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
    The diary is not a FORGERY
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
    Prove it.
    Hi John,

    The handwriting proves it, effectively enough.

    A forgery would be a deliberate attempt to copy someone else's handwriting, with the intention to deceive the reader into believing it was genuinely penned by that person.

    The diary is clearly, obviously, not in this category.

    If forgery was the object, it had to be done by someone with no access to any examples of Maybrick's handwriting and presumably no reason to think it could easily be tracked down.

    Or someone terminally stupid.

    But that doesn't bring us back to Mike Barrett - unless you believe he could have disguised his own handwriting so beautifully...

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • I've caved in and will pick up Shirley Harrison's book on Maybrick/the diary. Going to try to approach this with an open mind.

      Comment


      • Hi Caz,

        In a nutshell, no. My opinion of course, but I agree with Melvin Harris in this regard. Neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary, and Mike simply didn't have the 'capacity', as Melvin so eloquently put it. He did see Mike as the front man - who handled and marketed the diary with Anne's co-operation.

        There is no doubt that Mike saw the diary as his baby, and was the driving force behind going public with it, but that doesn't make it a modern creation, or one created with Mike's knowledge or help.
        This is how I view the matter, for what it's worth. Melvin did make reference to a 'nest of forgers', but never named them; he also, as you know, suggested a bloke called Gerard Kane actually penned the Diary, but Kane never admitted to this (nor, if memory serves, ever actually denied it, I think?). I assume you don't accept this, given your 'Old Hoax' theory - which I believe is the most plausible thus far.

        What's your take on the 'something' that was removed from Battlecrease and taken to Liverpool University? Feldman referred to this, but didn't appear to follow it up. Also, was it Philip Sugden who said he had proof that the Diary came out of Battlecrease? If so, any further news regarding?

        Best,

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Hi John,

          The handwriting proves it, effectively enough.

          A forgery would be a deliberate attempt to copy someone else's handwriting, with the intention to deceive the reader into believing it was genuinely penned by that person.

          The diary is clearly, obviously, not in this category.

          If forgery was the object, it had to be done by someone with no access to any examples of Maybrick's handwriting and presumably no reason to think it could easily be tracked down.

          Or someone terminally stupid.

          But that doesn't bring us back to Mike Barrett - unless you believe he could have disguised his own handwriting so beautifully...

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Hi Caz

          What you've done is prove it is a forgery. I asked Iconoclast to prove it wasn't a forgery. Which of course he can't do.

          Cheers John

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Graham;396548]Hi Melvin did make reference to a 'nest of forgers', but never named them;

            There is a very well known Ripper Historian / author on these threads from time to time, who's hatred for the diary is well know, and claims that he knows everything about how and who forged it.....apparently.
            and yet doesn't ever name these people or tell what he knows.
            If true ....I wonder why.

            Regards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              In a nutshell, no. My opinion of course, but I agree with Melvin Harris in this regard. Neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary, and Mike simply didn't have the 'capacity', as Melvin so eloquently put it. He did see Mike as the front man - who handled and marketed the diary with Anne's co-operation.

              There is no doubt that Mike saw the diary as his baby, and was the driving force behind going public with it, but that doesn't make it a modern creation, or one created with Mike's knowledge or help.
              Hi Caz,

              Thank you for your reply.

              I can only go by what Melvin Harris has put in writing and I note that he said of Barrett in 'A Fact File for the Perplexed' (with my bold highlighting):

              "I never at any time believed that he was the sole creator of this forgery, but he did have inside knowledge…"

              If, however, he said he was merely a "front man" but you don't accept it, why should I or anyone else accept his opinion that Barrett did not have the capacity to forge the diary?

              And are you saying that Harris opined that neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary? If so, where did he say this?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                Prove it.
                Damn - you got me there ...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  While the Poste House in Cumberland Street was closer to Maybrick's office, the Old Post Office pub - named the Post Office Tavern in 1888 if memory serves - was round the corner from Central Station, where he caught the train home to Battlecrease each evening, and very close to Whitechapel, Liverpool, to boot. So it's as broad as it's long really. It depends where and when the diary author imagined Maybrick taking his 'refreshment' - during the lunch hour near his office, perhaps? Or after work while waiting for his train? The e on Poste need not concern anyone too much, as the sign Poste restante would have been a familiar enough sight back then, and 'Sir Jim' also added an e to the post in 'post haste' - making it 'poste haste'.
                  Caz,

                  You need to call canny, lass - rob the journal naysayers of their beloved Poste House must-be-a-hoax and we could have a riot on our hands.

                  Cheers,

                  Ike

                  PS All this football talk of Chelsea (Chelsea) puts me in mind of a 'deluded' team in the north-east who this evening went top of the Championship. A significant evening one hopes, though Graham might think otherwise after the Villa finally won away from home after 14 long months.

                  Comment


                  • PS All this football talk of Chelsea (Chelsea) puts me in mind of a 'deluded' team in the north-east who this evening went top of the Championship. A significant evening one hopes, though Graham might think otherwise after the Villa finally won away from home after 14 long months.
                    We're on our way to W---em----b----alsall, we shall not be moved!

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                      Hi Caz

                      What you've done is prove it is a forgery. I asked Iconoclast to prove it wasn't a forgery. Which of course he can't do.

                      Cheers John
                      What? Did you not read a single word of my post, John?

                      A forgery mimics, or tries to mimic, the handwriting of the person in question.

                      The diary doesn't make the slightest attempt at doing so.

                      Or do you actually think the writing does resemble Maybrick's?

                      Love,

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


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                        Hi Caz,

                        This is how I view the matter, for what it's worth. Melvin did make reference to a 'nest of forgers', but never named them; he also, as you know, suggested a bloke called Gerard Kane actually penned the Diary, but Kane never admitted to this (nor, if memory serves, ever actually denied it, I think?).
                        Hi Graham,

                        There is no evidence whatsoever that the Barretts and Gerard Kane ever crossed paths. Hard to imagine the writer of the diary sitting back and letting Mike and Anne enjoy all the spoils, if he was still alive, or making a fuss without anyone knowing. I seem to recall Kane only came into it because his signature was on Tony Devereux's will and Melvin thought - wrongly - that he'd seen the same handwriting in the diary. He had already put two and two together to make five when Kane was doorstepped and was not amused to have a stranger asking him strange, accusatory questions. The fact that he didn't react to this intrusion with quiet good humour and full co-operation was more than enough confirmation for Melvin's personal suspicions, but not quite enough to risk a libel action by naming the poor bloke.

                        What's your take on the 'something' that was removed from Battlecrease and taken to Liverpool University? Feldman referred to this, but didn't appear to follow it up.
                        I'm buggered if I know, Graham.

                        Also, was it Philip Sugden who said he had proof that the Diary came out of Battlecrease?
                        I find that highly unlikely. It was Keith Skinner who said he has convincing documentary evidence for it.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 10-19-2016, 03:35 AM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          Hi Caz,

                          Thank you for your reply.

                          I can only go by what Melvin Harris has put in writing and I note that he said of Barrett in 'A Fact File for the Perplexed' (with my bold highlighting):

                          "I never at any time believed that he was the sole creator of this forgery, but he did have inside knowledge…"

                          If, however, he said he was merely a "front man" but you don't accept it, why should I or anyone else accept his opinion that Barrett did not have the capacity to forge the diary?
                          Hi David,

                          There is no reason why you, or anyone else, should accept Melvin's opinion on anything. Be my guest and accept or reject at will. I do. Few people are right or wrong about everything.

                          And are you saying that Harris opined that neither Mike nor Anne wrote the diary? If so, where did he say this?
                          Wrote as in penned. I believe Harris had Anne down as composer of the text (ha ha) and I do remember him clarifying on the boards once upon a time that he had both Barretts down as handlers and pushers but the handwriting was not theirs.

                          Again, please feel free to take it or leave it.

                          Love,

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


                          Comment


                          • Hi Caz,

                            thanks for clearing up those points. If I remember correctly, Gerard Kane was seriously ill, so little wonder he door-slammed poor Melvin.

                            Yes, Keith Skinner, of course. He made a big deal of the claimed Battlecrease provenace both on here and in that online book about James Maybrick, but that was some time ago and no more has been heard. Ah well.

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

                            Comment


                            • To be fair, Graham, Keith made the remark in Liverpool, in response to something the late great Jeremy Beadle put to him there. It was off the cuff, not planned, and he has said very little about it publicly since. He has never posted on the boards in his own right, although I used, on occasion, to act as go-between for him and post any observations he felt should be made - chiefly to set the record straight about what he actually said and meant. I don't recall him being involved with any online book, unless you mean an entry in the one by Chris Jones perhaps?

                              I really don't believe Keith's intention was to make 'a big deal' of it. If anything, the reactions of others built it up into one for him! That doesn't mean the evidence is any less strong now for the thing coming out of Battlecrease than it was when he spoke in Liverpool.

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                Hi David,

                                There is no reason why you, or anyone else, should accept Melvin's opinion on anything. Be my guest and accept or reject at will. I do. Few people are right or wrong about everything.

                                Wrote as in penned. I believe Harris had Anne down as composer of the text (ha ha) and I do remember him clarifying on the boards once upon a time that he had both Barretts down as handlers and pushers but the handwriting was not theirs.

                                Again, please feel free to take it or leave it.
                                Thanks Caz, what I'm really trying to establish is: what are the reasons for thinking that Mike and Anne did not compose the Diary, whether it's you, me, Harris or anyone else doing the thinking?

                                If the main reason is that Mike is not believed to have had the 'capacity' prior to May 1992 then what is the basis of this belief?

                                And what about Anne? Why the "ha ha" in your email when it comes to her as composer of the text?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X