Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

But surely it's incumbent on the person making the assertion to provide the proof, or at least evidence. Surely to simply argue that Mike carried out the research on the basis that there's no evidence he didn't is, ultimately, reductio ad absurdum.

The only thing that's absurdum, John, is that you seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm asserting that Mike carried out any research. I'm not. I've not even said anything close to it. I have no idea if he carried out any research or not.

What happened, John, (although perhaps you had dozed off at the time) is that we were told by another poster that:

"I just don't like the fact that there is not a shred of evidence of Mike researching the ripper or the Maybricks prior to that day"

I said that it's utterly meaningless to say that there is no evidence, if the issue has never been properly investigated. Evidence doesn't just magically appear. I made the point that there is no evidence that Mike has ever visited the lavatory and then it was said that going to the toilet is a purely private experience which, I pointed out, it is not.

So that's where we are and nowhere in that did I ever assert that Mike carried out any research. If you think I did then you imagined it.

[Abby Normal]

Hallo David,

But surely it's incumbent on the person making the assertion to provide the proof, or at least evidence. Surely to simply argue that Mike carried out the research on the basis that there's no evidence he didn't is, ultimately, reductio ad absurdum.

Dude. You’ve totally lost it.

Alas, another respectable poster done in by diary delirium tremens.

[Abby Normal]

Was Harrison specifically referring to research into Maybrick, or just general reasearch?

Or maybe Harrison was referring to Barrett’s earlier articles. ; )

[Hunter]

Was Harrison specifically referring to research into Maybrick, or just general reasearch?

Here is the passage in a more complete form. This is from the last edition, chapter 1:


"In 1985, Michael had bought himself an Amstrad word processor with money lent by Anne’s father, Billy Graham, and now, at last, it came into its own. He told us that he made copious notes in the Liverpool library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amstrad. But at this stage Michael had not connected the Diary with James Maybrick."

It goes on to say after reading Whittington-Egan's book, he did corolate the two.

[rjpalmer]

It seems to depend on who is asking Paul Dodd and when.

I find this an amazing statement.

[Observer]

Hallo David,

But surely it's incumbent on the person making the assertion to provide the proof, or at least evidence. Surely to simply argue that Mike carried out the research on the basis that there's no evidence he didn't is, ultimately, reductio ad absurdum.

Why do you suppose Mike Barrett obtained the red/maroon leather bound diary in March 92?

I believe we've had four different reasons put forward so far from the dreamers, each one as ridiculous as the last.

[John G]

The only thing that's absurdum, John, is that you seem to be labouring under the impression that I'm asserting that Mike carried out any research. I'm not. I've not even said anything close to it. I have no idea if he carried out any research or not.

What happened, John, (although perhaps you had dozed off at the time) is that we were told by another poster that:

"I just don't like the fact that there is not a shred of evidence of Mike researching the ripper or the Maybricks prior to that day"

I said that it's utterly meaningless to say that there is no evidence, if the issue has never been properly investigated. Evidence doesn't just magically appear. I made the point that there is no evidence that Mike has ever visited the lavatory and then it was said that going to the toilet is a purely private experience which, I pointed out, it is not.

So that's where we are and nowhere in that did I ever assert that Mike carried out any research. If you think I did then you imagined it.

Okay, so it appears I misunderstood. But now there's something else I don't understand. Why do you say Mike wrote the diary if you're not sure whether he carried out any research? By the way, as an aside I believe it's been stated that Mike was a journalist. Is there any evidence for this?

[John G]

Here is the passage in a more complete form. This is from the last edition, chapter 1:


"In 1985, Michael had bought himself an Amstrad word processor with money lent by Anne’s father, Billy Graham, and now, at last, it came into its own. He told us that he made copious notes in the Liverpool library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amstrad. But at this stage Michael had not connected the Diary with James Maybrick."

It goes on to say after reading Whittington-Egan's book, he did corolate the two.

Thanks for this. So it seems at this stage he's still asserting that the diary is authentic and the research he carried out was general in character.

[Observer]

Thanks for this. So it seems at this stage he's still asserting that the diary is authentic and the research he carried out was general in character.

I might have missed something here, but how can you say he's assessing that the Diary is authentic without knowing the dates he was conducting his research in Liverpool Library?

[John Wheat]

Dude. You’ve totally lost it.

Alas, another respectable poster done in by diary delirium tremens.

I agree Abby it's up to those that don't believe the Diary was written by Mike to come up with proof of it and it is certainly up to those who believe Maybrick wrote the diary to prove it. As it stands there is no evidence that Mike didn't write the diary.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

I agree Abby it's up to those that don't believe the Diary was written by Mike to come up with proof of it and it is certainly up to those who believe Maybrick wrote the diary to prove it. As it stands there is no evidence that Mike didn't write the diary.

Cheers John

This is like the old "Is the glass half full or half empty?" conundrum (you know - the one where everyone always says they approach things with the former psychological predisposition when in reality those around them know it's the latter?).

Anyway, the answer to that conundrum is, of course, "Yes on both counts".

Similarly, it is not solely 'down to' pro-Maybrick supporters to prove Maybrick wrote the journal nor on Barrett-detractors to prove that he did not.

It is for all of us to prove our case and find the evidence to support that case. "Should the journal be proven authentic or proven a fake?". Yes on both counts, Your Honour.

[David Orsam]

Okay, so it appears I misunderstood. But now there's something else I don't understand. Why do you say Mike wrote the diary if you're not sure whether he carried out any research?

I guess you haven't been following this thread very closely John. In #322 I said:

"Let me first correct the mistaken claim that I believe that Mike concocted the diary. This is something I have never said. What I have said is that Mike's acquisition of the Victorian Diary leads me to the conclusion that he was involved in forging the diary. That involvement could have been no more than obtaining the scrapbook (or not even that, simply an attempt to obtain a diary of some sort which the forger could use). Someone else might have concocted the text and someone else might have written it (and someone else might have obtained the scrapbook). Indeed, in his January 1995 affidavit, Mike claimed that Tony Devereux was involved in the preparations and research of the diary while his wife was the scribe who actually wrote it out based on some kind of pre-prepared draft or notes."

In any case, Melvin Harris has demonstrated very well that the amount of research required to produce the Diary was minimal if any:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mhguide.html

By the way, as an aside I believe it's been stated that Mike was a journalist. Is there any evidence for this?

Yes, a number of articles published under his name in Celebrity magazine between 1986 and 1988.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, a number of articles published under his name in Celebrity magazine between 1986 and 1988.

Wow, your glass is seriously half full, my dear Lord Orsam!

[John Wheat]

This is like the old "Is the glass half full or half empty?" conundrum (you know - the one where everyone always says they approach things with the former psychological predisposition when in reality those around them know it's the latter?).

Anyway, the answer to that conundrum is, of course, "Yes on both counts".

Similarly, it is not solely 'down to' pro-Maybrick supporters to prove Maybrick wrote the journal nor on Barrett-detractors to prove that he did not.

It is for all of us to prove our case and find the evidence to support that case. "Should the journal be proven authentic or proven a fake?". Yes on both counts, Your Honour.

No it really is up to those who believe the diary was written by Maybrick to prove it. There is no evidence that he did.

[David Orsam]

Wow, your glass is seriously half full, my dear Lord Orsam!

I don't even know what that means. It's a fact that he had articles published in his name in Celebrity.