No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    I don't see much value in your question as to why he didn't ask Shirley, Doreen, Robert or Keith to establish the dates bearing in mind that he would, at the time, have been preparing to swear an affidavit that the diary was a forgery - and asking them about dates might have led to awkward questions about why he wanted the information.
    What??? Awkward questions??? He had by then told the world, via the papers, that he had forged the thing. They must all have known well before the end of 1994 that he was still on his quest against Feldman. But could he not have found some dating clues in the book he co-authored with Shirley in 1993?

    In any case, I question your assumption that knowing the date he produced the Diary to Doreen would have helped him date the creation of the forgery. It is based on him being able to recall that it was only a few days after the writing session. I know it's hard for you to believe but even this could have been muddled up in his mind in 1995.
    But if he was that seriously muddled, how can anyone take seriously anything he was saying by then? It's your problem, not mine.

    That's one of the odd things about memory. Looking back, years can seem like weeks or days. Weeks or days can seem like years.
    And of course we all have false memories too, drunk or sober.

    What I see Caz is an individual whose memory has become seriously affected by alcohol and who has now little grasp of recent chronology of events.
    And little grasp of reality? Was his memory pin sharp when it came to the actual events, or might he not have been desperately filling in the gaps with what he wanted the world in general - and Feldman in particular - to hear and believe?

    And are we still guilty today of reading whatever we want to read between the lines?


    Last edited by caz; 01-13-2017, 09:41 AM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    • Originally posted by John G View Post
      However, he subsequently withdrew his original confession
      I don't think that's strictly true because he would have needed to do so formally by way of affidavit.

      He gave a different version of events in an interview a few days later, on 18 January 1995 - which I assume is what you are referring to - but to the extent that this was a retraction of his affidavit of 5 January 1995 he retracted that retraction by way of further affidavit dated 26 January 1995.


      • Originally posted by GUT View Post
        Which brings us full circle, how do people decide which of his stories to believe and which to throw out. So many people want to believe his story about Tony giving it to him and disregards his affidavit, others Vice a versa
        I don't view it in quite this way. What I have been asking in this thread is: why can't Barrett's affidavit be true? (That's because some people have dismissed it out of hand.)

        As far as I'm concerned, we don't need his affidavit because we do have a verified fact in that he advertised for a Victorian diary with blank pages only a couple of weeks before he produced the Maybrick Diary . In the absence of a credible explanation as to why he did this, this is enough on its own for me to conclude that he was involved in forging the Maybrick Diary.

        The affidavit helps in some respects because Mike Barrett was personally involved with the Diary and, on the basis that he did forge it, he is virtually the only person able to tell us how he did it. But it's not the affidavit that I rely on, it's the fact of the diary hunt and acquisition in March 1992.


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Oh and the Sunday Times always gets it right, do they David?
          I must say I find this an extraordinary question from you Caz.

          In my first post on the point (#2643) I wrote that Baxendale "appears to have concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently, within the previous two or three years."

          Picking up on my use of the word "appears", you responded by saying (#2717): "May I ask for a source for the above, as you seem unsure of your ground for once?"

          So it must be perfectly obvious to you that I was not saying that the Sunday Times "always gets it right". That is precisely why I expressed myself in the way I did by saying that Baxendale appears to have concluded that the ink had been applied to the paper recently. When you asked for my source (which I thought you would already have been aware of) I gave it to you. I can only rely on the available sources.

          If you have any information to show that the Sunday Times got it wrong or that Baxendale was misquoted by them when he said the ink began to dissolve in "a few seconds" please produce it. Has, for example, Baxendale ever complained about his findings being misrepresented in the Sunday Times?

          Can I ask you this: Are you saying that we should ignore what the Sunday Times reported and just dismiss it as something we can't possibly believe?
          Last edited by David Orsam; 01-13-2017, 12:14 PM.


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            In this instance I hope they got this wrong, rather than Baxendale talking to journalists and drastically altering the conclusion he had reached two months previously, for reasons that are not clear.
            How has Baxendale drastically altered his earlier conclusions? In his report he said:

            "the ink was found to be freely soluble, and I would have expected an ink applied to paper about a hundred years ago to be far less soluble".

            Saying that the ink was applied to the paper "recently" within the previous two or three years of 1992 is consistent with the above is it not?

            So where is the drastic alteration?


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              Not at all, David. I have no reason to think Baxendale was incompetent in carrying out his solubility test or getting a valid result. I merely have to take into account what Eastaugh found a short time later. Fair enough if you want to question how he reached his conclusions, but that's all I'm doing with Baxendale's. No 'expert' is 100% infallible, even though I do appreciate why you might think otherwise.
              Again you attribute to me a view that I do not hold. I have never said that I think experts are 100% infallible and, indeed, I expressly said that this is not the case.

              What I said in effect was that Baxendale's view is persuasive and I am persuaded by it, as I have every right to be. Further, that it is perfectly reasonable for me to take the expert opinion in this case into account. And I repeat that Eastaugh is not an expert in this field (a fact which I do not recall you even acknowledging).


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                What I do question is how Baxendale's 'since 1945' conclusion morphed into 'probably... in the past two or three years' if he only tested the diary on the one occasion. Did you not find that a little strange yourself when reading Ripper Diary? Questioning is always good.
                If you like questions, here's one for you:

                Is the period 1989-1992 before or after 1945?


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Er, no. Firstly, what does it matter who mentioned this first, since you have read Ripper Diary so you presumably know that Baxendale, in his more detailed account, summarised the results, beginning with the 'freely soluble' ink and concluding with: 'An exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945'. If the solubility by itself told him 'probably within two or three years', what was he doing putting more confidence in his erroneous belief that nigrosine had only been in use since the 1940s, and using this as his benchmark instead? Ironic really when you think about it. He was able to question in the July what 'freely soluble' was telling him, choosing to err on the side of caution and allow that the ink could have met the paper nearly five decades earlier, when he thought nigrosine was in its infancy. He was out there by seven decades.
                  Well Caz, the report isn't available to me to read so I have to rely on secondary sources as to its content. According to the Maybrick A to Z by Christopher Jones, "he [Baxendale] said that he had found a synthetic dye called nigrosine in the ink and that as that had only been in use since the 1940s, the Diary must have been written since 1945".

                  That's why I asked you if the conclusion only applied to the discovery of nigrosine in the ink.

                  But if you think that when Baxendale said "The exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945" he was including his findings as to solubility then fine. That is perfectly consistent with Barrett forging the diary in March 1992. It is, however, inconsistent with the Diary being produced by Maybrick (or by anyone else in the 19th or early 20th centuries).

                  So the million dollar question is: Do you accept Baxendale's finding (based, in part, you say on solubility) that the Diary originated after 1945?


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Where have I suggested I was relying on Eastaugh 'over and above' Baxendale?
                    Tell me if I've misunderstood, but your argument is that Baxendale got it wrong over solubility, isn't it?

                    In support of this argument you have said:


                    "Eastaugh also reported that 'it was clear that the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference'".



                    "Eastaugh did confirm that it was 'clear' that the solubility of the diary ink was 'similar' to his Victorian reference material and 'unlike' his modern inks dried out for reference".


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post
                      Did Baxendale compare the freely soluble diary ink with the solubility of the ink on any other documents of known ages, from Victorian to present day?

                      Unless you can answer this question - and the one about his drastic change of opinion from as early as 1945 to no earlier than 1989 - I cannot imagine why you wish to rely on the latter conclusion as quoted in the Sunday Times.
                      You don't seem to realise how silly your question is.

                      Baxendale is an expert of considerable experience in the field of questioned document examination and if he says, on the basis of his knowledge and experience, that the fact that the ink was freely soluble shows that it was not applied in the Victorian period (and, indeed, not before 1945) then that is good enough for me.

                      I really don't know what comparison you are asking him to do unless you want to him to conduct a solubility test on every single known document from the Victorian period and only if each and every single one is not freely soluble can he reach the conclusion he has done.

                      Because that is all he is saying in his caveat. His conclusion is that the document is not Victorian and that conclusion can only be overturned if a document from the Victorian period of equal solubility is discovered.

                      As for his "drastic change of opinion", there never has been any such drastic change of opinion bearing in mind that 1989 occurred in a period of time 'since 1945'.


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        Sorry, David, but this time I don't have a blessed clue what you are on about. But I won't bother presuming what you may have meant. If you wish to clarify it for me go ahead.

                        I will say you seem rather obsessed with the image of Mike having to remove the 1891 before filling the blank pages and trying to pass the thing off to Doreen as the 'real thing' (no shi* Sherlock), which is something I never had in mind.
                        If it doesn't make any sense to you Caz it is only because your explanation as to why Mike wanted to acquire a Victorian Diary makes no sense.

                        In the post you quoted, I was trying to make sense of what you were saying about this. What still makes no sense to me is why you think Mike would have been planning to show Doreen the text of a diary supposed to be by Maybrick from 1888-89 which he (Mike) had written in his own handwriting in a diary bearing the year of 1891 or any other year (aside from 1888-89).

                        I simply can't fathom it.

                        Can you explain?


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          It wouldn't, David. You are not seriously suggesting he wanted to receive a small 1891 diary, for any reason?
                          No Caz. But it was YOU who said he was after a "similar" diary to the Victorian guard book. So why wouldn't he have described the big black Victorian guard book if he wanted something similar to it? Why ask for ANY diary from the period?

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          I thought your theory was that Mike was trying to obtain something much more like the large Victorian guard book which comfortably accommodated the diary draft (but failed miserably, presumably because he worded the advert poorly).
                          Of course that is not my theory. He's never seen a large Victorian guard book at the time he is trying to get hold of a diary. What he is trying to obtain is ANY Victorian diary with blank pages. He knows it's not going to be easy to obtain something perfect so he will aim make do the best he can with what he gets.

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          That goes for you too.
                          It doesn’t go for me too Caz because I'm saying he didn't have the large black Victorian guard book in his possession. On my version he is flexible and will cut his suit according to the cloth. On your version he is after something "similar" to what he already has. So quit stalling and answer the question:

                          "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?"

                          If he and Anne knew the kind of book they were after for their little project (particularly the size and number of blank sides), why such a vague and poorly worded advert that produced something so utterly useless?
                          In case you accuse me of avoiding the question (as you are doing) I do not accept that the advert was vague and poorly worded. It was direct and to the point. He doesn't know exactly what he is after until he sees it. He just hopes that he will be able to fit in the Maybrick Diary into any Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages.


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            I have no more idea than you, David.
                            This really is a key answer.

                            My question was: "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?"

                            Your answer: "I have no more idea than you, David."

                            Thank you for being frank but basically what it amounts to is that you can't answer the question. That demonstrates why your explanation for Mike's acquisition of the Victorian diary makes absolutely no sense.


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              But while you regard it as impossible for Mike to have done this for reasons unconnected with forgery, I don't. If he already had the diary in front of him when placing that order, and had got it from someone who adamantly refused to say where it came from, he'd have been arguably worried it may have been nicked and since reported stolen by its rightful owner. Was Doreen going to say "Bloody hell, Mr Williams! I'm afraid I must inform the police about this. It looks just like the diary that went missing from the Black Museum"?
                              But she was going to say those exact words eventually wasn't she? When he shows her the black guard book.

                              How would anything you are saying Mike Barrett was proposing to do with a Victorian diary have prevented Doreen from telling Mike that his diary looks just like one that went missing from the Black Museum when he shows it to her?

                              And how would anything that he was proposing to do with a Victorian diary have given him any comfort that she wouldn't say this when he eventually did show it to her?


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                No, but then presumably he wasn't expecting the diary to be dated 1891.
                                Well, that's why I said "or any year other than 1888". You are not suggesting that he was expecting to obtain a diary without a date somewhere on it on it are you? What kind of diary would that be?

                                To avoid any confusion between us, can you tell me if you think he must have been intending to remove any evidence of the diary's date before showing it to Doreen?

                                Can you also tell me directly if you think he must have been intending to remove the pages from the diary which already had writing on them before taking it to Doreen?

                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                But if he had merely wanted to offer Doreen a taster, he had a tongue in his head and could have explained that this was the nearest book he could get to the one he had been given, which was signed off in 1889.
                                Why, in which case, wouldn't he have just written out what he wanted to in a modern exercise book for this "taster" and explained THAT to Doreen? Why does it have to be in a Victorian Diary? I mean, what is possibly gained for him by having it in a Victorian diary? Especially a Victorian Diary that may be the wrong colour and wrong size and wrong type (and probably bearing an odd date) to the one he is already in possession of.

                                I appreciate that you have already told me you have no idea what the answer to this question is but I repeat it for emphasis because it reveals the absurdity of your position.

                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                Clearly the little red diary was nothing like the large guard book so there was no point using it for any purpose or showing it to Doreen.
                                Is your point that when placing his advertisment Mike was hoping to get hold of something that looked similar to the large black Victorian guard book (even though this was not specified in the advertisement) but ended up with a small red diary which he couldn't use? And that this was the reason he didn't go ahead with his plan?

                                Why not just pop into Ryman then and get a large black book?

                                Originally posted by caz View Post
                                It could have been dated 1870, 1900 or 1888/9 for all the use it would have been. The 1891 is a red herring as far as I can see.
                                It's you who is obsessed with 1891 because I clearly asked you about "any year other than 1888". But okay, let's take 1870. What would be the purpose of obtaining a diary from 1870 as opposed to one from 1992?

                                That's what I'm trying to get at.

                                And, indeed, yes, on your version of events, what would even be the purpose of obtaining one from 1888 as opposed to 1992?