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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Perhaps Mike Barrett just wanted to stare at the empty pages

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock
The obvious logical reason why Mike was looking for a diary from the period 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages is to create a fake Victorian Diary as you say.
Cheers John

But is it the only explanation, Wheato? You are welcome to believe wholeheartedly in the one you like, the one that fits your narrative (however indolent that may be of you), but can you - in all honesty - say that it is the only option (as tyrants and the evangelical turn instinctively to)?

Just a wee warning, when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it. When someone tells you one theory amongst many is the only possible answer to a question, you can rest assured that they need you to believe that for their own premise to be maintained.

You are welcome to continue to assume that what you think is obvious and logical is necessarily the answer, but you may be wrong. You may feel that the small issue of Barrett seeking an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepting an 1891 diary festooned with '1891' throughout it can be easily explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes, but other people hear the Ifs, Buts, and Maybes and realise that a truly unlikely scenario is being constructed to shoehorn in to a theory elements which seem on the surface (yes, 'obviously' and 'logically') to be impossible to justifiably shoehorn in whilst still keeping a straight face.

It feels for all the world like the Earth is flat. It feels for all the world that the sun revolves around the Earth. But are these two the only possibilities you are willing to consider?

PS Honestly, mate, it's pointless hanging on the coat tails of someone who demands you believe something which is patently untrue (that there is only one interpretation of an event possible). It's even more pointless engaging with them but I appreciate that you are still a long way away yet from that conclusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But is it the only explanation, Wheato? You are welcome to believe wholeheartedly in the one you like, the one that fits your narrative (however indolent that may be of you), but can you - in all honesty - say that it is the only option (as tyrants and the evangelical turn instinctively to)?

Just a wee warning, when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it. When someone tells you one theory amongst many is the only possible answer to a question, you can rest assured that they need you to believe that for their own premise to be maintained.

You are welcome to continue to assume that what you think is obvious and logical is necessarily the answer, but you may be wrong. You may feel that the small issue of Barrett seeking an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepting an 1891 diary festooned with '1891' throughout it can be easily explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes, but other people hear the Ifs, Buts, and Maybes and realise that a truly unlikely scenario is being constructed to shoehorn in to a theory elements which seem on the surface (yes, 'obviously' and 'logically') to be impossible to justifiably shoehorn in whilst still keeping a straight face.

It feels for all the world like the Earth is flat. It feels for all the world that the sun revolves around the Earth. But are these two the only possibilities you are willing to consider?

PS Honestly, mate, it's pointless hanging on the coat tails of someone who demands you believe something which is patently untrue (that there is only one interpretation of an event possible). It's even more pointless engaging with them but I appreciate that you are still a long way away yet from that conclusion.

I have to correct two shocking falsehoods in your post, Ike.

The first is your claim that "when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it." I have said your theory is nonsensical while, at the same time, inviting every member of this forum to consider it. On each occasion you have run away from the discussion.

I first set out why your explanation for Mike seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages made no sense in my #20 of "The Maybrick Thread" on 23 April 2025. There was no response of any substance ma by you to this post.

You tried again in July with a new explanation. I set out why your new explanation made no sense in my #1321 in this thread on 16th July (which was in addition to my posts of #1305 and #1320). To date, no response has been received to my #1321.

I also replied to Caz's different explanation in #1343 in this thread on 17th July. In that post, I asked her a number of questions and said to her directly: "Without solid answers to these questions, I regret to say that your explanation makes no more sense that Ike's gibberish." No answers have been forthcoming to date. There has been no response at all to the post.

Far from hoping that people won't consider your nonsensical explanation, therefore, I have expressly drawn attention to it, wanting it to be considered by every sane member of this forum who will immediately see it for the utter, baffling nonsense that it is.

The second falsehood in your post is that Mike's acceptance of the 1891 diary is "explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes",

The fact of the matter is that neither of us know, or can possibly know, why Mike accepted the 1891 diary so we both have to premise our arguments on speculation. It's just that you don't do this, because you're special, but abuse the word "must". So, rather than say something like, "if Michael Barret knew that Victorian diaries were pre-printed he wouldn't have bought the 1891 diary", you say that Mike Barrett "must" have known about Victorian pre-printed diaries even though it is pure speculation on your part.

I can do that too if it makes you feel better. For example:

"Michael Barret must not have known that Victorian diaries contained pre-printed dates".

"Michael Barret must have known that Victorian diaries were often written in notebooks or exercise books".

"Michael Barrett must not have asked Martin Earl any questions".

"Michael Barrett must have heard Earl say that nearly all the pages in the 1891 diary were blank and thus agreed to purchase it on this basis".

"Michael Barrett must thought that he'd send the diary back if it wasn't any good but then forgot to do so".

See how easy it is? Not an if, but or maybe in sight. Does that make you happy?

[caz]

What are you talking about now, Lombro?

The advertisement placed by Martin Earl asked for a "partly used" Victorian diary which would include a diary with most of the pages filled in. What difference, in your mind, would it have made to Mike if there were 30 blank pages, 20 blank pages, 10 blank pages, 5 blank pages, 2 blank pages or none?

Why, in your mind, would Mike have cared if "all the pages were filled in"? Isn't that what one would expect if one is buying a second hand diary? Can you please explain it?

I know you are capable of carrying two ideas in your head at the same time, so you could cast your mind back to my own, which was that Mike might have wanted to see how easy it would have been for anyone to have tricked him with JtR's personal diary, by trying to source one of the right period, with enough surviving blank pages to give it a go.

With the first pages missing, Mike wouldn't have known that these hadn't been used for someone's earlier diary entries, and he clearly thought of the book as a "diary" when he called Doreen, and again when he asked Martin Earl to find him one.

Two blank pages = too short for 'JtR' to get properly into his stride [or Stride, if you'll pardon the off-colour pun].

At least twenty = now you're talking. That's forty plus sides of paper - allowing eight per murder plus a bit to spare if anyone's counting. I doubt Mike was.

Mike's 'prankster' in this scenario was blessed to have found one with so many unused pages that they could indulge in all that needless repetition and padding over thirty plus pages - 63 sides - and still have a goodly number of unused pages to spare. Very wise not to keep going right up to and including the last page when your JtR is meant to be bowing out due to his imminent death, and not because he is about to run out of paper.

[rjpalmer]

I know you are capable of carrying two ideas in your head at the same time, so you could cast your mind back to my own, which was that Mike might have wanted to see how easy it would have been for anyone to have tricked him with JtR's personal diary, by trying to source one of the right period, with enough surviving blank pages to give it a go.

Yes, but for the past three weeks you've ducked the question as to why Mike needed to physically obtain such diary once he found out from Martin Earl that it was obtainable. Why didn't Mike just hang up the phone and save himself twenty-five quid if it was all just a fact-finding mission?

The scenario you present is a ridiculous one. The man in the pub is so worried that the 'old book' on offer for 25 pounds might be fake that he needlessly spends another 25 pounds on a useless book before buying it anyway, thus increasing his expenditure from 25 pounds to 50.

But if you've convinced yourself that it's plausible, there's little hope in us unconvincing you, is there?

[John Wheat]

But is it the only explanation, Wheato? You are welcome to believe wholeheartedly in the one you like, the one that fits your narrative (however indolent that may be of you), but can you - in all honesty - say that it is the only option (as tyrants and the evangelical turn instinctively to)?

Just a wee warning, when someone tells you a belief or a theory is 'nonsensical', you can absolutely rest assured they don't want you considering it. When someone tells you one theory amongst many is the only possible answer to a question, you can rest assured that they need you to believe that for their own premise to be maintained.

You are welcome to continue to assume that what you think is obvious and logical is necessarily the answer, but you may be wrong. You may feel that the small issue of Barrett seeking an 1889 or 1890 diary and then accepting an 1891 diary festooned with '1891' throughout it can be easily explained away with a seemingly unlimited supply of Ifs, Buts, and Maybes, but other people hear the Ifs, Buts, and Maybes and realise that a truly unlikely scenario is being constructed to shoehorn in to a theory elements which seem on the surface (yes, 'obviously' and 'logically') to be impossible to justifiably shoehorn in whilst still keeping a straight face.

It feels for all the world like the Earth is flat. It feels for all the world that the sun revolves around the Earth. But are these two the only possibilities you are willing to consider?

PS Honestly, mate, it's pointless hanging on the coat tails of someone who demands you believe something which is patently untrue (that there is only one interpretation of an event possible). It's even more pointless engaging with them but I appreciate that you are still a long way away yet from that conclusion.

Absolute bilge. I don't know how you can write this garbage?

[caz]

What a strange question, Caz. How many times had Mike been shopping for a Victorian diary over the telephone prior to March 1992? None, obviously. So of course he found himself in an unusual and unprecedented situation when Martin Earl offered him the 1891 diary.

The question of how he found himself in this situation seems to be because he had only just received an expression of interest in the diary from a literary agent in London but that's a totally different question, and one which has no bearing on what Ike was asking me.

And that's the problem, Herlock. Why had he not been shopping for a Victorian diary prior to between 10th and 12th March 1992, if it was to find something to put the fake diary in, which had been sitting ready on his word processor for - how long in your estimation? Why hadn't he contacted anyone that we know of prior to 9th March 1992 about his Battlecrease diary [when four electricians worked there] to see if there might be any interest in the personal diary of Jack the Ripper [hello???].

First time lucky for Mike then it seems. But do you not think he would have called Doreen at the earliest possible opportunity once everything else had been prepared - the text, the handwriting 'practice runs' and what have you - with only her green light needed, followed by a search for something compatible with the specific period from February 1888 to May 1889? After all, he had his 'mortgage fund' to think about, didn't he?

Tony Devereux had been dead since 8th August 1991 and it was now 9th March 1992. What was happening in Goldie Street to stall Mike's first known call about the diary for another seven months, and what did any of it have to do with Devereux? Remind me - what do you suppose he was even doing in Mike's affidavit, apart from making everything so hard to reconcile with that call to Doreen coming when it did?

The work done in Battlecrease that very day, by stark contrast, provides a neat enough explanation for Mike's otherwise unexplained timing - wrapped in brown paper, tied up with string, a large pink bow on top and labelled with love.

If you don't want this neat package, do you have a neater one, with a better explanation for Mike not calling Doreen a day before he did?

[caz]

Yes, but for the past three weeks you've ducked the question as to why Mike needed to physically obtain such diary once he found out from Martin Earl that it was obtainable. Why didn't Mike just hang up the phone and save himself twenty-five quid if it was all just a fact-finding mission?

The scenario you present is a ridiculous one. The man in the pub is so worried that the 'old book' on offer for 25 pounds might be fake that he needlessly spends another 25 pounds on a useless book before buying it anyway, thus increasing his expenditure from 25 pounds to 50.

But if you've convinced yourself that it's plausible, there's little hope in us unconvincing you, is there?

Where did I say that Mike ever intended to pay £25 for what he saw down the pub, never mind that he actually did do? We know he didn't pay £25 for the 1891 diary - Anne did. That is evidence of how willing or able he was to put his hand in his own pocket.

Mike would have needed to see the 1891 diary with his own eyes, in order to judge if it was something a prankster could have used if the big black one had not come their way.