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
    Hold on! Two minutes ago you were telling me those diaries didn't have dates in or on them!

    Come on, David, you are trying to have it both ways here, surely?
    Ha ha. I knew you would misunderstand.

    No, I didn't say that at all.

    Of course diaries have dates in them. That's the whole point of a diary! What I said was that the blank pages would not necessarily have dates on them (nor the cover).

    This was based on Mike ripping out the pages of the diary with the giveaway 1891 dates - i.e. those on which the author of the diary had written the 1891 dates when making diary entries - and/or removing any other signs of it being an 1891 diary before creating his forged Maybrick Diary.

    But Caz, as I understand her, is trying to say that Mike Barrett would not have removed any traces of the year 1891 in the diary when he wrote the text in it and took it down to Doreen. That's the baffling part of her theory that I can't understand. Or, rather, one of the baffling parts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      They can shift whichever way they want, but if that day ever comes it's game over - if that journal was ever in the four walls of Battlecrease House, it's authentic.
      And so far that's far from proven.
      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 caz View Post
        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?
        You are the one confused Caz. I explained that I was trying to avoid you saying: because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990. That means that I knew you hadn't said it. Otherwise I would have put quotation marks around it.

        So of course I wasn't quoting you - but "demonstrable untruth" was your expression which is why that is wrapped in quotation marks.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          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 you don't know whether O&L only searched their records for 1992 then you can't demonstrate that Barrett didn't acquire the diary in 1992 can you?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            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
            Can I first say that a synonym is not a "definition". To avoid any argument over this, here is Webster's definition of the word "synonym".

            "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses".

            Secondly, can I once again draw your attention to the second definition of "untruth" in Websters at the link you provided:

            "a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive"

            I'm glad to see that you have noted this in a subsequent post.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              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.
              Aha! So now we finally have it. You ARE saying that Barrett was telling a lie - because he must have known that he never purchased the diary at any time. It's not a delusion or an error, it's a deliberate falsehood. A statement known by Barrett to be untrue and made in order to deceive. That is precisely what you have not demonstrated.

              Comment


              • What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.
                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 caz View Post
                  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.
                  But it works both ways doesn't it?

                  Earlier you were asking me why there were no examples of people coming forward to say that Mike had sufficient qualifications to forge the diary. Well, in case I am accused of misunderstanding or misquoting you, let me quote your exact words:

                  "How many out of all the people who would have known Mike long before, shortly before and after 1992 have ever come forward to express the opinion that he had 'sufficient qualifications' to produce the diary - in any other sense than to hand it over for inspection?

                  I can't recall a single person, can you? Was he so popular that nobody who knew him was disloyal enough to say he would have been capable? Or did he use his royalties to bribe them to keep it buttoned or pretend he couldn't have forged a sick note?"


                  But if we don't know of anyone who knew Mike prior to 1992 who has come forward to say that he had no qualifications to forge the diary, then not being able to identify anyone who has said he did have such qualifications gets us nowhere doesn't it?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    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.
                    Wouldn't Robert Smith have wanted to convince himself that Mike was not capable of forging the diary? If so, his opinion doesn't seem to count for much.

                    I don't think there is a "world of difference" here actually. The fact that Mike thought himself to be a creative person would explain why he thought himself capable of creating the diary in the first place.

                    I don't want to labour the point but I keep having to repeat that Mike claims to have had the assistance of his wife. A lot of people don't believe that Jeffrey Archer wrote all those novels on his own and that his wife must have helped him. Lots of creative people need really good editors to make their work readable.

                    The very fact that Mike thought he could write a novel is, I believe, a good clue as to the author of the 'Maybrick' Diary.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      She made an unholy mess of spelling the word rendezvous then, for a sensible woman. No dictionaries available in March/April 1992?
                      How does the word "sensible" translate to "incapable of making a spelling mistake"?

                      The thing about dictionaries is you only use them if you think you can't spell a certain word. If you think you know how to spell that word then having all the dictionaries in the word isn't going to help you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        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.
                        Yes, I'm aware he has said different things at other times but I'm concentrating on what he said in his affidavit.

                        If you can demonstrate to me untruths in his affidavit then that's great - please go ahead - but let's stick to his affidavit and not worry about what he has said at times other than when swearing his affidavit.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          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?
                          As I said earlier, you are confusing definitions with synonyms.

                          And if all you have been intending to show is that Barrett made an error of dating in his affidavit then that was precisely what I said before we even started this discussion.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            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.
                            Yes, but one of the things he said in his affidavit was that the 1891 diary was purchased before the attempt at forging the Diary.

                            Now that we know that 1891 diary was acquired on 26 March 1992, we cannot ignore this fact which suggests that, had Barrett been aware it when drafting his affidavit, he would presumably have been able to state that the Maybrick Diary was forged at some point between 26 March and 13 April 1992.

                            As I have already said to you (but you have ignored), Barrett also told us that it took only 11 days for the Diary's text to be written out. He could have said two months, or six months but he just happened to give us a time period which fits in perfectly with the time period between acquiring the 1891 diary and presenting the Maybrick Diary to Doreen.

                            Bear in mind that some people in this forum couldn't believe that the Diary could possibly have been written out in only 11 days. So why didn't Barrett select a much longer period of time?

                            I also have to bear in mind that Barrett's plan with the 1891 diary would have necessarily involved him in ripping out the early pages of that diary with writing on, in circumstances where a few days later he presented Doreen with a diary that had its first 64 pages ripped out.

                            I also cannot ignore the fact that there is no sensible or rational reason why Mike Barrett would have attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages other than to create a forged Victorian diary.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                              What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.
                              To protect his daughter, GUT.
                              Iconoclast
                              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
                              Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                To protect his daughter, GUT.
                                How? Does it protect her.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X