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

[rjpalmer]

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.

Hi Ike,

let me just say this, because I was planning on saying it before I decided to take my bat and mitt and go home. It has to do with blank diaries.

A lady friend of mine is selling her house to move into smaller quarters, so she's giving away many of her unwanted possessions.

Last week she handed me a completely blank book (with a strap around it) and asked, "can you use this diary?"

Ah hah!

I, of course, took the opportunity to ask her why she was calling it a diary. She gave me the look.

Now, let me be clear: inside the diary she handed me there is a small space at the top of each page to write down a date. But there are no printed dates. Just the single word "date: "

I asked her if she didn't think a true Bonafide diary shouldn't have dates printed on each page?

She gave me the look again.

She said no--that's a lousy sort of diary. That's more of a memo book, she said, or a daily planner. It's not a diary.

Why? I asked.

"Because when you keep a diary some days you have nothing to say. Other days something wonderful or horrible happened and you might want to write four or five pages so having the constraint of printed dates makes for a terrible diary. You might also get busy and not write in your diary for two weeks, in which case you've wasted paper. No, a good diary should be blank--no printed dates."

If you want to argue with her, Ike, drop me a PM and I'll hook you up, but I'll warn you now that you'll never convince her.

RP

[caz]

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?

No, that's fine. I'm also thinking of the other readers, who may not have 'the entire book' to hand, to check exactly what Shirley wrote about her own understanding of Keith's position. I do have Shirley's 1998 edition, and Keith Skinner also kindly transcribed the passage in question for me, which you have now done, so I'm much obliged to you both.

Shirley writes that Keith had 'said' to her 'on many occasions' the words she attributes to him, and which you have queried, so that in itself should tell you that he was not likely to have used those exact same words on each one of those occasions, unless he wrote them down beforehand, in which case he need only have said it to her the once, or given her a copy if he was happy for her to quote him verbatim for future editions of her book.

A 'plot' is generally defined as a secret plan by two or more people. Keith is referring here to a plot by Anne and Paul Feldman to invent a new provenance for the diary. He remembers very clearly the circumstances when he believed Anne's story, which he says has now been 'seriously challenged' by the Battlecrease circumstantial evidence, but not to the point of disproving it. He points out that only Anne, a living witness, can answer this. He firmly rejects the theory that Mike and Anne wrote the diary. When Keith explained his position to Shirley, he tells me it was 'against a background of gossip and innuendo suggesting that Anne had been bought by Paul Feldman'. As Keith was working very closely with both of them, he just could not see how this was the case. He says: 'If I discovered there was collusion between them then I would have exposed it and walked from the project.' He recalls being frequently in Feldman's office at all times, day and night, when Feldman phoned Anne, or Anne phoned Feldman, who put the loudspeaker on so Keith could hear the conversation, which was about the ongoing research into Anne's family. There was nothing to alert Anne to the fact that Keith was listening in and to be guarded in what she said. Keith says it was the fact that Feldman genuinely believed in the authenticity of the diary and was positive it had come through Anne's family, which convinced him of both their sincerity at the time. He could not understand Feldman throwing more and more money into research to try and prove a story which he and Anne, plus her father, had invented together.

If I may take the words out of context for a moment, to produce: 'Those who believe Anne is lying... must include me in the plot as well', this appears to imply that if Anne was lying, Keith must have known it at the time. But all it really means is that Keith believed Anne because he also believed he'd have known it if she was lying. But he didn't know any such thing then, and still doesn't know it for a fact today. If both those beliefs have since been put to the test, it's hardly the end of the world. People believe things all the time, which don't always turn out to be true. People also believe in their own ability to distinguish truth from lies, as we see in action on a daily basis in this place, and none of us can be right all the time. It doesn't make any of us bad people when we get it wrong, as long as we haven't deliberately manipulated, mangled or ignored the known facts, evidence and context on the way there. In the Scottish play, King Duncan transferred his absolute trust from one traitor to another, with fatal consequences. If an army of doubters had told him the man and his fiend-like wife were plotting to murder him while under their roof, he might have said, rather dramatically, in his best Victor Meldrew voice: "I don't believe it! Those who do believe it must count me in on this dastardly plot!" In his case, it would be his own burial plot. In Keith's case, his original belief in Anne's story would merely need replacing with proof positive, if it exists, that she was lying - and to Feldman, not with him.

[caz]

Didn't you also once say a very long time ago that the handwriting opinion couldn't be taken as conclusive proof that the diary wasn't written by Maybrick?

I could have done, I don't recall. I know I suggested at some point that the diary we have, while not penned by Maybrick, could have been copied or adapted by someone from an original document - which is essentially what people have claimed about the Barretts, that Anne would have been copying from the original on the word processor, whether it was all her own work, all Mike's work or a joint effort.

I trust it won't become a capital offence to carry two or more ideas in one's head at the same or different times, or I'll be for it.

But who mentioned 'conclusive proof'? It was you, not me. When someone reaches a conclusion, and says they won't be changing what is ultimately a matter of opinion anytime soon, the clues are there that they are not talking about 'conclusive proof'.

This pedant is now officially revolting.

[rjpalmer]

We never get a rational explanation for such totally irrational behaviour on Anne's part.

Oh, and one final thing. Why would anyone expect that the behavior of someone married to a raging alcoholic to be 'totally rational'?

Everyone reacts differently, or invents different strategies, but I knew of one enabler who would physically fight her alcoholic husband on the kitchen floor one moment and drive fifteen miles into town to buy him a bottle of whiskey the next, or even, on occasion, go out drinking with him when two weeks earlier she had pleaded him to go into rehab.

Is that rational? And this was an intelligent and well-educated person.

There's a quote in either Inside Story or Shirley's last edition (I forget which) where Anne admonishes her interviewers, telling them they had no idea of the atmosphere inside the Goldie Street house. That she is not the same person now that she was then.

Yet now--years later--the same people can tell us with absolute conviction what Anne would and would not have done in 1991-1992. Their thumb is firmly on her pulse--or at least they've convinced themselves that it is.

If, in a particularly bad time in her life, Anne created or helped create the diary, I think the world would forgive her. But she should find the courage to set the record straight.

I never met the woman, but from what I've read she comes across as quite complicated and enigmatic. Not a two-dimensional easy-to-predict person at all. Not a cartoon character. Her own behavior shows that she wasn't always behaving rationally. How can anyone keep a straight face and argue otherwise?

[caz]

I've given you two totally rational explanations but you pretend they are batshit crazy so you can keep up the pretense that the diary is something that it isn't.

1. She helped Mike because everyone misjudged her (including me on the 'outside') and she was a lot more conniving and desperate in 1992 than anyone imagined. According to Martin Fido, 'Bonsey,' the investigating officer from Scotland Yard, was VERY suspicious of Anne's behavior.

2. She helped Mike to keep peace in the house, believing the whole thing would amount to nothing once Barrett went to London. 'Doreen would just send Mike packing.'

I lean towards the latter--referencing Anne's own words--but if I'm wrong, I'd only opt for #1.

The funny thing is, you have no problem whatsoever with suggesting that Anne committed the equally crazy scheme of helping Mike market stolen goods, nor in admitting (as gently as you can) that Anne spent years bullshitting Keith and Shirley and Feldman with a long string of porkies--evidently because Feldy had offered her financial riches--- but the same deceitful person helping Mike create a hoax?

No. That's utterly ridiculous!

Can't you see how utterly unconvincing and contradictory this ethical juggling act appears to someone on the 'outside'?

But from what I can gather, we are supposed to trust your judgment about Anne because you met her once or twice and could see into her soul?

Is that what you're telling me?

If so, I'm not buying it.

Blimey, "calm down, calm down".

I don't believe Anne 'helped' Mike to create a hoax. It's not a crime to be sceptical, or Palmer would be doing time.

I don't believe Anne 'helped' Mike to market what she knew to be faked or stolen goods. She didn't know where the diary came from - unless Palmer wants to claim Mike showed her his lucky 'ticket/receipt/proof of purchase' or what have you.

I believe Anne only 'helped' Mike when she had exhausted her efforts to dissuade him from going public with a diary he got from God knows where, and sufficient time had passed to diminish her fears that anyone would miss it from their private collection of serial killer diaries.

She then put on her 'professional' bonnet and helped Mike to transcribe the diary onto the word processor, because the handwriting does not lend itself to an easy read in places. It would have saved her the bother, if it had been her own handwriting, to make it all perfectly legible in the first place, unless she couldn't multi-task and disguising it over 63 pages was hard enough when she only had one stab at it.

Who has been asked to 'trust' my beliefs about Anne just because I have met her - and found her a bit defensive if anyone wants to know?

Where have I claimed the ability to see into her soul or anyone else's?

[caz]

Hi Ike,

let me just say this, because I was planning on saying it before I decided to take my bat and mitt and go home. It has to do with blank diaries.

A lady friend of mine is selling her house to move into smaller quarters, so she's giving away many of her unwanted possessions.

Last week she handed me a completely blank book (with a strap around it) and asked, "can you use this diary?"

Ah hah!

I, of course, took the opportunity to ask her why she was calling it a diary. She gave me the look.

Now, let me be clear: inside the diary she handed me there is a small space at the top of each page to write down a date. But there are no printed dates. Just the single word "date: "

I asked her if she didn't think a true Bonafide diary shouldn't have dates printed on each page?

She gave me the look again.

She said no--that's a lousy sort of diary. That's more of a memo book, she said, or a daily planner. It's not a diary.

Why? I asked.

"Because when you keep a diary some days you have nothing to say. Other days something wonderful or horrible happened and you might want to write four or five pages so having the constraint of printed dates makes for a terrible diary. You might also get busy and not write in your diary for two weeks, in which case you've wasted paper. No, a good diary should be blank--no printed dates."

If you want to argue with her, Ike, drop me a PM and I'll hook you up, but I'll warn you now that you'll never convince her.

RP

So Mike didn't think to ask for a diary with no printed dates, or didn't think to ask if the one located for 1891 had printed dates, or was a memo book, daily planner or appointments diary? He merely assumed it would be the kind of personal diary that he either needed pretty soon, or already had, and ended up taking to London?

And Anne trusted Mike to know what the hell he was doing, when trying to obtain something suitable for Maybrick's undated thoughts on certain nights during 1888 and 1889?

Really?

Is that all the Barrett Hoax believers have got?

[Iconoclast]

She said no--that's a lousy sort of diary. That's more of a memo book, she said, or a daily planner. It's not a diary. RP

I think you'll find (if you do one of those you-said-this-four-billion-years-ago searches) that I included this type of diary in my definition of 'diaries'.

A document which has dates in it or a document which has places specifically reserved for dates has very clearly been produced to act as a diary (and I agree with your friend that the maximum value is to be had from skipping the dreadful days when nothing much happens - though, in this case, I would go further and suggest that a common or garden notebook does an even better job because it just feels uber-personalised without the little spaces for the dates) but that's not the point in the case of Mike Barrett's purchase of the 1891 diary.

According to the likes of you and Sholmes, Mike was seeking a suitable document to hoax the 1888 thoughts of a fictional James Maybrick into. This fact changes the game completely. He's gone from someone looking for a diary (with dates, with spaces for dates, or even an old notebook which could function as a record of someone's thoughts) - so a search in the general sense - to someone needing a document that could possibly pass for an 1888 record of someone's thoughts - so a search in the specific sense).

I'm so bored with this linguistic knitting. I agree that an 1891 diary with the appropriate characteristics could function as an 1888 diary but I stress that - within that - I reserve the right to expect someone seeking a very specific type of 'diary' to ask the simple questions to confirm its suitability for their very specific objective.

Bored, RJ. I'm completely bored with it. Let's not do this one again. Mike Barrett accepting a tiny 1891 diary is all the proof any of us need that this was NOT evidence that he was seeking to hoax the 1888 thoughts of a man who might have been Jack the Ripper. So - ipso facto - he must have wanted it for some other purpose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He remembers very clearly the circumstances when he believed Anne's story, which he says has now been 'seriously challenged' by the Battlecrease circumstantial evidence, but not to the point of disproving it.

"He remembers very clearly the circumstances when he believed Anne's story, which he says has now been 'seriously challenged' by the Battlecrease circumstantial evidence, but not to the point of disproving it."

Ike, calling Ike. EMERGENCY!

Had you better not write to your penpal to explain to him how your statistical analysis of the 9th March 1992 coincidence proves that the diary was found in Battlecrease?

How have you left him believing that the Battlecrease evidence is only "circumstantial" and unproven?

There was me thinking you'd cracked it. Oh well, never mind. Perhaps it was the Barretts wot done it after all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, that's fine. I'm also thinking of the other readers, who may not have 'the entire book' to hand, to check exactly what Shirley wrote about her own understanding of Keith's position. I do have Shirley's 1998 edition, and Keith Skinner also kindly transcribed the passage in question for me, which you have now done, so I'm much obliged to you both.

Shirley writes that Keith had 'said' to her 'on many occasions' the words she attributes to him, and which you have queried, so that in itself should tell you that he was not likely to have used those exact same words on each one of those occasions, unless he wrote them down beforehand, in which case he need only have said it to her the once, or given her a copy if he was happy for her to quote him verbatim for future editions of her book.

A 'plot' is generally defined as a secret plan by two or more people. Keith is referring here to a plot by Anne and Paul Feldman to invent a new provenance for the diary. He remembers very clearly the circumstances when he believed Anne's story, which he says has now been 'seriously challenged' by the Battlecrease circumstantial evidence, but not to the point of disproving it. He points out that only Anne, a living witness, can answer this. He firmly rejects the theory that Mike and Anne wrote the diary. When Keith explained his position to Shirley, he tells me it was 'against a background of gossip and innuendo suggesting that Anne had been bought by Paul Feldman'. As Keith was working very closely with both of them, he just could not see how this was the case. He says: 'If I discovered there was collusion between them then I would have exposed it and walked from the project.' He recalls being frequently in Feldman's office at all times, day and night, when Feldman phoned Anne, or Anne phoned Feldman, who put the loudspeaker on so Keith could hear the conversation, which was about the ongoing research into Anne's family. There was nothing to alert Anne to the fact that Keith was listening in and to be guarded in what she said. Keith says it was the fact that Feldman genuinely believed in the authenticity of the diary and was positive it had come through Anne's family, which convinced him of both their sincerity at the time. He could not understand Feldman throwing more and more money into research to try and prove a story which he and Anne, plus her father, had invented together.

If I may take the words out of context for a moment, to produce: 'Those who believe Anne is lying... must include me in the plot as well', this appears to imply that if Anne was lying, Keith must have known it at the time. But all it really means is that Keith believed Anne because he also believed he'd have known it if she was lying. But he didn't know any such thing then, and still doesn't know it for a fact today. If both those beliefs have since been put to the test, it's hardly the end of the world. People believe things all the time, which don't always turn out to be true. People also believe in their own ability to distinguish truth from lies, as we see in action on a daily basis in this place, and none of us can be right all the time. It doesn't make any of us bad people when we get it wrong, as long as we haven't deliberately manipulated, mangled or ignored the known facts, evidence and context on the way there. In the Scottish play, King Duncan transferred his absolute trust from one traitor to another, with fatal consequences. If an army of doubters had told him the man and his fiend-like wife were plotting to murder him while under their roof, he might have said, rather dramatically, in his best Victor Meldrew voice: "I don't believe it! Those who do believe it must count me in on this dastardly plot!" In his case, it would be his own burial plot. In Keith's case, his original belief in Anne's story would merely need replacing with proof positive, if it exists, that she was lying - and to Feldman, not with him.

Thank you for that response, Caz, and I greatly appreciate the tone in which it was written. I do wish all our exchanges could stay at this level of politeness and respect.

I can only say that my reason for citing those quotes of Keith's was not to criticize the man but to respond to Erobitha's claim that he trusted Keith's assessment of Anne because of Keith's "first hand experience".

Again, without wishing to criticize Keith, I don't think it's controversial to say that, even on his own view of matters, Anne is highly likely to have successfully deceived him over an extended period of time. On your view, whereby you're on record as saying that you have "absolutely no doubt" that the diary came out of Battlecrease, she definitely did deceive him.

So it seems to be to be unconscionable for Erobitha to rely on Keith's "view and interpretation of how Anne interacted with him". I don't think that anything that you or Keith have said in your post can possibly change this conclusion. It was a silly thing for Erobitha to have said and I'm not at all surprised that you snipped it out of the quote of my post when replying to me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could have done, I don't recall. I know I suggested at some point that the diary we have, while not penned by Maybrick, could have been copied or adapted by someone from an original document - which is essentially what people have claimed about the Barretts, that Anne would have been copying from the original on the word processor, whether it was all her own work, all Mike's work or a joint effort.

I trust it won't become a capital offence to carry two or more ideas in one's head at the same or different times, or I'll be for it.

But who mentioned 'conclusive proof'? It was you, not me. When someone reaches a conclusion, and says they won't be changing what is ultimately a matter of opinion anytime soon, the clues are there that they are not talking about 'conclusive proof'.

This pedant is now officially revolting.

I can help you to refresh your memory, Caz. You suggested in 2004 that Maybrick might have disguised his handwriting in case someone came across his private diary and, recognising his handwriting, wanted to read more. Ringing any bells?

Considering that you told me that it's "interesting" to see me say that the expert opinion on the handwriting is a matter of opinion (which it obviously is by definition), you may find it equally interesting that Keith Skinner said on Casebook in 2001:

"How I wish that the dissimilarity of Maybrick's authenticated handwriting versus the Diary handwriting conclusively proved that he "didn't write the thing.". How I wish I could be that positive and confident".


I'm not aware of any new handwriting evidence which has been produced since 2001, so Keith is presumably of the same view today. Do you agree or disagree with him?

You have, of course, rightly said on many occasions that the handwriting doesn't resemble Maybrick's normal handwriting. For example, in response to John Omlor in 2005 claiming that you had stated categorically that the diary was a fake, you replied: "If I did I was naughty, because I couldn't have known that. But 'in the past' is the past. If I said "the handwriting is not recognisable as Maybrick's" I'd be happy with that today". And I agree with you entirely that the handwriting does not resemble Maybrick's. But, as Keith Skinner has observed, that doesn't conclusively prove he didn't write the thing.

What does, however, conclusively prove that he didn't write the thing is the inclusion in it of "a one off instance".

[Herlock Sholmes]

So Mike didn't think to ask for a diary with no printed dates, or didn't think to ask if the one located for 1891 had printed dates, or was a memo book, daily planner or appointments diary? He merely assumed it would be the kind of personal diary that he either needed pretty soon, or already had, and ended up taking to London?

And Anne trusted Mike to know what the hell he was doing, when trying to obtain something suitable for Maybrick's undated thoughts on certain nights during 1888 and 1889?

Really?

Is that all the Barrett Hoax believers have got?

But what if Mike wasn't aware that printed diaries existed in 1888?

After all, commercially pre-printed diaries didn't even exist before 1812. How was Mike supposed to know that bit of obscure historical trivia? If he'd been after a 1788 diary, it definitely wouldn't have printed dates so, if he'd been offered one from 1791, asking if it had printed dates would have been a daft question.

And my question is serious. Ike hasn't answered it, so maybe you'll have a crack at it: How do you know that Mike was aware that pre-printed diaries existed in the late 19th century?

[caz]

Oh, and one final thing. Why would anyone expect that the behavior of someone married to a raging alcoholic to be 'totally rational'?

Everyone reacts differently, or invents different strategies, but I knew of one enabler who would physically fight her alcoholic husband on the kitchen floor one moment and drive fifteen miles into town to buy him a bottle of whiskey the next, or even, on occasion, go out drinking with him when two weeks earlier she had pleaded him to go into rehab.

Is that rational? And this was an intelligent and well-educated person.

And what are the chances that Herlock will patronisingly lecture Palmer on personal life experiences being 'best avoided' when discussing the Barretts?

Zero, that's what.

Yet now--years later--the same people can tell us with absolute conviction what Anne would and would not have done in 1991-1992. Their thumb is firmly on her pulse--or at least they've convinced themselves that it is.

I wish Palmer would quit with this 'absolute conviction' myth, when he has managed to convince himself that he is right about what Anne did in 1992.

If, in a particularly bad time in her life, Anne created or helped create the diary, I think the world would forgive her. But she should find the courage to set the record straight.

And if Ike's auntie had... oh, never mind. At least an 'if' is better than a 'when'.

I never met the woman, but from what I've read she comes across as quite complicated and enigmatic. Not a two-dimensional easy-to-predict person at all. Not a cartoon character. Her own behavior shows that she wasn't always behaving rationally. How can anyone keep a straight face and argue otherwise?

Again, who is arguing that Anne is a 'cartoon character' to be drawn in the image required by the theorist, if not Palmer himself?

Everyone is 'quite complicated and enigmatic', some more so than others. I didn't say she always behaved rationally. I don't think it was rational of her to lie to Feldman, knowing she would need a good memory to keep the story straight, and lots of shoring up by way of additional details and explanations that she was bound to be asked for. Maybe she wasn't good at predicting the consequences of her own actions, but she was good at one thing: knowing her husband. If she couldn't predict the shi* show coming their way, as a direct result of Mike's actions - whatever we believe they were in relation to the diary - then she didn't know Jack shi*.

IMHO as always.

[rjpalmer]

And Anne trusted Mike to know what the hell he was doing, when trying to obtain something suitable for Maybrick's undated thoughts on certain nights during 1888 and 1889?

More musical chairs played to the tune of They All Loved Jack.

Who is to say that Anne even knew about Mike's phone call to faraway Oxford until the phone bill showed up?

And who is to say that Anne approved of his shenanigans? According to your own theory, Anne didn't want it published. I agree. I even tend to agree with your belief that Anne and Mike fought on the kitchen floor. I can't wrap my mind around Little Caroline just making it up out of the blue.

But then we return to the erratic behavior of enablers who enable troublesome and violent alcoholics.

In Martin Fido's view--which was explained to you within this very hour---Barrett took Anne's piece of fiction, behind her back, and created the artifact. That wouldn't necessitate Anne guiding Mike's purchases of raw materials. So, your objection is irrelevant.

I don't think Martin was the fool you evidently think him to have been for making this suggestion. I think he was probably about 90% correct, only--if the handwriting is Anne's---which looks to me to be a good possibility---Barrett eventually harangued her into writing it out, too, and she only did so because she believed (in her own words) that people in London would be smart enough to see the diary for what it was and 'send Mike packing.' That and Mike not taking no for an answer once he got an idea in his head.

But Anne was mistaken. The Londoners DID take it seriously. And she was trapped.

If you don't believe it, why should I be concerned? I don't believe Barrett even knew Eddie, I don't have any reason to believe he's a thief not "knowing him from soap," nor do I believe the yarn of someone selling the Diary of Jack the Ripper for twenty-five quid to a penniless alcoholic and would-be journalist. So, there's not much point in us discussing it ever again is there?

The weirdest part of the diary saga is that same people who can readily see the terrible logic of the Lechmere theory or the Lewis Carroll theory and who would be among the first to point it out, suddenly lose their ability to think critically when it comes to the Liverpool Hoax. They would be the first to laugh-off the quality of the "evidence" and logic that they themselves are presenting if it related to a different theory.

And no, that's not "all I got." If the diary had nothing to do with Barrett, how did he know more about the necessary source materials to create the fake than Keith Skinner, Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison (and later, Professor Bill Rubenstein and Tom Mitchell) combined?

Got lucky?

All five of these people wrongly concluded that the diary showed obscure information about Maybrick and his household.

Barrett basically said "bullshit. I only read one book, the 'Poisoned Life.'

And Barrett's claim tracks. How did he know what Keith and Shirley didn't know?

Answer sometime...on a saucy postcard.

[Iconoclast]

But what if Mike wasn't aware that printed diaries existed in 1888?
After all, commercially pre-printed diaries didn't even exist before 1812. How was Mike supposed to know that bit of obscure historical trivia? If he'd been after a 1788 diary, it definitely wouldn't have printed dates so, if he'd been offered one from 1791, asking if it had printed dates would have been a daft question.
And my question is serious. Ike hasn't answered it, so maybe you'll have a crack at it: How do you know that Mike was aware that pre-printed diaries existed in the late 19th century?

Please tell me you were joking?

No, I mean, literally, please tell me you were joking?

What sort of sad anorak - surrounded by a lifetime of dated diaries - does not simply assume that dated diaries existed in 1888? And - if he stopped long enough to imagine they may not have been - fails either to do some research to check or else fails to make his request for one unequivocally clear?

Quite apart from the inanity of even suggesting some sad anorak might have thought this a possibility, there could be in no sense a moment when Barrett would not have sought to clarify it if he genuinely thought it was a possibility. Given his objective, and given that he was asking in 1992, he would have had to have never seen a dated diary in his life to be labouring under the assumption that dated diaries might not have existed in 1888 (or any other year you choose to name).

I think your suggestion is facile in the extreme. It's as facile as suggesting that Mike Barrett died without ever hearing about the internet.

I didn't respond to your original suggestion because I did not believe that you believed it possible. Now I know you did and I'm stunned.

[Lombro2]

Of course Mike knew or could easily have guessed that there were diaries with printed dates in 1888—the same way he knew the diary could be used as an office journal for receipts and scrapbooking because it has stubs.

The same way he knew there are 50 year old serial killer rookies.

Mike knows everything.