, in the very general sense, an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 hoaxed record of someone's thoughts if it turned out to have the appropriate characteristics (the obvious one being that it wasn't emblazoned with '1891' on every page); but - no - in the very specific case of what you claim Barrett was seeking to do with the tiny 1891 diary, it is utterly implausible that he could have thought it was an appropriate vehicle.

[caz]

Basing a conclusion on the handwriting alone, which is ultimately a matter of opinion, is not something I agree with, so there's another area of disagreement.

Yeah, I concluded a very long time ago that the diary wasn't handwritten by Maybrick on the handwriting alone. It's interesting to see you say that this is ultimately a matter of opinion and not something you agree with, but I won't be changing it anytime soon.

[caz]

So which was it? The idea of their collaboration was "absolute rubbish" or she planned on manipulating Barrett into a writing a story together?

Oh, I thought Palmer was the one with all the answers about how Anne's mind worked. Silly me.

I have not ignored the contradictions in her story, but I'm more inclined to believe - from what we know about Mike's character - that she would never have 'collaborated' with her loose cannon of a husband on a literary hoax, and if she was hoping to 'manipulate' him in March 1992, the evidence indicates it was to persuade him not to go public with the diary [which she obviously failed to do], which makes little sense if she had been collaborating with him over the previous months if not years to write the story for it, before doing the handwriting herself, knowing full well that Mike would be incapable and she would be the fall girl if it went tits up or - heaven forbid - the marriage broke down and Mike decided to "split" on his estranged soul mate.

We never get a rational explanation for such totally irrational behaviour on Anne's part. We just have to suck it up and accept that she would have put in all the hard yards, while supposedly manipulating Mike into thinking it was his own idea and his own work, but got cold feet when she finally saw what they'd gone and done or, more accurately, what she'd been manipulated into doing. Perhaps Mike held her feet to the fire and got them warm again, so she would go along with his wishes after all, and against her own - so much for her ability to manipulate him!

Make it make sense!

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be absolutely clear, I don't think there is anything that I can think of off the top of my head that precludes the possibility that the Barretts produced the Maybrick scrapbook; but let me be also very clear that I know that there is absolutely no categorical evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did and I believe there are very good reasons for believing that they did not.

Mike's attempt to order an 1889 or 1890 diary coupled with his acceptance of an 1891 diary is the deal-breaker for the one piece of evidence your Love Dad has claimed is his reason for thinking that they did: it is borderline impossible that Mike could have thought a small 1891 diary (however blank he might have thought it was) could be a suitable vehicle for a hoaxed 1888 record of James Maybrick's thoughts and no amount of twisting and turning by you or anyone else can make it any less implausible.

Yes, in the very general sense, an 1891 diary could have been used for an 1888 hoaxed record of someone's thoughts if it turned out to have the appropriate characteristics (the obvious one being that it wasn't emblazoned with '1891' on every page); but - no - in the very specific case of what you claim Barrett was seeking to do with the tiny 1891 diary, it is utterly implausible that he could have thought it was an appropriate vehicle.

Off the top of your head???? How long have you had to think about it? We spoke about this many weeks ago.

As for the red diary, please explain clearly how what you refer to as "the very general sense" differs from "the very specific case" in circumstances where there is no evidence in the specific case as to how the seller described the 1891 diary to Martin Earl, no evidence as to how Martin Earl described it to Michael Barret and no evidence what Michael Barrett believed a Victorian diary looked like when he spoke to Earl other than that "the diary of Jack the Ripper" he mentioned to Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992 turned out not to have any printed dates on it.