Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    I don't think Maybrick wrote The Diary. I believe it to be a modern forgery. What is the evidence that Mike had any creative skills whatsover? You may want to consider the fact that just sbout everyone who met the bloke considers him completely incapable of creating The Diary.
    Wasn't Anne's story that she gave the diary to Mike (via Tony) so that he could turn it into a novel? This seems to show that his wife believed him capable of creative writing, or if her story was false, that she believed others would think him capable.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
      Wasn't Anne's story that she gave the diary to Mike (via Tony) so that he could turn it into a novel? This seems to show that his wife believed him capable of creative writing, or if her story was false, that she believed others would think him capable.
      "I thought of giving him the diary then so that he could use it as the basis of a book. I was hoping he would write a fictional story about the Diary."

      Anne Graham, 31 July 1994

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Observer View Post
        As Dave said how many of those people met him before the diary emerged? Chris Jones on the other thread even went so far as to say his apparent "thickness" could well have been an act to decieve. The man was a Walter Mitty character. In a recent post I gave an account of a man I once knew whose stories would make Walter Mitty blush. During the day he swept the streets, at night, in the bar, he became a master story teller. I remember a lot of those stories, unfortunately Mr Mitty, and later Billy Liar, have scuppered my chances of a best Seller.

        It also appears John (in this forum at least) that you and Mr Canter are in a minority of two as regards to the Diary being an accomplished work of fiction. Yes for all you Maybrick devotees, it is a work of fiction. Well all three of you, apparently there are three, perhaps only one
        I actually consider it an advantage to be in agreement with a highly respected professor of criminology. And whilst accepting that everyone's entitled to their own view, I personally don't agree with the current trend towards anti-intellectualism, as exemplified by those who all to easily dismiss the opinion of experts, such as criminologists and forensic scientists, in favour of their own laypersons opinion.

        I don't know how many times I need to spell this out: I believe The Diary to be a modern hoax. I dont think it was authored by Maybrick. I don't think it was discovered at Battlecrease.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          Wasn't Anne's story that she gave the diary to Mike (via Tony) so that he could turn it into a novel? This seems to show that his wife believed him capable of creative writing, or if her story was false, that she believed others would think him capable.
          Frankly, I would be cautious about accepting anything Anne may have said regarding The Diary, especially the story about giving it to Mike, via a third party, in the hope he would turn it into a novel, in the hope that it would help improve his self esteem!

          Of course, Anne also stated that she had to tidy up his teenage magazine celebrity articles. Hardly sounds like she had that much confidence in his literary abilities!
          Last edited by John G; 02-25-2018, 06:05 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
            That's the point "just about everyone" meaning everyone except one person from the field of Ripperology met him after the stroke, meaning their anecdotal diagnosis of Mike's competency is surely meaningless.

            How every con works is that the mark thinks the conman is incapable of deceiving them.
            But do any of those people say that he demonstrated any signs of recovering from a stroke when they spoke to him?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by John G View Post
              But do any of those people say that he demonstrated any signs of recovering from a stroke when they spoke to him?
              Well, as reported in Inside Story (as I have already posted), "Harold Bough, who had first contacted him back in April [1993], had seen a dramatic change, as he reported in the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 September 1993. Only forty-one, Barrett had aged visibly over the last few months and now walked with a stick..."

              A friend of mine had a stroke a few years back. I met him not too long after the event and wouldn't have been able to tell.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                I actually consider it an advantage her who did be in agreement with a highly respected professor of criminology. And whilst accepting that everyone's entitled to their own view, I personally don't agree with the current trend towards anti-intellectualism, as exemplified by those who all to easily dismiss the opinion of experts, such as criminologists and forensic scientists, in favour of their own laypersons opinion.

                I don't know how many times I need to spell this out: I believe The Diary to be a modern hoax. I dont think it was authored by Maybrick. I don't think it was discovered at Battlecrease.
                I'm fully aware of your stance regarding who did, or rather who did not author the Diary, I'm not questioning that belief. With regard to your alliance with Doctor Canter in believing that the Diary is an accomplished work of literature, I can only say you are both talking out of your posterior's. By the way, wasn't Doctor Canter of the belief that the Diary, considering it's content, was the work of a genuine sociapath? In other words he wasn't actually commenting on the literal competance of the work, rather the state of mind if the author

                By the way, you've answered my post, I hope you answer the other poster's who have took part in this exchange

                Comment


                • Where is the evidence Mike did not write the Diary? All the evidence points to Mike having written the diary.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                    I'm fully aware of your stance regarding who did, or rather who did not author the Diary, I'm not questioning that belief. With regard to your alliance with Doctor Canter in believing that the Diary is an accomplished work of literature, I can only say you are both talking out of your posterior's. By the way, wasn't Doctor Canter of the belief that the Diary, considering it's content, was the work of a genuine sociapath? In other words he wasn't actually commenting on the literal competance of the work, rather the state of mind if the author

                    By the way, you've answered my post, I hope you answer the other poster's who have took part in this exchange
                    Well, no doubt you regard your own opinion to be far superior to that of Professor Canter. Perhaps like Pierre you also have numerous degrees. And perhaps, like him, you are far too modest about your achievements to refer me to any relevant books or peer-reviewed articles that you've written on a relevant subject.

                    By the way, you made a grammatical error by using an apostrophe after the word "posterior" An apostrophe should not be used to indicate a plural, only possession or a missing word.
                    Last edited by John G; 02-25-2018, 07:59 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                      Where is the evidence Mike did not write the Diary? All the evidence points to Mike having written the diary.
                      Where is the evidence that he did write it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post
                        But do any of those people say that he demonstrated any signs of recovering from a stroke when they spoke to him?
                        I'm not even sure they were aware he had had a stroke, I didn't till the full transcript a couple of weeks ago...so we have all these people judging him "as is"...they formed their opinion of his competency based after a brain injury, even if you could judge someones literacy competency on looks and demeanour alone, surely that has to be judged before a stroke?
                        My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                        Dave.

                        Smilies are canned laughter.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post
                          Where is the evidence that he did write it?
                          As far as I'm concerned all the crap concerning the diary from Mike and others plus the fact Mike procured a booklet from the period. Plus Mike's proven track record of lying. The fact Mike was a published journalist All points to Mike having fabricated the diary. All those who claim Mike did not write the Diary can come up with is the highly dubious inference that he was too stupid to write the Diary.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post
                            Well, no doubt you regard your own opinion to be far superior to that of Professor Canter. Perhaps like Pierre you also have numerous degrees. And perhaps, like him, you are far too modest about your achievements to refer me to any relevant books or peer-reviewed articles that you've written on a relevant subject.
                            haha, still suffering from that little delusion I see, I'm sending you a pm on that score.

                            However, I''m sure the individuals who believed the Hitler, and Mussolini diaries to be genuine were only too keen to sing the praises of the respective "experts" who were hoodwinked into believing those diaries to be genuine. Of course those "experts" were proven to be wrong.

                            Originally posted by John G View Post
                            By the way, you made a grammatical error by using an apostrophe after the word "posterior" An apostrophe should not be used to indicate a plural, only possession or a missing word.
                            Been listening to Caz I see. I was using my mobile phone to compose the post in question, and that's the way it inserted posteriors into the text. It doesn't alter the fact that you're talking out of your backside if you believe that the Maybrick Diary shows any merit where literary competence is concerned.

                            By the way, you never answered my question regarding Doctor Canter. Wasn't his comments regarding the Diary, based on his expertise as a profiler, as opposed to a literary commentator?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              Indeed it does, Caz. Ryan's book also contains every other salient Maybrickian 'fact' needed to compose the manuscript. Bunny, Hopper, sickly kids, it's all there. Every fact, that is, but one.

                              But this shouldn't be too surprising, because Mike Barrett mentioned Ryan as a source for the Diary.
                              Hi rj,

                              Sorry for the belated response. Could you refresh my memory and source this mention? When exactly did Mike mention Bernard Ryan's book and under what circumstances? It must have gone whizzing past my slow, weary old brain.

                              "The couple's busy social life continued. James continued to spend frequent evenings 'at the club' and to travel often to London for a day or two 'on business'. --Bernard Ryan.

                              Do you think Anne could have read that passage, was delighted at the reference to Jim spending "frequent evenings at the club" and composed the clumsy line "Frequented my club"?

                              It's really that simple.
                              If only, rj. If only. Didn't Ryan himself fail to recognise his own book as a likely source for the diary? And wasn't Anne far too sensible and competent to have written the nonsensical 'frequented my club' with a straight face? It smacks to me of someone wanting "Sir Jim" to sound comical, ridiculous and pretentious, to imagine that one could 'frequent' one's club as a one off instance rather than a regular event, like a faux posh way to say 'visit'. It's almost Pooteresque, in its jumped up late Victorian clerkishness.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • I think I'm finally getting the hang of this.

                                Mike was too stupid to write the diary while Anne was too clever.

                                She would never have written "Frequented my club" with a straight face because she was too sensible and competent! Mind you, what does being sensible and competent have to do with it?

                                In her voicemail message of 31 July 1994, we find that Anne said this:

                                "I think it was in 1968/69 I seen the Diary for the first time."


                                AND

                                "I never seen Tony again."

                                AND

                                "I seen Paul the other day..."

                                Not so sensible and competent as to be able to speak English properly, it seems. But perhaps she did not say those words with "a straight face".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X