One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

So you too are guilty of what Mike J.G accuses others of? Cherry picking things from Mike’s affidavits that suit your needs and dismissing the bits that don’t fit?

My position is that you are the one cherry picking, Erobitha, not me. Let me explain it one last time.

In Mike's affidavit, he dates the purchase of the red diary and the purchase of the O & L scrapbook to the same time--1990.

We know that the red diary was actually purchased in 1992, so we must acknowledge that Mike was inaccurate on this point.

Yet you still cling to him being accurate about the purchase date of the O & L scrapbook? Why? Based on what? There is no documentation. It's been pulped.


It's like a man saying "Five years ago, I bought a pair of ice skates. The first time out, I broke my ankle."

A receipt then turns up, showing the man bought his ice skates three years ago.

So do we now conclude that he broke his ankle two years before he bought his ice skates? Or do we acknowledge the two events were linked, he just got the year wrong?

[erobitha]

Um, slow down a second, please.

In the affidavit, Mike also dates the purchase of the red diary to the same year—1990! So your question is misleading.

Barrett claims the red diary was obtained in ‘January or February 1990’ (which we know is wrong). The context then makes it clear that he afterwards attended the O & L auction. Why? Because when the red diary showed up, it was too small and worthless, so he still had to find a suitable supply of Victorian paper.

This chronology is further supported by Mike's many statements where he admits the diary was created after talking to Doreen Montgomery.

All of this has been gone over dozens of times, most notably in David B's "Acquiring a Victorian Diary."

Yes, Mike was a liar, but he was also a drinker. All of this shows that Mike simply got the year wrong in his affidavit, because we have a "hard" date for the red diary: March 1992---as verified by Martin Earl. And why wouldn't Mike have gotten the year wrong? He was on a prolonged alcoholic bender and probably couldn’t have named the correct Prime Minister. The relevant point is that Barrett dates the scrapbook to after the red daily planner. The context makes that clear.

Personally, I believe it was Alan Gray that was unconsciously shoving Mike's timeline backwards, because he suspected that Devereux was involved, and it didn't make sense to him that the raw materials weren't purchased until after Devereux's death.

So you too are guilty of what Mike J.G accuses others of? Cherry picking things from Mike’s affidavits that suit your needs and dismissing the bits that don’t fit?

I think it would be constructive from all sides that we universally dismiss anything Mike said or wrote in connection to how he obtained the scrapbook as none of it is reliable.

Your side of the debate have an advert that proves in March 1992 Mike Barrett placed an ad for a Victorian Diary with 20 blank pages. Therefore you believe that is intent. Obviously I disagree.

The provenance of how the actual scrapbook did come to be still has to be firmly established by either side. Just to be suspicious or declare “surely it’s obvious” is not enough. It’s not evidence.

I do not have the smoking gun proof that it came from Eddie Lyons to Mike from under the floorboards at Battlecrease either (yet). The timesheets for that day make it equally as compelling as the diary ad, if not more in my view.

[rjpalmer]

Yet in his sworn affidavit he claims he bought the scrapbook in 1990. Why wait two years to buy a diary if he already had what he needed?

Um, slow down a second, please.

In the affidavit, Mike also dates the purchase of the red diary to the same year—1990! So your question is misleading.

Barrett claims the red diary was obtained in ‘January or February 1990’ (which we know is wrong). The context then makes it clear that he afterwards attended the O & L auction. Why? Because when the red diary showed up, it was too small and worthless, so he still had to find a suitable supply of Victorian paper.

This chronology is further supported by Mike's many statements where he admits the diary was created after talking to Doreen Montgomery.

All of this has been gone over dozens of times, most notably in David B's "Acquiring a Victorian Diary."

Yes, Mike was a liar, but he was also a drinker. All of this shows that Mike simply got the year wrong in his affidavit, because we have a "hard" date for the red diary: March 1992---as verified by Martin Earl. And why wouldn't Mike have gotten the year wrong? He was on a prolonged alcoholic bender and probably couldn’t have named the correct Prime Minister. The relevant point is that Barrett dates the scrapbook to after the red daily planner. The context makes that clear.

Personally, I believe it was Alan Gray that was unconsciously shoving Mike's timeline backwards, because he suspected that Devereux was involved, and it didn't make sense to him that the raw materials weren't purchased until after Devereux's death.

[Mike J. G.]

Who said Eddie gave it to Mike for free? I didn’t.

Caz might know more, but perhaps she can answer this - did Robert Smith, Mike and Eddie all met at The Saddle not long after all this broke? If so, what was the reason for Eddie’s presence? Why was he there?

Put it this way, in Liverpool, Eddie could've gotten a bit more for his troubles than what Mike Barrett could've paid him in a pub while also keeping money for ale...

I imagine Eddie was there to help bolster the story of having found a diary in the house, if that was the particular provenance being bandied about back then. It's hard to remember which origin story is being vouched for sometimes, which is often what happens when people genuinely find things, he wrote, sarcastically.

[Mike J. G.]

Eddie Lyons found a biscuit tin
from beneath the old boards at the house
he opened it and gasped
then tiptoed as gently as a mouse

He located a phone-box along Aigburth road
he knew not who to call, if truth be told
and so he finally dialed the operator
and magic would unfold...

"can I help you?" said the voice as Eddie scratched his chin
"Er, yeah, I found a bloody diary in a bleedin' biscuit tin!"
"Ah, one moment, please!" said the voice then in quick-time
before patching him through to a random university line!

[erobitha]

Mike certainly was brilliant at not only finding and sourcing an 1891 diary, but he was also brilliantly adept at convincing people to hand over potentially valuable artifacts in pubs based on tales of his writing jaunts. Interesting bloke, Mike.

It's 2021, and your preferred source of provenance, Eddie Lyons, has never so much as spoken of where he took the diary to be looked at, or who looked at it. He's never explained why he thought it best to take an item, that you seem to think he would be blamed for stealing, from the house in which it was found and to a mystery place in town to be checked by a completely unknown person who apparently decided to stay out of the limelight when the story hit the local news, and then just hand it over the Barrett, free of charge so that Barrett could seemingly sit around the house trying to locate other Victorian scrapbooks on some madman's quest to see how easy sourcing such things could be.

Who said Eddie gave it to Mike for free? I didn’t.

Caz might know more, but perhaps she can answer this - did Robert Smith, Mike and Eddie all met at The Saddle not long after all this broke? If so, what was the reason for Eddie’s presence? Why was he there?

[Mike J. G.]

Please don’t assume anything of me, I’m sure I’d just disappoint.

I will give you this. Mike was brilliant at sourcing and locating a small 1891 diary and we have the advert to prove it. He definitely was an expert at that.

When in 1995 he had the chance to finally reveal just when and where in March 1992 did he eventually get the scrapbook that was to become this document, he plumped for January 1990.

Mike certainly was brilliant at not only finding and sourcing an 1891 diary, but he was also brilliantly adept at convincing people to hand over potentially valuable artifacts in pubs based on tales of his writing jaunts. Interesting bloke, Mike.

It's 2021, and your preferred source of provenance, Eddie Lyons, has never so much as spoken of where he took the diary to be looked at, or who looked at it. He's never explained why he thought it best to take an item, that you seem to think he would be blamed for stealing, from the house in which it was found and to a mystery place in town to be checked by a completely unknown person who apparently decided to stay out of the limelight when the story hit the local news, and then just hand it over the Barrett, free of charge so that Barrett could seemingly sit around the house trying to locate other Victorian scrapbooks on some madman's quest to see how easy sourcing such things could be.

[erobitha]

The point being, you're ignoring the blatant issue of Mike even trying to source a Victorian book to begin with.



Why on earth would Eddie part with something he'd just deemed important enough to take to the local university?

Why on earth would he listen to Mike's stories and then be satisfied that this potentially important, historical and valuable artifact was better off with him so he could...what, write about it?

Why would Eddie just give it away when he could've sold it to one of the many antique bookshops in the city?

I know that when I find interesting artifacts, I take them to be vetted by university professors and then I take them to the pub and give them away to drunks for free.



Mate, I'm going to assume that you're savvy enough to distinguish the difference in probability and possibility between locating a nondescript Victorian scrapbook and locating the foreskin of a long-dead human regardless of nationality or military ranking...

A funny idea, foreskins and all, but getting hold of a Victorian era scrapbook is something Mike did. And we're now being asked to believe that he did it to make comparisons... What those comparisons are or why they were possibly needed is something we'll all have to guess at while drinking Kool-Aid in Jonestown, I'm sure.

Please don’t assume anything of me, I’m sure I’d just disappoint.

I will give you this. Mike was brilliant at sourcing and locating a small 1891 diary and we have the advert to prove it. He definitely was an expert at that.

When in 1995 he had the chance to finally reveal just when and where in March 1992 did he eventually get the scrapbook that was to become this document, he plumped for January 1990.

[Mike J. G.]

You have answered your own question. How easy is it to source with blank pages? If I have been hoodwinked, how is easy enough for someone to do it? Answer is no it isn’t easy, because I have needed up with a useless 1891 diary. At the very least now I know getting such a thing to start with is not that easy.

It was apparently easy enough for Mike to source, because he sourced it.

Why Mike would even fathom taking any amount of time to try sourcing a book in order to see if someone else could source a book in the hopes that this would somehow make what Mike held in his hands seem more legitimate is absolutely out of this world, but I digress...

I wonder if the bloke who found Dick 3 under that supermarket car park wrote off to India in the hopes of seeing how easy it would be to secure a skeleton or whether he just found said skeleton and notified the proper people?

People who find genuine artifacts of interest don't tend to go about seeing if they can feasibly recreate the event to determine whether it's realistic or not. That we're being asked to believe this very thing in this very thread is not surprising, but it is depressing.

[erobitha]

A better question you should be asking is:

Why did Mike need the so-called "demonstration diary" to be complete with blank pages?

If all Mike is doing is seeing how easily obtained such a book is to begin with, then why the need for blank pages?

You have answered your own question. How easy is it to source with blank pages? If I have been hoodwinked, how is easy enough for someone to do it? Answer is no it isn’t easy, because I have needed up with a useless 1891 diary. At the very least now I know getting such a thing to start with is not that easy.

[Mike J. G.]

You’re right, I’m focusing too much on the scrapbook itself.........maybe because that is the thing we are actually discussing.

The point being, you're ignoring the blatant issue of Mike even trying to source a Victorian book to begin with.

Eddie gave Mike the book “to do something with” after giving Eddie a grand story about his writing career. Mike was instantly suspicious and wanted to make sure he was not being hood winked. If someone like Eddie or someone like Eddie forge something like this how would they go about it? Hence the ad.

Why on earth would Eddie part with something he'd just deemed important enough to take to the local university?

Why on earth would he listen to Mike's stories and then be satisfied that this potentially important, historical and valuable artifact was better off with him so he could...what, write about it?

Why would Eddie just give it away when he could've sold it to one of the many antique bookshops in the city?

I know that when I find interesting artifacts, I take them to be vetted by university professors and then I take them to the pub and give them away to drunks for free.

It’s funny how those who believe the ad being placed after talking to Doreen is proof of their argument when I see it as the opposite.

“Here, I have Napoleon’s foreskin here, fancy buying it?”.

“Oh yes please”.

{hangs up phone}

”Anne, know anyone who can get us Victorian French forsekin - I’ve hooked us a buyer. I’m sure I can get what we need on eBay! We have it all done and dusted in a week no doubt!”

Mate, I'm going to assume that you're savvy enough to distinguish the difference in probability and possibility between locating a nondescript Victorian scrapbook and locating the foreskin of a long-dead human regardless of nationality or military ranking...

A funny idea, foreskins and all, but getting hold of a Victorian era scrapbook is something Mike did. And we're now being asked to believe that he did it to make comparisons... What those comparisons are or why they were possibly needed is something we'll all have to guess at while drinking Kool-Aid in Jonestown, I'm sure.

[Mike J. G.]

It wasn’t the same book. If it was you would have your connection.

You can dismiss the need for something to compare all you want, but perhaps Mike was suspicious and wanted to see for himself how easy it was to purchase such an artefact himself? I can see logic in that.


Turns out it wasn’t that easy because he ended up with an 1891 diary.

A better question you should be asking is:

Why did Mike need the so-called "demonstration diary" to be complete with blank pages?

If all Mike is doing is seeing how easily obtained such a book is to begin with, then why the need for blank pages?

[erobitha]

You're focusing too much on the book itself and not enough on the fact that he was even trying to locate such a book in the first place.

I can certainly discount the need to compare, because it's frankly a completely nonsensical excuse for why Mike would want to be looking for Victorian scrapbooks. I mean, for what logical, sound reason could Mike need to compare anything?

Mike: Right, love, I've found a bloody old diary here, think it's that bloke, James Maybrick, and he's basically admitting to be Jack the Ripper!

Anne: How can you be so sure, though? You better get hold of a Victorian scrapbook to make detailed comparisons, stick your goggles on, Mike, I'll fetch the lab coat!

You’re right, I’m focusing too much on the scrapbook itself.........maybe because that is the thing we are actually discussing.

Eddie gave Mike the book “to do something with” after giving Eddie a grand story about his writing career. Mike was instantly suspicious and wanted to make sure he was not being hood winked. If someone like Eddie or someone Eddie knew forged something like this, how would they go about it? Hence the ad.

It’s funny how those who believe the ad being placed after talking to Doreen is proof of their argument when I see it as the opposite.

“Here, I have Napoleon’s foreskin here, fancy buying it?”.

“Oh yes please”.

{hangs up phone}

”Anne, know anyone who can get us Victorian French forsekin - I’ve hooked us a buyer. I’m sure I can get what we need on eBay! We have it all done and dusted in a week no doubt!”

[Mike J. G.]

It wasn’t the same book. If it was you would have your connection.

You can dismiss the need for something to compare all you want, but perhaps Mike was suspicious and wanted to see for himself how easy it was to purchase such an artefact himself? I can see logic in that.


Turns out it wasn’t that easy because he ended up with an 1891 diary.

You're focusing too much on the book itself and not enough on the fact that he was even trying to locate such a book in the first place.

I can certainly discount the need to compare, because it's frankly a completely nonsensical excuse for why Mike would want to be looking for Victorian scrapbooks. I mean, for what logical, sound reason could Mike need to compare anything?

Mike: Right, love, I've found a bloody old diary here, think it's that bloke, James Maybrick, and he's basically admitting to be Jack the Ripper!

Anne: How can you be so sure, though? You better get hold of a Victorian scrapbook to make detailed comparisons, stick your goggles on, Mike, I'll fetch the lab coat!

[erobitha]

I'm not sure how you can claim that there is no connection between Mike Barrett actively seeking out a Victorian-era scrapbook with blank pages and Mike Barrett producing to a publisher a Victorian diary supposedly written by local Scouse poison victim James Maybrick, confessing to be Jack the Ripper.

It's a pretty big connection.

It wasn’t the same book. If it was you would have your connection.

You can dismiss the need for something to compare all you want, but perhaps Mike was suspicious and wanted to see for himself how easy it was to purchase such an artefact himself? I can see logic in that.


Turns out it wasn’t that easy because he ended up with an 1891 diary.