Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    To casually dismiss the journal as a fake is a travesty and - actually - a terrible laziness. We have before us the likely solution to the tale and we run the very real risk of simply missing it, probably (therefore) forever leaving a mystery where the world could have witnessed the truth.
    Before responding to the first four paragraphs of your post, "Ike", can I respond to rest of it, which I did not think was relevant, and attempt to place my post into the correct context.

    Barrett's affidavit was put forward earlier as, in effect, the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary. In response, it was said that Barrett's description of how he obtained the diary was "patently fictitious". I posted to ask how this had been established.

    I haven't made any posts in which I casually dismiss the diary as a fake, so I don't know why that criticism is included in your post, nor, frankly, do I understand the significance to this discussion of the trunk, Edith Formby or any perceived similarity between William Graham and Florence Maybrick.

    In respect of this part of the discussion, it is Barrett's affidavit which is being dismissed as false not the diary. Of course, if Barrett's affidavit is true then the diary is a fake - that is obvious - but in the context of this discussion can we confine the debate to the subject of whether or not Barrett's affidavit is false rather than opening up the entire (massive) subject of whether the diary is genuine or not?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      Okay - it's been a while, but I am finally at that bit in Linder et alia so I feel I can probably direct you towards the bit of Barrett's detailed confession which would prove to be the most damning in terms of his claims:

      What about Barrett's detailed account of buying the journal at the auctioneers? According to Shirley Harrison, Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite and Litherland, gave it little credence. Having searched through the company's files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that 'no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett's statement exists. Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes.' In a telephone conversation with Harrison soon after Barrett's affidavit was made public, Whay went further. 'Anyone who tells you they have got a lot number or details for such an album from us is talking through their hat.' Page167, incidentally.

      I added the bold. Regardless of how O&L did their business, there was no record of the item being auctioned. It is hard to imagine that the item (and the compass which Barrett also claimed was part of the lot) would be sold in a way entirely different from the established practice and not be recorded.

      Some might argue that Harrison was reporting what Mr Whay said and may have distorted his words, but I have to assume that Mr Whay subsequently read Harrison's book and does not appear to have asked her to retract any of what she stated that he claimed.
      The problem here is that Barrett says (evidently from his memory) "I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland". Presumably, the search through the files and archives "on both sides of the alleged sale date" was on both sides of January 1990. But if Barrett got the date wrong in his affidavit (through poor memory, perhaps caused by excessive alcohol consumption) then the failure to find the diary in the search would not be surprising.

      Further, Barrett says in the affidavit that, prior to obtaining the O&L diary, "Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for 25.00". My understanding is that documentary evidence shows that the red diary was not obtained by Barrett until 26 March 1992. If Barrett did not visit O&L until after 26 March 1992 then that would explain why O&L couldn't find the diary in their records wouldn't it?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        The problem here is that Barrett says (evidently from his memory) "I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland". Presumably, the search through the files and archives "on both sides of the alleged sale date" was on both sides of January 1990. But if Barrett got the date wrong in his affidavit (through poor memory, perhaps caused by excessive alcohol consumption) then the failure to find the diary in the search would not be surprising.

        Further, Barrett says in the affidavit that, prior to obtaining the O&L diary, "Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for 25.00". My understanding is that documentary evidence shows that the red diary was not obtained by Barrett until 26 March 1992. If Barrett did not visit O&L until after 26 March 1992 then that would explain why O&L couldn't find the diary in their records wouldn't it?
        We have to deal with what we've got to deal with. If we can't trust the date (more or less) that Barrett provided for the supposed purchase, then we are left with the conclusion that we cannot trust the claim that he bought the journal in this way at all. Even if you accept that he bought the journal and tolerate his woeful recall (he got Tony Devereaux's death wrong by a year and a half, for example), the journal-as-forgery has a significantly worse provenance than journal-as-authentic-record has.

        In terms of the 1891 diary being purchased before the visit to O&L and the supposed purchase of the journal involving a supposed purchase system which O&L state they've never used, we have only Barrett's drink-soaked recall to rely on.

        It all amounts to no-further-forward for the journal-as-forgery case as Barrett's confession at every level was riddled with embarrassing error. Indeed, it would be difficult to find much (if anything) about his affidavit that was supported by the evidence or by witnesses or by those he cites as being involved in the process (such as his sister).

        If you watch the video (September 1993), you see in Mike Barrett a genuinely simple honest Scouse lad who thought he had found the journal of Jack the Ripper and was enjoying playing in the 'big' playground for once in his life. He is portentous and grave about things which for most of us would be either trivial or plain irrelevant. He is a man desperately trying to 'keep up'. A year later, far too heavily into his cups for comfort, that simple mind tried everything it could to control the circus he had inadvertantly created, and - of course - the simple honest Scouser in him failed miserably, and changed miserably into an incoherent, vindictive and dishonest one. Sad, but fundamentally true.

        If we want to find a forger for the journal, it should be no-one and nowhere near Mike Barrett, God rest his soul.
        Iconoclast
        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
        Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Before responding to the first four paragraphs of your post, "Ike", can I respond to rest of it, which I did not think was relevant, and attempt to place my post into the correct context.

          Barrett's affidavit was put forward earlier as, in effect, the incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary. In response, it was said that Barrett's description of how he obtained the diary was "patently fictitious". I posted to ask how this had been established.

          I haven't made any posts in which I casually dismiss the diary as a fake, so I don't know why that criticism is included in your post, nor, frankly, do I understand the significance to this discussion of the trunk, Edith Formby or any perceived similarity between William Graham and Florence Maybrick.

          In respect of this part of the discussion, it is Barrett's affidavit which is being dismissed as false not the diary. Of course, if Barrett's affidavit is true then the diary is a fake - that is obvious - but in the context of this discussion can we confine the debate to the subject of whether or not Barrett's affidavit is false rather than opening up the entire (massive) subject of whether the diary is genuine or not?
          Fair enough, "David".

          I wasn't accusing you specifically of dissing the journal - it was a general statement, though I guess in retrospect I can see why you thought otherwise.

          And fair enough I could have made the post two posts.

          I wonder whether the discussion of Barrett's confession deserves its own thread (there surely must be one?)? In terms of it representing our 'one incontrovertible', I suspect it is a non-starter.

          Cheers,

          Ike
          Iconoclast
          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
          Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            We have to deal with what we've got to deal with. If we can't trust the date (more or less) that Barrett provided for the supposed purchase, then we are left with the conclusion that we cannot trust the claim that he bought the journal in this way at all. Even if you accept that he bought the journal and tolerate his woeful recall (he got Tony Devereaux's death wrong by a year and a half, for example), the journal-as-forgery has a significantly worse provenance than journal-as-authentic-record has.
            I don't find the comparison between the "provenance" of the affidavit and that of the diary very helpful. While the fact that Barratt appears to have got the date of the diary purchase wrong could be said to undermine his credibility, a possible failure to recall a correct date doesn't really prove he was lying.

            Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            In terms of the 1891 diary being purchased before the visit to O&L and the supposed purchase of the journal involving a supposed purchase system which O&L state they've never used, we have only Barrett's drink-soaked recall to rely on.
            Although you refer to a purchase system which O&L "state they have never used" I thought you accepted earlier that (subject to the registration issue) Barratt's description of the purchase system could be consistent with O&L's system if you replace the word "ticket" with "receipt".

            Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            It all amounts to no-further-forward for the journal-as-forgery case as Barrett's confession at every level was riddled with embarrassing error. Indeed, it would be difficult to find much (if anything) about his affidavit that was supported by the evidence or by witnesses or by those he cites as being involved in the process (such as his sister).
            Can you give me the one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes Barrett's affidavit (or proves it wasn't true)?
            Last edited by David Orsam; 09-18-2016, 11:55 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              Fair enough, "David".

              I wasn't accusing you specifically of dissing the journal - it was a general statement, though I guess in retrospect I can see why you thought otherwise.
              I didn't actually think otherwise - I figured you were so keen to stress that the diary is genuine that you got a bit carried away - but others who have not been following so closely might think I had "casually dismissed" the journal, hence my clarification.

              My name actually is David but I don't think yours is "Ike", being a shortened version of Iconoclast, hence the inverted commas.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                I don't find the comparison between the "provenance" of the affidavit and that of the diary very helpful. While the fact that Barratt appears to have got the date of the diary purchase wrong could be said to undermine his credibility, a possible failure to recall a correct date doesn't really prove he was lying.
                I think the drink-induced lying was somewhat more prevalent than just one fact. It was endemic in his affidavit.

                Although you refer to a purchase system which O&L "state they have never used" I thought you accepted earlier that (subject to the registration issue) Barratt's description of the purchase system could be consistent with O&L's system if you replace the word "ticket" with "receipt".
                Fair enough - you are welcome to have the point.

                Can you give me the one incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which proves that Barrett's affidavit was untrue?
                The affidavit was 'untrue' on a truly endless scale. It would be quicker to list what he got right rather than what he got wrong. But does a profoundly asinine confession filled with error after error after error prove that Mike Barrett didn't forge the journal or have some hand in forging it? Definitely not.

                But it provides not a single scrap to suggest that he did forge it other than - as I acknowledge above - he may have (I'm no expert) got the purchase system tangentially 'right'.

                The difference between the journal and Barrett's confession is that the journal of James Maybrick is fundamentally correct in every respect with a small number of unexpected idisyncrasies (chief amongst these, 'Poste House', 'tin matchbox empty', Kelly's breasts) whereas Barrett's confession is fundmentally incorrect in every respect with fundamentally no redeeming elements (other than possibly getting the purchase system right but the choice of words wrong).

                Ike
                Iconoclast
                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  My name actually is David but I don't think yours is "Ike", being a shortened version of Iconoclast, hence the inverted commas.
                  And for all I knew your username was not actually your name, hence my use of inverted commas in order to illustrate that very point

                  PS How confident are you that the choice of the name "Iconoclast" (inverted commas because that's definitely not my actual name) was not inspired by my actual name which is actually Ike?

                  Ike "Iconoclast"

                  Iconoclast
                  Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                  Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                  Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    Barrett's confession is fundmentally incorrect in every respect with fundamentally no redeeming elements (other than possibly getting the purchase system right but the choice of words wrong).
                    I note that you haven't produced an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the affidavit, as requested. Unless you do so, how can one know (as opposed to suspect) that Barrett's confession about forging the diary is incorrect?

                    Let's go through 10 key aspects of what Barrett says:

                    1. "When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out. I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    2."I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect?

                    3. "I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    4. "Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    5. "During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    6. "Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    7. "Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    8. "Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Ediated by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    9. "I had actualy written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor, which I purchased in 1985, from Dixons in Church Street, Liverpool City Centre. The Diary was on two hard back discs when I had finished it. The Discs, the one Photograph, the compass, all pens and the remainder of the ink was taken by my sister Lynn Richardson to her home address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When I asked her at a later date for the property she informed me that after an article had appeared in the Daily Post, by Harold Brough, she had destroyed everything, in order to protect me."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    10. "I am the author of the Manuscript written by my wife Anne Barrett at my dictation which is known as The Jack the Ripper Diary."

                    Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                      How confident are you that the choice of the name "Iconoclast" (inverted commas because that's definitely not my actual name) was not inspired by my actual name which is actually Ike?
                      Oh very confident. 100% confident, in fact, but I'm not sure that's a subject we need to get into.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                        And for all I knew your username was not actually your name, hence my use of inverted commas in order to illustrate that very point
                        Now you know "Ike".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          I note that you haven't produced an incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable fact which refutes the affidavit, as requested. Unless you do so, how can one know (as opposed to suspect) that Barrett's confession about forging the diary is incorrect?

                          Let's go through 10 key aspects of what Barrett says:

                          Why do you say that is "fundamentally incorrect"?
                          Read the works - Harrison, Feldman, Linder et alia. The key errors are all over the confession.

                          But, listen, if you feel it's a true account, not a problem with me.
                          Iconoclast
                          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                          Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            Now you know "Ike".
                            Not a problem.
                            Iconoclast
                            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                            Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              Read the works - Harrison, Feldman, Linder et alia. The key errors are all over the confession.

                              But, listen, if you feel it's a true account, not a problem with me.
                              I have read the three works you mention. But what's the point of having the discussion in this thread if you simply refer me (and others) to books on the subject? I want to know what you think, not what other people think, because you are the person who posted that Barrett's affidavit is "fundamentally incorrect in every respect".

                              I might add that I have never said that I feel that Barrett's account is "a true account", or anything like it. I'm asking for the reasons why it is untrue. Odd that you don't seem to want tell me.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                I have read the three works you mention. But what's the point of having the discussion in this thread if you simply refer me (and others) to books on the subject? I want to know what you think, not what other people think, because you are the person who posted that Barrett's affidavit is "fundamentally incorrect in every respect".

                                I might add that I have never said that I feel that Barrett's account is "a true account", or anything like it. I'm asking for the reasons why it is untrue. Odd that you don't seem to want tell me.
                                Not odd. Not a conspiracy. There's hundreds of people read these posts, every one of them is welcome to respond or not respond whenever it suits them.

                                That includes me.

                                As I say, not a problem.
                                Iconoclast
                                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                                Also author of the remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X