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 David Orsam View Post
    I can hardly believe what I'm reading.

    Firstly, yes that very option has been suggested by both Iconoclast and StevenOwl in this thread.

    Secondly, you agreed with them!

    You actually quoted Iconoclast as saying "He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk taking the original" and, in response, you said(#2361): "I think your interpretation is a definite possibility". You even said: "He may have wanted enough blank pages to copy out some particularly significant parts of the text, to give Doreen a taste of what he had on offer and gauge her interest, before parting with the 63-page guard book itself."

    Isn't that what you are now describing as one of Mike's "more insane ideas"?

    Really Caz I don't know what it is you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that Mike wanted to copy out the diary text into a Victorian diary and show it to Doreen while telling Doreen that this wasn't the real Maybrick Diary?

    What would have been the point of that?

    I mean, what would have been the point of going to all the trouble and expense of writing it out in a genuine Victorian Diary when he could have just written it out in a modern exercise book or prepared a typed transcript?

    And, indeed, wasn't the very reason that Mike and Anne said they had the whole diary transcribed on their computer because they prepared it for Doreen in March 1992?

    Surely if Mike wanted to show Doreen what the Diary looked like he could have just shown her some photographs couldn't he, if he was worried about transporting the diary itself?

    Copying out the text of the Diary into another Victorian diary to show Doreen what a Victorian diary with writing in it looked like????? Seriously????
    I will not address the above strangeness, David, as I think I have now clarified what I had in mind (and what I didn't, which is much of what you wrote above) sufficiently well for anyone of your intelligence to grasp.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      I love the way you realise by the second sentence that the suggestion in the first sentence doesn't make sense of Mike specifying a diary with blank pages. So you basically end up with a suggestion that makes no sense and does not explain what Mike was doing.
      Then you must also love the way you can sit back and not even try to see this from a totally ignorant Mike's perspective, because you have absolutely no clue whether he had the means or the motive, much less the opportunity, to be involved at the diary's creation stage, and you are guessing he had all three - in spades.

      I fully admit I don't have that luxury, but I don't envy you for it either. It is what it is.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        Your criticism that the watch has been sidelined (using any word you like to replace sidelined) was a very strange one to make in this thread when the thread is nothing to do with the watch. That is what prompted my response that the answer is obvious. As far as I am aware no-one else has made a similar criticism in this thread because it's a thread about the Diary.
        More observation than criticism, David, but I don't think I was addressing you personally in any case when I observed that the watch tends to get sidelined. Had I appreciated that you had only ever read and posted to this Maybrick thread, and would therefore find it a 'very strange' thing to write on this thread, I might have thought to qualify my remark at the time, with something like: "For the benefit of anyone who doesn't follow any of the debates on the numerous other Maybrick threads, I have observed that the watch tends to get sidelined on any that are not specifically watch related. But you [insert name of poster who brought it up] should not have mentioned it here and I should be spanked soundly if I fail to qualify my observation adequately, so that someone seeing it here might find it 'very strange'."

        I wonder if it's just me, or if anyone else finds the way you debate the subject of this thread 'very strange' indeed?

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 01-11-2017, 06:57 AM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Well Caz I have to remind you what appears in your book (p.167):

          "Having searched through the company’s files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that ‘no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett’s statement exists.’"

          So Kevin Whay, who was a director of O&L, says only that a search was conducted on "both sides of the alleged sale date". The alleged sale date in Barrett's affidavit was "the end of January 1990".
          I don't know what Whay meant by 'on both sides of', but then I don't know what you meant by claiming he 'only' said the above. It's very strange because my copy of Ripper Diary (same page) quotes Whay also saying: Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes.

          So Caz, rather than me asking questions about what you did or did not do, why not tell us straight and plain: Did O&L conduct a search of their files and archives for the period March/April 1992 and did this search enable them to state categorically that Mike Barrett did not purchase a Victorian scrapbook from them at that time?
          I don't know, David. Do you know they would have needed to, in order to conclude that Mike had never completed an obligatory registration form; that he didn't get the guard book from O&L; and that he was talking through his hat about the manner in which they had conducted their sales at any time?

          To add to Mike's dating problems, he gave his private investigator Alan Gray two dates for his claimed purchase, three years apart. One was 1987, the other 1990. If he really wanted Gray to help him prove he got the thing from O&L, very shortly before handing over the finished product in April 1992, and wasn't just giving everyone the runaround, he wasn't making things easy, was he? Since Gray pointed out the three-year discrepancy, having cautioned Mike not to be seen 'telling any more lies', he would have realised if he was just getting his years badly confused. Why did it not occur to him to ask Shirley, Doreen, Robert or Keith (if he wasn't willing or able to ask Anne, his partner-in-crime) to confirm when he first took the diary to London? He would then have known well before the start of 1995 that he must have attended the auction that same year, not even a month before he and Anne would have put the finishing touches to the diary.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Last edited by caz; 01-11-2017, 08:08 AM.
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            Caz – this is the very reason why I asked you to take my earlier posts into account before replying to me: so that you didn't respond (as I knew you inevitably would) by saying that, because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990, so that this claim is "a demonstrable untruth." This is an utterly futile response if the answer is that Barrett got his chronology wrong.
            I agree it would have been an utterly futile response if I had written this pile of crap, David, but I didn't. Is this why you only put speech marks at the end, because at the beginning you knew you were misquoting me but got confused as you went along and actually thought I'd written this?

            I don't know if O&L only searched their records for 1990, but I don't recall claiming it was the search that demonstrated an untruth in Mike's statement. I can only repeat that Mike could not have got the guard book in 1990, as he claimed, if he didn't get it until after he acquired the 1891 diary, as he claimed in the same statement. Conversely, he could not have acquired the 1891 diary before the guard book, as he claimed, if he got the guard book in 1990, as he claimed in the same statement.

            If he got his chronology wrong then him saying that he bought the scrapbook is 1990 is no more than an error of dating not an untruth. Given that he also says in his affidavit that he bought the 1891 diary before the scrapbook and that we know for a fact that this purchase was in March 1992, it is reasonable to suppose that "1990" is a dating error isn't it?
            An untruth can be a delusion or an error, as I have demonstrated previously with this link (you don't need to search beyond the very first two definitions):

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/untruth

            And yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that 1990 was just another of Mike's dating errors, while trying to figure out how to make at least one of his various and varied forgery confessions credible when compared to facts that could be established. But he could have said 1987 (which he did at one point), 1992, or anything in between, and it would still not have been anywhere close to a demonstrable truth that he was ever at O&L, bidding for that guard book.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Last edited by caz; 01-11-2017, 08:53 AM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              Im not aware of anyone who knew him before March 1992 who has expressed an opinion on the subject either way. I don't even know if anyone has been asked.

              But perhaps you can tell me: Who are all these people who knew him prior to March 1992 who have expressed an opinion that he did not have sufficient qualifications to do it then?
              Buggered if I know, David. Maybe Mike locked himself away until 1992 so nobody could get to know him well enough to comment. Doesn't stop people commenting here today, when they didn't know him from Adam, so I just wondered why we don't hear about his sufficient qualifications from anyone who would have been sufficiently qualified to judge back in 1992.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                He wanted to write a novel did he? So he at least thought he was capable of creative fiction. What else is the Diary but creative fiction?
                Absolutely, David. But there's a world of difference between thinking oneself capable of something and actually doing it and getting away with it. Remember, it was Robert Smith who published the diary and Robert Smith who chuckled with me over Mike's various attempts at 'creative' anything but unholy messes.

                With the diary, on his own account in his affidavit, he had his sensible wife writing everything out for him and thus checking everything first so he wasnt going to be mistaking organisms for orgasms or getting dates the wrong way round.
                She made an unholy mess of spelling the word rendezvous then, for a sensible woman. No dictionaries available in March/April 1992?

                The crucial point that I keep making and you keep ignoring is that it was supposed to be a joint enterprise.
                Well yes, it was 'supposed' to be, but only according to Mike, because his first attempt, in June 1994, to claim the diary as his own work went down so well that he knew he had to come up with something just a tad more credible next time.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  Did you miss this definition given by Websters of "untruth"?

                  "a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive."
                  I readily agreed that most of the definitions imply knowingly stating an untruth. That's just one more definition. Errors and delusions are hardly in the same category as deliberate deceptions, are they?

                  If that was not the sense in which you were using the word when you said that parts of Barrett's statement were "demonstrably untrue" then what was the point you were trying to make?
                  That parts of Barrett's statement were demonstrably untrue.

                  That is a fact which suggests to me, if not to you, that nothing he ever claimed should be considered reliable without reliable independent support. We don't need to know if he was in error, deluded, confused or lying about every tiny detail of his supposed involvement, to know that he got stuff wrong at the time of his most formally made 'confession'. This was his best shot and he fluffed it.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    No. Once again, David, I would be much obliged if you would stick to reading what I wrote and not go off on flights of fancy concerning what you presume I was presuming.
                    I wasn't going off on any flight of fancy in the question I asked you about your views on this matter, Caz. The reason for asking that question was that it has been very hard to work out what your views are.

                    In answer to my initial question as to why Barrett wanted a Victorian Diary with blank pages, you said:

                    "I have no idea why Barrett wanted a diary with blank pages" (#2272)

                    In your second attempt you adopted a suggestion offered by Iconoclost when he said:

                    "He wanted to write out the journal in another document and take that to London rather than risk the original".


                    In response to his post (#2361) you said "I think your interpretation is a definite possibility". So in addition to working out what you were trying to say I also needed to work out what Iconoclast was trying to say. All you said about the matter in your post was: "He may have wanted enough blank pages to copy out some particularly significant parts of the text, to give Doreen a taste of what he had on offer and guage her interest, before parting with the 63-page guard book itself."

                    My response to this was to ask: "You do realise that you are suggesting here that Barrett was intending to present Doreen with a forged 1888 diary written by Maybrick?"

                    It was in the form of a question because I could simply not work out what it was you were saying, or rather what it was you believed Iconoclast was saying. And the reason I framed it like this was because the alternative, namely that Barrett was intending to present Doreen with a Victorian Diary containing text in his own handwriting, struck me as inconceivable.

                    Your response (#2629) was "No, I wasn't actually, David" without any further explanation. All you said was "there has to be an explanation plausible or not if the bloody thing came into Mike's hands after emerging at some point from Maybrick's house".

                    This brings us to the present day. I asked you a further question:

                    "But Caz you were suggesting that Barrett was intending to write out the text of the diary (presumably in a Victorian style handwriting), to show Doreen as if it was the actual 1888 diary of James Maybrick weren't you?"

                    That is what you describe as a flight of fancy but was, in fact, me trying to get some clarification, by way of a question, as to what on earth it was that you were saying. For the first time you have provided an explanation of what it is you mean. I'll deal with it separately but it is, I think, fair to say that your explanation makes absolutely no sense.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      Again, no. Not if Doreen asked him anything about the physical book he already claimed to have in his possession, how he knew it was a diary from the right period, and the nature of its contents.
                      Given that we don't know if Doreen asked him any such questions and, if she did, whether he simply gave evasive responses, that doesn't strike me as much of a response. But given further that he couldn't have had the 1891 Diary in his possession when he spoke to Doreen, the above statement (made in response to me saying that he would have had to remove traces of it being an 1891 Diary) doesn't actually make any sense unless you are suggesting that he might have told Doreen that the Maybrick Diary was labelled as an 1891 Diary.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Use your considerable imagination, David. He wanted to show her a 'taster' of what he had, before parting with his precious baby? He tried to obtain a similar book, with enough blank pages in which he could copy out a few choice phrases from the actual diary (in his own undisguised, inimitable late 20th century handwriting) so he could give Doreen a rough idea, without pretending this was anything other than his own doing?
                        Well Caz even with using my "considerable imagination" I fail to understand this explanation.

                        Firstly, how would a small red 1891 diary (or most other forms of diaries) have been regarded as a "similar book" to the larger black Victorian guard book? As, on your account, he had the larger black Victorian guard book in his possession in March 1992, why did he not describe exactly what it was he was after in his advertisement?

                        Secondly, and in any event, why didn't he just write out the words into a cheap modern exercise book? Why did it have to be in a Victorian diary from within a few years of 1888?

                        Thirdly, if he wasn't intending on making alterations to the diary he was seeking, are you seriously suggesting it would be in any way helpful (or sane) for him to have presented Doreen with a diary from 1891 (or any year other than 1888) by way of introducing her to the concept of a Diary said to have been written in 1888?

                        As a general point, do you not accept that the amount of effort, not to mention the expense, he put into finding such a diary was quite considerable?

                        And this was all to give Doreen a "rough idea" of what the actual diary was like?

                        You must surely admit that doing this would have been literally insane when a few photographs of the actual diary plus a typed transcript (or manuscript transcript in a modern book) would have sufficed perfectly well?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          I must say, for someone who has never met or spoken with Mike, drunk or sober (Mike, not you), and knows practically nothing about the man, you would have him do many more insane things before breakfast than anyone who can boast some real insight into his character. So I won't apologise if you find my suggestion implausible or reject it as too insane even for Mike.
                          What this shows is that you evidently cannot put forward an explanation for Mike's actions which does not rely on him behaving in an insane and utterly irrational fashion.

                          When you can only explain Mike's actions by relying on madness, you should realise your argument is in trouble.

                          I would also comment that your claim that Mike was capable of such insane acts conflicts with other posts you have made to me which assumed that Mike acted rationally. Thus, paraphrasing, you have asked me: Would Mike have been so crazy to forge the Diary in the way he did and thus open himself up to being arrested? Would Mike have been so crazy to confess to forging the Diary?

                          But even though I never knew Mike I simply cannot believe that he, or anyone, would have gone to so much trouble to obtain a Victorian Diary with blank pages for what amounts to no sensible reason whatsoever.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Now you have it cemented in place that a sober Mike could have created the diary in two weeks while standing on his head, you are stuck with only one possible explanation for his behaviour. I see that. It's just that I would actually have preferred to see some tangible evidence (obviously I'm not expecting it on this thread - or anywhere else frankly) that Mike was planning to deceive Doreen with a diary he knew to be a fake.
                            Talking of fairly representing what other posters have said, I have never stated that Mike did anything while "standing on his head" so it's wrong of you to suggest that I have, isn't it?

                            Nor, for that matter, have I suggested that Mike created the diary on his own.

                            But, really, to ask me for "tangible evidence" that Mike was intending to deceive Doreen in circumstances where he has gone to the extreme trouble of placing an advertisement in a trade journal for a Victorian Diary with blank pages shortly before producing a Victorian Diary with 64 pages cut out from the front is a bit rich. His actions speak for themselves.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              No. I realise why you don't find it 'helpful', but you can just keep putting your fingers in your ears and that'll be fine by me. Others might want to hear it and this is not a private conversation.
                              The thing is Caz that I said to you last year:

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

                              To which you replied:

                              "I have repeatedly acknowledged this."

                              Further, you told me quite clearly that I was free to take or leave this "secret evidence" and I said quite clearly that I would prefer to leave it. So why do you keep mentioning it in your replies to my posts?

                              Your answer seems to be that you are talking to "Others" in your replies but I have no idea what it is you want to convey to others who also do not know what this secret evidence is. The only thing I can sensibly say is that you are doing exactly what Pierre is doing in the "I know something you don't know and it is proof of everything but I'm afraid I can't tell you what it is" category. You must see that it makes any form of sensible debate impossible and I can only repeat that if you continue to make the point about this "secret" evidence I cannot continue to debate this issue with you.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                You might prefer it if I remained silent on the whole subject, but since Keith Skinner's Battlecrease documentation necessarily colours every observation I make, every response you and others ask me to give, it would not be realistic to expect me to disregard it, pretend it doesn't exist or allow it to be sidelined while I'm discussing closely related issues which are directly or indirectly affected by it.
                                To this I can only repeat that if your answer to every suspicious event that points towards Mike Barrett having been involved in forging the diary is to say "secret Battlecrease evidence" then it makes any form of sensible debate impossible and I don't even see the point in your continuing with it. I certainly won't be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X