Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Sam Flynn]

What about the fact that the Diary contains several throwaway references to everyday things/events in the life of the Maybricks

Several? What are they? (Genuine question)

[Abby Normal]

Several? What are they? (Genuine question)

right. and any way didn't he admit they researched maybrick?

[StevenOwl]

Several? What are they? (Genuine question)

That Gladys Maybrick was frequently unwell as a child; that JM referred to himself and liked to be called Sir Jim/Sir James when at home; that JM found a new supplier for his arsenic at a specific point towards the end of his life. I believe that none of those things were common knowledge in the late '80s/'90s and were only verified by searching in archives after the Diary came to light.

I'm sure there's other examples that Caz or Keith Skinner could highlight.

[Observer]

What about the fact that the Diary contains several throwaway references to everyday thicontemporary in the life of the Maybricks which, between 1989 and 1992, could only be obtained from documents buried in rarclose to Maybriccessed archives? I find it hard to believe that old Bongo managed to do that all on his tod.

And what per chance would those facts be? You must be a Maybrick as JTR devotee, for the simple reason that a contemporary hoaxer would also not be awate of those "facts" you talk about. Of course there are those who believe someone close to Maybrick was responsible for the hoax. How then would they be aware of all the facts pertaining to the Ripper murders?

[StevenOwl]

And what per chance would those facts be? You must be a Maybrick as JTR devotee, for the simple reason that a contemporary hoaxer would also not be awate of those "facts" you talk about. Of course there are those who believe someone close to Maybrick was responsible for the hoax. How then would they be aware of all the facts pertaining to the Ripper murders though?

Must I? I'm just interested to know the truth, that's all. As far as I can see there's no proof that Barrett forged the Diary, just as there's no proof that Maybrick wrote it (either as a fantasy or as JtR). I'm just waiting for that one piece of evidence that finally puts it to bed, and in the meantime I'm not nailing my colours to any particular mast.

[Observer]

That Gladys Maybrick was frequently unwell as a child; that planet was usingerred to himself and liked to be called Sir Jim/Sir James when at home; that JM found a new supplier for his arsenic at a specific point towards the end of his life. I believe that none of those things were common knowledge in the late '80s/'90s and were only verified by searching in archives after the Diary came to light.

I'm sure there's other examples that Caz or Keith Skinner could highlight.

Tell me, how was Sir Jim able to express himself using a phrase which no one on the planet was using, that is, in the context as expressed by Sir Jim?

[Abby Normal]

Must I? I'm just interested to know the truth, that's all. As far as I can see there's no proof that Barrett forged the Diary, just as there's no proof that Maybrick wrote it (either as a fantasy or as JtR). I'm just waiting for that one piece of evidence that finally puts it to bed, and in the meantime I'm not nailing my colours to any particular mast.

give a hypothetical example of "proof" that he forged it.

[StevenOwl]

Tell me, how was Sir Jim able to express himself using a phrase which no one on the planet was using, that is, in the context as expressed by Sir Jim?

I don't believe that Maybrick wrote the Diary.

[StevenOwl]

give a hypothetical example of "proof" that he forged it.

For me, if there was an official record of Mike Barrett (or Anne Graham, or Tony Devereaux), between 1989 and 1992, visiting the archives where private Maybrick family info could be obtained then I'd say that was as close to a smoking gun as we're going to get.

Or perhaps if the auction house where Barrett claimed to have bought the diary from were to confirm that he did indeed purchase that very photograph album as part of a job lot.

[Observer]

I don't believe that Maybrick wrote the Diary.

Then by the answers you have provided you have nailed yourself to the "old hoax" mast

[StevenOwl]

Then by the answers you have provided you have nailed yourself to the "old hoax" mast

Have I? I thought I was just pointing out that some things need explaining before I'll accept Mike Barrett as our master forger.

[Trevor Marriott]

give a hypothetical example of "proof" that he forged it.

No need for a hypothetical example, the evidence he forged it, or was a party to its forgery, is contained in the first signed affidavit.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

For me, if there was an official record of Mike Barrett (or Anne Graham, or Tony Devereaux), between 1989 and 1992, visiting the archives where private Maybrick family info could be obtained then I'd say that was as close to a smoking gun as we're going to get.

Or perhaps if the auction house where Barrett claimed to have bought the diary from were to confirm that he did indeed purchase that very photograph album as part of a job lot.

Thanks Owl

but one could just come up with another ludicrous reason for these "coincidences", like they have for every other one.

and these examples to me don't even come close to:

He admitted hoaxing it in a sworn affidavit
he attempted to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages
the use of "one off instance"

nor the ludicrous explanations for these!

I mean if these aren't "proof" enough- nothing will prove it to the diary defenders.

[Henry Flower]

Kaz, did you ask permission to quote from that private message on the public forum?

[Kaz]

Kaz, did you ask permission to quote from that private message on the public forum?

No, didn't realise I needed to...

Pinks opinions change daily, its not something he keeps hidden..

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7657