Use your considerable imagination, David. He wanted to show her a 'taster' of what he had, before parting with his precious baby? He tried to obtain a similar book, with enough blank pages in which he could copy out a few choice phrases from the actual diary (in his own undisguised, inimitable late 20th century handwriting) so he could give Doreen a rough idea, without pretending this was anything other than his own doing?
Well Caz even with using my "considerable imagination" I fail to understand this explanation.
Firstly, how would a small red 1891 diary (or most other forms of diaries) have been regarded as a "similar book" to the larger black Victorian guard book? As, on your account, he had the larger black Victorian guard book in his possession in March 1992, why did he not describe exactly what it was he was after in his advertisement?
Secondly, and in any event, why didn't he just write out the words into a cheap modern exercise book? Why did it have to be in a Victorian diary from within a few years of 1888?
Thirdly, if he wasn't intending on making alterations to the diary he was seeking, are you seriously suggesting it would be in any way helpful (or sane) for him to have presented Doreen with a diary from 1891 (or any year other than 1888) by way of introducing her to the concept of a Diary said to have been written in 1888?
As a general point, do you not accept that the amount of effort, not to mention the expense, he put into finding such a diary was quite considerable?
And this was all to give Doreen a "rough idea" of what the actual diary was like?
You must surely admit that doing this would have been literally insane when a few photographs of the actual diary plus a typed transcript (or manuscript transcript in a modern book) would have sufficed perfectly well?
I must say, for someone who has never met or spoken with Mike, drunk or sober (Mike, not you), and knows practically nothing about the man, you would have him do many more insane things before breakfast than anyone who can boast some real insight into his character. So I won't apologise if you find my suggestion implausible or reject it as too insane even for Mike.
What this shows is that you evidently cannot put forward an explanation for Mike's actions which does not rely on him behaving in an insane and utterly irrational fashion.
When you can only explain Mike's actions by relying on madness, you should realise your argument is in trouble.
I would also comment that your claim that Mike was capable of such insane acts conflicts with other posts you have made to me which assumed that Mike acted rationally. Thus, paraphrasing, you have asked me: Would Mike have been so crazy to forge the Diary in the way he did and thus open himself up to being arrested? Would Mike have been so crazy to confess to forging the Diary?
But even though I never knew Mike I simply cannot believe that he, or anyone, would have gone to so much trouble to obtain a Victorian Diary with blank pages for what amounts to no sensible reason whatsoever.
Now you have it cemented in place that a sober Mike could have created the diary in two weeks while standing on his head, you are stuck with only one possible explanation for his behaviour. I see that. It's just that I would actually have preferred to see some tangible evidence (obviously I'm not expecting it on this thread - or anywhere else frankly) that Mike was planning to deceive Doreen with a diary he knew to be a fake.
Talking of fairly representing what other posters have said, I have never stated that Mike did anything while "standing on his head" so it's wrong of you to suggest that I have, isn't it?
Nor, for that matter, have I suggested that Mike created the diary on his own.
But, really, to ask me for "tangible evidence" that Mike was intending to deceive Doreen in circumstances where he has gone to the extreme trouble of placing an advertisement in a trade journal for a Victorian Diary with blank pages shortly before producing a Victorian Diary with 64 pages cut out from the front is a bit rich. His actions speak for themselves.
No. I realise why you don't find it 'helpful', but you can just keep putting your fingers in your ears and that'll be fine by me. Others might want to hear it and this is not a private conversation.
The thing is Caz that I said to you last year:
"I can't consider, or comment on, things that I know nothing about and are being kept secret (a la Pierre) can I?"
To which you replied:
"I have repeatedly acknowledged this."
Further, you told me quite clearly that I was free to take or leave this "secret evidence" and I said quite clearly that I would prefer to leave it. So why do you keep mentioning it in your replies to my posts?
Your answer seems to be that you are talking to "Others" in your replies but I have no idea what it is you want to convey to others who also do not know what this secret evidence is. The only thing I can sensibly say is that you are doing exactly what Pierre is doing in the "I know something you don't know and it is proof of everything but I'm afraid I can't tell you what it is" category. You must see that it makes any form of sensible debate impossible and I can only repeat that if you continue to make the point about this "secret" evidence I cannot continue to debate this issue with you.
You might prefer it if I remained silent on the whole subject, but since Keith Skinner's Battlecrease documentation necessarily colours every observation I make, every response you and others ask me to give, it would not be realistic to expect me to disregard it, pretend it doesn't exist or allow it to be sidelined while I'm discussing closely related issues which are directly or indirectly affected by it.
To this I can only repeat that if your answer to every suspicious event that points towards Mike Barrett having been involved in forging the diary is to say "secret Battlecrease evidence" then it makes any form of sensible debate impossible and I don't even see the point in your continuing with it. I certainly won't be.
Your loss, not mine or Keith's, or all the others in the know. But I rather hope Keith is not reading along as your posts are becoming just a trifle ill-mannered in your desire to see dishonesty or incompetence whenever a potential challenge crops up to views you hold dear.
For someone who criticises me (wrongly!) for not reading her posts, you don't seem be reading mine properly. There is nothing ill-mannered whatsoever in me saying that I don't accept that you have any proof that the diary came out of Battlecrease.
Such a statement does not imply dishonesty or incompetence in anyone.
As far as I am aware, Keith Skinner has never claimed to have any proof that the diary came out of Battlecrease. What you said on this forum was no more than that he finds the evidence that it does so "compelling". That being his personal opinion is fine but it does not amount to proof of anything.
Keith Skinner is perfectly entitled to his opinion (as are you) but what is very odd is that you seem to think that because Keith Skinner believes something then I must believe it too, even without knowing what his opinion is based on. That is utterly ridiculous and I am 100% certain that there is no way that Keith Skinner would ever hold such a bizarre view.
The irony of the situation is that it is your suggestion that I am accusing either him or you of dishonesty or incompetence which is very ill-mannered and is something that should never have been said.
Further, there are no views in relation to the diary that I "hold dear". I base all my thoughts and conclusions on the available evidence.
Really, David? Yet almost in the next breath you write this:
Yes, what is difficult about what I said? I don't have any kind of personal conviction that Mike forged the diary but the fact that he attempted to acquire a Victorian Diary with blank pages shortly before producing the Maybrick Diary (which itself contained cut out pages) is what leads me to believe that he was involved in forging the diary.
What I am saying, in other words, is that my belief is based on the evidence not on any personal conviction regarding Mike Barrett.