One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

You don't set the parameters of this debate, so I will decide what I consider relevant to include in my responses. If you conclude that Whay's 'never' is even less reliable than Mike's '1990' (unless Mike was so drink befuddled that his description of the way O&L conducted their sales was bound to be unrecognisable to Whay, which would still make it useless as evidence that he was ever really there buying that guard book), there's no more to be said on this topic than there was on the watch.

No, I don’t conclude that Whay’s "never" is unreliable at all. I’m sure he is right and O&L never conducted their sales in the way that Barrett described it. But if you substitute the word "receipt" for "ticket" in Barrett’s affidavit then that might answer the point, or the most important part of it. But I don’t know because we’ve never had clarification of what Whay meant.

[David Orsam]

What??? Awkward questions??? He had by then told the world, via the papers, that he had forged the thing.

Had he told the world he was about to swear an affidavit that he had forged the Diary? If not, then you’ll find your awkward question right there.

But could he not have found some dating clues in the book he co-authored with Shirley in 1993?

Somehow I don't think that Shirley's 1993 book dealt with Mike's forging of the diary (nor with his advertisement for a Victorian diary) so I'm not sure what dating clues you think would be in that book.

Like I said, if he had forgotten that the diary had been forged only shortly before he presented it to Doreen, and thought it had happened some time before this, then none of the obvious available clues would have helped him.

[David Orsam]

But if he was that seriously muddled, how can anyone take seriously anything he was saying by then? It's your problem, not mine.

The answer to this "problem" is that one has to consider the affidavit with reference to known and undisputed facts.

One known and undisputed fact is that Barrett sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992, shortly before he presented Doreen Montgomery with a Victorian Diary of Jack the Ripper in a volume from which over 60 pages had been removed.

In his affidavit, Barrett says he bought the Victorian diary prior to the creation of the fake Jack the Ripper diary. He also says it took him and his wife 11 days to create it which happens to fit in between the period 26 March and 13 April 1992.

I would add that an experienced forensic scientist who examined the diary in 1992 appears to have stated that the diary was created "recently" and other experts who examined it said that it appeared to be new. As Melvin Harris states in his Fact File:

"In August and October 1993, independent visual examination of the Diary ink, by myself, by Dr Joe Nickell, by Kenneth Rendell, by Maureen Casey Owens and by Robert Kuranz, revealed no signs of ageing. We were all viewing a fresh, washed-out looking ink, that gave signs of having been diluted. So at that time there were six examinations that all pointed to one conclusion: the ink was new."

I've mentioned this previously but don't recall you commenting on it.

[David Orsam]

And of course we all have false memories too, drunk or sober.

I'm sure Mike Barrett could which is why I have focused so much on the fact of the real purchase of the Victorian Diary with blank pages for which no satisfactory explanation has been provided.

[David Orsam]

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?

I don't disagree and it can explain why he told some people at certain times that he didn't forge the diary.

[David Orsam]

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

You may be but I’m certainly not. For that could only be possible if I wanted to arrive at a particular conclusion, which I don’t. I’m totally new to the diary debate, have considered various options and have read your book but, in view of the evidence, I have ultimately concluded that Barrett must have been involved in forging the diary.

I’ve read all your posts directed at me Caz and nothing that you have said has even begun to convince me otherwise.

[Iconoclast]

Therefore, it must be at least possible that a Victorian guard book was sold to someone (including Barrett) on March 1992. And that conclusion is unaffected by whether Barrett completely misdescribed the auction process because that is a separate issue.

I have to remind you here David that you are conveniently pursuing the bits in Barrett's 'confession' which you like and ignoring - surely not! - the bits you don't. Barrett 'confessed' to writing the journal prior to Tony's death in August 1991. I'm pretty sure that it was explicit in his 'confession' that whether he was physically writing the journal or typing it up first, he had in his possession the journal which became his brilliant hoax.

If he confessed to this and his confession amounts to the true account of events as you assume then you must drop the March 1992 argument, unless you - surely not! - wish to have it both ways.

Ike

[John Wheat]

I have to remind you here David that you are conveniently pursuing the bits in Barrett's 'confession' which you like and ignoring - surely not! - the bits you don't. Barrett 'confessed' to writing the journal prior to Tony's death in August 1991. I'm pretty sure that it was explicit in his 'confession' that whether he was physically writing the journal or typing it up first, he had in his possession the journal which became his brilliant hoax.

If he confessed to this and his confession amounts to the true account of events as you assume then you must drop the March 1992 argument, unless you - surely not! - wish to have it both ways.

Ike

Whatever David is saying The Diary is clearly a Hoax.

[David Orsam]

I have to remind you here David that you are conveniently pursuing the bits in Barrett's 'confession' which you like and ignoring - surely not! - the bits you don't. Barrett 'confessed' to writing the journal prior to Tony's death in August 1991. I'm pretty sure that it was explicit in his 'confession' that whether he was physically writing the journal or typing it up first, he had in his possession the journal which became his brilliant hoax.

Everything I have said has been based on adjusting the chronology of Barrett's account on the basis of his purchase of the Victorian diary in March 1992.

So 1990 has to be adjusted to 1992. That is inherent in what i am saying. It is also inherent in what I am saying that Barrett's memory of events is not good and that the chronology of events in his affidavit cannot be relied upon.

Now, in his two affidavits Mike uses two terms to describe the process of creating the diary. One is "writing" it and one is "transcribing" it.

It seems to me that the process of writing the diary, according to the story in the affidavit, began with discussions with Devereux then moved on to researching the facts, then moved on to Barrett creating some "typed notes", by which he must be referring to some kind of draft of the diary, to him dictating the diary to his wife and her transcribing it during an 11 day period.

Now, it is perfectly true that Barrett says in his affidavit that the process of writing the diary was completed before Devereux's death but what I am suggesting is that he must have meant the process of drafting the diary as opposed to the 11 day period of the transcription.

If he confessed to this and his confession amounts to the true account of events as you assume then you must drop the March 1992 argument, unless you - surely not! - wish to have it both ways.

I believe I said as recently as yesterday that my argument is not based on Barrett's affidavit or dependent on Barrett as a truthful or reliable person. It is based on his acquisition of the Victorian Diary with blank pages.

What I have said about Barrett's affidavit is: Tell me why it is not true.

The reason for this is that it has been said by many people, including yourself, that the account in Barrett's affidavit is so obviously false that it can be dismissed. I am challenging that notion.

But as far as I am concerned he might never have spoken to Devereux about the diary. He might never have dictated it to his wife but to a professional forger. Or someone else might have dictated it. The entire affidavit might be a fabrication. I don't know. But as Barrett is the person who produced the diary and he has told us how he forged it I want to know if that is account obviously and demonstrably untrue, adjusting, of course, for the dates.

[John Wheat]

As I said earlier David the diary is clearly a hoax. Also I trust what you are saying considerably more than Iconoclast.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

As I said earlier David the diary is clearly a hoax. Also I trust what you are saying considerably more than Iconoclast.

Cheers John

I'm sure he's utterly galvanised by and deeply relieved at this overwhelming show of support from the Casebook community.

If only I could have such a thing I might feel more confident in my beliefs about the journal!

[John Wheat]

I'm sure he's utterly galvanised by and deeply relieved at this overwhelming show of support from the Casebook community.

If only I could have such a thing I might feel more confident in my beliefs about the journal!

That's not going to happen as it's clearly a forgery.

[Iconoclast]

That's not going to happen as it's clearly a forgery.

I know! It's so obvious, isn't it?

All these idiots still debating it TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (a quarter of a century!!!) after it was launched onto an unsuspecting world!

What on earth is wrong with these people???

[John Wheat]

I know! It's so obvious, isn't it?

All these idiots still debating it TWENTY-FIVE YEARS (a quarter of a century!!!) after it was launched onto an unsuspecting world!

What on earth is wrong with these people???

I couldn't agree with you more those that believe the diary is genuine are clearly stupid.

[Iconoclast]

I couldn't agree with you more those that believe the diary is genuine are clearly stupid.

No, better than that, they've probably all been labotomised - utter numpties!

Ike
Journal Believer