So this seems to be a thing now.
With Paul Begg leading the way, Caroline Morris followed with her claim that the diary promised by Mike was 'no longer a diary' when he brought it down to London in April 1992 (#5825).
It's funny because no-one seemed to have had any problem describing what Mike brought to London as 'a diary' until now.
Shirley Harrison published her book 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' in 1993 and refers to what Mike produced as 'a diary' throughout.
Paul Feldman, in his 1997 book, refers to 'the Maybrick diary' and, in the Foreword, written by none other than leading Diary Denier Paul Begg, the item is referred to as a 'Diary' throughout, albeit in inverted commas, but there is no suggestion by Mr Begg in that Foreword that it's not legitimate to describe it as a diary.
In 2003, Caroline Morris herself co-authors a book entitled 'Ripper Diary'.
As late as 20 December 2016, at #2235 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread, Caroline Morris agreed with my statement that 'The point of a diary is to record thoughts and actions of the diarist. This can be done in any form of book, for example an exercise book, as long as there is space to write'. In response to that, she said, 'Music to my ears'. She added:
'For years we've had objections on the grounds that the hoaxer made a grave error because the real Maybrick would not have used 'any form of book' for recording his thoughts and deeds, but could have afforded a fit-for-purpose proper diary, with dates and everything, for the years in question. My late father could have afforded umpteen exercise books for making notes for his own purposes, but he would use the very last bit of available scrap paper before buying new.'
So she was saying quite clearly that it was no problem that the diary was in scrapbook which did not show 'dates and everything'. It was still a diary!
What has now changed for Caroline Morris to suggest that what Mike brought down to London was 'no longer a diary'?
I'll tell you what. She has finally appreciated the grave danger of the Bookdealer advertisement in which Mike asked for a diary with blank pages.
After that advertisement became public knowledge she was able, for many years, to bury it under the news of the secret Battlecrease provenance which meant that a properly informed discussion about the diary between 2007 and 2017 was barely possible.
In addition, 'Inside Story' seemed to have already answered the question as to why Mike was after a genuine Victorian diary. As Anne Barrett had told Keith Skinner in the summer of 1995, he just wanted to see what a real Victorian diary looked like.
It's funny, isn't it? No objection to this was ever raised on the basis that Mike was supposed to have been in possession of a large black scrapbook with the word 'diary' not appearing anywhere on it, nor a single date throughout other than on the last handwritten page, YET STILL asked Martin Earl of HP Bookfinders for a diary to compare to the scrapbook.
If Mike wanted to compare what he had to a diary then surely he must have thought he was in possession of a diary!!! It just stands to reason. From 1995 up to 2016 it seems to have been widely accepted, without any problem, that Mike wanted to compare the Jack the Ripper diary to a genuine Victorian diary.
This notion was, of course, helped by misinformation unfortunately, if accidentally, put out by Keith Skinner in 1999 that the little red 1891 diary wasn't acquired until May 1992, which misinformation found its way into Shirley Harrison's 2003 book. You really had to be paying attention to work out from 'Inside Story' that Mike actually received the little red diary in March 1992, before he came to London with the Jack the Ripper diary.
As late as September 2016, Iconoclast, who had been posting bollocks for eight years in the Incontrovertible thread, which he started as Tom Mitchell, was under the mistaken impression that Mike hadn't acquired the little red diary until May 1992, and I was the one to correct him.
In fact, it probably wasn't until I started posting on the Forum in 2016 that Caroline Morris finally realized the danger to her precious "Battlecrease (anything but Mike Barrett) provenance theory". Until then, she seemed to be under the impression that Mike was asking for a diary with only 20 blank pages, not fully appreciating that this was an absolute minimum requirement and that he clearly wanted a diary with more blank pages than this.
She was unsettled when I asked her WHY Mike had placed that advertisement, initially saying she didn't know, and you can see all her crazy subsequent theories in their full glory in my article 'Dizzy Miss Lizzy'.
What she's realized she can't do is dismiss or explain away Mike's desire to obtain a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages so, having gone back to Martin Earl and discovered what I already knew, namely that Earl would have talked through any potential purchase with Mike before sending him anything, she's come up with an ingenious way of overcoming the problem by trying to show that Mike's ultimate acceptance of the little red 1891 diary shows us that THIS was the type of thing he was always looking for - a diary with dates printed throughout - so that the problem of the Bookdealer advertisement has magically gone away!
As a result, it's now suddenly important to Caroline Morris to argue that what Mike brought down to London in April 1993 wasn't a diary at all. Consequently, he was NEVER planning to write a diary!
So, on this basis, the diary that Mike asked Martin Earl to obtain for him, regardless of how many blank pages it contained, could NEVER have enabled him to fake a Jack the Ripper diary because he wasn't planning to fake a Jack the Ripper diary!!!
The logic is, er, faultless.
Diary denial is now the new cult. Mike wasn't planning to write a diary. Thus he wouldn't have asked Earl to get him a diary (he would have asked for a notebook). Thus the Bookdealer advertisement can be totally ignored. Mike was always after a printed diary with dates in for some reason!!
There is one amusing irony of all this. Remember how one of Dizzy Miss Lizzy's big theories was that Mike was obsessed with the fact that the Jack the Ripper diary, sorry the Jack the Ripper Chronicle of Events in a Scrapbook which is in no way a diary, no sir, had 17 blank pages at the end? Despite the 20 pages being stated to be a minimum requirement and despite Mike's primary request being for an unused diary, the Mad One somehow saw significance in the 20 pages and its relationship with the 17 pages. So how can she possibly explain that Mike ended up accepting a diary in which nearly ALL the pages were blank????
It shows that she engages in mental gymnastics to throw out a cloud of befuddling theories as to whatever suits her at any particular time.
The diary of Jack the Ripper is suddenly not a diary and could never have been thought of as a diary.
She must think that all the people who read her posts are stupid. Perhaps she thinks that Paul Begg's stupid pills have been circulated around the internet so that everyone is on them. But we all know that there are some very simple facts:
1. The person who created the fake diary of Jack the Ripper planned to create a diary.
2. In order to create a diary (which would be a fake Victorian diary) there is a very good chance that the first thought the forger would have had is: 'I need to get hold of a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages'.
3. Most personal Victorian diaries do NOT have printed dates on the page. They are written in blank journals, ledgers, notebooks, exercise books, scrapbooks, guardbooks and possibly even photograph albums with photographs removed (although those are probably all fakes!).
4. Mike's acceptance of the little red 1891 diary over the telephone, sight unseen, based on a description in which it was stated that 'nearly all the pages are blank' , in circumstances where Earl had been unable to obtain for him a diary with blank pages from his preferred period of 1880 to 1890, and where the little red 1891 diary was the ONLY diary he was being offered, does not for one second mean that Mike wasn't looking for a genuine diary to be used to fake the diary of Jack the Ripper.
It's back to the drawing board for Caroline Morris. The Bookdealer advertisement remains the most compelling piece of documentary evidence in this case which helps us to understand the provenance of the fake Jack the Ripper diary.
You can't magic it away by diary denial!
19 September 2020