One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John Wheat]

How many times are you going to ask this strange question, John?

Nobody can prove Mike didn't write it unless or until they can prove someone else did.

Since neither of us can do that, you and I are in the same boat of not knowing: who wrote the diary; when it was written; why it was written.

I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Love,

Caz
X

But numerous things point to Mike having written the diary as I and others have explained to you Caz . But you chose to believe he didn't which is totally illogical.

[caz]

But I'm hardly the only one ever to suspect - very strongly - that Mike was pulling a fast one, when claiming he got the diary from Tony D, and when making his various forgery claims. I personally doubt he told the truth about how it came to be in his hands, from that day in March 1992 until his death.

We obviously disagree about what's totally illogical to believe or not believe, when it comes to the man who claimed to be a member of MI5, to be dying of cancer, to have foiled an IRA plot and what have you, so maybe we should leave it there.

No hard feelings I hope.

One thing I would say - if you believe Mike held the pen that wrote the diary, I think you may find you are in a minority.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Read all the posts, Abby. I'm not going to spoon feed you by repeating myself.

Love,

Caz
X

I don’t need to waste my time caz. Phantom markings on a watch that just happens to appear shortly after the diary does. Bah..

Another crock of **** that you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.

[John Wheat]

But I'm hardly the only one ever to suspect - very strongly - that Mike was pulling a fast one, when claiming he got the diary from Tony D, and when making his various forgery claims. I personally doubt he told the truth about how it came to be in his hands, from that day in March 1992 until his death.

We obviously disagree about what's totally illogical to believe or not believe, when it comes to the man who claimed to be a member of MI5, to be dying of cancer, to have foiled an IRA plot and what have you, so maybe we should leave it there.

No hard feelings I hope.

One thing I would say - if you believe Mike held the pen that wrote the diary, I think you may find you are in a minority.

Love,

Caz
X

Fair enough Caz. It's clear you agree with me that Mike was involved in the fabrication of the diary. It's just to what extent where we disagree. I think the bottom line is the diary is a modern forgery. Cheers John

[caz]

I don’t need to waste my time caz. Phantom markings on a watch that just happens to appear shortly after the diary does. Bah..

Another crock of **** that you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.

Charming!

They are NOT 'phantom' markings, Abby. And they appeared BEFORE the diary was published.

And I've 'swallowed' nothing. Where have I said I believed Maybrick put the markings there, or was the ripper?

I agree that you don't need to waste another second of your precious time on this. You seem to know very little about this subject, so I suggest you return to the topic of JtR and chill out a wee bit.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Fair enough Caz. It's clear you agree with me that Mike was involved in the fabrication of the diary. It's just to what extent where we disagree. I think the bottom line is the diary is a modern forgery. Cheers John

Where did you get this idea from, John? Did you actually read the post you were responding to?

Once again, I suspect Mike never told the truth about how the diary came into his possession, so no, I don't agree with you that he was involved in its creation.

But that's fine. It wouldn't do for us all to agree.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Charming!

They are NOT 'phantom' markings, Abby. And they appeared BEFORE the diary was published.

And I've 'swallowed' nothing. Where have I said I believed Maybrick put the markings there, or was the ripper?

I agree that you don't need to waste another second of your precious time on this. You seem to know very little about this subject, so I suggest you return to the topic of JtR and chill out a wee bit.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes but that didn’t seem to bother you when I was a noob and you had me snookered into believing it was an old hoax.

[John Wheat]

Where did you get this idea from, John? Did you actually read the post you were responding to?

Once again, I suspect Mike never told the truth about how the diary came into his possession, so no, I don't agree with you that he was involved in its creation.

But that's fine. It wouldn't do for us all to agree.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Perhaps I worded things poorly. I do assume you agree that the diary is not an old forgery though. And you do think that Mike was deceitful as to how the diary came into his possession.

Cheers John

[caz]

Yes but that didn’t seem to bother you when I was a noob and you had me snookered into believing it was an old hoax.

I never knew that, Abby.

I was aware you used to consider the possibility, but I assumed that was all down to your ability to think for yourself. I had no reason to imagine I had 'snookered' you into believing the diary was neither a Maybrick nor a Barrett production. I thought the handwriting could have achieved that much.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Perhaps I worded things poorly. I do assume you agree that the diary is not an old forgery though. And you do think that Mike was deceitful as to how the diary came into his possession.

Cheers John

No probs, John. We can all word things poorly at times.

I don't know when the diary was created. If, as I believe, Mike had no knowledge of its creation, but was merely deceitful about who passed it on to him and when, it's hard for me to imagine how it could have been hoaxed as recently as the late 1980s. But then stranger things have happened. If the hoaxer put the diary somewhere, then died, for instance, without anyone knowing about their involvement, and it was subsequently found and only passed on to Mike because of his [limited] experience with the publishing world, it could still be a relatively recent document, but with no connection with the Barretts beyond the fact it ended up with them by pure chance.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

I don’t need to waste my time caz. Phantom markings on a watch that just happens to appear shortly after the diary does. Bah..

Another crock of **** that you’ve swallowed hook line and sinker.

Elaboration is needed here, Mr. Normal. Why is it a crock of ****??

What information do you have that it isn't?

[David Orsam]

But wasn't it also used (under the name ivory black) to blacken shoes and boots and to restore the blackness of leather chairs and seats? Not to mention being widely used by artists for painting as well as being used in black ink.

In another thread today, Graham has said that he once mentioned on the Forum that black bone was used as an antidote for arsenic but that "it wasn't picked up by anyone." Not actually true because I responded to him back on 30 January 2017, #3141, as quoted above.

[Iconoclast]

In another thread today, Graham has said that he once mentioned on the Forum that black bone was used as an antidote for arsenic but that "it wasn't picked up by anyone." Not actually true because I responded to him back on 30 January 2017, #3141, as quoted above.

Good to see a proper thread back in action. All that naval-gazing about acquiring a Victorian journal and who was the author of the Maybrick 'diary' have dulled my interest for too long. Yes, it must be very rewarding for those determined to find a way to discount the journal as authentic, but - oh - how the debate rolled boringly on and on! Bob Brown might have found it in a skip and given it to Crapatronic University who confirmed it was a journal and that the Victorian period did once exist and then called in their resident expert on espionage and dodgy hoaxed serial killer journals, Mike Barrett, who persuaded them to keep shtum while he got pissed and fooled the world, etc.. Painful stuff!

Get over it, everyone. The journal was acquired by James Maybrick and he was a Victorian (done). Plus, James Maybrick wrote the "'Maybrick' diary" (done). The clues were in the subject lines, for goodness sake.

Keep up everyone - it's hard being the only genius around here (although I have no doubt that the good Lord Orsam will rummage around long enough to locate some obscure thread from 1999 which points at someone else around here potentially being a genius too).

It was Maybrick, lads and lasses. And he should have been ...



Iconcoclast
Keeping it Real

[Graham]

Unfortunately, I do not have enough hours in my day to enable me to read and digest every one of Sir Orsam's posts. Sorry.

But yes, bone black may have been used to blacken boots, restore leather, etc., but I rather think that it would be carbon black in such applications. Apart from which, if bone black was used to make shoe blacking, then who would decide to spruce up their boots over a fairly expensive photo album? I'll stick with the arsenic antidote, thanks very much. But that is not to say that I accept that Maybrick wrote the Diary. No sir.

Graham

[David Orsam]

Unfortunately, I do not have enough hours in my day to enable me to read and digest every one of Sir Orsam's posts. Sorry.

I don't care if you read and digest my posts or not Graham but my post was a direct reply to yours about bone black so if you've been under the impression that your post "wasn't picked up by anyone", as you complained yesterday, you were wrong.

But yes, bone black may have been used to blacken boots, restore leather, etc., but I rather think that it would be carbon black in such applications. Apart from which, if bone black was used to make shoe blacking, then who would decide to spruce up their boots over a fairly expensive photo album? I'll stick with the arsenic antidote, thanks very much. But that is not to say that I accept that Maybrick wrote the Diary. No sir.

So a person who wasn't addicted to arsenic (the forger) sprinkled the diary with an arsenic antidote?

Sounds to me like you just like the idea of connecting the bone black with arsenic.