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
    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.
    And yet the tiny Victorian diary sent to Mike was made for the year 1891. So it seems anyone can be excused for not really knowing if it was the norm or not to market formal made-for-purpose diaries for specific years. If Mike understood that a diary of one's personal thoughts did not typically have a printed date, he might have had the sense to explain more clearly in his advert that he wasn't seeking the kind of diary with dates and just enough room to record important appointments, birthdays and so on, but any genuine Victorian book which could have been, or had been partly used for 'keeping a diary'. It's beyond me why he didn't ask Anne to draft the ad, if he had relied on her to check and correct his diary draft. She said she hit the roof when she found out he had ordered the thing and she had to write out a cheque to pay for it. Not very sensible of her to leave a paper trail (and later produce the evidence) if she knew the order was a failed attempt to obtain the raw materials for their joint enterprise.

    A favourite argument around here used to be that the real James Maybrick could have afforded a 'proper' diary in which to record his private thoughts, so it's good to see you demolish that old chestnut at least.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 01-12-2017, 08:52 AM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      But obviously he's not going to write his Maybrick Diary in a diary bearing the year of 1890.
      So 'tis pity his sensible wife didn't draft the ad for him to make sure they couldn't end up with the one bearing the year of 1891.

      Love,

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


      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post
        But that doesn't exclude the possibility that Barrett acquired the diary on behalf of somebody else, i.e. as part of a conspiracy in which his role was fairly minor.
        Personally speaking, John, I couldn't care less who forged the diary: whether it was Mike Barrett, Tony Devereux, Uncle Tom Cobley or A.N. Other. My only interest is whether it was written by Maybrick or not, and thus whether Maybrick was Jack the Ripper or not. But what we are faced with is Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit in which he explains how it was forged and who did it. I've been exploring on this forum whether his account his plausible. What I have concluded is that, adjusting the dates to be consistent with the purchase of the 1891 diary, what he says would appear to be plausible. There are many hypothetical possibilities but I can't see why I should favour any of them over what Barrett says happened.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Fair enough, so you don't think Mike was in a disturbed state of mind whenever he confessed. His solicitor did after his first attempt, and the police were never willing or able to charge him with fraud even after he made substantial sums of money from the book buying public. What made Mike and Anne immune, when Kujau had been quickly convicted and slung in jail for what you believe was much the same crime?
          I think your use of the word "immune" is silly, Caz. There was never any immunity from prosecution. As I understand it, the police investigation, conducted long before 1995, was not an investigation of the diary's authenticity as such. It was in response to the Sunday Times' allegation that Robert Smith was publishing a book knowing it was a fraud. A report was passed to the CPS who decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

          Now I really don't know what you think that shows. Unless you can tell me that the police investigated the role of Mike Barrett and his wife in forging the diary and concluded that they did not do so then I don't know what point you are trying to make.

          Further, please don't put words in my mouth. When have I said that Kajau was convicted for what I believe was "much the same crime"? I have said no such thing.

          The charge against Kajau was defrauding Stern. He was not charged with making "substantial sums of money from the book buying public".

          Who was defrauded in the Maybrick Diary case? The Sunday Times? Well they didn't cough up any money, so no. Robert Smith? Well he hasn't filed a complaint with the police, so no. The book buying public? Well there was a sticker on the book telling them to make up their own mind, so no. So who exactly has been defrauded? You, maybe?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            What I meant was that Mike had a potential motive after his first attempt at confessing to incriminate Anne and make his next attempt more credible. Obviously your question was redundant if you were seriously expecting proof of a negative - that something did not happen. That would involve constant cctv in the Barrett home from, say, 1987 to 1992, to cover all eventualities, would it not? I assumed you just wanted to hear the reasoning behind other people's convictions that it did not happen as Mike claimed.
            No, I wasn't expecting proof of a negative. I was simply expecting you to answer my question rather than a different question which I didn't ask.

            Originally posted by caz View Post
            Another negative you are asking people to prove? Tut tut, this won't do
            I was no more asking you to prove a negative when I said that there is no evidence that Anne could not have disguised her handwriting than you were when you said that there is no evidence that she could have done so.

            Originally posted by caz View Post
            Clearly, those who know the thing was in Battlecrease before Mike ever got his paws on it would say this was proof that Anne did not write the thing to Mike's dictation.You are free to scrub this from your personal record until the evidence is out there.
            Thank you, I have already done so, just as I have scrubbed Pierre's claim to know the identity of Jack the Ripper from my personal record.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              Do you know which books Mike consulted when making his 'research' notes?
              Yes, I believe I do.

              Originally posted by caz View Post
              Do you know if they matched Melvin's selection, or would have provided the Barretts with every piece of information that appears in the diary?
              No, I don't believe they matched Melvin's selection but that does not surprise me because I would not have expected to Barrett to reveal his sources in what I assume must be "fake" research notes.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Did I say it wasn't unfounded speculation? At least I have met Anne on a few occasions, and she isn't known to have had a drink problem. So my reasoning is based on personal experience of her character, and my conclusion is that it would be 100% unfounded speculation to suggest that Anne would not have been too embarrassed, too intelligent and too sane to touch such a marital project, involving 63 pages of Mike's 'creative' writing, with a barge pole.
                So, given your personal experience of Anne, what is your conclusion as to why she asked Mike (in front of Feldman) if he had stolen the Diary? (i.e. "Did you nick it, Mike?")

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  But your point was that his wife would not have understood what he was talking about
                  No, that was not my point actually, Caz. The point I was making was that the expression "one off instance" was recorded by Maybrick as having been something he said to his wife (as opposed to him having a private conversation with himself in his diary) and that he presumably expected his wife to understand him.

                  Originally posted by caz View Post
                  which is why I quoted the rest of the passage in question, which demonstrates beyond all doubt that our diarist had 'Sir Jim' immediately explain to Bunny precisely what was meant by the expression. Even a backward earwig would have got it.

                  If your failure to quote me fully was not a careless oversight but an attempt at sleight of hand, David, it didn't become you and you underestimated me if you thought you'd get away with it. I hope you can see that playing fair is likely to do you more favours.
                  I don't know why you persist in making these constant ridiculous accusations.

                  The first sentence of your post to me which I responded to was a direct question:

                  "Ah, so you take it literally as a direct quote, David?"

                  I answered that question, and that question only, in my post. Nothing else you posted had any relevance as to whether Maybrick was recording a direct quote in the Diary.

                  After that question you then posted this:

                  "Even so, I expect she would have understood what her hubby meant, seeing as he said "sorry" (or was it "I apologise"?) and went on to pretend that he "regretted" having hit her (in case she wasn't sure what sorry meant), then assured her it would never happen again. So perhaps when he told her it was a 'one off instance', and she said "what the heck is one of those when it's at home?" he was compelled to spell it out for her in the way he describes in the diary. I doubt she'd have been discombobulated for more than a second or two."

                  That was an entirely separate point (premised on an acceptance that "one off instance" WAS a direct quote!) which did not respond properly to my previous post. In my previous post, to which you were replying, I had said this:

                  "According to the diary, Maybrick hits Florence and then:

                  "I apologised, a one off instance, I said..."

                  So he records it as something he has said to his wife, who he presumably expected to understand him."


                  You see that? I said that he presumably expected his wife to understand him when he told her that hitting her was a one off instance. Not that he was expecting to have to explain to her what he meant (and certainly not that he was expecting her to work it out for herself) but that he expected her to understand him.

                  In other words, I was saying that he would not been expecting her to be discombobulated at all, even for a second or two.

                  You didn't engage with this point which, in any case, is a very minor point bearing in mind that my primary case is that Maybrick could not have used the phrase "one off instance" himself in 1888.

                  I might add that the reason I made the above post in the first place was in response to your claim that Maybrick was meant to be "holding a private conversation with himself". My response was simply pointing out that this is not the case because the Diary records him as using that expression to his wife in conversation. So whether she understood him or not was not even the issue, it was simply that it wasn't a private conversation with himself, as you had claimed.

                  There was, in other words, no sleight of hand or careless oversight. I certainly don't need to rely on sleight of hand or any cheap tricks in this discussion.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    You've done it now, Ike. Odd that David has chosen not to ask anyone why this did not happen.
                    It's not odd at all because if you read my reply to Iconoclast I explained that Mike must have got mixed up with the dates, confusing the time when he had been creating a first draft of the Diary (in 1991) with the time when it was being written out (in 1992).

                    Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Perhaps we could ask David how this could have happened, if the diary - faked by the Barretts of Goldie Street with Tony's help - was completed in late March/April 1992, as he seems to be pinning his hopes on. I mean, you can't get more severely ill than Tony was by then, can you?
                    Well the first thing is that Mike does not say in his affidavit that the Diary was faked "with Tony's help". What he says is that "The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett, my wife, and myself". I'm thinking those discussions were in 1990 although they could, have course, have been earlier.

                    He possibly also says that Tony was involved in the background research (depending on what "we" means in this context) but that's it.

                    The only other mention of Tony in the affidavit was that he was house bound and very ill when the diary was being written. In other words, he was not involved with it. As I've already said, I believe that Mike means that Tony was ill while a rough draft of the Diary was being composed (in 1991). Mike then says that "after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly ill". I'm assuming that what Mike is thinking of here is the delay between Tony's illness/death and him actually contacting Doreen and then spending the 11 days in physically writing the Diary.

                    What is certain is that Mike is wrong to say that Tony "in fact died in late May early July 1990" which further supports my contention that he got his dates all muddled.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      I'm beginning to wonder why Mike's confession claims have any more place on this thread than the watch. If anyone sane is still posting on topic, do they seriously imagine there is a single incontrovertible, unequivocal or undeniable fact to be found among Mike's creative thinking and writing which demonstrates his knowledge that the diary was a fake when he took it to London?
                      Well I'm still waiting for a sensible explanation as to why Mike wanted a Victorian Diary with blank pages in March 1992.

                      Given that you seem to be saying that you are the "sane" person posting on this topic, one would have thought that would be very easy but you clearly haven't managed it.

                      Your claim that Mike was after a "similar" diary to the Maybrick Diary makes absolutely no sense because he would surely have advertised for some kind of black book, roughly the same size as the Diary, which, on your version of events, he then had in his possession. Furthermore, he would not have needed that book to have been Victorian, least of all in a specific ten year date range between 1880 and 1890, if he just wanted something "similar" to show Doreen would it? It could have been a modern book which would have been much easier and simpler to obtain.

                      When you have formulated a sensible explanation to account for Mike's behaviour perhaps you can come back to us but, until then, I think you will find that this is the reason why Mike's confession is being discussed in this thread.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Nice mental gymnastics going on here, David, but how do Mike's abysmal memory for dates and chronic chronology problems help to demonstrate that he had any knowledge that the diary was a fake when he took it to London?
                        Caz, if you haven't yet worked out that my belief that Mike knew the diary was a fake when he took it to London is based on the fact that just a few weeks earlier he had placed an advertisement for a Victorian diary with blank pages then you may never manage to work it out.

                        As I have already said, I can't think of any other explanation for such an advertisement other than that Mike was planning to forge a Victorian diary. So, if you prefer, you can totally ignore Mike's affidavit as well as his abysmal memory for dates and chronology problems. I just need a credible explanation, not relying on mental gymnastics, for his need for the blank pages.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          By the way, do you accept Mike's claim that Tony Devereux was actually a co-conspirator in the diary project, or could he have been confused about who was and who wasn't involved? Was it a false memory perhaps?
                          Mike's affidavit says no more than that Tony Devereux was involved in discussions that a diary was a distinct possibility and, perhaps, assisted with some background research. I can't see why this couldn't have been possible.

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          He also claimed that Anne's father donated the 50 needed to buy the guard book,
                          And?

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          and of course that its kidney shaped stain was caused when Anne dropped an actual kidney on it.
                          Not in his affidavit he doesn't.

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          Confusion? Delusion? False memories? Inventiveness? Or honest attempts to describe events that really happened? If you can't get inside Mike's mind when he was coming out with all manner of contradictory stories, how do you begin to assess what is a truth or an untruth where the evidence doesn't tell us either way?
                          I know that Mike has told some lies, it's perfectly obvious. But it's still a fact that he placed an advertisement for a Victorian Diary with blank pages and no adequate explanation has yet been provided by anyone as to why he did this.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            And you know this how, David? Because Mike said so? If he did say so, that doesn't make it true, does it?
                            Steady on there Caz. What you quoted ("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.") is my interpretation of the advertisement which requested a diary with blank pages dated between 1880 and 1890. By any definition that does not include 1891 does it? So he obviously wasn't seeking an 1890-91 diary as had been claimed, which is what I was saying.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              'The' diary is signed off in May 1889. I would be surprised if Mike was aware, at the time of placing that order, whether the undated 63 pages related to events going back days, weeks, months or even years, in the life and times of Jack the Ripper. If you can bear to consider the shocking possibility that he got the thing ready written, it could have taken him some time and effort to work his way through the entries and work out a likely starting date.
                              My comment that he was seeking a diary from "around 1888" meant no more than he was seeking a diary from between 1880 and 1890. The precise year wasn't important because he was obviously going to remove any evidence of it in the diary. He just needed a diary containing paper from the correct period to pass scientific tests.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                How many blank pages did the order specify? Twenty, wasn't it?
                                No, that was the minimum requirement.

                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                Two sides to each page would have given forty (assuming it wasn't interpreted as twenty sides). If the diary draft had already been completed and typed up before Devereux became poorly in mid-1991, and was good to go, would the Barretts not have realised that much of their hard work might go to waste if it could not be squeezed into a diary of any size with as few blank pages as that? Or was the original plan for Anne to use much tinier writing? Surely she had sensibly practised by March 1992 and was aware that the handwriting would take up considerably more space than the typed version?
                                Have you heard of the expression to cut your coat according to your cloth?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X