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
    If only you had, but you clearly have 'explained' it by resorting to a stretching of the imagination which would have done Mike Barrett himself proud.
    So a few weeks before producing an amazing LVP diary which, incredibly, reveals the identity of Jack the Ripper, the person who produces that diary is advertising in a trade journal for a genuine LVP diary which contains blank pages.

    And you seriously think I need to resort to "a stretching of the imagination" to work out what was going on?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      I am sure you are not asking me why Barrett would have sought a diary in which to forge a diary.

      If you are asking me why he would seek an 1890-91 diary, he wasn't seeking such a diary at all. He was seeking one from around 1888. I have little doubt that he would have preferred an 1888 diary with blank pages but how many of those do you think there are available?

      Let's say he places an advert asking for an 1888 diary and gets no responses.

      So now he has to place a second advert asking for...what? an 1887 or 1889 diary? But say he still gets no responses.

      So now he has to place a third advert for a wider range, 1880 to 1890.

      Wouldn't it have been much simpler, and far more sensible, to include the wider date range in the first (and only) advert, thus saving him much time and money and achieving exactly the same result?
      Agree with you entirely up to the bit where you think even Mike Barrett would be dumb enough to seek a diary from a period of time (1890) in which his chosen protagonist had already engaged in a spot of pushing up the daisies.
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
        It doesn't matter. I am not Mike Barrett and never have been. Therefore I am unable to explain why he did what he did or thought what he thought.
        I thought that's what you already had been doing.

        I'm not Mike Barrett but I can see that a person who is about to forge an LVP diary might find it useful to acquire a genuine LVP diary containing some blank pages.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          That's an assumption that you are making Iconoclast.

          I thought it had been accepted a long time ago in this thread that an LVP diary would not necessarily have the year printed on it.

          Do I need to post all the images of LVP diaries again?
          The issue is not whether or not LVP diaries had dates in them but whether or not Mike Barrett, unemployed scrap-metal dealer, could possibly have known that they didn't.

          Before you checked for examples on the internet (which Mike didn't have access to) did you also know this?
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            His 'confession' was not in any doubt, David. It is clear in it that the journal itself was the thing that had been purchased and written in before Tony Devereux died in August 1991. You can't have it both ways. You can't believe his 'confession' only in the bits that work for your theory and disregard the elements which inconveniently ruin your 1992-diary-writing theory (whether already typed up or not in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, or 1991).
            But everything I have been saying about Barrett's affidavit is based on him getting the date of January 1990 wrong as the date on which the Diary was written.

            And everything I have been saying is based on adjusting the chronology to fit in with known dates.

            What we know is that Barrett advertised for an LVP diary with blank pages in March 1992 so I have adjusted the chronology to fit in with that known date.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              An 1890 or 1891 diary is an LVP diary isn't it?

              As I've said already, all a forger needs is for the paper to be of the right period.

              If he's got blank pages to work with then all he potentially needs to do is remove the pages with writing on them.

              Amazingly, as it turns out, some people won't find this in any way suspicious.
              But still he doesn't know that no-one in the LVP were that bothered about dates so his request is either utter madness or else he really was the genius we never thought he could ever have been.
              Iconoclast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                So a few weeks before producing an amazing LVP diary which, incredibly, reveals the identity of Jack the Ripper, the person who produces that diary is advertising in a trade journal for a genuine LVP diary which contains blank pages.

                And you seriously think I need to resort to "a stretching of the imagination" to work out what was going on?
                Yes.

                His 'confession' tells you that he already had the journal. If his 'confession' was false, then his 'confession' cannot be used against the authenticity of the journal.

                It is true that I am struggling to think of a reason why he needed blank pages other than some hare-brained thought to create a copy of what he had in his hands in case he lost it or lost control of it in London.

                As I say, I wasn't Mike Barrett so it's hard for me to explain to you why he did what he did unless you are right and his 'confession' wrong.
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  I thought that's what you already had been doing.

                  I'm not Mike Barrett but I can see that a person who is about to forge an LVP diary might find it useful to acquire a genuine LVP diary containing some blank pages.
                  I agree - if a person was about to forge an LVP diary. That bit, though, is just your interpretation. It's obviously the one you overwhlemingly believe in, and good for you on that score. Personally, I'm not where you're at.

                  The good news for me is that your belief in your theory is no more damaging to my belief that the journal is authentic than my failure to explain this point about the blank pages.
                  Iconoclast

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    The issue is not whether or not LVP diaries had dates in them but whether or not Mike Barrett, unemployed scrap-metal dealer, could possibly have known that they didn't.
                    If Mike forged the Diary then he deliberately did so in a book upon which there was no date. So clearly, if he was the forger, then in his mind he understood that people kept diaries in the nineteenth century which did not bear a date.

                    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                    Before you checked for examples on the internet (which Mike didn't have access to) did you also know this?
                    You might remember that I explained that I myself once kept a diary in a normal exercise book. I also explained why such a method has many advantages.

                    It has always been my belief that people write diaries in normal books rather than specially printed yearly diaries and I've never had any reason to think it was done differently in the Victorian period.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                      The good news for me is that your belief in your theory is no more damaging to my belief that the journal is authentic than my failure to explain this point about the blank pages.
                      I really don't understand that sentence.

                      Your failure to explain the request for blank pages is absolutely fatal to the notion that the Diary is genuine.

                      I'm not sure what "theory" I'm supposed to have other than that I can't think of any other explanation for Mike Barrett seeking to acquire an LVP diary with blank pages in March 1992 other than to use to forge the Diary which he would shortly produce for Doreen.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        But everything I have been saying about Barrett's affidavit is based on him getting the date of January 1990 wrong as the date on which the Diary was written.

                        And everything I have been saying is based on adjusting the chronology to fit in with known dates.

                        What we know is that Barrett advertised for an LVP diary with blank pages in March 1992 so I have adjusted the chronology to fit in with that known date.
                        Have you also remembered to adjust the inconvenient chronology of Tony Devereux's death to roughly March 1992? If you have, fair enough, I think you win this one. If you haven't (and I'm assuming can't) then you have to wish away the fact the Mike Barrett's confession tells us either that he had the journal in his hands before August 1991 or else his confession is not something to be relied on. In that event, you have your magic single-bullet theory for March 1992 but no confession from Mike Barrett anymore.
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          If Mike forged the Diary then he deliberately did so in a book upon which there was no date. So clearly, if he was the forger, then in his mind he understood that people kept diaries in the nineteenth century which did not bear a date.



                          You might remember that I explained that I myself once kept a diary in a normal exercise book. I also explained why such a method has many advantages.

                          It has always been my belief that people write diaries in normal books rather than specially printed yearly diaries and I've never had any reason to think it was done differently in the Victorian period.
                          Come on, David. No-one would call such a blank notebook a 'diary'! They would call it a notebook, and then go on to write their 'diary' within it.

                          Barrett advertised for a diary. You and I know perfectly well that a diary is a diary and a notebook is a notebook. We know perfectly well the difference now and - I'm assuming - the difference then. The internet has not only made the world smaller for us but it has also done that to history. Mike didn't have that luxury.

                          And for the record, the journal of James Maybrick is NOT a diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            I really don't understand that sentence.
                            It does make sense, I promise you.

                            I'm not sure what "theory" I'm supposed to have other than that I can't think of any other explanation for Mike Barrett seeking to acquire an LVP diary with blank pages in March 1992 other than to use to forge the Diary which he would shortly produce for Doreen.
                            Do you mean the one after the one he 'confessed' to writing in the Maybrick journal before August 1991, yes?

                            Whatever happened to that second one, by the way?
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              Come on, David. No-one would call such a blank notebook a 'diary'! They would call it a notebook, and then go on to write their 'diary' within it.

                              Barrett advertised for a diary. You and I know perfectly well that a diary is a diary and a notebook is a notebook. We know perfectly well the difference now and - I'm assuming - the difference then. The internet has not only made the world smaller for us but it has also done that to history. Mike didn't have that luxury.

                              And for the record, the journal of James Maybrick is NOT a diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                              well there's the answer to the thread title, the "Duary" is refuted.
                              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 Iconoclast View Post
                                Agree with you entirely up to the bit where you think even Mike Barrett would be dumb enough to seek a diary from a period of time (1890) in which his chosen protagonist had already engaged in a spot of pushing up the daisies.
                                But obviously he's not going to write his Maybrick Diary in a diary bearing the year of 1890.

                                So I just can't see what you think the problem is. The paper will be from the right period which is the important thing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X