Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

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

  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    John G, I didn't have you down as a slippery character but you've been a bit naughty in the other Maybrick thread today. You wrote:


    Apart from the fact that I made no such concession, what I said very clearly to you in this thread was that "it's utterly meaningless to say that there is no evidence, if the issue has never been properly investigated". So why would you think I would have said something utterly meaningless?

    You made exactly the same point in reverse to me when you said: "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." Conversely, to simply argue that Mike did not carry out the research on the basis that there is no evidence that he did is equally reductio ad absurdum. Strange, therefore, that in the above quote you are using the absence of proof as a point against the hypothesis that Mike wrote the diary. Literally absurd!

    You also wrote:


    But I didn't "concede" anything here at all. I was making a positive point. Just as we don't know to what extent Mike's articles might have been edited, we also don't know to what extent the text of the Diary might have been edited. And possibly edited by the very same person! In other words, if Mike was capable of producing magazine articles (perhaps with editorial assistance) it could be concluded that he was equally capable of producing the Ripper Diary (with similar editorial assistance).

    So there really is no "problem" created by the possibility of Mike's articles being edited nor, might I add, is there any "problem" created by the fact that we don't know how Mike obtained the job. A lack of knowledge, once again, tells us precisely nothing. It certainly doesn't cause a problem.
    David,

    I find this to be a somewhat odd post. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, so are you now saying there is proof Mike carried out research into Maybrick? If so, could I trouble you to produce that proof.

    You now say that you did not concede the point that Mike's articles may have been edited. Really? Okay, that's not how I recall your post, but perhaps you'll be good enough to provide me with the proof that Mike's articles were not edited.

    Good luck.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John G View Post
      I find this to be a somewhat odd post. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, so are you now saying there is proof Mike carried out research into Maybrick? If so, could I trouble you to produce that proof.
      John, see my post #915. Please read it carefully.

      Originally posted by John G View Post
      You now say that you did not concede the point that Mike's articles may have been edited. Really? Okay, that's not how I recall your post, but perhaps you'll be good enough to provide me with the proof that Mike's articles were not edited.
      John, see my post #915. Please read it carefully.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        John, see my post #915. Please read it carefully.



        John, see my post #915. Please read it carefully.


        Cheers, David, needed a good laugh

        Comment


        • Hi Caz,


          Originally posted by caz View Post
          ...Ironic, when you think of Jeremy's opinions of both the diary and watch.

          He was another 'crackpot' who thought people were fooled into believing Mike Barrett's forgery claims because they were receptive to being so fooled.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          In the text I quote him from he seems to not indicate that. He also writes, "One would expect a nineteenth century journal to be more in keeping with this, over elaborate style of writing than the Maybrick diary is. Instead, what we find throughout are words and phrases more in common in the late twentieth century."

          Reading the whole text, he obviously believes the forger concocted it post late 1980s, even though he does not name the forger directly.

          http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20f...20article).pdf
          Best Wishes,
          Hunter
          ____________________________________________

          When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

          Comment


          • Apologies for getting the two mixed up. Disregard previous post.
            Best Wishes,
            Hunter
            ____________________________________________

            When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              John, see my post #915. Please read it carefully.



              John, see my post #915. Please read it carefully.
              I have now carefully read Post 915 and it appears, somewhat surprisingly, that we are broadly in accord on these issues, unless I've totally misunderstood, in which case I shall repair to Frustration Island.

              What got my ire, though, is that I honestly didn't think I was saying anything controversial, so I couldn't understand the vehemence of your response. There is obviously no proof that the magazine articles weren't edited, although I accept this doesn't gets us very far, because there's no proof that they were, either. And as I pointed out in my reply to Observer, the diary itself contains spelling and literacy errors so it could be argued that it was written by someone who was only semi-literate, although I don't believe that myself.

              Similarly, there's obviously no proof-there's that word again-that Mike carried out any research into Maybrick or JtR. I mean, if say someone were to produce receipts, photographic evidence, witness statements, demonstrating that he bought books and articles on the subject, that's only evidence that he purchased material that could be used for the purposes of research, not proof that he actually read any of this material. For instance, last year I downloaded both Tom Westcott's and Bruce Robinson's latest books, but I haven't actually read any of them. And frankly, I doubt I shall ever get round to reading Robinson's weighty effort.

              But say Mike admitted to researching the relevant subjects-I can't honestly remember whether he did or he didn't. Well then, I would argue that he was such an unreliable character-making dubious claims about being an agent of the security services, and changing his mind multiple times on the issue of whether he authored the diary, for instance-that anything he says should be treated with extreme caution. Anyway, it could always be argued that any research he carried out was for purposes of validating the diary's authenticity.

              Hopefully this clarifies matters to your satisfication. If not, it's off to Frustration Island for me.
              Last edited by John G; 02-08-2018, 01:21 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                But say Mike admitted to researching the relevant subjects-I can't honestly remember whether he did or he didn't. Well then, I would argue that he was such an unreliable character-making dubious claims about being an agent of the security services, and changing his mind multiple times on the issue of whether he authored the diary, for instance-that anything he says should be treated with extreme caution. Anyway, it could always be argued that any research he carried out was for purposes of validating the diary's authenticity.
                Everything that Mike says does, indeed, need to be treated with extreme caution – he was clearly a person with a vivid imagination - but amongst all the uncertainty we do have one hard and undisputed fact which is that an advertisement on behalf of Mike Barrett was placed in a specialist bookdealing magazine dated 19 March 1992 asking for an unused or used Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages and Mike received a completely blank but small and useless Victorian diary in response to this advertisement on or shortly before 28 March 1992. The JTR Diary itself was not produced, or known to have been seen by anyone outside the Barrett family, until 13 April 1992. Those are the facts we have and it is up to us to use our brains as to what those facts mean.

                Comment


                • In an attempt to go round and round in circles, the point was made in another thread earlier today that Anne (if she had participated in the forgery) didn't have to tell Keith Skinner in or around 1995 that her cheque paid for the small Victorian diary. I say we go round in circles because this is a repeat argument and I have already pointed out that there was absolutely no danger to Anne by this because she could explain to Keith Skinner, as she did, that Mike simply wanted to see what a Victorian diary of the period looked like for comparison purposes with the scrapbook.

                  This explanation is now known to be false. But we only know it is false because nine whole years after Mike revealed the story of the purchase Victorian diary in his Jan 1995 affidavit (and yes he WAS telling the truth about this!) Keith Skinner found the advertisement in Bookdealer placed by Martin Earl which showed that Mike was only interested in a diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages, thus disproving the explanation put forward by Anne. If that explanation had been true, Mike would not have required there to be blank pages in the diary. The requirement for blank pages can only mean one thing. Mike wanted something to be written in that Victorian diary. What could it have been? Does one seriously need to ask?

                  As for Anne back in 1995, if she had denied any knowledge of the purchase of the Victorian diary it would have been the most foolish course she could possibly have taken. Mike was then still alive and could easily have remembered that Martin Earl was the dealer, resulting in a cheque being produced for £25 in Anne's own name. Imagine the outcry at that! Anne would have been proven to have been a liar.

                  It's almost certain that Anne had no idea that Martin Earl placed an advertisement in Bookdealer and a good chance that she didn't even know what instructions her husband had given to Earl. That being so, she would have felt there was no danger in freely admitting to the purchase of the diary. As I've said, she had an explanation and, up to 2003, it was a convincing explanation which seemed to satisfy everyone. It was only when the advertisement was discovered that it suddenly became apparent that the explanation was false, although it seems to have taken a number of years for this realisation to filter through, possibly because no-one outside of a small number of people had actually seen the advertisement until it was posted in this thread.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    Everything that Mike says does, indeed, need to be treated with extreme caution – he was clearly a person with a vivid imagination - but amongst all the uncertainty we do have one hard and undisputed fact which is that an advertisement on behalf of Mike Barrett was placed in a specialist bookdealing magazine dated 19 March 1992 asking for an unused or used Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages and Mike received a completely blank but small and useless Victorian diary in response to this advertisement on or shortly before 28 March 1992. The JTR Diary itself was not produced, or known to have been seen by anyone outside the Barrett family, until 13 April 1992. Those are the facts we have and it is up to us to use our brains as to what those facts mean.
                    Hello David,

                    It seems very likely to me that Mike had some involvement in the creation of the diary, but the more pertinent question is, what was the extent of that involvement?

                    Caz has pointed out that a number of respected authors interviewed Mike, during a period before his ultimate descent into alcoholism, and they all concluded that it was unlikely he was the author of the diary. That has to count for something.

                    Yes, I know Mike had a career as a "journalist", but Anne stated that she had to edit-"tidy up"-his articles, something she was quite capable of doing, considering that she was was once employed as a secretary.

                    In fact, Anne seems to have been driving force in the family, going out to work as a secretary during one of Mike's periods of unemployed, whilst he stayed at home, looking after the child.

                    Ultimately Mike seems to have been leading a kind of Walter Mitty life, making ludicrously extravagant claims about his achievements, possibly to compensate for his own sense of inadequacy.

                    Make of that what you will.

                    Comment


                    • Morning David, just passing this along from KS

                      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                      Everything that Mike says does, indeed, need to be treated with extreme caution – he was clearly a person with a vivid imagination - but amongst all the uncertainty we do have one hard and undisputed fact which is that an advertisement on behalf of Mike Barrett was placed in a specialist bookdealing magazine dated 19 March 1992 asking for an unused or used Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages and Mike received a completely blank but small and useless Victorian diary in response to this advertisement on or shortly before 28 March 1992. The JTR Diary itself was not produced, or known to have been seen by anyone outside the Barrett family, until 13 April 1992. Those are the facts we have and it is up to us to use our brains as to what those facts mean.

                      FOR DAVID O

                      David. Responding very briefly to your #922 in reply to John G’s original posting.

                      Every word of your reply I agree with except for the comment about the “useless Victorian diary” which presupposes Mike’s sole purpose in acquiring an “Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages” was to write – or have his wife or father-in-law – write the text of the diary in ink? As we know, what was presented to Doreen Montgomery in London on April 13th 1992 was a hardback Victorian scrapbook, approximately 11 inches by 8.5 inches, which originally contained 128 pages, but now had only 80 pages. 63 of these contained the diary’s narrative and there are 17 unused pages at the end of the scrapbook. I can see the logic of your thinking if Mike’s expectation was to receive a large diary spanning the decade 1880-1890, remove the years 1880 – 1887, commence the narrative mid 1888 (in the hope those pages were unused) and have a minimum of 20 blank pages at the end of the diary to cover the remaining 19 months from May 1889 to the end of December 1890. Then indeed what he received, on or shortly before March 28th 1992, would have been, unarguably, useless.

                      There are some other hard facts to accommodate – allowing you attach any importance or significance to them?

                      On March 9th 1992, Mike Barrett, using the surname of Williams, Telephoned Doreen Montgomery’s office to inform them he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

                      On March 9th 1992, there is evidential support of work being undertaken in the rooms used as a Bed Room and Dressing Room by James Maybrick in 1889, which involved the use of “15 Floor Board [ABC1?] Protectors.”

                      One other observation which I include only for information. From memory, I recall the siting of the two storage heaters were, one on the right hand side of the room as you come through the door, (where the wardrobe is situated in the 1889 plan), and the other in the far corner of the ante-room where the table stands in the 1889 plan.

                      Every Good Wish

                      Keith

                      Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Keith. There's nothing in the text of the diary that mentions floorboards, so why, in particular, should I be alarmed if Paul Dodd had his floorboards lifted on March 9, 1992?

                        Dumb question?

                        Or could it be a case where the very vagueness of the diary's text allows people to weave their own narratives? In this case, a floorboard narrative?

                        Think of it this way. If the drains in Battlecrease had backed up on March 9, 1992, wouldn't Mr. Dodd have called in the plumbers?

                        And since the diary doesn't prefer a floorboard to a pipe, wouldn't the remarkable 'coincidence' on March 9th have then involved Maybrick's plumbing? Perhaps a book hidden behind (or in) an old Victorian-era WC?

                        Here's Dodd speaking in Feldman's video:

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwN6VMjgw2Q

                        after it loads, queue up the tape to 16:25 and keep it rolling to 16:52.

                        Dodd:

                        "I decided to have a total rewire and they fitted a new main to the flat in 1989, I think, and then over a three-year period I had storage rated radiators and a ring Wayne installed in the [in the] flood. "

                        3 year period.

                        Elsewhere, we hear of Dodd "gutting" the place in 1978 and lifting the floorboards himself. Of wiring jobs back in the 1920s. We also hear of Mr. Dring doing something to the windows in 1982 and finding a couple of small books. Now this electrical work in 1989-1992. Who knows what else might have gone on? Painters? Carpenters? New rugs? Excavations in the garden? Rain gutters going up? All potential spots for a killer's confessions?

                        Couldn't we conclude that Dodd was the sort of bloke that often had contractors around? And wouldn't this greatly diminish the "coincidence" of March 9, 1992?

                        Rhetorical question only. Cheers, RP. PS. You seem very intent on adding William Graham to the 'nest of forgers.' I don't recall anyone else insisting on this. Isn't it fairly psychologically transparent that a bloke might throw a few jabs in the direction of his soon-to-be-ex father-in-law when 'coming clean'?

                        Comment


                        • Hi Keith. One other question and then I will leave you in peace for awhile. You frequently state that Michael Barrett hired a private detective "in order to prove that he forged the diary." If you don't mind, what is your source for this assertion? Did Mike himself ever claim that this is why he had hired Gray, or is this your own theory?

                          You see, if one read's Mike's own confessions, and reads Feldman, etc., there are a lot of accusations going around. Mike's wife and child are missing and he can't find them. He claims people are pounding on his windows. Feldman is calling at all hours and issuing threats. Paul Feldman was, in fact, a fairly demonstrative fellow, wasn't he? Is it possible that Mike genuinely felt threatened and his reasons for hiring Gray, in the beginning, really had nothing to do with "helping him prove he had forged the diary"? Any insight?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            Everything that Mike says does, indeed, need to be treated with extreme caution – he was clearly a person with a vivid imagination - but amongst all the uncertainty we do have one hard and undisputed fact which is that an advertisement on behalf of Mike Barrett was placed in a specialist bookdealing magazine dated 19 March 1992 asking for an unused or used Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages and Mike received a completely blank but small and useless Victorian diary in response to this advertisement on or shortly before 28 March 1992. The JTR Diary itself was not produced, or known to have been seen by anyone outside the Barrett family, until 13 April 1992. Those are the facts we have and it is up to us to use our brains as to what those facts mean.
                            So essentially in Mike Barrett we have a journalist that was looking for a blank Victorian Diary. Well in that case Mike Barrett couldn't possibly have fabricated the diary.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                              Well in that case Mike Barrett couldn't possibly have fabricated the diary.
                              Correct.

                              Mike was given ample opportunity to prove he wrote it, and failed dismally.

                              Real Paul Feldmans book, the final chapter.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                                Caz has pointed out that a number of respected authors interviewed Mike, during a period before his ultimate descent into alcoholism, and they all concluded that it was unlikely he was the author of the diary. That has to count for something.

                                Yes, I know Mike had a career as a "journalist", but Anne stated that she had to edit-"tidy up"-his articles, something she was quite capable of doing, considering that she was was once employed as a secretary.
                                John, you seem to be confusing me with someone who is convinced that Mike "wrote" the diary. Do you remember me saying to you earlier in this thread that this is not the case? Here's what I said in case you've forgotten:

                                "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."

                                You asked me for evidence that Mike was a journalist and I gave it to you but I never went on to say that this means he wrote the diary. What I have repeatedly said is that either Mike wrote the Celebrity articles or Mike and his wife did but either way that suggests that Mike and his wife could have jointly written the diary. But even then it's possible that others assisted or did it all. It might well be that Mike came up with the idea that Maybrick was JTR so he drove the project in that sense while others did the hard work of researching and drafting the text of the diary but equally there's no good reason of which I'm aware to think he couldn't have done it.

                                The special expertise of "respected authors" is that they can do good research and write good books/articles but one thing they are not is detectives and another thing they are not is psychologists. And even detectives and psychologists don't always get it right by any means when they interview people. So I really fail to see how the fact that any respected authors have interviewed Mike and don't think he was capable of drafting the diary should affect me unless they can provide some convincing explanations of why they have reached that conclusion. This is something I haven't yet read.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X