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

[Scott Nelson]

Posted by Michael Banks above:

Ah, yes, Scott, the simple explanations are always the best.

Let's just go through your "explanations" in turn.

1. So Mike was intending to spend time and money writing and creating the third generationof the diary for no obvious reason, even though he had no penmanship skills, when he had a fully completed, old looking Jack the Ripper diary in front of him. Yes? What's the problem here? As I said his ego got the better of him. And, of course, we know that your opinion is based on an imagined diagnosis of Korsakoff Syndrome for Mike Barrett which makes you think he wasn't capable of creating a fake diary himself. And when he found out he couldn't, he turned over what he had.

2. Funnily enough, if the diary is in "Anne's disguised hand" that would explain why you wouldn't be able to see it because it's disguised. But most people can certainly see similarities in the unusual way that Anne forms certain characters which are similar to those of the diarist. If you can't see those similarities, you must be in denial. Not denial. I just can't see them. And if some people were being honest, they would admit they can't see them either. And it must either be a coincidence that Mike identified his wife as the scribe or he had spotted those similarities himself.

3. Why would "Devereux or one of his colleagues" have been investigating a quote in the diary to try and identify its source? I never said they were. What special abilities do you think Devereux or his anonymous colleagues had to find obscure English quotations? Since I'm proposing that the diary evolved through time, we can't identify who put it in or when the quote was incorporated.

4. The quirky expressions used by both Barrett and the diarist have been dealt with in a past thread: they include "so help me", his use of "regards", his use of "or I" and his use of "within". Even Caz accepts that Mike used similar quirky expressions to the diarist but believes that Mike picked them up from reading the diary, something which is highly unlikely for him to do and incorporate into his normal speech. I don't know, maybe the "quirky" expressions were Devereux's or somebody else's.

5. Your answer about Ryan makes no sense because the research notes were produced at Shirley's request after Mike brought the diary to London. But once Mike was no longer planning on rewriting the diary, there would have been no need to try and hide anything.

6. What is the basis of your belief that the diary is "second-generation morph of a spoof"? If it was "hidden in Battlecrease or some other place associated with Maybrick" why do you tell us that the diary had been found in Dodd's house? It would have to have been hidden in Dodd's house wouldn't it, to have been found there, not "some other place"? But who would have hidden it in Dodd's house around the turn of the century, and for what purpose? Michael Maybrick may have been tasked with hiding the spoof story/diary. It could have been found in Dodd's house or in Maybrick's office building.

I did say on numerous occasions that I thought Eddie came into the pub on March 9th with a story that had been told to him by the electricians, not a physical diary. Since Eddie would have already known that Mike had the diary, he knew this possible provenance would be important to Mike, who couldn't figure out where it came from.

I did suggest that Mike may have been tasked with finding ink, but he would have been kept in the dark about the creation of the diary even after it was in his hands.

You can, of course, hold whatever beliefs you want, and at least you agree with me that Mike must have been seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages to write upon those pages, which is something I suppose (thank you), but I'd like to comment that I don't find anything you've said plausible or convincing in the slightest. Naturally. Whether you care - and you probably don't - is entirely up to you but I very much doubt that anyone else will think this is the answer.

You're right, I don't care what you think. What I've presented over the past few years is a theory, which has been modified slightly at various times and will probably continue to change. People can consider parts of it possible or reject it outright. Do you honestly think you or anybody else have "the answer" - the absolute answer? Most, if not all of the time, you're just parroting Barrat anyway.

Thank you by the way, for keeping the gaslighting to a minimum this time. But I probably spoke too soon.

[Lombro2]

The scrip doesn’t have to be thrilling and action-packed. I’m sure Schtonk 1 wasn’t. It just has to make sense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Posted by Michael Banks above:

Ah, yes, Scott, the simple explanations are always the best.

Let's just go through your "explanations" in turn.

1. So Mike was intending to spend time and money writing and creating the third generationof the diary for no obvious reason, even though he had no penmanship skills, when he had a fully completed, old looking Jack the Ripper diary in front of him. Yes? What's the problem here? As I said his ego got the better of him. And, of course, we know that your opinion is based on an imagined diagnosis of Korsakoff Syndrome for Mike Barrett which makes you think he wasn't capable of creating a fake diary himself. And when he found out he couldn't, he turned over what he had.

2. Funnily enough, if the diary is in "Anne's disguised hand" that would explain why you wouldn't be able to see it because it's disguised. But most people can certainly see similarities in the unusual way that Anne forms certain characters which are similar to those of the diarist. If you can't see those similarities, you must be in denial. Not denial. I just can't see them. And if some people were being honest, they would admit they can't see them either. And it must either be a coincidence that Mike identified his wife as the scribe or he had spotted those similarities himself.

3. Why would "Devereux or one of his colleagues" have been investigating a quote in the diary to try and identify its source? I never said they were. What special abilities do you think Devereux or his anonymous colleagues had to find obscure English quotations? Since I'm proposing that the diary evolved through time, we can't identify who put it in or when the quote was incorporated.

4. The quirky expressions used by both Barrett and the diarist have been dealt with in a past thread: they include "so help me", his use of "regards", his use of "or I" and his use of "within". Even Caz accepts that Mike used similar quirky expressions to the diarist but believes that Mike picked them up from reading the diary, something which is highly unlikely for him to do and incorporate into his normal speech. I don't know, maybe the "quirky" expressions were Devereux's or somebody else's.

5. Your answer about Ryan makes no sense because the research notes were produced at Shirley's request after Mike brought the diary to London. But once Mike was no longer planning on rewriting the diary, there would have been no need to try and hide anything.

6. What is the basis of your belief that the diary is "second-generation morph of a spoof"? If it was "hidden in Battlecrease or some other place associated with Maybrick" why do you tell us that the diary had been found in Dodd's house? It would have to have been hidden in Dodd's house wouldn't it, to have been found there, not "some other place"? But who would have hidden it in Dodd's house around the turn of the century, and for what purpose? Michael Maybrick may have been tasked with hiding the spoof story/diary. It could have been found in Dodd's house or in Maybrick's office building.

I did say on numerous occasions that I thought Eddie came into the pub on March 9th with a story that had been told to him by the electricians, not a physical diary. Since Eddie would have already known that Mike had the diary, he knew this possible provenance would be important to Mike, who couldn't figure out where it came from.

I did suggest that Mike may have been tasked with finding ink, but he would have been kept in the dark about the creation of the diary even after it was in his hands.

You can, of course, hold whatever beliefs you want, and at least you agree with me that Mike must have been seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages to write upon those pages, which is something I suppose (thank you), but I'd like to comment that I don't find anything you've said plausible or convincing in the slightest. Naturally. Whether you care - and you probably don't - is entirely up to you but I very much doubt that anyone else will think this is the answer.

You're right, I don't care what you think. What I've presented over the past few years is a theory, which has been modified slightly at various times and will probably continue to change. People can consider parts of it possible or reject it outright. Do you honestly think you or anybody else have "the answer" - the absolute answer? Most, if not all of the time, you're just parroting Barrat anyway.

Thank you by the way, for keeping the gaslighting to a minimum this time. But I probably spoke too soon.

Well Scott, I see your story's already changed three times in the past two days.

First you told me that "While at Dodd's house on March 9, 1992, Eddie overhears electricians discussing a document that had been found there some time before". Now, maybe it wasn't found "there", i.e. at Dodd's house, but at Maybrick's office, but who found it there you don't say, nor, if it was "taken to the offices of the Liverpool Echo" why the hell it would have ended up with one of the printers but not a journalist (who would have revealed its existence in the newspaper), nor if so many people knew about it, why it was able to be kept a secret. It's bordering on conspiracy theory.

Then you told me that, "it likely would have been Devereux or one of his colleagues who cracked the "costly intercourse" problem." Now the idea that they "cracked" anything is forgotten and they actually wrote it in.

Then you told me that you couldn't see that the diary is full of Mike's quirky expressions, now you say that they were maybe Devereux's or "someone else's" even though Mike is the only person with whom they are identified.

You still haven't explained why Mike hid from Shirley his knowledge of Ryan's book in notes he gave her in the summer of 1992.

The other funny thing is that you posted in your friend Orsam's "Diary Handwriting" thread in 2018, in which he demonstrated examples of Anne's characters being similar to the diarist's, yet didn't say you couldn't see the similarities. Not a squeak out of you about that. All you mentioned was a different slant. That was an odd comment to make if you couldn't see any similarities in the first place. If you couldn't see the similarities, you had the perfect opportunity to tell Orsam but, strangely, didn't take it.

To my mind you still haven't provided a convincing explanation as to why Mike felt the need to replicate what he already had in front of him (let's not quibble about the word "replicate" again). Just saying "ego" explains nothing. As far as I can see, you seem to have decided to produce an imaginative, complicated, convoluted, fictional account which doesn't seem to be based on anything at all.

But the thing that I really don't get is why you dismiss the notion of the Barretts having created the diary themselves. It's surely the simplest and most likely solution. It explains Mike's desire for a Victorian diary with blank pages. It explains the handwriting similarities, the quirky expressions, the fact of Mike finding "costly intercourse", the hiding of Ryan in the research notes, it explains all the lies Anne told and, above all, explains the provenance of an item which is known to have come out of 12 Goldie Street. Whether you want to call it Occam's razor or Orsam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

[Lombro2]

Is heavy criticism and denigration of members, who agree with you on your main conclusion, really a good strategy?

I think trying to make people on your side look stupid just reflects poorly back on yourself.

Maybe I should try it with Ike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is heavy criticism and denigration of members, who agree with you on your main conclusion, really a good strategy?

I think trying to make people on your side look stupid just reflects poorly back on yourself.

Maybe I should try it with Ike.

Try commenting on content instead of me.

[rjpalmer]

Okay then, let's think about it.

Anne is asked out of the blue by Keith Skinner to provide a handwriting sample in January 1995.

She could have refused but that would have been suspicious.

Once she agreed to provide a sample she had two options only.

Option 1 was that she provided a sample of her normal handwriting. On the face of it, her normal handwriting doesn't look like the diary handwriting, but then, she might have thought, what if a professional handwriting expert was able to detect similarities with the diary handwriting?

So that takes us to Option 2 which is to provide a sample of her handwriting which is itself disguised in order to look as little like the diary handwriting as possible, thus hopefully ensuring that the expert is fooled.

Perhaps on the spur of the moment she chose Option 2. Perhaps afterwards she thought that was a bit silly because Mike had some samples of her handwriting, who knows? We all do things that we later regret. Equally, though, she might have made a calculated decision that Keith was only ever going to submit one sample to a handwriting expert and that, even if Mike did give him some of her personal correspondence, he wasn't going to keep sending things to an expert, nor was anyone else, especially because her normal handwriting didn't look much like the diary handwriting on its face, so why would anyone have bothered sending it to an expert for examination, especially if an expert had already ruled her out based on the 1995 sample?

Hi Herlock,

Let me add one complication for the sake of completeness and a fair-play. It's a curious set of circumstances.

Although it is little-known (because the authors of Inside Story did not report it) originally Gerard Kane also submitted a sample of his handwriting that did not resemble his usual penmanship.

This explains the weird wording of the sample that was reproduced in Inside Story, with Kane complaining that he was told that he wouldn't be bothered again and also apologizing 'for the handwriting.' The reference to 'the handwriting' refers to the earlier sample that was no reproduced, presumably because the authors were not aware of it and didn't understand the full context.

Ally Ryder explained this in a series of posts back in 2004, and unless I am mistaken both samples of Kane's handwriting were at one time available on this forum, though I've yet to chase them down.

Thus, we seemingly have the curious circumstance where both accused 'penmen' submitted handwriting that didn't resemble their usual style.






Of course, we don't know if Kane and Barrett even knew one another, and for that matter, even the friendship between Barrett and Devereux has been challenged---with some claiming that Barrett exaggerated his supposedly close friendship with Devereux. One publican at The Saddle claimed that the two men seldom even sat next to each other.

To state the obvious, Barrett and Graham obviously did know one another so at least there's a known connection, nor did Barrett mention Kane in secret confessional affidavit.

[Iconoclast]

Is heavy criticism and denigration of members, who agree with you on your main conclusion, really a good strategy?

I think trying to make people on your side look stupid just reflects poorly back on yourself.

Maybe I should try it with Ike.

I'm perfectly capable of making myself look stupid, Lombro.

[Lombro2]

Nein commentar.

I don't comment on cherry-picking either except to say it's cherry-picking for people have no content. But it might make for an interesting fictional Schtonk movie.

A bunch of Liverpudlians form a band of forgers after they hear about the Hitler Diaries. It's sort of like the Beatles listening to Buddy Holly and saying, "Hey mates, we can do that!... How about we do the Ripper Diary? Ripping good idea!"

[rjpalmer]

I'd like to submit a small detail that I noticed.

Quoting Iconoclast:

"That said, there seems to be verbal evidence that Davies was specific when mentioning the diary to Alan Dodgson who passed the message on to Tim. Apparently, Davies had said (from a telephone called between Paul Feldman and Tim Martin-Wright the day after he found Shirley's book in the book shop in one of the Berwick's on the A1):

TMW: I have just been reading a very interesting book.
PHF: Yes, I heard. I understand you’ve got your story to tell about it.
TMW: Yes, in fact. I’ll go back to the first, the inception of my involvement in the story which is about two years ago, I think. A guy who worked for me said, um, he knows that I collect antiques and am interested in old books etc. He said; “I saw a really interesting book that you would like in the pub the other night”. I said, “Oh yeah”. He said; “It, um, is a copy of Jack the Ripper’s Diary.” I said, “Oh yeah?”
PHF: A copy, a copy of it?
TMW: Well I asked that, and he said it was a copy of Jack the Ripper’s Diary.

--

Although Mr. TWM "thinks" this took place "about two years ago," it is clear that Davies did not see the Diary of Jack the Ripper. He saw a copy of the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

I submit that this can only mean one of two things. He either he saw: 1) The facsimile of the diary reprinted in Shirley Harrison's 1993 book

or

2) he saw a photocopy of the diary that Paul Feldman had been waving around among the electricians.

An old post by Peter Birchwood has reminded me that Paul Feldman did indeed have a photocopy of the diary.



.

Was this the 'copy' of the diary that Davies saw, and is this why Paul Feldman comes across as a little sheepish when he repeats TMW's statement?

"A copy....a copy of it?"

I submit this for your consideration.

Thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'd like to submit a small detail that I noticed.

Quoting Iconoclast:

"That said, there seems to be verbal evidence that Davies was specific when mentioning the diary to Alan Dodgson who passed the message on to Tim. Apparently, Davies had said (from a telephone called between Paul Feldman and Tim Martin-Wright the day after he found Shirley's book in the book shop in one of the Berwick's on the A1):

TMW: I have just been reading a very interesting book.
PHF: Yes, I heard. I understand you’ve got your story to tell about it.
TMW: Yes, in fact. I’ll go back to the first, the inception of my involvement in the story which is about two years ago, I think. A guy who worked for me said, um, he knows that I collect antiques and am interested in old books etc. He said; “I saw a really interesting book that you would like in the pub the other night”. I said, “Oh yeah”. He said; “It, um, is a copy of Jack the Ripper’s Diary.” I said, “Oh yeah?”
PHF: A copy, a copy of it?
TMW: Well I asked that, and he said it was a copy of Jack the Ripper’s Diary.

--

Although Mr. TWM "thinks" this took place "about two years ago," it is clear that Davies did not see the Diary of Jack the Ripper. He saw a copy of the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

I submit that this can only mean one of two things. He either he saw: 1) The facsimile of the diary reprinted in Shirley Harrison's 1993 book

or

2) he saw a photocopy of the diary that Paul Feldman had been waving around among the electricians.

An old post by Peter Birchwood has reminded me that Paul Feldman did indeed have a photocopy of the diary.



.

Was this the 'copy' of the diary that Davies saw, and is this why Paul Feldman comes across as a little sheepish when he repeats TMW's statement?

"A copy....a copy of it?"

I submit this for your consideration.

Thanks.

Hi Roger,

What I find so odd about that extract is that Ike introduced it as "verbal evidence from Davies" but TMW sourced it to "A guy who worked for me", which must be Alan Dodgson, who saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub and, knowing that his boss collected antiques, mentioned it to TMW. That is so utterly different from the story told in Robert Smith's book, sourced to Dodgson, whereby Alan Davies is supposed to have come into an APS shop in Bootle where Dodgson worked and informed him that an old diary which an electrician had found at Battlecrease could be acquired for £25. In the story told by TMW, there is no mention whatsoever of Davies, although it's possible that he is the person who showed Dodgson a copy of the diary in the pub. But, if so, it's a huge problem because the incident didn't happen in the APS shop and Davies didn't just tell Dodgson that an old diary was available but showed him an actual copy of it. It may be, of course, that, after speaking to him in the shop, Dodgson met Davies in the pub where Davies had a copy of the diary but why hasn't Davies ever confirmed this? I also note that in TMW's account there is no mention of Battlecrease or the involvement of any electrician at all.

I agree entirely with you, Roger, that whatever the truth of this incident, it can't have occurred in late 1992 but must have happened at some point in 1993 when there may well have been unauthorized copies of the diary floating around. It would only have needed Feldman to have indiscreetly given a copy to a single electrician to explain why Davies might have been showing it to Dodgson in the pub in 1993.

[Lombro2]

Right! It couldn’t possibly be another doppelgänger, this time an imaginary one, for plausible deniability. There’s that term again.

Feldman handing out xeroxes makes much more sense!

PHF: “A copy… A copy of it? (Oh no why did I say that so sheepishly? Now they’ll know I was handing out xeroxes so I could feed them the answers that I wanted to get out of them. Why else would I ask him to confirm he saw a copy of all things? There’s no plausible deniability now for me!)”

[rjpalmer]

Feldman handing out xeroxes makes much more sense!

Indeed, it does.

What could be more natural than Feldman showing a photocopy of the diary (which we know he owned) to see if it would trigger the electrician's memory of the 'old book' supposedly thrown into the non-existent skip.

And it is Feldman himself who is so obviously confused and worried about a reference to a 'copy' rather than to the thing itself.

Of course, we aren't told what Feldman said next, nor how the phone call ended, since Ike hasn't transcribed the remainder of the conversation.

If I recall, Ike's rationale is that my concerns over such minutia are 'tangential' to the main feast (as he sees it). Lift not the painted veil.

I suggest that the devil is in such details.

P.S.

Ike - are you at liberty to post the remainder of the phone call?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Right! It couldn’t possibly be another doppelgänger, this time an imaginary one, for plausible deniability. There’s that term again.

Feldman handing out xeroxes makes much more sense!

PHF: “A copy… A copy of it? (Oh no why did I say that so sheepishly? Now they’ll know I was handing out xeroxes so I could feed them the answers that I wanted to get out of them. Why else would I ask him to confirm he saw a copy of all things? There’s no plausible deniability now for me!)”

No one is saying that Feldman handed out a copy of the diary the electricians so he could "feed them the answers". He might have wanted to earn their trust, so shared the secret information he had, hoping they would give him a secret in return.

[Iconoclast]

Indeed, it does.
What could be more natural than Feldman showing a photocopy of the diary (which we know he owned) to see if it would trigger the electrician's memory of the 'old book' supposedly thrown into the non-existent skip.
And it is Feldman himself who is so obviously confused and worried about a reference to a 'copy' rather than to the thing itself.
Of course, we aren't told what Feldman said next, nor how the phone call ended, since Ike hasn't transcribed the remainder of the conversation.
If I recall, Ike's rationale is that my concerns over such minutia are 'tangential' to the main feast (as he sees it). Lift not the painted veil.
I suggest that the devil is in such details.
P.S. Ike - are you at liberty to post the remainder of the phone call?

I have it from Keith so it's his call not mine, RJ, and - at the risk of you shooting the messenger again - I think that was recently asked and answered.

[rjpalmer]

No one is saying that Feldman handed out a copy of the diary the electricians so he could "feed them the answers".

The accusation that Feldman was deliberately "feed[ing] them the answers" doesn't make any sense considering that Feldman himself rejected the provenance. But then, most of Lombro's comments aren't tethered to either reality or logic.

It's more reasonable to conclude that Feldman inadvertently polluted his investigation through clumsy interviewing techniques (which is not an anti-Diary slur but was one of Shirley Harrison's constant concerns and she didn't shy away from voicing it) and that Feldman eventually came to realize this himself. Indeed, the relevant passage in Feldman's book seems to be a tacit admission from a man who realized his own clumsiness had created a 'false positive.'