Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Abby Normal]

the evidence is the provinence starts and ends with barrett, he admitted he forged it and he tried to buy a victorian diary with blank pages. thats really all anyone needs to know, but theres also a boatload of other circumstantial evidence that should put this, as kattrup put it best- silly diary- to rest.

[Graham]

he admitted he forged it and he tried to buy a victorian diary with blank pages. thats really all anyone needs to know

,

...and also said repeatedly that he didn't forge it.

Graham

[Mike J. G.]

Mike JG,

I don't know why you feel the need to write your posts like they're a script for Chubby Brown. There are more theories about the origins of the Diary than just yours, dear boy. And as for mine, I could never be convinced in a thousand years that the Barretts conceived it and wrote it. No way.

Graham

Mate, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, seeing as Chubby Brown would have no use for a script, being a stand-up comedian and not a television or film actor, but putting your silliness aside for a moment, I type how I want to type, either deal with it or ignore it, innit.

As for the theories you're mentioning, delve into them, that's what this thread is for, isn't it? Or are y'all just here to circle jerk over Ike's brain farts?

There is no evidence for the diary having been written by anyone other than the Barretts, that's what some of you seem to be ignoring.

So far, the evidence for it having been written by James? Zero. Unless he's gifted in having completely different types of written hand, which is frankly ridiculous, and there's bugger-all to suggest he did. You don't just begin writing in completely different style, no matter how "mad" you become, there are tell-tall signs that anyone dealing with such science would easily detect.


The evidence for it having been written by Michael? Zero, absolutely naught point naught pence, mate.

So who else is there?

Clive Barker? Charles Lechmere? Hitler's missing testicle?

[Mike J. G.]

Please post more.

I intend to.

[Mike J. G.]

Yes, please post more. With every syllable you type, you put your argument so much further away from the world the rest of us occupy. Na noo na noo.

Looks to me as though the pubs of Liverpool have stayed open especially late today.

Ike, the world you occupy is one in which you believe James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, and the author of the most hilariously obvious hoax diary in the annals of nonsense hoaxes that stands neck-and-neck with things like Piltdown Man and the Roswell alien autopsy, and you share that keen sense of mental hilarity with such respected blokes as Ant and Dec, of Biker Grove fame, so yeah, well done, fella!

[Mike J. G.]

Hi!

Which piece of empirical evidence do you believe best makes your argument to the Diary's authenticity? I would like to look closely at one really strong argument and see how the doubters deal with it/avoid it. Only one point; I would like to try to look at the general argument in microcosm.

He doesn't have any evidence for it being genuine, which is why absolutely nobody other than Ike, and a few of his alter egos, believe the diary to be either genuine, or written by Maybrick. The rest of the world is unanimous in it being exactly what it is, a hoax, tucked up in bed.

When you Google "the Diary of Jack the Ripper", you don't tend to see much in the way of concrete evidence supporting it, because there is none. As Abby said, the provenance, story, and everything else, begins and ends with Mike Barrett, unless you want to start down the road of the electricians finding it and taking it to the university, lol.

We're now on page 128 of yet another Maybrick/Diary thread, and the evidence for the diary being genuine is still exactly where it's always been, in the gutter.

Do people here even realize how the burden of proof works? Apparently not.

[Mike J. G.]

Yes, and where is the evidence that the Barretts definitely and absolutely conceived and wrote it??? Every time Michael of that ilk was asked such a question he gave a different answer, probably depending upon who was talking to him. He never proved anything whatsoever, one way or the other, except that he was a master of confabulation. And as Anne seems to have disappeared, we'll probably never know the truth. And anyway, if she told 'the truth' whilst wired-up to a lie-detector, who would believe her?

Firstly, do you even understand why "lie-detectors" are not permissible in any decent court of law? One of my favourite hoaxes, which has many interesting parallels with this diary hoax, and which I've spoken about before on these boards, is the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot hoax, check that out and see where those lie-detector tests helped that investigation. There's no such thing as a "lie-detector", it's silly talk.

The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the diary is a hoax, and that that hoax was something to do with the Barretts, there's absolutely sod-all in the way of evidence to suggest anything else, and that's what you seem to be dodging here.

Mike Barrett, a writer, looks for a Victorian diary, buys one, then finds a diary out of nowhere that reads like a gothic novella, tying up all of the pesky riddles about one of the most notorious serial killers, and criminal mysteries known to man, and you buy into it? Well, there's an old joke about a bridge being for sale...and I find that it would be fitting here.

People who create hoaxes tend to stumble about a bit, no matter what their state of mind is like, and if you're into hoaxes at all, you'll note many of those parallels that I mentioned earlier.

Neither Patterson, nor Gimlin, could get their story straight about stumbling upon that Bigfoot on the dry creek in 1967.

Hoaxers don't tend to have fool-proof backstories, because they're lying and they're inventing details, and it's hard to keep track of those types of things, whether you're a drunk, or the sternest practitioner of sobriety.

The diary clearly wasn't found in the house, that story is nonsense and makes no sense whatsoever, not even Ike believes that, and that should tell you something!

So who found it? Where was it?

The Barretts.

[Mike J. G.]

,

...and also said repeatedly that he didn't forge it.

Graham

Right, like Roger Patterson said he never faked that Bigfoot movie.

Mike Barrett is a man of coincidence, like James Maybrick, apparently.

[Mike J. G.]

the evidence is the provinence starts and ends with barrett, he admitted he forged it and he tried to buy a victorian diary with blank pages. thats really all anyone needs to know, but theres also a boatload of other circumstantial evidence that should put this, as kattrup put it best- silly diary- to rest.

Totally agree, Abby.

It's much nicer, though, to ignore all of that and cling onto the dream, innit.

Keep reaching for that rainbow, Maybrick fans.

[John Wheat]

Yes, and where is the evidence that the Barretts definitely and absolutely conceived and wrote it??? Every time Michael of that ilk was asked such a question he gave a different answer, probably depending upon who was talking to him. He never proved anything whatsoever, one way or the other, except that he was a master of confabulation. And as Anne seems to have disappeared, we'll probably never know the truth. And anyway, if she told 'the truth' whilst wired-up to a lie-detector, who would believe her?

Considering all that my question still stands. Where is the proof The Diary is genuine?

[John Wheat]

the evidence is the provinence starts and ends with barrett, he admitted he forged it and he tried to buy a victorian diary with blank pages. thats really all anyone needs to know, but theres also a boatload of other circumstantial evidence that should put this, as kattrup put it best- silly diary- to rest.

I agree Abby.

[Iconoclast]

Considering all that my question still stands. Where is the proof The Diary is genuine?

I would draw your attention to my brilliant Society's Pillar. It answers your question (if you are asking "What do scrapbook believers provide by way of evidence for the scrapbook?"). No need for me to iterate it all again here (that's why I wrote it, by the way). Did I say it was brilliant?

It is incredibly easy to post on this website and feel sanctimonious and right because so few post in support of the scrapbook. It would be easy to think that there were only the smallest handful of us who actually disagree fervently with the inane, uncrystallised mutterings which you might flatter yourselves are objections and arguments. This stems from the simple non sequitur that the most posters equals a majority viewpoint. It is a non sequitur (if you hadn't yet grasped it) because of the thoroughly indecent tone of many of the hardcore of posters who criticise the scrapbook (in the Neanderthal sense rather than the scientific, of course). It is the barbarism of your language and your self-appointed righteousness which causes many a scrapbook supporter to simply not post a word. They are arguably the sensible ones as they avoid the vitriol which is spouted so smugly by the Casebook bully boys. In my case, of course, I honestly couldn't give a toss how much vitriol comes my way. If I did, I would have walked away a long, long time ago. I'm here to stay whether you respond to my superb posts or not. Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, the scrapbook and the watch are authentic proofs, and everything else which supports Maybrick as Jack simply confirms it (once again, I draw your attention to my brilliant Society's Pillar in which I clarify why it is so obvious that this is so).

How do I know that there are many scrapbook believers out there who do not post? Primarily because they write to me and tell me. For example, just this past week someone wrote to me out of the blue to say "I am reading your essay about JTR/JM on casebook, and I am 100% sure James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper." This particular individual goes on to say that they are not a member of the Casebook. Obviously you have to take my word for this (I clearly would never name them) and if you doubt me, I refer you to my previous comment about not giving a toss; but they are out there, not in here - they very wisely leave the unpleasant stuff to the likes of me.

Instead of so worthlessly denigrating from your tenuous understanding of the case, how about you Great Maybrick Critics pull your fingers out and write a formal case against the authenticity of the scrapbook? I would love to read it - especially the bits where you argue for the truly impossible, that Michael Barrett had any hand whatsoever in the creation of this most sophisticated, complex, and Maybrickcentric document.

Put up or shut up, say I. Let's see your cogent works published for all on here to shake their heads at in dismay.

Ike "Cleverer than all of you even that old duffer Lord Orsam" Iconoclast

[John Wheat]

I would draw your attention to my brilliant Society's Pillar. It answers your question (if you are asking "What do scrapbook believers provide by way of evidence for the scrapbook?"). No need for me to iterate it all again here (that's why I wrote it, by the way). Did I say it was brilliant?

It is incredibly easy to post on this website and feel sanctimonious and right because so few post in support of the scrapbook. It would be easy to think that there were only the smallest handful of us who actually disagree fervently with the inane, uncrystallised mutterings which you might flatter yourselves are objections and arguments. This stems from the simple non sequitur that the most posters equals a majority viewpoint. It is a non sequitur (if you hadn't yet grasped it) because of the thoroughly indecent tone of many of the hardcore of posters who criticise the scrapbook (in the Neanderthal sense rather than the scientific, of course). It is the barbarism of your language and your self-appointed righteousness which causes many a scrapbook supporter to simply not post a word. They are arguably the sensible ones as they avoid the vitriol which is spouted so smugly by the Casebook bully boys. In my case, of course, I honestly couldn't give a toss how much vitriol comes my way. If I did, I would have walked away a long, long time ago. I'm here to stay whether you respond to my superb posts or not. Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, the scrapbook and the watch are authentic proofs, and everything else which supports Maybrick as Jack simply confirms it (once again, I draw your attention to my brilliant Society's Pillar in which I clarify why it is so obvious that this is so).

How do I know that there are many scrapbook believers out there who do not post? Primarily because they write to me and tell me. For example, just this past week someone wrote to me out of the blue to say "I am reading your essay about JTR/JM on casebook, and I am 100% sure James Maybrick was Jack The Ripper." This particular individual goes on to say that they are not a member of the Casebook. Obviously you have to take my word for this (I clearly would never name them) and if you doubt me, I refer you to my previous comment about not giving a toss; but they are out there, not in here - they very wisely leave the unpleasant stuff to the likes of me.

Instead of so worthlessly denigrating from your tenuous understanding of the case, how about you Great Maybrick Critics pull your fingers out and write a formal case against the authenticity of the scrapbook? I would love to read it - especially the bits where you argue for the truly impossible, that Michael Barrett had any hand whatsoever in the creation of this most sophisticated, complex, and Maybrickcentric document.

Put up or shut up, say I. Let's see your cogent works published for all on here to shake their heads at in dismay.

Ike "Cleverer than all of you even that old duffer Lord Orsam" Iconoclast

Considering how the Diary came to the attention of the public and how Mike Barrett conducted himself as regards the diary the onus is very much on those that believe the Diary is true to prove it not the other way around.

[Scott Nelson]

I would draw your attention to my brilliant Society's Pillar.

Did you ever address Maybrick's obsession with Abberline in this? I went through it but I can't remember.

[jmenges]

I’d hazard a guess that there’s more people who believe it could be an old forgery written by neither Maybrick or Barrett than believe it was the work of one or the other.

JM