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
    That's not what most punters who come on here say when dismissing the journal based solely upon its appearance. Generally no mention of the torn out pages. In fairness, most people probably don't even know it's got torn out pages.
    I can't speak for "most punters". I've made a number of posts in this thread and I haven't mentioned the diary being written in a photograph album as a fact which refutes the diary. But what I will say is that the fact that the scientific tests revealed that photographs appear to have been removed from the album (and pages have certainly been removed) is very suspicious and is entirely consistent with a forger, desperate to find something Victorian in which to write a fake diary, having acquired an old photograph album with some blank pages and cut out those pages with photographs. It can hardly be more suspicious.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
      Mike barrett did not write the diary but he certainly was in the room.when it was written
      This intrigues me. In what room? Whose room? Barrett's room where he kept his word-processor? Someone else's room?

      In Linder et al is a sample of Anne Barrett's hand-writing (and atrocious spelling) which looks nothing like that of the Diary. In the same work there is a sample of the hand-writing of one Gerard Kane, who at one time Melvin Harris seemed to regard as the writer of the Diary. However, he later (on these very boards) appeared to back-track from this assertion (this was some time in 2000). Kane, it seems, was very ill at the time and wasn't available for interview. From what I gather, Kane and Devereux knew each other. Did Michael Barrett also know Kane? I never quite figured this out.

      What really puts me off Barrett being the author of the Diary is Barrett himself. I just can't get my head around how he could put together a 'work' such as that, complete with historical allusions and other detail. The two people on this thread who actually knew him, i.e., Pinkmoon and Caz, seem (to my mind at least) slightly reluctant to say more than they already have; so, do they have some knowledge which the rest of us don't have? Would Barrett really have been familiar with an obscure poet like Richard Crashaw? He may well have copied the Crashaw quote in the Diary and gone to his local library with it, and after learning its origin bought a book of Crashaw's works. Yes, Barrett did 'author' some children's books, but if 'Danny The Dolphin Boy' is representative of his talents as a writer, then little wonder he was never able to make a living from it. As to writing the Diary....I doubt it.

      The, of course, there is the 'Battlecrease Provenance' as highlighted by (I think) Keith Skinner, whose promised proof of this provenance is yet to be revealed. The one bit of Feldman's book which made me sit up and take notice is when he mentions that two electricians obtained 'something' from Battlecrease when they were working there, and took it to Liverpool University for further investigation. Uncharacteristically, Feldman did not seem to follow this up with any great enthusiasm, and no more was ever said about it. Yet amongst other 'professional' activities Barrett owned up to was tatting, or scrap metal, call it what you will. Re-wiring of an old house like Battlecrease would almost certainly entail the removal of an amount of copper on the form of cable. Copper = . Was Barrett keenly watching what came out of the place? Was he known to the electricians? Did they, in possession of something they didn't understand, contact Barrett about it - Barrett the 'literary bloke' who might have been able to point them in the right direction?

      I think that if, like me, one thinks of the Diary was an old hoax, forgery, call it what you will, then at some point in its history Michael Barrett got his hands on it, and he saw -signs in his eyes.

      God alone knows the truth.

      Graham
      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
        Would Barrett really have been familiar with an obscure poet like Richard Crashaw? He may well have copied the Crashaw quote in the Diary and gone to his local library with it, and after learning its origin bought a book of Crashaw's works.
        Graham,

        I agree with all you say. However (and how I wish it wasn't true), Barrett did have a copy of the Sphere poetry book with Crashaw's poem in in his attic. Tragic, but true ...

        Ike
        Iconoclast
        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
          Graham,

          I agree with all you say. However (and how I wish it wasn't true), Barrett did have a copy of the Sphere poetry book with Crashaw's poem in in his attic. Tragic, but true ...

          Ike
          Yes, I know he had that Sphere book, but how long had it been in his attic? IF he 'found' the bloody Diary, how long had he owned it before he actually presented it to Doreen Montgomery? If - a big IF - he had 'obtained' the Diary from Battlecrease, then there may well have been a sufficient time-scale for him to do a bit of basic research, including nailing the Crashaw quote. This is purely speculative, as you'll be aware.

          With regard to the actual age of the Diary. When in years gone by, as a snotty youth, I actually kept a 'diary', I never used one of those Letts 'page a day' things or whatever they were called. I used to buy hard-cover 100-page exercise-books from the Midland Educational in Birmingham, and write the date of each day as I went along at the top of a fresh page.
          I never saw any reason to doubt the age of the Diary simply because it wasn't an actual 'page a day' Diary such as we are familiar with today (or used to be).

          Until someone comes up with absolute scientific proof that the Diary was written some time within the last 30 years, I'll continue to believe that it is an old production, but not written or even touched by James Maybrick. Its purpose, therefore, remains a mystery.....but one can make guesses, can't one?

          Graham
          We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Graham View Post
            I never saw any reason to doubt the age of the Diary simply because it wasn't an actual 'page a day' Diary such as we are familiar with today (or used to be).
            That's not actually the issue though Graham. Iconoclast was saying that an 1890 or 1891 diary, with at least 20 blank pages, would have been of no use to someone intending to forge a diary of events from 1888/89. I'm saying, and I think you agree, that such a diary could have been of great use to a forger.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              That's not actually the issue though Graham. Iconoclast was saying that an 1890 or 1891 diary, with at least 20 blank pages, would have been of no use to someone intending to forge a diary of events from 1888/89. I'm saying, and I think you agree, that such a diary could have been of great use to a forger.
              Well now, Mr Awesome Orsam. I honestly don't think you really understand what I was getting at here. THE Diary is, as you will be aware, something like an old photograph album or even a scrap-book. What it actually was, doesn't really matter. I happen to know that no-one has actually proven that the body of the Diary itself (forget the writing and the ink) is anything less than late 19th/early 20th century. I don't know, and couldn't care less, if Barrett bought an 1890/91 Diary. If he did, and it was dated, then it would have been useless. The fact that some pages of THE Diary were removed is of course interesting, but these pages could have been removed 100 years ago or 30 years ago. These removed pages could have been written on by someone other than the author of the Diary; they could have had photos stuck to them. So what? It doesn't matter. We all write little notes on scraps of paper, and it is very likely that whoever wrote the sodding Diary did so upon what happened to be available to him at the time.

              Graham
              We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                Well now, Mr Awesome Orsam.
                A bad start and it gets worse.

                Originally posted by Graham View Post
                I honestly don't think you really understand what I was getting at here. THE Diary is, as you will be aware, something like an old photograph album or even a scrap-book. What it actually was, doesn't really matter. I happen to know that no-one has actually proven that the body of the Diary itself (forget the writing and the ink) is anything less than late 19th/early 20th century. I don't know, and couldn't care less, if Barrett bought an 1890/91 Diary. If he did, and it was dated, then it would have been useless. The fact that some pages of THE Diary were removed is of course interesting, but these pages could have been removed 100 years ago or 30 years ago. These removed pages could have been written on by someone other than the author of the Diary; they could have had photos stuck to them. So what? It doesn't matter. We all write little notes on scraps of paper, and it is very likely that whoever wrote the sodding Diary did so upon what happened to be available to him at the time.
                In your desire to argue with me about everything you seem to have entirely missed the point of the discussion.

                I'll set it out for you.

                I have pointed out that Barrett was actively seeking a diary for the period 1880-1890 with at least 20 blank pages (something you don't mention in your post for some reason) and then obtained an 1891 diary. Iconoclast has responded by saying that a diary for 1890 or 1891, even with blank pages, would have been completely useless for Barrett if he had wanted to forge the Maybrick diary because the events described were from 1888 to 1889.

                My response is that Iconoclast has failed to understand that an 1890 or 1891 diary would not necessarily have had the year "1890" or "1891" stamped all over it and that Barrett (or any forger) could have used the blank pages, after removing those pages with writing on them, to create a fake journal for the period 1888/89.

                Perhaps without realising it, you have supported what I have said because you confirm that a diary could very likely be written in an unmarked exercise book just like the diary you tell us you kept and, in fact, I did exactly the same thing myself for a short period in the 1990s.

                So I agree with you entirely about this but the point is that it provides a clear motive for Barrett, as potential forger of the diary, for seeking a diary for a year other than 1888 or 1889.

                Comment


                • Yes, but you don't know for sure if that 'little red diary' that Barrett is reputed to have bought had the day and date printed at the top of each page. If it hadn't been so adorned, then why the hell didn't he use it?

                  G
                  We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                    Yes, but you don't know for sure if that 'little red diary' that Barrett is reputed to have bought had the day and date printed at the top of each page. If it hadn't been so adorned, then why the hell didn't he use it?
                    Graham, it's irrelevant whether the red 1891 diary had the day and date printed at the top of each page or not. Barrett says in his affidavit that it was of no use because it was too small.

                    Comment


                    • In your desire to argue with me about everything you seem to have entirely missed the point of the discussion.
                      You're having a laugh here now, aren't you? I already said that the 'red' Diary that Barrett blought (or claimed to have bought) was too small for his intended purpose.

                      All you seem to do on these boards is argue the toss with anything anyone writes, yet without offering a reasonable and sustainable counter-argument of your own. To be absolutely honest with you, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what's actually being discussed in this thread.

                      Right - that's it for me tonight. Cocoa, toast, and beddie-byes.

                      Graham
                      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                        You're having a laugh here now, aren't you? I already said that the 'red' Diary that Barrett blought (or claimed to have bought) was too small for his intended purpose.
                        Well done but that's not the point at all. Comments like this make me unsure that you have yet grasped the nature of the discussion.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                          All you seem to do on these boards is argue the toss with anything anyone writes, yet without offering a reasonable and sustainable counter-argument of your own. To be absolutely honest with you, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what's actually being discussed in this thread.
                          Frankly, Graham, this is just baffling. My posts speak for themselves.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                            You're having a laugh here now, aren't you? I already said that the 'red' Diary that Barrett blought (or claimed to have bought) was too small for his intended purpose.

                            All you seem to do on these boards is argue the toss with anything anyone writes, yet without offering a reasonable and sustainable counter-argument of your own. To be absolutely honest with you, I don't think you have the faintest idea of what's actually being discussed in this thread.

                            Right - that's it for me tonight. Cocoa, toast, and beddie-byes.

                            Graham
                            Graham,

                            I don't think David Orsam and I speak from the same page where the journal is concerned, and I definitely don't think the logic he is following is likely to be the actual case (were we ever to know it), but I do think that he is one of the few contributors to this Casebook who actually stay on track with a point, and for that I appreciate his focus, if not perhaps his journal views.

                            Just saying! Not wishing to start a riot ...

                            Ike
                            Iconoclast
                            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                            Comment


                            • >But would Mike Barrett have known that?<<

                              That is beyond my ability to answer

                              >>Actually, there are diaries today without the year on each page. Are you sure that what you posted isn't just a Victorian example of one which does not?<<

                              Again, having never seen the "red diary" I cannot answer, all I can say is, a significant portion of Victorian diaries are not as you described them in your post i was responding too.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                                Hasn't it occurred to anybody that the one person on these boards who's in the best position to "know" what's going on hasn't posted anything recently? Surely that should suggest that there may be some sort of gag order regarding further discussion of the Diary from those wo are in a position to know.

                                --just guessing
                                Hi Scotty,

                                Just saw this as I have been trying to catch up with this lengthy thread. If you meant me, I have taken off my gag for a moment to set the record straight.

                                The incredible truth is, I don't spend every waking moment thinking, reading or writing about the diary, and my life is always full to bursting with equally wonderful and amazing things to do (that bit was partially true), so I actually forgot to check the Maybrick boards until this week and I believe my last visit must have been back in April.

                                I know, it's almost as hard to believe as the truth about the diary, isn't it?

                                My take is that it has to be an old hoax, planted where it would eventually come to light to plague the living hell out of the kind of sensitive souls who are all too easily wound up by such things. It has been rather successful in that regard.

                                I do advise that cup of cocoa for anyone thus afflicted.

                                Good to see you, Scotty. I still have some 45 pages to read here so please bear with, everyone.

                                Lots of love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 10-13-2016, 04:02 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X