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.

[Iconoclast]

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.

This is a microcosm of the problem these threads now have with you posting on them with your twattish smugness. You lie. Over and over again, you lie. I don't know if you know you're doing it, but you are doing it. You are brazenly lying. I told you why I don't post more than the occasional snippet but I'll tell you again so that you can lie about it again: No restrictions were ever placed upon me - the material has been given to me freely from people who do not share my views regarding Maybrick. Why would they do that if we don't agree on the most fundamental aspect of the case - the author of the scrapbook? Because they trust that I would treat that material honestly. They trust that I will not sell my soul to try to appear to be making a point. I will not take seven words from a 30-word paragraph and claim that that was what was said. In my book, twisting the truth is same thing as telling an untruth. I freely gave an assurance that I would not use the material without the agreement ofd those who gave me it, and I'm sticking to it (bar the very occasional snippet).

You could not force the truth out of a wet paper bag because you would not know what the truth looked like in order to do so. I have previously stated on more than one occasion that in the most general sense someone might think an 1891 diary could be used to hoax the 1888 thoughts of James Maybrick but that this could not be realistically possible in the specific case of what you claim Mike Barrett was seeking to do when he accepted one from Martin Earl. But all you ever report is that "you have already agreed that an 1891 diary can be used for an 1888 hoax". You miss out the bits - carefully included to avoid misunderstanding - so that you can smugly taunt and crow to try to get a rise out of posters. If twisting the truth is all you can do then you ain't no friend of mine and if you ain't no friend of mine, I won't be doing your bidding when you smugly, arrogantly demand it.

The above includes just two examples of how certain posters deliberately manipulate what we know or what has been said in order to try to appear to be making a cogent point. The ridiculing then follows when posters attempt to illustrate the limitations of those mendaciously-constructed comments and claims. It's a single lens reflex instinct they have where what is in focus is only a tiny amount of the detail otherwise provided. And I hate it and I hate it because it is fundamentally dishonest. Mike Barrett could have said, "I danced on the Moon in clogs and ate all the green cheese and hallucinated I was John Lennon on a skateboard whilst I wrote the diary", and all that would ever get played back, time and time again, would be, "Mike Barrett admitted he wrote the diary".

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.

Again, a microcosm of everything I cannot abide about the human mind - its ability to string together five disparate notions, spin them, spin them together, spin the weave some more and produce an 'evidence-based' piece of shite.

Tell the truth. Do not twist the truth. If you are theorising that something might have happened, don't use terms like 'obviously', and don't ridicule posters' comments with what you naively describe as 'debunking'. You have to earn the right to know what other people know. With every post you make, you push yourself further and further away from the shore, and I for one will most certainly not be throwing you a lifeline.

What an absolute disgrace.

Yes, you are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is a microcosm of the problem these threads now have with you posting on them with your twattish smugness. You lie. Over and over again, you lie. I don't know if you know you're doing it, but you are doing it. You are brazenly lying. I told you why I don't post more than the occasional snippet but I'll tell you again so that you can lie about it again: No restrictions were ever placed upon me - the material has been given to me freely from people who do not share my views regarding Maybrick. Why would they do that if we don't agree on the most fundamental aspect of the case - the author of the scrapbook? Because they trust that I would treat that material honestly. They trust that I will not sell my soul to try to appear to be making a point. I will not take seven words from a 30-word paragraph and claim that that was what was said. In my book, twisting the truth is same thing as telling an untruth. I freely gave an assurance that I would not use the material without the agreement ofd those who gave me it, and I'm sticking to it (bar the very occasional snippet).

You could not force the truth out of a wet paper bag because you would not know what the truth looked like in order to do so. I have previously stated on more than one occasion that in the most general sense someone might think an 1891 diary could be used to hoax the 1888 thoughts of James Maybrick but that this could not be realistically possible in the specific case of what you claim Mike Barrett was seeking to do when he accepted one from Martin Earl. But all you ever report is that "you have already agreed that an 1891 diary can be used for an 1888 hoax". You miss out the bits - carefully included to avoid misunderstanding - so that you can smugly taunt and crow to try to get a rise out of posters. If twisting the truth is all you can do then you ain't no friend of mine and if you ain't no friend of mine, I won't be doing your bidding when you smugly, arrogantly demand it.

The above includes just two examples of how certain posters deliberately manipulate what we know or what has been said in order to try to appear to be making a cogent point. The ridiculing then follows when posters attempt to illustrate the limitations of those mendaciously-constructed comments and claims. It's a single lens reflex instinct they have where what is in focus is only a tiny amount of the detail otherwise provided. And I hate it and I hate it because it is fundamentally dishonest. Mike Barrett could have said, "I danced on the Moon in clogs and ate all the green cheese and hallucinated I was John Lennon on a skateboard whilst I wrote the diary", and all that would ever get played back, time and time again, would be, "Mike Barrett admitted he wrote the diary".



Again, a microcosm of everything I cannot abide about the human mind - its ability to string together five disparate notions, spin them, spin them together, spin the weave some more and produce an 'evidence-based' piece of shite.

Tell the truth. Do not twist the truth. If you are theorising that something might have happened, don't use terms like 'obviously', and don't ridicule posters' comments with what you naively describe as 'debunking'. You have to earn the right to know what other people know. With every post you make, you push yourself further and further away from the shore, and I for one will most certainly not be throwing you a lifeline.



Yes, you are.

What you say is making no sense, Ike. And yet again you choose to result to being personal rather than sticking to the topic at hand; which is precisely what I’m doing.

You told Roger point blank that it was Keith Skinner's call as to whether you can post further extracts from the transcript of the 1994 Feldman/TMW conversation (#1889). Then, when I asked you directly if Keith had given you permission to post a partial extract from that transcript but was refusing you permission to post the whole thing, you suggested I contact Keith Skinner to ask him what "terrible secrets" he's hiding (#1896).

But that was all a charade because the truth, as you now admit yourself, is that "No restrictions" were ever placed up you. So why did you tell Roger it was Keith Skinner's call as to whether you post more extracts? Why did you tell me to email Keith Skinner? It's always been entirely your decision. You've already posted stuff without Keith's permission so why can't you post more? It was an entirely reasonable request by Roger but your response, deflecting to Keith Skinner, was far from reasonable.

You tell us that "the people" who give you information, "trust that I would treat that material honestly. They trust that I will not sell my soul to try to appear to be making a point."

Now let's look at the original extract that you posted on 2nd September 2024 in the "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary" thread Roger had asked you specifically if Alan Davies had mentioned a Jack the Ripper diary or whether "this is your memory playing tricks" (#10916). He asked you directly: "Isn't it true that Davies only mentioned a diary or (if his missus can be believed) an old book?"

So the question you were supposed to be addressing was in respect of what Alan Davies had said. But you didn't address that. Instead you appear to have sold your soul by trying to appear to make a point because, in revealing the exclusive information from the 1994 transcript which had never been published before, you only told us what Timothy Martin-Wright had said. But Martin-Wright had made no mention of Alan Davies. So how was it addressing Roger's question?

Was it that you didn't like Roger suggesting that your memory was playing tricks? So that in desperation you posted the only evidence you had of anyone mentioning Jack the Ripper's diary?

All this leads to some very serious and material questions:

1. Why is there apparently no evidence of Alan Davies ever having mentioned any knowledge of Jack the Ripper's diary to any investigators? Who questioned him on the matter and what did he actually say?

2. Why is there apparently no evidence of Alan Dodgson having mentioned any knowledge of Jack the Ripper's diary to any investigators? Who questioned him on the matter and what did he say?

3. What exactly did TMW tell Keith Skinner in 2004? Did he then mention having been told that an employee had been shown a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary? Or did he tell a different story?

These are entirely reasonable questions for me to be asking. They are serious questions at the very heart of the matter. It's also entirely reasonable to ask what else Feldman said in 1994. Why do you feel it needs to be kept a secret? It was a telephone conversation from more than 30 years ago! What issue can possibly prevent you from posting the whole thing? How can it be confidential in any way? Rather than addressing these issues you seek to deflect by going into a tirade of personal abuse.

It's also worth noting how you explained away the discrepancy between what TMW said in 1994 and the published story as told by Dodgson. In #10925 you stated:

"Tim has hardly embellished the story by thinking Dodgson had seen the diary in a pub. That bit was obviously what Alan Davies had said to Dodgson (that the diary had been shown around a pub in Liverpool) and what Dodgson told Tim but which - one and a half long years of unrelated business later - Tim misremembered. But he didn't forget that Alan Davies mentioned the diary of Jack the Ripper in December 1992."

So you dismissed it as if of no importance, as if "the diary of Jack the Ripper" is something Alan Davies had said he'd seen, even though there is no mention of Alan Davies in TMW's account. You came up with an explanation for TMW being confused but is that really the case? It is surely critical to discover if there is any credibility in TMW's story which doesn't seem to match what Alan Dodgson has said.

I note that, bizarrely, you seem to want to turn this discussion about TMW back to the 1891 diary, about which you continue to write incomprehensible nonsense as I have explained in other posts, but let's keep the focus on this issue.

Are you going to address any of the serious points I've raised and the reasonable questions I've asked or are you only going to resort again to abuse?