New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Iconoclast]

If we ever meet, Ike, I'll have to beat you to a pulp for that statement.

And I would expect no less, RJ. Trump has wiped-out our humble investments and I am contemplating selling the dog, though having three legs may make this a slow gain. That's the dog with three legs, obviously, not I.

Thirty-three years ago yesterday Barrett brought this hoax to London.

Good spot! In eleven days time, it will be thirty-three years since I first asked Mrs I for a date (in The Last Drop, Edinburgh Grassmarket). Met, engaged, and married all in 1992 - how could we have known how much the late Queen's annus horribilis would plague us via the antics of the late Michael John Barrett?

[rjpalmer]

You're more like Trump than you realise.

If we ever meet, Ike, I'll have to beat you to a pulp for that statement. I'll then buy you a pint afterwards.

Asking to see the documentation is not 'like Trump.' Mr. T either shreds the documentation, uses burner phones so there was no documentation to begin with, or spirits it away to Mar-a-Lardo....

....where he shows the documentation to a select group of sympathetic friends (and any Russian spies that happen to be out & about).

Does that at all remind you of the current state of affairs?

Thirty-three years ago yesterday Barrett brought this hoax to London.

[Iconoclast]

But I know better than to ask to see the transcript.

If you could just be a little bit more patient, RJ. Lord, your generation are all, "I want it and I want it now". You're more like Trump than you realise.

[Iconoclast]

Tell me something, Ike. If the floorboards had been lifted on Friday 6th March 1992 (but not on Monday 9th March 1992) would this, in your view, be a stronger "circumstantial detail" pointing towards authenticity, a weaker one, or exactly the same?

Statistically speaking it would make the case slightly weaker. We can quickly establish that by asking if the case would have been weaker if the floorboards had been lifted on, say, May 13, 1889: in that case, then the link would obviously be very much weaker. The change in probability is difficult to calculate (I'm sure a better statistician than I could do so) but the direction of change cannot change - if it would have got very weak on, say, May 13, 1889, it would therefore have to have been weaker to some degree on March 6, 1992. I'm sure our old mate Jeff would concur at least on that point.

[Iconoclast]

Ike, would you mind telling me what "actual" evidence you think exists supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the diary exists? If it's a big secret, would you at least agree that there wasn't any presented in the original edition of Society's Pillar?

It strikes me as sheer nonsense to say that there's no circumstantial evidence that the Barretts wrote the diary, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence actually is.. The very fact that the diary first emerged from 12 Goldie Street, and has no known history before this, is, on its own, circumstantial evidence of the Barretts' authorship.

Well, I'll give you that last one - the scrapbook does appear to have come out of 12 Goldie Street with no provenance then or now established. I guess that is circumstantial evidence.

I'm disappointed that you feel no-one has ever presented any circumstantial evidence in favour of the scrapbook being authentic. I mean, didn't Mike Barrett produce some the moment walked out of 12 Goldie Street with the scrapbook under his arm???

[Iconoclast]

I don't know where you've come up with the nonsensical idea that to have value something must be without flaw, but it's of no consequence.

Well it clearly depends upon the scale of the flaw, Herlock. A dating error is fair enough - it is not desirable but nor is it entirely crippling. It just leaves one with some doubt. But an episodic error is not acceptable - it is entirely of consequence. Even if committed 'accidentally' it is unforgivable to present episodically impossible reports as somehow evidence of proof of anything.

I don't know anyone who is relying on Mike's affidavit for anything.

Come come, Herlock - having discounted the affidavit the way you have, let's not kid ourselves that it's a trend that you're at the back of the queue of. "But he confessed" is probably the most frequently typed series of words on this website.

You keep trying to find fault with the affidavit while avoiding like the plague the account he gave in person in April 1999.

Whenever I'm feeling down, I cheer myself up by listening to the pantomime that Barrett made of the Cloak and Dagger meeting in April 1999. I appreciate that Lord Orsam has twisted and turned and morphed it into a crystal-clear account of the whole criminal adventure but I still find much to laugh at, to say the very least. It's not as sparklingly gruesome as Barrett's Baker Street performance of 1995, but - perhaps because it was pretty much his swan-song - the 1999 fiasco is right up there. I don't avoid it like the plague - I embrace it because it utterly betrays Barrett for the Walter Mitty performance which ended Walter Mitty's career.

It was, of course, Caz who brought up the affidavit in respect of Mike's account of an O&L auction, something you don't even seem to want to talk about.

Too many variables, Herlock - what exactly are you claiming I don't seem to want to talk about? If it's tittle-tattle, I'm not interested. If it's crucial evidence that can lead us to a conclusion, I'm all ears.

She told us that the evidence from the auction house is that "everything" Mike said about an O&L auction is wrong. I've had no luck extracting from her the evidence to support this. Is she correct?

As I believe that there is absolutely no evidence that Mike Barrett ever set foot in O&L nor any other auction house, I have to assume that neither Caz nor anyone else on the planet can be certain that "everything" Barrett said was correct or not. He may have been there and got it all correct. He may have been there and got it all wrong. He may not have been there and got it all right. He may not have been there and got it all wrong. He may have been there and got some of it right. Et cetera. We just don't know, but what I read into Caz's comment was that to the best of our knowledge the process Barrett described was not one which accurately described the process O&L followed in 1992 as reported by Kevin What of O&L when asked a few short years later.

If so, what evidence is that based on? How does O&L's auction practice differ from the account in the affidavit? How did O&L conduct their auctions in 1992?

I've no idea.

We've discussed Mike's attempt to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages at great length, over and over, already. Do you really want to do it again? There may be "at least four plausible" reasons in your head for Mike to have sought a Victorian diary with blank pages but I only know of one, which is that he wanted to fake a Victorian diary. If you're aware of any others you should probably not keep them a secret any longer and let us know what they are.

You only know of one which reminds us all that you are no more than a Johnny-Come-Lately to this section of the Casebook. Do your own hard yards, Herlock, instead of demanding that everyone else does them for you. Some time-served under your belt would save us all a great deal of re-hashing.

If you say we "need" evidence, then for goodness sake produce some. I keep asking over and over for evidence of stuff but none is produced. I can't produce any evidence myself relating to the Barretts. All I know is that I haven't seen any evidence showing that the Barretts couldn't have jointly created the diary.

Again, Johnny, you're agonisingly late to the party. The beer's either all been drank or it's gone warm. Can I suggest you read all of the Maybrick threads before you claim the fridge is empty?

There's nothing ambiguous whatsoever about the entry in the diary that the author hitting his wife was "a one off instance". It's something that no Victorian could possibly have written, so we know with 100% certainty that Maybrick wasn't the author just like we know that Hitler wasn't the author of the so-called "Hitler diaries".

Again, Johnny, it's old hat and old beer. We don't know for certain that 'a one off instance' meant 'a one-off instance' (and not simply 'a one 'off' instance') and nor do we now for certain that even if it was intended as the former that Maybrick wasn't capable to using the term 'one-off' figuratively. You are convinced by Orsam's argument and others are not.

The Hitler diaries were written on paper which was genuinely not in production until after Hitler was corpse-side down so that's a rather easy one but the Maybrick 'paper' is all about the words put on it, and that is far from conclusive. I don't deny it is one to be properly countered one day but - honestly - if you weren't such a Johnny-Come-Lately you'd already know that many categoricals in this case now also lie corpse-side down in the gutter along with the twat who was born a few weeks before Maybrick went the same way.

[rjpalmer]

I don't know where you've come up with the nonsensical idea that to have value something must be without flaw, but it's of no consequence.

It's just a distraction---like Trump calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America just to piss people off.

Ike is perfectly fine with flawed documents. After all, he believes in the authenticity of "Maybrick's" confessional photo album!

'Maybrick's' description of the Kelly murder alone is a howler--error after error. Has Ike run a mile away from it?

He's codding you, old boss.

RP

[rjpalmer]

I found this in an old post by James J:

"As for Colin Rhodes' assertion that floorboard protectors were essentially "plates used to protect raised floorboards" - that actually comes from one [of] Keith's interviews with Colin, recorded in the summer of 2004 (which I am in the process of transcribing). Apologies if it was not clear where this information was sourced from in any of my previous posts. As mentioned previously, Colin sadly passed away shortly before Christmas."

(Slightly edited for clarity).

I don't know if that truly answers the question or not. If a floorboard protector protects a raised floorboard, I don't see why it wouldn't protect a floorboard that hasn't been raised. The word 'plate' is odd.

According to Chris Jones, only a small strip of floorboard(s) near the wall had to be lifted in order to run the wiring. I'm having a hard time visualizing why a floorboard protector would have been needed.

But I know better than to ask to see the transcript.

[Iconoclast]

Note also, Ike, that the confessional photo album does not mention floorboards. You and others dismiss this as a mere technicality, but it is not. If the text read "I place this now under the floorboards, having removed the long brass nails with a crowbar while Alice Yapp is preparing my meat juice," I think even Lord Orsam and the late Melvin Harris, along with Nick Warren, Kenneth Rendell, and other 'viperous' people would have to admit that the coincidence was a great one and would have to further consider the likelihood that the authoress or author of the hoax must have gained entry to Mr. Dodd's home. Perhaps even Mr. Dodd himself would have to be considered a suspect.

I don't think I've ever called Lord Orsam 'viperous' any more than I have called you 'viperous', RJ. I reserve that epithet for Alice Yapp, Melvin Harris, and the referee of the 1973 FA Cup Final who failed to add ten extra minutes on at the end.

Instead, all we really have is Barrett calling a literary agent on the same day that Mr. Dodd had workmen in. That's it. How often did Mr. Dodd have people in? I have no idea, but it seems like he is the sort of chap that had a lot of renovations done.

Why, it clearly pretty much happened every day for 103 years up to 1992, man. I wonder that it isn't still happening daily! Paul Dodd must have a cracking bill run-up by now, eh?

Or maybe - like most houses - it was an incredibly rare event which just happened to coincidence with a bloke claiming to have a diary written by the occupant in 1889 ringing a literary agent about it. Now that definitely happens more or less daily - right across the world!

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to give an example of a self-evidently relevant piece of circumstantial detail which points towards authenticity (or, at least, increases the likelihood of it), it remains an astonishing coincidence that it was Martin Howells who put the idea of floorboards into Feldman's mind at the beginning of 1993 and it then turned out that floorboards were lifted* on March 9, 1992, in the very room JM usually slept in in 1889 (Ryan implies that Maybrick actually died in Florie's bed not his own) and, on March 9, 1992, Mike Barrett - calling himself 'Mr. Williams' - telephoned Doreen Montgomery to ask her whether she would be interested in seeing the diary of JtR.

Those are all hard facts.

* Implied by the listing of floorboard protectors on the timesheet.

Tell me something, Ike. If the floorboards had been lifted on Friday 6th March 1992 (but not on Monday 9th March 1992) would this, in your view, be a stronger "circumstantial detail" pointing towards authenticity, a weaker one, or exactly the same?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am happy to respond to this as it at least attempts to make an argument.

There is a significant amount of actual and circumstantial evidence supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the scrapbook (see SocPill25 when it is finished) and absolutely zero evidence of any nature - circumstantial or otherwise - which suggests the Barretts wrote it unless you resort to believing the words you want to hear from a known and proven liar and ignore those which don't work for your belief system.

Ike, would you mind telling me what "actual" evidence you think exists supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the diary exists? If it's a big secret, would you at least agree that there wasn't any presented in the original edition of Society's Pillar?

It strikes me as sheer nonsense to say that there's no circumstantial evidence that the Barretts wrote the diary, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence actually is.. The very fact that the diary first emerged from 12 Goldie Street, and has no known history before this, is, on its own, circumstantial evidence of the Barretts' authorship.

[Iconoclast]

On this side of the pond, at least, the only thing called a 'floorboard protector' is a sheet of plastic to set objects on to protect the floorboards from being scuffed up. Hence the name: floorboard protectors. Not lifters: protectors. I've seen the suggestion that felt pads underneath the legs of certain objects might also be considered 'floorboard protectors.'

There is some bloke whose initials appear to be A.I. whose views are first up on a simple Google search and he says:

Floorboard protectors are products designed to shield flooring from damage during construction, renovation, or simply from everyday wear and tear. These protectors can be temporary sheets, films, or even permanent solutions like felt pads to prevent scratches, dents, and other issues.
Types of Floorboard Protectors:

• Correx Sheets:
  These are durable, fluted polypropylene sheets often used for temporary floor protection during construction or renovation, as they can be easily laid down and removed without leaving residue, says Sitepro Direct.
• Adhesive Films:
  These are thin, self-adhesive films that can be applied directly to the floor, offering a protective barrier against spills, scratches, and dust.
• Floor Cards:
  These are strong, heavy-duty cardboard sheets that can be rolled out and cut to size for floor protection, especially in high-traffic areas, according to Protecta Screen.
• Felt Pads:
  These are soft pads often used under furniture legs to prevent scratches on hard floors and provide a more comfortable and quieter experience.
• Rubber Matting:
  This is a more durable and robust option for protecting floors, particularly in areas with heavy foot traffic or where there's a risk of spills or accidents, says Protecta Screen.
• Dust Sheets:
  These are general-purpose coverings that can be used on floors, furniture, and other surfaces to prevent dust and dirt from settling during cleaning or renovation.

Now, this is April 14, 2025 and the above appears to be related to domestic use so I can't say with any certainty whether this is an appropriate answer to the question of whether commercial use in 1992 would have required some other purpose than protecting from table legs and what have you. It isn't instinctively obvious because domestic use would presumably be long-term and require some some of aesthetic effect (unless being installed in Biffa Bacon's house, of course, where the money would have been redirected into beer and tabs) whereas short-term commercial use could surely be served by old, re-usable blankets or even four pairs of your old underpants, RJ.

So I don't think we are any the wiser unless we have any Floorboard-Raising Technicians amongst us who were ideally floorboard-raising back in 1992?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now we can say with certainty that the January 1995 affidavit is utterly worthless because it is flawed. To have value, it has to be without flaw.

We can also say with certainty that Barrett’s ordering a diary in March 1992 has at least four plausible reasons, only one of which is even remotely suspicious.

As I say, I’m not interested in the back-and-forth, tit-for-tat. I’m interested in actual evidence and I see none emerging from these two artefacts. What evidence are we left with? Is it really just that ambiguous claim that hitting Florie was a one ‘off’ instance?

No, no, no: it has to be unambiguous if you want to claim it is proof positive of a hoax. Can you actually provide anything proof positives of a hoax? Can anyone?

We need evidence not conjecture. We’ll never have 100% certainty after 130+ years but what evidence we have needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t think we’re there yet on the hoax theory but the case for authenticity is teasingly close to being so, I’d say.

I don't know where you've come up with the nonsensical idea that to have value something must be without flaw, but it's of no consequence. I don't know anyone who is relying on Mike's affidavit for anything. You keep trying to find fault with the affidavit while avoiding like the plague the account he gave in person in April 1999.

It was, of course, Caz who brought up the affidavit in respect of Mike's account of an O&L auction, something you don't even seem to want to talk about. She told us that the evidence from the auction house is that "everything" Mike said about an O&L auction is wrong. I've had no luck extracting from her the evidence to support this. Is she correct? If so, what evidence is that based on? How does O&L's auction practice differ from the account in the affidavit? How did O&L conduct their auctions in 1992?

We've discussed Mike's attempt to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages at great length, over and over, already. Do you really want to do it again? There may be "at least four plausible" reasons in your head for Mike to have sought a Victorian diary with blank pages but I only know of one, which is that he wanted to fake a Victorian diary. If you're aware of any others you should probably not keep them a secret any longer and let us know what they are.

If you say we "need" evidence, then for goodness sake produce some. I keep asking over and over for evidence of stuff but none is produced. I can't produce any evidence myself relating to the Barretts. All I know is that I haven't seen any evidence showing that the Barretts couldn't have jointly created the diary.

There's nothing ambiguous whatsoever about the entry in the diary that the author hitting his wife was "a one off instance". It's something that no Victorian could possibly have written, so we know with 100% certainty that Maybrick wasn't the author just like we know that Hitler wasn't the author of the so-called "Hitler diaries".,

[rjpalmer]

Note also, Ike, that the confessional photo album does not mention floorboards. You and others dismiss this as a mere technicality, but it is not.

If the text read "I place this now under the floorboards, having removed the long brass nails with a crowbar while Alice Yapp is preparing my meat juice," I think even Lord Orsam and the late Melvin Harris, along with Nick Warren, Kenneth Rendell, and other 'viperous' people would have to admit that the coincidence was a great one and would have to further consider the likelihood that the authoress or author of the hoax must have gained entry to Mr. Dodd's home. Perhaps even Mr. Dodd himself would have to be considered a suspect.

Instead, all we really have is Barrett calling a literary agent on the same day that Mr. Dodd had workmen in. That's it. How often did Mr. Dodd have people in? I have no idea, but it seems like he is the sort of chap that had a lot of renovations done.

Regards.

[rjpalmer]

* Implied by the listing of floorboard protectors on the timesheet.

Didn't Keith Skinner once remark that he planned to investigate the meaning of 'floorboard protectors' and report back to the forum?

At least one commentator has asked whether floorboard protectors have sod-all to do with lifting floorboards, and as far as I know, it's an excellent question that has not yet been answered.

In my limited experience, what one needs to lift floorboards is a claw hammer and a pry par.

On this side of the pond, at least, the only thing called a 'floorboard protector' is a sheet of plastic to set objects on to protect the floorboards from being scuffed up. Hence the name: floorboard protectors. Not lifters: protectors. I've seen the suggestion that felt pads underneath the legs of certain objects might also be considered 'floorboard protectors.'

As such, Ike, I wouldn't get overly excited about the mere word 'floorboard.'

And Mr. Dodd told Shirley Harrison decades ago that he did the prep-work for the electricians, and I've seen no evidence that his direct statement of this 'fact' has been debunked.

Regards,

RP