One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[ChrisGeorge]

It is The Greatest Thread of All. No debate about that.

No it's one of the worst.

408,000 (and growing) views says otherwise ...

It's amazing the number of spectators any car wreck will attract.

[John Wheat]

It's amazing the number of spectators any car wreck will attract.

Hi Chris

Are you saying this thread is a car wreck? If you are I'm in agreement which begs the question why are you quoting me in this manner to illustrate a point I agree with?

Cheers John

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris

Are you saying this thread is a car wreck? If you are I'm in agreement which begs the question why are you quoting me in this manner to illustrate a point I agree with?

Cheers John

Hi John

Not really aimed at you, my friend. Rather it's just a wry comment in support of your argument that the number of views garnered by the thread is immaterial and not related to the quality of the thread or the validity of the Diary as a historical document.

Best regards

Chris

[DJA]

Not THE worst, that probably belongs to Van Gogh but....

Ear,ear!

[John Wheat]

Hi John

Not really aimed at you, my friend. Rather it's just a wry comment in support of your argument that the number of views garnered by the thread is immaterial and not related to the quality of the thread or the validity of the Diary as a historical document.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris

That's fine. You seem eminently sensible. The Diary is clearly a forgery so any thread discussing its validity is pointless and frankly there are far too many pointless threads.

Cheers John

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Assuming Mike Barrett wasn't the forger, do you think he knew who had forged the diary?

Hi John,

I don't think he knew, any more than anyone here today knows, whose handwriting was in the diary, exactly when it was written and what motivated its author.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What I'm saying Caz, to be clear, is that the sense you in which you must have been using the word was in respect of wilful lie or deliberate deception for what would be the purpose of highlighting innocent errors in Barrett's affidavit?

I thought I'd already addressed this one, David, by observing that whatever caused Mike to make untrue statements made him an unreliable witness.

It's not black and white, is it, because neither you nor I can distinguish 'innocent errors' in Mike's account from wilful lies or deliberate deception.

I suppose I should modify my position again for you (since you are having so much trouble with this) by saying that because of the demonstrably untrue statements among Mike's many forgery claims, including but not restricted to his affidavits, everything he claimed is unreliable where it could not be verified, and potentially untrue, as we simply don't know when he was making innocent mistakes, trotting out false beliefs, telling tall tales or coming out with barefaced lies.

I would plump for a heady mix of all the above, but others may believe or not believe whatever floats their personal boat.

No need to reply unless you are still perplexed.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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?")

Presumably because she was sensible enough to appreciate that people might suspect Mike of nicking it from somewhere (given the dubious 'dead pal' story) and she didn't want them suspecting her of being in on it.

Had she asked "Did you forge it, Mike?" that would be a different story.

I personally don't believe either of the Barretts had even considered the possibility that they could have a recent fake on their hands until noises began to be made in that direction.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Not at all, David. I am happily, gloriously, unashamedly insane, which means I can skip in and out of topic with the best and sanest or insanest of 'em.

I meant anyone sane and sticking to the topic of this thread, and I wager you'll be waiting forever for an innocent explanation for the 1891 diary purchase that you would consider 'sensible'. If you also consider Mike's known statements and actions fertile ground for producing 'one incontrovertible etc etc....' that's entirely your call. I don't share your enthusiasm for that particular chase. The words 'goose' and 'wild' spring inevitably to my poisoned mind.

Clearly we would not still be here enjoying ourselves if everyone shared your opinion that Mike's 1891 diary was enough to clobber 'the' diary over the head years ago, when details of it first emerged.

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.

Why black? Why not Victorian? If Mike wanted to find out for himself what someone's personal diary might have looked like in the 1880s (given the only date in 'the' diary is 1889) so he could better judge what he had been given before going public with it, why would the colour matter, and why would he have wanted a 'modern' book - something you seem more than a little fixated about?

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.

I love your use of 'us' here, David. When you regard any innocent explanation as 'sensible' I'll be seeing snouts and trotters flying past above me.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

I suppose I should modify my position again for you (since you are having so much trouble with this) by saying that because of the demonstrably untrue statements among Mike's many forgery claims, including but not restricted to his affidavits, everything he claimed is unreliable where it could not be verified, and potentially untrue, as we simply don't know when he was making innocent mistakes, trotting out false beliefs, telling tall tales or coming out with barefaced lies.

Telling us that everything Barrett said in his affidavit is "potentially untrue" gets us nowhere for it could also be said that everything in his affidavit is potentially true, once we adjust the chronology of course.

Until you can demonstrate any untruths in Barretts affidavit over and above the errors I have already addressed you are not achieving anything by simply demonstrating errors that I have already said are there.

[David Orsam]

Presumably because she was sensible enough to appreciate that people might suspect Mike of nicking it from somewhere (given the dubious 'dead pal' story) and she didn't want them suspecting her of being in on it.

I am perplexed by this answer. Are you saying that Anne asked Mike if he had stolen the Diary (even though she knew perfectly that he had not) in order to give him a chance to deny this allegation in front of Begg, Fido and Feldman in case one or all of them might have suspected that Mike had stolen it?

What do you think of the alternative explanation that she was trying to give Begg, Fido and Feldman the false impression that she did not know how Mike had obtained the Diary?

[David Orsam]

Had she asked "Did you forge it, Mike?" that would be a different story.

If she and Mike forged the Diary, as Barrett says in his affidavit, she was hardly likely to ask Mike if he had done so in front of Begg, Fido and Feldman, not least because he might have said "yes"!

So I'm not quite sure what your "different story" would be.

[David Orsam]

I personally don't believe either of the Barretts had even considered the possibility that they could have a recent fake on their hands until noises began to be made in that direction.

I understand that this is your personal opinion but it is obviously based on the assumption that neither of them were involved in forging it, which is the question we are discussing.

[David Orsam]

I meant anyone sane and sticking to the topic of this thread, and I wager you'll be waiting forever for an innocent explanation for the 1891 diary purchase that you would consider 'sensible'.

I don't think that's a fair comment at all. I'm hardly being unreasonable. On the contrary, I'm being as objective as possible and I've given tons of coherent reasons why your theory makes no sense.

[David Orsam]

If you also consider Mike's known statements and actions fertile ground for producing 'one incontrovertible etc etc....' that's entirely your call. I don't share your enthusiasm for that particular chase. The words 'goose' and 'wild' spring inevitably to my poisoned mind.

But you can't simply ignore his action in advertising for a Victorian diary with blank pages and describe it as "infertile ground". Where the expression "wild goose chase" does leap to mind is in your attempt to try find an explanation for that action.