Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The latest sleight of hand from the Great Misrememberer needs to be exposed.

    In post #372, on 10th Jan, responding to my #331 of 8th Jan, the Great Misrememberer said:

    "Anne, remember, wanted none of the spoils until Doreen finally persuaded her, in 1994 when she had left Mike, to take a share of the royalties for Caroline's sake. What would have been in it for Anne in 1992, to have helped concoct this thing with Mike? So she could watch him getting it published and pissing all his royalties against the wall?"

    At this stage, RJ had not posted his "novella" theory (which he did in #375).

    I then said (in #381):

    "Did I really just read someone asking what motive a woman could have for collaborating in a financial venture with her husband? Seriously?????!!!!"

    The Great Misremember then responded to this in #422, apparently trying to pretend that she thought I was addressing RJ in my #381, but saying:

    "We know that this woman refused any share of the monies until Doreen persuaded her, two years later when she had left her husband, for Caroline's sake. We don't know what motive she had for collaboration without remuneration."

    Both #372 and #381 were responding to me and had nothing to do with RJ's theory. They stood alone with a question as to why a woman would collaborate without payment with her husband.

    Even if she was thinking of RJ's theory (which she obviously wasn't) the question is still equally absurd. She's his wife so whatever form of collaboration we are talking about it's ridiculous to ask why a woman would require financial remuneration in circumstances where her husband is receiving the money (and the same would be true vice versa).

    Comment


    • The next sleight of hand is shocking, even by the standards of the Great Misrememberer and Misunderstander.

      Trying to convince us that Mike had sold his entire interest in the diary and that "5% of nothing is nothing" the Great Misrememberer must have forgotten what she posted earlier in this thread.

      I refer to #24 when were told that Mike sold the diary to Robert Smith:"to protect his very substantial future royalties".

      The offer made by Feldman to Mike in 1993 (as recounted by Feldman) was this:

      "I've spoken to Paul Dodd and he's requested five per cent of whatever you receive in order not to contest ownership of the document".

      There is no mention in that offer of it being five per cent of whatever Mike received for selling the Diary. It was five per cent of "whatever you receive".

      That must mean five per cent of the "very substantial" future royalties.

      Now it doesn't matter whether legally Paul Dodd would have been entitled to 5% of this (just as it doesn't matter whether, legally, Eddie Lyons would have been entitled to this same money if he and Mike had agreed on a 50/50 split of "the proceeds"). That was the offer being made to Mike, a person who was expecting "very substantial" book royalties. Five per cent of whatever he received.

      I wouldn't mind but I've made this point already in this thread, not that this seems to matter any more.

      Comment


      • Did I really see the expression "perfect provenance" earlier?

        I think I did. Someone was trying to convince us that Mike was being offered the "perfect provenance" in 1993.

        But of course if you assume that Mike knew that the diary was a modern forgery it wasn't the perfect provenance at all. On the contrary, it was a rubbish provenance. A fake provenance that, for all Mike knew, could easily be exposed as a fake provenance for which he was supposed to give up five percent of everything he received to a stranger.

        In any case, if the story was that an electrician had found the diary under the floorboards of Battlecrease, why did Mike have to do anything? Why did he have to give up any percentage to Paul Dodd?

        All he needed to do was stick with his story that Tony Devereux gave him the diary and let OTHERS conclude that it came from Battlecrease (having been passed from the electrician to Tony and then on to him). Because if Mike suddenly said "Oh yes Tony told me that he got it from Eddie" he would have had to admit that he had previously been lying.

        Similarly if he suddenly said that he didn't get it from Tony but direct from Eddie he again has to admit that his previous story has been a complete lie.

        And bear in mind that, in this scenario, Mike knows that his story about getting the diary from Tony is a lie but also that the new story about getting it from Eddie is also a lie. So why would he want to swap one lie for another lie? At least with the "I got it from Tony" story he was in control of that one and no-one could disprove it. Now it would only need the electrician to admit "actually I didn't find it under the floorboards after all" and Mike's in a far worse position than he was at the start. But now he's given up five per cent!!

        Comment


        • Here's how the story changes from day to day with dizzying speed:

          TODAY

          "The one constant in all this was his [Mike's] refusal to drop Eddie Lyons in it by taking advantage of a perfect provenance handed to him on a plate, courtesy of Paul Feldman."

          YESTERDAY

          "I could see him [Eddie] putting the squeeze on Mike for a share of the royalties by, say, threatening to sell his confession. Isn't that precisely what he tries to do in 1993?"

          So one day Eddie is trying to put "the squeeze" on Mike, which can only mean that he was prepared to say that he found (and stole) the diary under the floorboards of Battlecrease, as reported to Mike by Feldman, but Mike's refusal to accept this story shows him refusing to "drop Eddie Lyons in it" even though Eddie must have been dropping himself in it!

          There is clearly confusion at the heart of all these speculations. Somehow Mike and Eddie came to agreement in April 1992 to split Mike's future book royalties but by 1993 Mike has "nothing", having sold the book for 1, so can't give up 5% of anything to anyone! Yet he is also expecting very substantial future royalties.

          Is Eddie terrified of being found to have stolen the diary or is he threatening to publicise this fact to get money from Mike? But hold on, why would Mike be worried about the diary having being stolen by a third party? He's already sold it to Robert Smith for a pound. Mike's money is to come from the book and the success of the book depends on the Diary being genuine. If the Diary is known to have come from Battlecrease that virtually guarantees it to be genuine doesn't it? So why is Mike afraid of exposure? But if he's not afraid of exposure then what leverage does Eddie have over him? Eddie can't claim ownership of anything? Paul Dodd might be able to but the Diary has already been sold to Smith. It's a complex web.

          I could weave about 10 different fictional stories around this situation if I put my mind to it, each one as plausible as the next. But all this speculation is helping no-one without hard facts to back it up.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            You were missed as well, Mike. Some us were even wondering if revelations at the Liverpool conference had converted you to the pro-diary cause
            Haha, cheers, Sam. No chance! It was very uneventful, tbh. While it was interesting to see the players, etc, I was mostly bored by it all, a friend I was with seemed to enjoy it, though.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
              The likes of caz has forgotten more than you'll ever know about the diary... unlike most on here she actually met Mike Barrett.
              I know a few people who've met Mike Barrett, but I'd hardly say that meeting Barrett means that you're a legend in the industry and a wise sage in the Maybrick camp, lol.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                The mystery, John, is why anyone still believes that to have been the case, when there is no evidence that Mike would have been capable, and no evidence that anyone close to him would have been capable and willing.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                There's no evidence that it was penned in the 1800's, or the early 1900's, either, but that doesn't stop y'all from banging on about it!

                IMHO, there's enough evidence to suggest a more modern date.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Hi John,

                  Who cares? I care. Others care. In fact, the only people who claim not to care who actually wrote the diary seem to be those who have convinced themselves it can only be a modern fake created by Mike Barrett or someone close to him.
                  On the contrary, I'm quite intrigued by the mystery of whodunnit.

                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  It's the standard get-out when asked to provide evidence for their convictions.
                  Nah, it's mainly an obvious conclusion based on the lack of other contenders and the fact that the entire saga is riddled with inconsistencies and silliness, coupled with the fact that Mike actually got hold of a Victorian diary and was clearly the type to want to get involved in something like that in order to acquire some type of fame, and money, that he wasn't getting in his regular work as a bit-writer.



                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Have you even considered just how remarkable the coincidence would be if the Portus & Rhodes electricians made up their stories from whole cloth, in the Spring of 1993, about the diary being found in Battlecrease, on the back of Feldman's speculations? Without the faintest idea who Mike Barrett was, or that he had called Doreen about the diary a year previously, on the same day - the only day - floorboards were in fact lifted in Maybrick's old bedroom?

                  Feldman didn't know about those two events coinciding on March 9th 1992 when he was trying to do a deal a year later. So he couldn't have planted the seed in the mind of any of the electricians to use a genuine coincidence of timing to falsely claim they had found Mike's diary in the house. They could not possibly have foreseen in the Spring of 1993 that one day the story would find support in this way - unless the story was true and one of their number really did find it and knew that what Mike did next was no coincidence.

                  Good weekend all, sceptics included.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Considering all of the coincidences you're willing to gobble down in order to have the diary be an older hoax, this post is a bit of a head-scratcher, mate.

                  All my love,

                  the Don.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Who is employing the most speculation here, based on assumptions about people they have never met or spoken to, and their admitted lack of information about what was or wasn't done in Battlecrease, by whom and when?
                    Again, Caz, you're not one to comment on speculation, assumption and coincidence, considering you're privy to each of those in good measure.

                    You do seem to pick and choose what you find to be possible or not, and it's frankly baffling that you try to hide it when it's so apparent. But anyway, do carry on!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
                      Indeed, and the ones who haven't the info available really make me .... laugh.

                      and then

                      There's no info available to suggest any electrician took any diary to any university in Liverpool, nor is there any detail about which building it was taken to, how they came to decide which of the many university buildings/departments they were to even contact, or who they even met on this very mystical day way back when, but this doesn't seem to matter one iota to the anti-Barrett brigade, and I find that a bit more than a tad weird.

                      Allo? Is this the generic Liverpool university reception desk? It is? Smashing! Me and the lads here have found something interesting, random secretary at generic Liverpool university, and we think that one of your random professors may be interested in looking at it. Should we just turn up at one of your many buildings to show it to him? Ace, we're on our way!
                      Last edited by Mike J. G.; 01-16-2018, 03:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        I see what you are saying, Henry. And I would accept it more if there was just one of us - me - this deeply into the diary and its possible origins. You get that with the whackier ripper theories, where just one or two people get so stuck in their own groove of confirmation bias that it would take a hundred boy scouts to prise them out and a hundred more scout masters with big sticks to show them the error of their ways.

                        But there are many of us working on the finer details, checking each other's thinking against the available evidence, checking and rechecking what we actually know and what we still need to know and making sure we stay grounded.

                        It's not just about the diary text, and whether or not we think Mike was capable of writing it or even handling such a project. In fact it's hardly about that at all. It's almost all about examining the various things people have said and done and building up a picture of what was going on in the early 1990s: what is and what isn't relevant to the diary; what's possible within the known facts and, more importantly, trying to eliminate the impossible, again using the known facts, without resorting to guesswork.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        You completely failed to answer or address any of Henry's post, there, Caz.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          it looks like it has large hairy mammalian protruberances.

                          the video is also an extremely good hoax IMHO.
                          .
                          It's nowhere near to being a good hoax, Abby. They ballsed it up from the get-go with dodgy provenances, not to mention the fact that the sodding Bigfoot is wearing a diaper.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                            It's nowhere near to being a good hoax, Abby. They ballsed it up from the get-go with dodgy provenances, not to mention the fact that the sodding Bigfoot is wearing a diaper.
                            Well when your nine, it was awesome. Lol
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                              It's nowhere near to being a good hoax, Abby. They ballsed it up from the get-go with dodgy provenances, not to mention the fact that the sodding Bigfoot is wearing a diaper.
                              But Mike, there's no way even the most sophisticated costumers could've manufactured a suit that convincing back in the medieval era - er, sorry, in 1967! It's just impossible. And also, look at the way Patty walks: sort of hunching down slightly: that's not how humans normally walk, and if that was a man in a suit they would obviously just walk in a completely normal walk and not try to disguise their gait at all.

                              Also, at about 3.04 in the unedited PGF if you look to the left of where Patty is disappearing into the woods you can clearly see there is a second gunman on the grassy knoll, just to the rear of the moon-landing props.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post
                                It's nowhere near to being a good hoax, Abby. They ballsed it up from the get-go with dodgy provenances, not to mention the fact that the sodding Bigfoot is wearing a diaper.
                                You need to stop seeing the wood, Mike, and get lost in the trees.

                                The devil is in the details.

                                Sole demonstrated provenance? Part-time writer? Obtained a blank Victorian diary? Confessed to a role in the forgery?

                                Pah! Never mind that! Only a simpleton would fail to see that there is probably a deeper story hidden behind each of those facts, an explanation other than the obvious one. Look at these time sheets, and start riddling-out the various conflicting and meaningless statements by various electricians etc, none of which have been demonstrated to have a scintilla of truth to them, or any definitive relevance even if true.

                                Stop seeing the wood. You're not supposed to!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X