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 Sam Flynn View Post
    I'm pretty sure I had a Kindle copy...


    As you were! My mistake; what I meant to say was that I used my copy for kindling.
    Meow!

    Comment


    • For those who say Mike wasn't capable of making up the diary, please have a read of the 5 Jan affidavit.

      Anyone who could make that up (as many say he must have) could also make up the diary surely.

      You can't have it both ways.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • An Anti-Morton's Fork

        Originally posted by GUT View Post
        For those who say Mike wasn't capable of making up the diary, please have a read of the 5 Jan affidavit.

        Anyone who could make that up (as many say he must have) could also make up the diary surely.

        You can't have it both ways.
        Quite so, GUT. Quite so.
        Diary boosters or believers (Q: Are all diary boosters true believers?) are caught on the horns of a dilemma, something akin to an anti- Morton's Fork. Whereas Morton's Fork has contradictory observations leading to the same conclusion, your elegant argument shows contradictory conclusions (Mike Barrett forged the diary vs. Mike Barrett couldn't have forged the diary) relying on the same premise (Mike Barrett had the ability to write historical fiction, with one camp thinking his best historical fiction is the diary, and others preferring to think his best historical fiction is that affidavit).

        Wishing all Casebook contributors and lurkers a Happy New Year's celebration
        and a peaceful and prosperous 2017.

        H

        Comment


        • Sorry, he swore two affadavits that it was a forgery?

          He confessed, then retracted, then reconfessed?

          So it wasn't a one-off instance?

          Stick a fork in it. It's done.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
            Sorry, he swore two affadavits that it was a forgery?

            He confessed, then retracted, then reconfessed?

            So it wasn't a one-off instance?

            Stick a fork in it. It's done.
            I will need to double check dates, but if memory serves he swore two affidavits confessing and then retracted, but I will need to double check the dates.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • On 27 June 1994 Michael Barrett told the Liverpool Daily Post that he had in fact forged the diary, only to retract his confession.

              Affidavit of January 5th, 1995 Giving a great deal of detail

              Affidavit of January 25th, 1995 Fleshing out the first affidavit

              I think that about summarises it.

              But I'm sure someone can explain it all away.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                On 27 June 1994 Michael Barrett told the Liverpool Daily Post that he had in fact forged the diary, only to retract his confession.

                Affidavit of January 5th, 1995 Giving a great deal of detail

                Affidavit of January 25th, 1995 Fleshing out the first affidavit

                I think that about summarises it.

                But I'm sure someone can explain it all away.
                In the unexpected case that somebody should have wondered at one time or another why it is that the Maybrick Diary threads never involve any participation by me, this is the perfect answer.
                It-is-a-total-waste-of-time.

                To think, there are nigh on twothousand fivehundred posts on this thread... On THIS thread!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                  On 27 June 1994 Michael Barrett told the Liverpool Daily Post that he had in fact forged the diary, only to retract his confession.

                  Affidavit of January 5th, 1995 Giving a great deal of detail

                  Affidavit of January 25th, 1995 Fleshing out the first affidavit

                  I think that about summarises it.

                  But I'm sure someone can explain it all away.
                  Thank you GUT. In this instance I'm glad of being mostly uninformed. Sometimes something that is pretty cut and dried wrongly seems more complex once when gets knee-deep in the details. The fact that he put out an advertisement seeking unused Victorian diary is the end of the credibility of the diary for me, end of story.

                  Either: Maybrick was the Ripper, wrote a diary about it, and in that Diary was the first person in recorded history to write a phrase that became widely used in a colloquial sense only decades later, and this diary was presented to the world by an alcoholic liar who had bought a partially unused Victorian diary for some entirely innocent reason and then lied when confessing to having forged the Diary, or.....

                  Occam is of some use here.

                  Comment


                  • I remember following the news stories when the diary first "broke", and the sudden twists and turns were enough to make your head spin.

                    My understanding is that the confession to the forgery happened only after it seemed that Mr and Mrs Barnett were about to lose all rights to the book, if they were seen solely as the discoverers of a "historical" artifact.

                    The other thing that has always bothered me a little is the comment by Mrs Barnett that she gave it (the purported diary) to Mike to see if he might "do something" with it. Does that mean he was to approach a publisher? Or does she mean use the blank pages in the Victorian book/album to write something down that could be a money-maker?
                    Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                    ---------------
                    Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                    ---------------

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      In the unexpected case that somebody should have wondered at one time or another why it is that the Maybrick Diary threads never involve any participation by me, this is the perfect answer.
                      It-is-a-total-waste-of-time.

                      To think, there are nigh on twothousand fivehundred posts on this thread... On THIS thread!
                      That'll be why it is universally known throughout the world of Ripperology as The Greatest Thread of All. And quite rightly so - these titles don't come in lucky bags, mate ...

                      Ike
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                        Thank you GUT. In this instance I'm glad of being mostly uninformed. Sometimes something that is pretty cut and dried wrongly seems more complex once when gets knee-deep in the details. The fact that he put out an advertisement seeking unused Victorian diary is the end of the credibility of the diary for me, end of story.

                        Either: Maybrick was the Ripper, wrote a diary about it, and in that Diary was the first person in recorded history to write a phrase that became widely used in a colloquial sense only decades later, and this diary was presented to the world by an alcoholic liar who had bought a partially unused Victorian diary for some entirely innocent reason and then lied when confessing to having forged the Diary, or.....

                        Occam is of some use here.
                        You're very late to the party with Occam, mate. He has appeared here many times before, not always on your side of the fence either ...
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                          You're very late to the party with Occam, mate. He has appeared here many times before, not always on your side of the fence either ...
                          Let's put that statement to the test shall we?

                          'Magpie' first mentioned Occam's Razor in this thread in a post on 31 August 2008 saying:

                          "Why should the Maybrick Diary be exempt from the vigorous application of Occam's Razor that's given to every other theory, suspect or piece of "evidence" in the case?"

                          Magpie's conclusion in that post was that the Diary was a fake.

                          Then 'Phil H' was next in a post on 20 July 2010:

                          "Occam's razor argues against the explanations I have seen."

                          Phil H's conclusion in that post was that the Diary was a fake.

                          The only other person apart from Henry to introduce the concept of Occam's razor was, in fact, you, Iconoclast (posting as Soothsayer) back on 17 November 2011 when you said:

                          "We also have the challenge of understanding how our late Victorian hoaxer managed to reference information which was not public domain until the 1980s. This would imply that our hoaxer was a policeman with inside information. Plausible, but hardly more so than that which Occam's fine Razor leaves you with - namely, that it was Maybrick himself who was Jack."

                          An argument there which only applies to countering a Victorian hoax.

                          In later posts, you preferred another concept which you called "Soothsayer's Razor":

                          "For most of us, that confession is sufficiently compelling and sufficiently full of relevance to the case that we find it easier to apply Soothsayer’s Razor and accept that on the balance of probability the journal was actually written by James Maybrick and that James Maybrick was indeed Jack the Ripper than we do that it was written by some person or persons unknown in his name and for some unknown end." (29 April 2012)

                          And then a few days later:

                          "For all the conjecture around author or authors unknown, Soothsayer's Razor still says the simplest explanation is that it is the real deal." (1 May 2012)

                          As a simple matter of fact, therefore, Occam's Razor has only ever been employed on one side of the argument in the modern fake vs genuine diary debate in this thread.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            Let's put that statement to the test shall we?

                            'Magpie' first mentioned Occam's Razor in this thread in a post on 31 August 2008 saying:

                            "Why should the Maybrick Diary be exempt from the vigorous application of Occam's Razor that's given to every other theory, suspect or piece of "evidence" in the case?"

                            Magpie's conclusion in that post was that the Diary was a fake.

                            Then 'Phil H' was next in a post on 20 July 2010:

                            "Occam's razor argues against the explanations I have seen."

                            Phil H's conclusion in that post was that the Diary was a fake.

                            The only other person apart from Henry to introduce the concept of Occam's razor was, in fact, you, Iconoclast (posting as Soothsayer) back on 17 November 2011 when you said:

                            "We also have the challenge of understanding how our late Victorian hoaxer managed to reference information which was not public domain until the 1980s. This would imply that our hoaxer was a policeman with inside information. Plausible, but hardly more so than that which Occam's fine Razor leaves you with - namely, that it was Maybrick himself who was Jack."

                            An argument there which only applies to countering a Victorian hoax.

                            In later posts, you preferred another concept which you called "Soothsayer's Razor":

                            "For most of us, that confession is sufficiently compelling and sufficiently full of relevance to the case that we find it easier to apply Soothsayer’s Razor and accept that on the balance of probability the journal was actually written by James Maybrick and that James Maybrick was indeed Jack the Ripper than we do that it was written by some person or persons unknown in his name and for some unknown end." (29 April 2012)

                            And then a few days later:

                            "For all the conjecture around author or authors unknown, Soothsayer's Razor still says the simplest explanation is that it is the real deal." (1 May 2012)

                            As a simple matter of fact, therefore, Occam's Razor has only ever been employed on one side of the argument in the modern fake vs genuine diary debate in this thread.
                            David, remind me never to get into an argument with you.

                            On any subject.

                            Ever.

                            Ike - being late to the party has always worked for me in real life. Let others get the ladies warmed up, others still to bore them, and then when hope seems lost, I enter, and claim the spoils, charming, sober, almost witty.

                            I call it the carrion technique. Thanks for noticing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                              David, remind me never to get into an argument with you.

                              On any subject.

                              Ever.

                              Ike - being late to the party has always worked for me in real life. Let others get the ladies warmed up, others still to bore them, and then when hope seems lost, I enter, and claim the spoils, charming, sober, almost witty.

                              I call it the carrion technique. Thanks for noticing
                              Hi Henry Flower,

                              No problem, mate - we've had a few parties on this thread, I can tell you! And as at all parties it's pointless getting into an argument - certainly not with someone with a pathological need to always be right - I'm with you on that one!

                              And yet, is he really always right? I suspect not.

                              I'm sure he'll be the first to trawl through twenty years of Casebook posts to prove it is so, though ...

                              I look forward to his next 60 posts re-posting every single post he's ever posted with lengthy analysis on how he incontrovertibly, unequivocally, and undeniably was right on every single occasion, regardless of the point, regardless of the postee he was replying to.

                              Your singular friend,

                              The One and Only, The Mighty and Ever-Undefeated and Indefatiguable Iconoclast
                              Iconoclast

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                Hi Henry Flower,

                                No problem, mate - we've had a few parties on this thread, I can tell you! And as at all parties it's pointless getting into an argument - certainly not with someone with a pathological need to always be right - I'm with you on that one!

                                And yet, is he really always right? I suspect not.

                                I'm sure he'll be the first to trawl through twenty years of Casebook posts to prove it is so, though ...

                                I look forward to his next 60 posts re-posting every single post he's ever posted with lengthy analysis on how he incontrovertibly, unequivocally, and undeniably was right on every single occasion, regardless of the point, regardless of the postee he was replying to.

                                Your singular friend,

                                The One and Only, The Mighty and Ever-Undefeated and Indefatiguable Iconoclast
                                Now then, I was not attacking David. Far from it. I admire his work and his thoroughness. This is a debating forum and he does it credit with his engagement and indefatigability. Watching him reducing Pee-air to furious tears is one of the great pleasures of Casebook these days.

                                And neither was I attacking you! I know nothing more about the Diary than what I have read of this thread after reading the original book many moons ago. Sorry for being late! Now, where are the ladies!?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X