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

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have “Plausible Deniability”.

You have “Implausible (even for Michael Barrett) Stupidity”.

“I’m going to make a Ripper diary forgery. Let me ask a guy to put an ad out for an unused or partially used Victorian diary. I hope they all look the same.”

So how would acquiring an unused or partially used Victorian diary created by Mr John Smith of Oxford in 1886 have enabled Mike to plausibly deny being in possession of Jack the Ripper's diary?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Smug twat.

I see that having been caught bang to rights you're reduced, for the second time today, to childish and indefensible personal abuse, clearly against the forum rules.

What brought you down to this level?

Well we can see that your excuse of yesterday for not posting more of the 1994 Feldman/TMW transcript, namely that "I have it from Keith so it's his call not mine", has been exposed as the hollow excuse that everyone suspected it was.

The truth is that you've always been at liberty to post whatever you want from the transcript, without any restrictions placed on you by Keith Skinner, yet you pretended that this is not the case, until I forced the truth out of you. As Roger has already observed, "you leave the impression that you can't do so without permission. But then, in practically the same breath, you admit that you have no restrictions."

Now we have the inevitable tantrum and insults, as you show your true colours, when you would surely be better served posting the evidence to support your own claim that Martin-Wright was a "witness" to something important which shows that the diary came out of Battlecrease. But it all seems to be falling apart. The story is full of holes and contradictions, different people say different things and their accounts are withheld and kept top secret to avoid Roger and myself (and others) ridiculing and debunking them.

What an absolute disgrace.

[Lombro2]

The Murphys had plausible deniability. It’s called an antique store.

Nothing real. Nothing new.
Nothing else to do?
When you think you still have to solve the case?
Really! What an absolute disgrace!

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock,

If I might inject a note of civility into a conversation that has gone badly off-the-rails, I wouldn't say that I'm motivated by a desire to 'debunk and ridicule' the Battlecrease provenance but, rather, to try to understand why people believe in it. To weigh, if I can, whether it is plausible or believable or if the 'evidence' is what some claim it to be.

If, from Ike's point of view, his opponents are motivated by a desire to 'ridicule' his ideas, it is perhaps understandable why he would be hesitant to agree to a free exchange of ideas and information. He is blood and bone and nerve endings like the rest of us. Perhaps Ike would violently disagree with the following, but in thinking it over, it seems to me that the excerpt he posted from the Feldman/TMW conversation is so damaging to the diary that I find it a little difficult to believe there is anything worse that he is deliberately withholding, so I'm hesitant to accuse him of any nefarious motivations. I don't know if there is any point in continuing, but I would hope that we could lower the temperature if we do continue. Good night to all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair points Roger. Perhaps my choice of words like 'ridicule' wasn't the best but but Ike's post was unnecessary. Especially when I haven't resorted to comments like that.

[Lombro2]

More clarification here:

If Michael Barrett was the Murphy’s, the red diary would be a Micky Mouse watch they ordered in March. Of course, it could only be to forge a Rolex. It can’t be part of his watch collection that might include a stolen Rolex.


I don’t think you really want to know what we really think.