One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

I would prefer it we could just stick to 'no evidence' that anyone could have thought of an instance being a 'one off' as early as the 1880s, rather than a flat assertion that the phrase simply didn't 'exist' back then, and therefore could not have been thought of either - as if it was tripping off your average forger's tongue by the late 1980s.

It's not a "flat assertion" Caz. I've explained in some detail how the phrase evolved in the twentieth century.

[David Orsam]

Did I suggest 'we' had found anything of the sort?

No, and that's why I am suggesting you realise the Diary is in trouble.

[David Orsam]

You do realise the above makes no sense - right?

I don't Caz. Explain it to me.

You might have noted that StevenOwl who proposed the same idea called the scheme "insane".

It would have been insane would it not for Barrett to have presented Doreen with a fake Victorian Diary which he had written out in order to show her what the real diary looked like?

It's such a mad idea that no-one in their right mind would even have contemplated it would they, let alone actually acquired a Victorian Diary for such a purpose?

[caz]

Because you were the first person to suggest that the watch was being "sidelined".

Are you honestly trying to tell me you have never seen other posters make the same observation? Maybe it had rightfully been sidelined on this particular thread (until someone other than me brought it up, that is) but it has been sidelined (as in not discussed) on pretty much every Maybrick thread over the years not dedicated to the watch specifically.

If I ever get nits remind me to hire you to pick them for me.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Does he, David? Isn't he meant to be a serial killer, holding a private conversation with himself, right up to when he thinks of bequeathing his rotten jottings to whoever comes across them after he shuffles off? This was never meant to be a work of literature, with the author only lifting expressions from other formal works he has read. Casual thoughts, conversations and discarded personal jottings must hugely outnumber the preserved and documented written word, and everything we see written down was thought of and almost certainly spoken of long before the first person decided to use in a formal written context.

I would prefer it we could just stick to 'no evidence' that anyone could have thought of an instance being a 'one off' as early as the 1880s, rather than a flat assertion that the phrase simply didn't 'exist' back then, and therefore could not have been thought of either - as if it was tripping off your average forger's tongue by the late 1980s.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

But if Maybrick wrote the diary he would have been the first person in recorded history to use the term "one off". In fact, as Gareth pointed out, there's not another example until 1934, and even then its application was restricted to a strictly technical usage, i.e. in the engineering industry.

Would you therefore at least concede that the probability of Maybrick having used the phrase as early as the 1880s is infinitesimally small?

[caz]

I'm not unhappy about anything Caz.

Glad to hear it.

To remind you, you said that Barrett's claims were "demonstrably untrue". I asked you to demonstrate this but, in doing so, to take into account what I said in #1574.

The reason for this request was that there was no point in you coming back to say "the details of how the O&L auctions were carried out were in reality different to what Barrett says" if you can’t be sure that O&L did not give out receipts in the way that Caligo described so that Barrett was simply confusing his terminology by referring to a "ticket" rather than a "receipt."

So, yes, if you want to demonstrate that Barrett's statement was untrue you do need some form statement from O&L giving chapter and verse otherwise you are not demonstrating the untruth.

Look, I'll tell you what. No, I don't want to demonstrate to you that Barrett's auction claims were untrue. This is not a court of law. O&L were able to demonstrate it to me many years ago, in person, when I was there with Keith Skinner, but feel free to think we were incompetent and you would have done a much better job of it. Why not do your own research, if you have any festering doubts and still think any of Mike's versions might be reconcilable with the system O&L had in place when you imagine he was trying to obtain a suitable vehicle for the diary. It's a wonder nobody from O&L ever made the connection between the guard book won by Mike and the guard book turned into the Maybrick Diary by Mike. But there you are - O&L were probably as incompetent as we were. You just can't get the right people, can you?

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

In what way do you think this scheme could ever be described as "plausible"?

It's a curveball, I'll give you that. But if I may back up for a minute here - I believe that the story Mike Barrett originally gave about how he acquired the Diary, the story he stuck to rigidly for 2 years and only abandoned after his wife had left him and booze began to take hold of his sanity, is 100% true. I also believe that Anne Graham's story of the Diary being in her family for many years, and that it was her who gave the Diary to Tony Devereaux to give to Mike, is 100% true. So if I'm totally convinced that Mike Barrett didn't forge the Diary, then I have to reconcile his attempt to purchase a Victorian diary some other way, and the hairbrain scheme I mentioned in my previous post, however mad it seems to you, is a plausible explanation IMO.

[David Orsam]

Are you honestly trying to tell me you have never seen other posters make the same observation?

Yes, that is what I am telling you. Having done a search of the word "sidelined" in this thread, the first time it was mentioned by anyone was today (by you). And I haven't posted in any other Maybrick threads.

[David Orsam]

O&L were able to demonstrate it to me many years ago, in person, when I was there with Keith Skinner, but feel free to think we were incompetent and you would have done a much better job of it.

I haven't mentioned anyone being "incompetent".

But it must be obvious that if you or anyone asked O&L if they sold a Victorian scrapbook in 1990 (which is when Barrett dated the purchase in his affidavit) you would not have obtained a useful answer if the scrapbook had actually been acquired in 1992.

That's the point. What I hope you now understand is that you can't say that Barrett's affidavit is "demonstrably untrue" in this respect, albeit that it might be mistaken as to the chronology of events.

[caz]

All I can usefully say in response is that a search by O&L for a Victorian guard book sale in 1990 was never going to produce any useful results if the sale was actually in 1992 - and if the sale was in 1992, Barrett's affidavit on this point is not shown to be untrue, just confused.

Perhaps I should also add that Barrett specifically states in his 1995 affidavit that he purchased the 1891 diary before the Victorian Guard Book, and we know that 1891 diary was purchased in 1992.

Come again? Confused or not, it must have been untrue that Mike obtained the guard book in 1990 unless it was untrue that he bought the 1891 diary first. Demonstrable untruth in there somewhere, surely?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

It's a curveball, I'll give you that. But if I may back up for a minute here - I believe that the story Mike Barrett originally gave about how he acquired the Diary, the story he stuck to rigidly for 2 years and only abandoned after his wife had left him and booze began to take hold of his sanity, is 100% true. I also believe that Anne Graham's story of the Diary being in her family for many years, and that it was her who gave the Diary to Tony Devereaux to give to Mike, is 100% true. So if I'm totally convinced that Mike Barrett didn't forge the Diary, then I have to reconcile his attempt to purchase a Victorian diary some other way, and the hairbrain scheme I mentioned in my previous post, however mad it seems to you, is a plausible explanation IMO.

Yes I thought that's what you were doing Steven but if you don't mind me saying, you are looking at it all the wrong way round.

If you start with a certainty that the Diary is genuine (because you believe Anne Graham's story) then you end up having to offer up an entirely implausible explanation for Mike's actions.

But if you look at it from the other end of the telescope, you would see that there is only one reason for Mike Barrett acquiring a Victorian Diary with blank pages - and then perhaps you would consider Anne Graham's story within that context.

I mean, was Anne always truthful? Here is what Melvin Harris says in A Guide Through the Labyrinth:

"Anne herself, played a passive part until Feldman suggested that the Diary: "was not quite kosher..." (p130). In other words, illegally obtained. "Anne's response was, 'Did you nick it, Mike?'" Note that. She later claimed that she had given the book to Devereux. If you believe that, then you have to accept that her question "Did you nick it?", was part of a deceptive act. No one forced her to ask that question, it was thrown in to make her seem like a genuinely puzzled outsider."

[David Orsam]

Come again? Confused or not, it must have been untrue that Mike obtained the guard book in 1990 unless it was untrue that he bought the 1891 diary first. Demonstrable untruth in there somewhere, surely?

You do know the difference between a lie and a mistake, right?

[caz]

You mention Kajau. You must be aware that he fooled all the experts, having simply churned out diary after diary, sixty volumes in total. According to Wikipedia: "He began working to a schedule of producing three diaries a month. He later stated that he managed to produce one of the volumes in three hours; on a separate occasion he wrote three diaries in three days." If he could fool the experts then surely so could Barrett. Some might even say he has!

You neglected to mention that Kujau's fakery was proved shortly after his Hitler Diaries were published and he went straight to jail without passing 'go'. How was that fooling anyone - for more than five minutes? And how would anyone doing the same just a few years on, only with Jack the Ripper, not have expected the same fate?

Lucky old Mike, to have been able to con believers and modern hoax conspiracy theorists alike, so thoroughly and for so many years, without so much as getting his collar felt.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

I've never met Mike Barrett. However, those that have seem to regard him as a most unlikely forger. That's got to count for something, surely.

Moreover, he also stated that he worked at the Poste House as a barman. Has that been proven?

[caz]

For them to have been arrested, the police would not only have had to prove that the diary was a forgery but also that Mike and Ann forged it or knew it to be forged. Perhaps Mike and Ann could have come up with a cover story such as, oh I don't know, that it was given to them by a friend in a pub who was now dead.

How do the police disprove that? If they can't, Mike and Ann are in the clear.

You don't say.

Oh, you did say.

Bit different from Kujau then. He must have been thicker than Barrett to allow the police proof of forgery and then not think of blaming it all on a dead mate who couldn't prove his innocence - because he was dead.

Nice one.

Love,

Caz
X