One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

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?

But by the same token why didn't Kujau realise that he would be exposed after "five minutes" and go to prison? That's just how criminals operate Caz. It's called optimism.

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.

One could say he has only fooled those who want to be fooled Caz. The Sunday Times exposed the Diary as a fake back in 1993. Shirley Harrison defended it as genuine on the basis that she had found "one off" to mean something unique back in 1860 and people naturally believed her.

[caz]

Yes, that's right, that post of mine (#1929) wasn't for you in any way, it was addressed to Iconoclast who had said that "Barrett's confession is fundamentally incorrect in every respect".

If you don't think that Barrett's confession is fundamentally incorrect in every respect (as you say you don't) there was really no need for you to trouble yourself to respond to my post.

I know all that, but as you asked me to read that one specifically, David, it would have been rude of me not to do so and to respond with my own observations (which I stand by), so you would know I had not simply ignored you.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

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.

This line of discussion is getting a bit silly. The cover story as to how the Hitler Diaries were acquired was rather different to the Maybrick Diary. No-one would have believed the Hitler Diaries came from "a dead mate". Why anyone believed it in the case of the Maybrick Diary I have no idea but the Sunday Times clearly didn't believe it (whereas they did believe the Hitler Diaries cover story).

[David Orsam]

I know all that, but as you asked me to read that one specifically, David, it would have been rude of me not to do so and to respond with my own observations (which I stand by), so you would know I had not simply ignored you.

But what I asked you do was this:

"you might also want to consider my #1929 and let me know if any of the 10 points I listed in that post are demonstrably untrue and demonstrate the untruthfulness of them."

Far from doing this, you responded on the basis of whether the points listed were "fundamentally incorrect in every respect" as if I believed this was something you had said.

I only wanted to know if you thought the 10 points were "demonstrably untrue" or not (and, if so, to demonstrate the untruthfulness).

[David Orsam]

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.

Why does it have to count for anything?

Who do you know who you would describe as "a likely forger"?

He could read and write English couldn't he? Sufficient qualifications surely?

And how many people who offer their opinion about Barrett knew him in March 1992?

And how many people of those who offer their opinion are doing so in the context of an argument that the Diary is genuine?

So no John, I don't think it counts for anything at all really.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Surely the onus is on those who believe in the diary to prove that it is genuine rather than wasting good and diligent [ no i don't count myself ] researchers time in trying to prove it is a fake. The thread should be called [ or a new one started ] - One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves the diary is genuine.

[Iconoclast]

It seems somewhat ironic coming from me, but I can't help feeling that there is simply too much vexation currently brewing in this, The Greatest Thread of All.

As a regular returning architect of this most wonderous piece of social media, it saddens me that we seem unable to be more cold and pragmatic - far too many crazed swishing of righteous swords for my puritanical liking!

If we are more cold and pragmatic, we would agree that some or all of the following is almost certainly true:

[*] Mike Barrett did not write a Maybrick hoax - he simply lacked the wits to do so, and most commentators on both sides of the fence having met him seem to have concurred.
[*] The journal looks on the surface to be a very poor attempt at a hoax - superficially there is little about it, its provenence, nor its contents to really commend it to any sane person.
[*] And yet, it will not be shaken - of that there is no doubt. It stimulated a variety of research in Maybrick and that research has demonstrated that the journal is consistent with the known facts as often (if not more often) than it is inconsistent with them. Hence the creation of this brilliant thread - providing a forum for the pursuit of that one fact which fundamentally shakes our tree here and tears out its roots.
[*] In the last 8 years, no-one has really disproven the journal, and - as the years have passed - a little irony has crept in with the discovery of small details which just keep commending the authenticity of the journal to us!
[*] 'One-off' was debated before, as was Sammy Flynn's daliance with the use of 'mayhem'. But finally David Orsam has made a fairly compelling case for 'one-off instance' being an irrefutable anachronism. Personally, I don't know this for sure. I don't think he has made his case so categorically, but being a pragmatist, I accept that there is something deeply wrong in this possibility. As a believer in the journal's authenticity, I recognise that this is a profound challenge to my belief. I haven't given up on the barcodes winning a trophy again, and I ain't giving up on the journal being authentic, but the cold facts are not encouraging.
[*] Fortunately, the journal comes with many bags in its baggage and many of the other bags it carries commend the journal back to me so the balance of probability has swung a wee bit, but the tipping point has absolutely not been reached.

You will all be deeply relieved to hear that this thread lives on - powers on! - as a testament to the impossible genius of the creator of the Maybrick journal. It continues to light the way for those who see beyond the superficial, and learn to love its most unusual charms.

Nothing is proven, and no hope is lost. I have a feeling that 2017 is going to be the year that the Maybrick journal fights back! Nicely, obviously.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

This line of discussion is getting a bit silly. The cover story as to how the Hitler Diaries were acquired was rather different to the Maybrick Diary. No-one would have believed the Hitler Diaries came from "a dead mate". Why anyone believed it in the case of the Maybrick Diary I have no idea but the Sunday Times clearly didn't believe it (whereas they did believe the Hitler Diaries cover story).

Deep down, you know what we all know - the Sunday Times didn't believe the Maybrick journal because of what had happened to it over the Hitler diaries! For everyone else bar the twisted Sunday Times, these two events are entirely separate. To them, the journal was an opportunity to show the world they weren't the suckers we all knew them to be. The journal was doomed from the moment Robert Smith sold the publishing rights to a corporation up to its knees in the mockery and didain of the publishing world.

[John G]

Why does it have to count for anything?

Who do you know who you would describe as "a likely forger"?

He could read and write English couldn't he? Sufficient qualifications surely?

And how many people who offer their opinion about Barrett knew him in March 1992?

And how many people of those who offer their opinion are doing so in the context of an argument that the Diary is genuine?

So no John, I don't think it counts for anything at all really.

Hello David,

Has it been proven that he worked at the Poste House pub as a barman, as he claimed? Because, frankly, I find his assertion that he "gained full-knowledge of the history of the old pub", whilst employed in that capacity to be very dubious.

I mean, are we to believe that he stumbled across some old records whilst changing a barrel in the basement? Or perhaps he acquired his knowledge whilst serving at the bar, via the occasional conversation with one or two slightly inebriated regulars.

[Iconoclast]

Surely the onus is on those who believe in the diary to prove that it is genuine rather than wasting good and diligent [ no i don't count myself ] researchers time in trying to prove it is a fake. The thread should be called [ or a new one started ] - One incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which proves the diary is genuine.

Feel free mate. You have a long journey to match the majesty of this version ...

[caz]

I can't consider, or comment on, things that I know nothing about and are being kept secret (a la Pierre) can I?

I have repeatedly acknowledged this.

And, no, I think the questions you suggest would have been (and would still be) inappropriate considering that there appears to be some kind of confidentiality issue around them.

Come on, David, this is not new and I suspect you know it. It has been an ongoing situation since 2007 and I had no control over the 'secret' evidence being referred to but not revealed in all its glory. If you want to blame someone, blame me by all means, but I did not introduce the 'notion' of a Battlecrease provenance, either on or off the message boards, and I am not at liberty to expand on it. I can't wish it away, however, and won't be put off referring to it myself, whenever I feel it is appropriate to remind people of its existence. You can't consider or comment on it here, I realise, but if you secretly doubted its existence, I'd be surprised if you hadn't secretly sought and received confirmation from the appropriate source. It's a simple enough question, and a simple 'yes it exists', or 'no it does not, I must have imagined it back in 2007', or 'no comment', would hardly have touched on the confidentiality issue. I wonder why you'd think otherwise, or why that would even be your concern?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Hello David,

Has it been proven that he worked at the Poste House pub as a barman, as he claimed? Because, frankly, I find his assertion that he "gained full-knowledge of the history of the old pub", whilst employed in that capacity to be very dubious.

I mean, are we to believe that he stumbled across some old records whilst changing a barrel in the basement? Or perhaps he acquired his knowledge whilst serving at the bar, via the occasional conversation with one or two slightly inebriated regulars.

Mike Barrett was a guileless Scouser, bemused and exhilerated in equal measure by the journal he had in his hands. If there was a hoaxer in all this, it was simply not he.

[John G]

It seems somewhat ironic coming from me, but I can't help feeling that there is simply too much vexation currently brewing in this, The Greatest Thread of All.

As a regular returning architect of this most wonderous piece of social media, it saddens me that we seem unable to be more cold and pragmatic - far too many crazed swishing of righteous swords for my puitanical liking!

If we are more cold and pragmatic, we would agree that some or all of the following is almost certainly true:

[*] Mike Barrett did not write a Maybrick hoax - he simply lacked the wits to do so, and most commentators on both sides of the fence having met him seem to have concurred.
[*] The journal looks on the surface to be a very poor attempt at a hoax - superficially there is little about it, its provenence, nor its contents to really commend it to any sane person.
[*] And yet, it will not be shaken - of that there is no doubt. It stimulated a variety of research in Maybrick and that research has demonstrated that the journal is consistent with the known facts as often (if not more often) than it is inconsistent with them. Hence the creation of this brilliant thread - providing a forum for the pursuit of that one fact which fundamentally shakes our tree here and tears out its roots.
[*] In the last 8 years, no-one has really disproven the journal, and - as the years have passed - a little irony has crept in with the discovery of small details which just keep commending the authenticity of the journal to us!
[*] 'One-off' was debated before, as was Sammy Flynn's daliance with the use of 'mayhem'. But finally David Orsam has made a fairly compelling case for 'one-off instance' being an irrefutable anachronism. Personally, I don't know this for sure. I don't think he has made his case so categorically, but being a pragmatist, I accept that there is something deeply wrong in this possibility. As a believer in the journal's authenticity, I recognise that this is a profound challenge to my belief. I haven't given up on the barcodes winning a trophy again, and I ain't giving up on the journal being authentic, but the cold facts are not encouraging.
[*] Fortunately, the journal comes with many bags in its baggage and many of the other bags it carries commend the journal back to me so the balance of probability has swung a wee bit, but the tipping point has absolutely not been reached.

You will all be deeply relieved to hear that this thread lives on - powers on! - as a testament to the impossible genius of the creator of the Maybrick journal. It continues to light the way for those who see beyond the superficial, and learn to love its most unusual charms.

Nothing is proven, and no hope is lost. I have a feeling that 2017 is going to be the year that the Maybrick journal fights back! Nicely, obviously.

Ike

Hello Ike,

Do you think it would have been possible to have forged the Diary, without researching Maybrick's life and the Whitechapel murders in some detail, as David has suggested? See, for example, http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...y/mhguide.html

[caz]

Well that's a complete non-answer isn't it?

I'm even tempted to describe it as a cop out.

I suggest that the only plausible and credible reason for Barrett wanting a Victorian diary with blank pages (and going to the trouble of advertising for one and paying for it) is because he was intending to produce a forged Victorian diary using those blank pages.

There isn't another possible reason for it is there?

If you say so, David, it must be true.

A bit like 'if Mike said he did it, it must be true'.

In short, yours is just another unproven theory, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

And yet, it will not be shaken - of that there is no doubt.

You can't shake Holocaust deniers from denying the Holocaust. The Holocaust denial goes on. But do they have any rational basis for denying it? That's the question.

Let's take your list:

"Mike Barrett did not write a Maybrick hoax - he simply lacked the wits to do so, and most commentators on both sides of the fence having met him seem to have concurred." Not agreed. The 'commentators' you refer to only met him after March 1992. I understand he became an alcoholic. But the fact that he was able to produce pages of 'research notes' proves to me that he was perfectly capable of functioning as a normal person and thus of forging the diary, especially with help from others.

"The journal looks on the surface to be a very poor attempt at a hoax - superficially there is little about it, its provenence, nor its contents to really commend it to any sane person." I would not say "poor attempt at a hoax". It seems to me to be a decent effort, textually speaking. No doubt that is why some people have been convinced.

"And yet, it will not be shaken - of that there is no doubt." - Saying this repeatedly does not make it so.

"In the last 8 years, no-one has really disproven the journal" - Disputed. "one off instance" is the error which disproves it.

"'One-off' was debated before" - It was debated before but people pointed to Shirley Harrison's "discovery" as proof that it was not anachronistic. Although the lack of documentation was mentioned in Inside Story I appear to have been the first to note the complete absence of any supporting evidence.

"But finally David Orsam has made a fairly compelling case for 'one-off instance' being an irrefutable anachronism. Personally, I don't know this for sure. I don't think he has made his case so categorically, but being a pragmatist, I accept that there is something deeply wrong in this possibility." Thank you, the argument either needs to be controverted or the challenge this thread posed has been met.