One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

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.

I don't know this at all. The absolute reverse could be true in that they wanted to be able to publish a genuine historical Diary.

[David Orsam]

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.

It's not anything I have claimed John so I can't answer your post.

[John G]

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.

Hello David,

But if he received "help from others", how do we know exactly what his contribution was? How do we know that he wasn't simply a frontman, whose contribution to the forging of the diary was negligible or none existent?

[John G]

It's not anything I have claimed John so I can't answer your post.

Hello David,

But surely this is significant. I mean, if he actually did forge the diary then he would have no reason to lie about how he acquired "full knowledge" of the history of the Poste House pub. Therefore, if he did lie about this point his entire account is seriously undermined.

[David Orsam]

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?

I don't doubt that something exists Caz. If you say it does then that is alone reason for me to accept it. But what I very much doubt is that there is any evidence which proves the Diary came from Battlecrease. For example, perhaps there is some evidence that A diary came out of Battlecrease (I have no idea) but not that it was THE diary. I really don't see any point in me speculating about the possibilities.

You earlier gave me the option of "take it or leave it" and I said I leave it. I have no interest in discussing evidence I haven't seen.

[Iconoclast]

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

I imagine that it would be possible. I think on the surface Melvin Harris made a decent case for explaining how it may have occurred.

Where I struggle is with what came out of the subsequent research which actually seems to draw Maybrick into the thick of it far much more than less. Almost nothing has emerged post-publication to denounce the journal as a hoax, but other teasing details have emerged which seem to support the journal as authentic. I'm thinking, by way of example, of the Diego Laurenz note to the Liverpool Echo. Like Prof. Rubenstein, I am unable to get my head around the sheer implausibility of such a thing being uncovered. Or the GSG containing cryptic references to each of the key Maybricks, and the word 'nothing' appearing in the policeman's copy in the very hand it appears in the journal. In the latter case, a clever hoaxer may have accessed the Sept. 17 letter and reviewed the transcription of the GSG and simply styled the journal's handwriting on them (amongst others), but this requires much more than Harris' interpretation of the hoax.

I could go on, but this summarises my views, and my answer to your question. Of course, the Maybrick journal may be a hoax, but it absolutely has not yet been proven to be so and until it is I accept that there are not strong enough grounds for discounting its authenticity.

Cheers,

Ike

[David Orsam]

But if he received "help from others", how do we know exactly what his contribution was? How do we know that he wasn't simply a frontman, whose contribution to the forging of the diary was negligible or none existent?

Do we need to know "exactly" what is contribution was?

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

But surely this is significant. I mean, if he actually did forge the diary then he would have no reason to lie about how he acquired "full knowledge" of the history of the Poste House pub. Therefore, if he did lie about this point his entire account is seriously undermined.

But he doesn't say anything in his affidavit about the Poste House pub. And how does the diary reveal any knowledge about the history of that pub?

[caz]

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

And you do know what they have in common, right?

That they are untruths?

If I said I had four pounds in my purse, and someone looked and found only three, I would have spoken a demonstrable untruth, although it would be more likely a mistake than a lie.

If Mike said he had four hundred pound coins in his wallet, he might simply have been mistaken, but I would plump for the lie - every time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

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

David,

I don't think I did. You just quoted the same line twice?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

"'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.

Ah, you flatter yourself, sir. I (and I'm sure many others) had long since noted that observation in Ripper Diary. If asked, I'd have been the first to acknowledge it, I'm sure.

[Iconoclast]

"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.

Your incontrovertible fact is as solid as the old gem that Michael Maybrick only composed music.

Livia Trivia put that little misunderstanding to bed, and now I live in hope that her genius works its wisdom on your one-off instance, and we can all go back to believing in the journal's authenticity.

[David Orsam]

If I said I had four pounds in my purse, and someone looked and found only three, I would have spoken a demonstrable untruth, although it would be more likely a mistake than a lie.

Then you don't know the difference. Of course it would not be "a demonstrable untruth". It would only be so if you knew there were three pounds in the purse and it could be demonstrated that you knew it. If you genuinely thought there were four pounds in there then it's not an untruth, it's an error.

[David Orsam]

Ah, you flatter yourself, sir. I (and I'm sure many others) had long since noted that observation in Ripper Diary. If asked, I'd have been the first to acknowledge it, I'm sure.

There is a difference from noting something in your mind and actually mentioning it. I believe I was the first person to mention it in this thread.

[David Orsam]

Your incontrovertible fact is as solid as the old gem that Michael Maybrick only composed music.

So you take a claim that has not been disproved and then compare it to a claim that has (apparently) been disproved and somehow that is a legitimate comparison?

I have never said anything about Maybrick only composing music - I have no idea - so what does that have to do with the price of fish?