Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary
Collapse
X
-
Thank you Caroline. Would you consider it possible that the Diary was composed either during or shortly after the Michael Caine miniseries?
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Scotty,
It's a tricky one, because Mike claimed all sorts, changing the details about the diary's origins at the drop of a hat, or in the space of a single conversation, and he'd have said almost anything to ruin Feldman. But to my knowledge he never suggested the diary was based on an older version.
Love,
Caz
X
Leave a comment:
-
But what about my theory that the Diary is a modern forgery based on an old hoax?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Good afternoon, Caz.
It’s hardly a big secret, but I'll give you a friendly reminder.
Simpson’s letter in its entirety has been on this website for over twenty years: part of Melvin Harris’s dissertation, The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact File for the Perplexed, dated April 1997.
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio.../factfile.html
The letter is “Appendix B.”
You really ought to try reading Melvin’s dissertations sometime; they’re pretty good!
Yes, Melvin and his dissertations. Give 'em the old razzle dazzle, the old hocus pocus. But how will they see with all those sequins in their eyes?
Thank you. I’ll assume that's a compliment.
Simpson: “it is difficult to imagine how such samples could have been treated DELIBERATELY with chloroacetamide in nanogram amounts.”
Something tells me that Dr. Simpson wasn't responding to a harmless question about the weather, but--hey--that's just me. I'm forever barking up the wrong tree!
Thanks for setting me straight,
RP
So unless Shirley's letter turns up, it is more a presumption than a matter of fact that she accused anyone of deliberately adding chloroacetamide to the samples. If she did, it was foolish in the extreme, and I'm not defending whatever she was suggesting, because it was bound to end badly. But we both know where false assumptions and suspicions can lead us, and have led us in the past, so she wouldn't be the first or the last to go down that road and find a cul-de-sac at the end.
Love,
Caz
X
Last edited by caz; 09-09-2020, 02:47 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View Post
Morning RJ,
Well unless the letter from Dr Diana Simpson to Shirley has been posted and discussed before, I have no 'memory' of it to be refreshed. I have never had a copy or it would be on my timeline... Although the letter you posted has been cut short - always a nuisance I know - I presume it was copied to Melvin Harris, which is how it eventually found its way to you?
It’s hardly a big secret, but I'll give you a friendly reminder.
Simpson’s letter in its entirety has been on this website for over twenty years: part of Melvin Harris’s dissertation, The Maybrick Hoax: A Fact File for the Perplexed, dated April 1997.
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio.../factfile.html
The letter is “Appendix B.”
You really ought to try reading Melvin’s dissertations sometime; they’re pretty good!
Originally posted by caz View PostNor have I seen the letter from Shirley to Dr Simpson, so I'd only be inferring what Shirley wrote, from how Simpson responded, and reading between the lines has always been more your thing than mine.
Simpson: “it is difficult to imagine how such samples could have been treated DELIBERATELY with chloroacetamide in nanogram amounts.”
Something tells me that Dr. Simpson wasn't responding to a harmless question about the weather, but--hey--that's just me. I'm forever barking up the wrong tree!
Thanks for setting me straight,
RP
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Mislead by my arguments, Caz? How about your own?
We'll never know exactly what Mike ordered, because we weren't there for the telephone call, but we can infer what he ordered by referencing Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookdealer on 19 March 1992. Here it is:
Hmm. Not a whisper about 1891 or anything else you describe in your post.
You're trying to confuse what Mike received (or was willing to receive) with what he ordered. That's obvious enough.
I don't know why this needs repeating, but one day the message will have to get through.
I think most readers here will have had the experience of ordering one thing, and receiving something entirely different in the mail.
Seriously? Are you so desperate to have poor Mike wallowing in total ignorance of what he was about to receive, that Martin Earl has to be cast as a dodgy salesman who was as stupid as he was crooked?
The fact is, we don't know that Earl said anything of the kind. It's what you are hoping he said.
Keith Skinner informed me back in 2005 that when Anne produced her cheque stubs, showing the payment for this highly suspicious purchase, the stubs on either side of this payment had been torn out, so, naturally, Keith didn't have a chance to see what else she may have recently purchased.
Was it a meaningless event, or was she trying to hide something?
Just file it under your 'evidence withheld or destroyed' to protect the various guilty parties. Must be quite a burden, carrying around all these suspicions about people you don't know and have never met. What I do know is that although we have exchanged posts over many, many years, you have grasped nothing about me as a person, and routinely misjudge my character and motivation, which gives me very little confidence in your ability to judge others, with whom you have never corresponded.
Anyway, the pragmatist in me would like some sort of resolution, instead of this endless back-and-forth bickering.
If she says Mike bought it off Lyons, or whether she said she and Mike cooked it up in the kitchen, let the chips fall where they may.
This is the end of the road. A handful of cranks and enthusiasts, arguing over ancient history.
Love,
Caz
X
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Let me refresh your memory, Caz. It was Shirley Harrison, writing to Diane Simpson sometime in December 1994.
Well unless the letter from Dr Diana Simpson to Shirley has been posted and discussed before, I have no 'memory' of it to be refreshed. I have never had a copy or it would be on my timeline. Nor have I seen the letter from Shirley to Dr Simpson, so I'd only be inferring what Shirley wrote, from how Simpson responded, and reading between the lines has always been more your thing than mine. Did Shirley simply ask if the samples were 'unsealed'? Did she accuse Melvin or anyone else outright of 'deliberately' contaminating the samples with chloroacetamide? Or was Simpson also reading between the lines of Shirley's concerns about accidental contamination? I don't know. Do you? Although the letter you posted has been cut short - always a nuisance I know - I presume it was copied to Melvin Harris, which is how it eventually found its way to you?
I do know that you were mistaken when you stated that the samples were flown directly to AFI, and didn't go via Melvin, because he told Reed Hayes he was the middle man, when writing to him on 12th June 1995. Again, we have false assumptions on either side, which can fuel unhelpful suspicions. It would be nice, one day, to have an acknowledgement from you that this is the case, and you do sometimes get it wrong.
Of course, it's ancient history now. And yet you recently asked why, a couple of weeks later, Harris didn't jump at the opportunity to send out copies of Mike's sworn affidavit to Harrison and Skinner! Would you have done so, considering the accusations swirling around?
As for the percentages of chloroacetamide found by AFI, Robert Smith completely misunderstood this test and created a lot of confusion and misinformation by claiming the amount was too small to have been consistent with Diamine.
But all AFI had were tiny dots of dried ink. To extract a useable sample, they had to separate the ink from the paper using a solvent, so obviously there was no way to test for anything but the presence of chloroacetamide. Smith didn't grasp this, and his objections were repeated on this forum for over a decade.
But instead of putting me straight, why don't you write to Robert Smith, and explain to him - in layman's terms - how he completely misunderstood AFI's test? You both have way more influence than I could ever have, so it would be good to see some co-operation at last, between the people who could make a difference.
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 09-08-2020, 09:36 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View PostHere it is again, for the benefit of other readers who may be misled by your arguments:
What Mike ordered was a 'small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book… 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank [apart from the printed dates] and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'.'
We'll never know exactly what Mike ordered, because we weren't there for the telephone call, but we can infer what he ordered by referencing Martin Earl's advertisement in Bookdealer on 19 March 1992. Here it is:
Hmm. Not a whisper about 1891 or anything else you describe in your post.
You're trying to confuse what Mike received (or was willing to receive) with what he ordered. That's obvious enough.
I think most readers here will have had the experience of ordering one thing, and receiving something entirely different in the mail.
As for the red diary being unsuitable, you'll have to take that up with Paul B.
If I read his previous post correctly, he suggested that Mike may have bought the red diary to transcribe the 'real' diary into it. How could he have done so if Martin Earl patiently explained it was a postage stamp with every page stamped with the year 1891?
The fact is, we don't know that Earl said anything of the kind. It's what you are hoping he said.
And even if Earl described a less-than-accommodating (but entirely blank) diary, what would stop Barrett from taking the plunge?
It's not like he intended to pay for it. Mike was down as a late payer, and seems to have had a history of stiffing people. Alan Gray, for instance.
Keith Skinner informed me back in 2005 that when Anne produced her cheque stubs, showing the payment for this highly suspicious purchase, the stubs on either side of this payment had been torn out, so, naturally, Keith didn't have a chance to see what else she may have recently purchased.
Was it a meaningless event, or was she trying to hide something?
It doesn't prove anything, of course; you might argue she was hiding a payment to Eddie Lyons, while I might suggest she was hiding a payment to 0 & L auctioneers.
We'll never know, because Scotland Yard didn't subpoena the Barretts' financial records. The criminal complaint was against Robert Smith, not Mike Barrett.
Anyway, the pragmatist in me would like some sort of resolution, instead of this endless back-and-forth bickering.
All I can think of is that maybe Anne Graham can take legal advice, and Robert Smith can write an open letter, releasing her from any potential financial complications if she resurfaces and tells --for the first time-- what she actually knows about the origins of the Diary. No risks; just clear the air after 26+ years.
If she says Mike bought it off Lyons, or whether she said she and Mike cooked it up in the kitchen, let the chips fall where they may.
But I don't think it's ever going to happen.
This is the end of the road. A handful of cranks and enthusiasts, arguing over ancient history.Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-07-2020, 05:13 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Sorry for jumping in, but Mike hoped it would have blank pages, Paul?
This isn't in dispute, is it? Martin Earl's advertisement, placed on Barrett's behalf, INSISTS that it"must have at least twenty blank pages."
Why optimistic? According to Keith, the transcript found on the Barretts' computer was 29 pages in length. Assuming that blank pages are blank on both sides, even if Mike only received his minimum 20 blank sheets, he'd have 40 pages to transcribe the pre-existing typescript.
Here it is again, for the benefit of other readers who may be misled by your arguments:
What Mike ordered was a 'small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book… 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank [apart from the printed dates] and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76'.'
And, of course, Mike could have always changed the typescript to accommodate whatever Diary he ended up with.
Indeed, its rather interesting that the existing ledger shows a Diarist with no concern about rationing paper--there are plenty of scribbles and flourishes and, at times, huge handwriting, as if in late 1888 "Maybrick" was already well aware how the story would end and he wouldn't be needing those extras pages at the end... almost like he was writing it all down from a pre-existing typescript, and knew, particularly as the project wore on, that he had plenty of paper at his disposal. ;-)
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 09-07-2020, 04:38 PM.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PaulB View PostIt's possible that Mike could have thought the dates could have been cut-offable, or hoped it would have blank pages, and thought that advertising for a diary was better than advertising for a late Victorian notebook or late Victorian paper or anything that look less suspiciously like a diary with the dates cut off or blank pages torn from a diary.
This isn't in dispute, is it? Martin Earl's advertisement, placed on Barrett's behalf, INSISTS that it"must have at least twenty blank pages."
Originally posted by PaulB View PostIf he had the narrative already sitting on his computer and if he knew how many blank pages it would use, he was a highly optimistic soul if he hoped to find a lot of undated and unused pages in a diary, don't you think?
And, of course, Mike could have always changed the typescript to accommodate whatever Diary he ended up with.
Indeed, its rather interesting that the existing ledger shows a Diarist with no concern about rationing paper--there are plenty of scribbles and flourishes and, at times, huge handwriting, as if in late 1888 "Maybrick" was already well aware how the story would end and he wouldn't be needing those extras pages at the end... almost like he was writing it all down from a pre-existing typescript, and knew, particularly as the project wore on, that he had plenty of paper at his disposal.
;-)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by caz View PostI don't know who alleged that Melvin had 'somehow injected trace amounts of chloroacetamide into samples of the diary's ink, in order to "prove" that the ink was Diamine', or who would have supported such a suggestion, especially if it was known that he never had access to the ink samples, because they were mailed directly to AFI. But on 12th June 1995, Melvin himself wrote to Reed Hayes, to explain that Bob Kuranz had a couple of gelatine capsules containing diary ink and had agreed to send one over for laboratory tests. Melvin writes: 'The capsule was received by me in its original state and sent unopened, taped into its polystyrene housing, to Diana Simpson, head of Analysis For Industry...'
I have absolutely no doubt this was true, and in any case it would have been useless to inject 'trace' amounts of chloroacetamide into the diary ink, imagining it would then be a perfect match with Diamine. The mystery for me is why AFI were only asked to test for the presence of chloroacetamide, and not to analyse all the main constituents and their percentages, so the diary ink could be compared directly with the Diamine supposed to have been used.
Here is Dr. Simpson's response, which makes it obvious that Harrison had asked her whether the capsule had been tampered with, and whether Harris could have deliberately injected the sample ink with chloroacetamide at the nanogram level.
Of course, it's ancient history now. And yet you recently asked why, a couple of weeks later, Harris didn't jump at the opportunity to send out copies of Mike's sworn affidavit to Harrison and Skinner! Would you have done so, considering the accusations swirling around?
As for the percentages of chloroacetamide found by AFI, Robert Smith completely misunderstood this test and created a lot of confusion and misinformation by claiming the amount was too small to have been consistent with Diamine.
But all AFI had were tiny dots of dried ink. To extract a useable sample, they had to separate the ink from the paper using a solvent, so obviously there was no way to test for anything but the presence of chloroacetamide. Smith didn't grasp this, and his objections were repeated on this forum for over a decade.
Leave a comment:
-
I think we have to stick to what Mike himself claimed, and either accept it or challenge it on the available evidence.
If we start imagining all kinds of other possible hoax scenarios, which Mike could have admitted to but never did, where will that get us?
Mike himself claimed that it was created as a hoax, which was all done and dusted by early 1990, presumably so the writing could rest for two years before being subjected to its first round of forensic testing.
If Mike had claimed it was originally created as a novel, and only turned into a hoax in early April 1992, after the 1891 diary was rejected and the more accommodating undated photo album was found in a subsequent auction sale, which his wife then used to copy out the text over the next 11 days, in time for Mike to take her handwork to London on 13th April 1992, I can't see anyone back in 1995 giving this any credence.
The creation process was artificially moved forward two years exclusively to accommodate Mike's request for a diary for 1880-90, with at least 20 blank pages [of an unspecified size]. It was an article of faith that Mike had no idea what had been located for him until a useless pocket diary for 1891, with impossible dates printed on its tiny pages, arrived in the post with a bill for £25. Well he did know, and he still wanted it sent to him, which should at least raise the possibility that his original request was not for the purpose of creating the Maybrick diary after all.
It was always a straw-clutching exercise at best, because if the scrapbook was not bought at auction at the very end of March 1992, as a result of the Victorian diary proving unexpectedly useless on arrival, we also know that two searches by the auctioneers, based on Mike's own claims about when and what he bought, both turned up nothing.
Love,
Caz
X
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by PaulB View Post
If he had the narrative already sitting on his computer and if he knew how many blank pages it would use, he was a highly optimistic soul if he hoped to find a lot of undated and unused pages in a diary, don't you think?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
But how do you know that MB knew the book he bought would be useless? The fact that it was from the wrong year would not automatically render it completely useless; hence why MB in fact advertised for a book from 1880-90.
MB could have thought the dates might have been cut-offable, or that the diary would contain other pages, some blank, without dates. Diaries, calendars, day planners etc. frequently contain and contained registries of useful addresses, blank pages for notes etc.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: