One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

I see RJ has not responded with an explanation of where Mike found the information that Edwin was buried along with James and their parents, if not from Ryan's book.

Uh, with all due respect, why should I?

The Diary doesn't mention Edwin being buried alongside his parents!! The hoaxer didn't need to have Ryan or anyone else mention it, because it is nowhere to be found in the text.

Did you really expect Barrett to write:

"My Dear Brother Edwin has informed me of his disire [sic] to be buried alongside our parents when he dies in Ormskirk in 1928."

I think that even you would have a hard time coming up with an alternative explanation for that one, Caz!

The original point--which you seem to have forgotten-is that Ike's claim that this 'shared burial' was deeply obscure knowledge is pure hokum.

The info was readily available in Ryan, and, as you so admirably demonstrate above, Barrett also hoofed it over to the cemetery.

So what's the problem, other than Ike's poor argument?

If you want to put up more info about Barrett digging through probate records, going to cemeteries, etc., be my guest. You and the early Diary researchers (except for Shirley) are the ones that concluded that Mike was an incapable numbskull, little read on the Maybrick case or the Ripper case, and who, at any rate, couldn't be pried off a barstool.

Yet, the more we explore his background, the more capable he seemingly becomes.

[caz]

If you don't get it, RJ, you don't get it.

It is your claim that Mike used Ryan's book as his main source of Maybrick material for forging the diary.

It was your argument that he got the information about JM being buried in his parents' grave from Ryan's book.

I demonstrated why Mike didn't need Ryan at all for that information, and indeed would not have got the info about Edwin - that he included in his research notes - from Ryan either.

I could use your argument to ask why Mike bothered to include any information about Edwin's death in those notes, considering it would have bugger all to do with forging JM's diary from 1888-9.

If you don't think there is a whole world of difference between the skills Mike required to help Shirley with her research between 1992 and 1993, and what would have been required of him to plan and create this document in the first place, that might well explain the whole world of difference in our thinking.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A lot of it came from "The Shop Girl."

Interesting, Scotty. Would you care to expand on that?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Yes, I've got that same copy. I assume that you can't actually read the inscription? Certainly, I couldn't from my copy so I assume the same is true of yours. Maybe if someone has a clear copy they might post it for us all to see.

Cheers,

Ike

I have a handy magnifying glass, Ike.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I have a handy magnifying glass, Ike.

Love,

Caz
X

And on that note, it just so happens that I bought Mrs Iconoclast a rather nice globe for her birthday recently and - when it arrived - many of the countries were just too small to make out, so - cleverly - I also ordered her a super-strength magnifying glass!

Well, putting the above tale together with my desire to read the headstone in some detail, I find that success has followed!

You are a font of both knowledge and advice, young lady, and therefore a credit to your parents.

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Incidentally, I'd greatly appreciate those tapes being released in full. Not to prove or disprove anything because let's face it, we're unlikely to change each others minds, but I would like to hear Barrett in his own words without the pressure of an audience. I doubt if there would be any great revelation to be had, but all the same. Maybe one day though, before they're lost forever.

Hi Al,

Returning to the Gray/Barrett tapes for a moment, I meant to comment on what RJ wrote about the tapes he once had in his possession:

But having recently consulted some old notes, I now realize that I gave them away back in 2007—you’d get a good chuckle if I told you to whom...

...No, I don’t think the Diary Defenders would deliberately or dishonestly keep back evidence, and I am certainly not accusing Keith S. of doing so. What I do suspect, however---since you asked--is that the Diary ‘camp’ has so convinced themselves that the diary is an old, complex, and meaningful document, that they might very well ignore, misconstrue, or trivialize relevant data...

...Anyway, the spirit of Keith’s statement about the podcasts wasn’t about what I think, or what you think. It is about making any relevant documentation available to the interested public. Do what thou wilt. I see no point in discussing it further.

I can guess who was the recipient of RJ's tapes in 2007, but I'm not chuckling. If I'm right, and if RJ agreed with you that the tapes should be released because, in his case, he suspects they would reveal 'relevant data', which 'might very well' have been ignored, misconstrued or trivialised by Barrett sceptics, I can't think what would have prevented him from retrieving them and letting everyone hear them. They could all be sent direct to Jonathan Menges. Then RJ would have his suspicions confirmed, if Keith Skinner and The Diary Defenders [sounds like a Mersey Sound pop combo from the sixties] have been in possession of 'relevant' material which they have so far not made available to the interested public.

I note that RJ saw no point in discussing it further, but he did make a fair bit of fuss about it at the time, so I'm now wondering why he doesn't simply ask Mr Chuckleworthy for the tapes back and earn the brownie points for getting them released.

Then we can all have a good chuckle.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

...Keith Skinner and The Diary Defenders [sounds like a Mersey Sound pop combo from the sixties] ....

I'm getting images of a new marvel superhero and his band of merry men (and women of course).

[c.d.]

I'm getting images of a new marvel superhero and his band of merry men (and women of course).

But do "merry men" like women?

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

But do "merry men" like women?

c.d.

I find the "merrier" I am, the more attractive they become...

[rjpalmer]

I can guess who was the recipient of RJ's tapes in 2007, but I'm not chuckling. If I'm right...

Sorry to spring it on you, Caz, but you're not right.

The person I gave the tapes to has dropped off the face of the earth. I have no way of retrieving them.

[rjpalmer]

Ah, so it was lost on you - totally.

Ryan referenced a primary source - Dr Fuller, testifying at Florie's trial in 1889 - but in his book he was paraphrasing, not using direct quotes. Now this bit is the clincher. If the Barretts knew, without consulting an earlier source, that the five words they read in Ryan: 'very little the matter with...' and chose for Mike's DAiry, would be the only five words to coincide exactly with the five words Fuller himself used in 1889, then they must have been psychic. 'Coincidences' like that only seem to happen in your world, RJ, but not in mine. If you don't appreciate the wildly improbable scenario of anyone copying verbatim from Ryan's own narrative, and by pure chance hitting on the five actual words Dr Fuller himself had used, I can't help you. Same goes for Anne using both sources, realising that Ryan had simply copied from Fuller without quoting him, and still copying the same five words into the diary, hoping nobody would smell a rat.

I fully understand what you are attempting to say, Caz. Let me just take a moment and explain why this is such an appallingly bad argument, and why I didn’t think it deserved a rebuttal.

What you are saying is that the hoaxer wouldn’t have risked using Ryan’s “paraphrased” quote of Fuller, because it would have been too dangerous—someone might have noticed that it was just a paraphrase and not a ‘real life’ statement (in fact, Ryan correctly quotes Fuller, but what you are saying is that the hoaxer couldn’t have known this).

This argument **might** have held water (at least a drop or two) if I was arguing that the hoaxer was Mark Hoffman, the master forger of Mormon fame, with an I.Q. of 145.

But we’re talking about Mike Barrett. Remember him? The same guy you constantly argue is an idiot and a person willing to take risks. Suddenly you’re arguing that Mike wouldn’t have taken the risk, or couldn't have made a mistake so subtly stupid?

Secondly, most reasonable people would assume that Ryan, in paraphrasing Fuller, was referring to the trial testimony or some other primary source. I don’t’ think they would worry too much that a historian was simply making it up.

Thirdly, this is the same document that makes all sorts of idiotic uses of secondary sources! The diary also quotes an internal City of London police document and gives the game away by retaining the syntax of an inventory. It quotes a statement that Dr. Hopper made at trial---ie., 3 months after Maybrick was already dead (!) It invents a murder in Manchester that never happened. It makes no effort to imitate Maybrick’s handwriting. It invents a Mrs. Ham(m)smith. It repeats two apparent errors that were in Don Rumbelow’s book (because certain documentation hadn’t yet been made available to him), etc. etc. Thus, it is a tough sell to argue that this particular “error” (which isn’t an error) is somehow uncharacteristic of either the diary or of Barrett. It's neither.

In short, I am arguing the hoaxer used modern, secondary sources. I am NOT arguing that he used them intelligently.

What you still don’t seem to understand, Caz, is why various people have bothered to point out that the Maybrick Diary could have been created with 2 or 3 modern secondary sources. It is not in order to PROVE that Barrett used these 3 and only these 3 sources. That would be stupid and pointless. Barrett could have consulted as many books as he wanted to consult—though I doubt he consulted many.

The reason we do it is because one of the prime arguments used by Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, and “Iconoclast” is that the Diary is a deeply complex document—so complex and showing so much insight and research that it couldn’t possibly have been created by Mike and Anne Barrett.

By showing objectively—and undeniably—that it COULD have been created using 2 or 3 secondary sources, one can demonstrates that this argument is bogus. That is main point of the exercise.

The second reason is to test Barrett’s forgery claims. Barrett himself alluded to having used Ryan’s text. A careful analysis of that source shows that Barrett’s claim is highly credible. The hoaxer COULD have found all the information he needed in that book. And you don’t appear to have any credible explanation how Mike could have known this. You only seem to argue that Mike could have done even MORE research…which is a mighty strange argument, and a mighty strange way of looking at it.

With all good wishes.

[rjpalmer]

One other thing, Caz. You wrote above that you aren’t bothered by the fact that Maybrick didn’t visit Thomas in Manchester at Christmas. It’s a hoax, so suddenly you don’t care if it’s not accurate or if the hoaxer took risks.

But I'm thinking that maybe you should be worried.

In those 1995 tapes you mention, Barrett said he simply made up the festivities in Manchester:

"That other book, The 'poisoned Life' one, says he was in thick with Thomas.. He only lived 20 miles away in Manchester.. See the connection?... It's all about plotting... It's just a big circle...The first was in Manchester so the last has to be in Manchester. It's put down like that in the diary. Fugg it, he was only 20 miles away...You don't need a fugging excuse to hop over and see your brother... Everyone visits everyone else at Christmas time...”

Paraphrase: Christmas in Manchester never happened. The murders in Manchester never happened. Mike made it all up.

Yet, using basically the same argument you used above, how could Mike have known this would stand up to scrutiny?

Feldman was doing deep research into Maybrick’s past. So was Harrison. So was Skinner, on Feldman’s behalf. If Barrett was completely ignorant of the Diary’s origins—as you argue--how could he have known that the Manchester meeting WAS made up? Or the murders? At any moment, Skinner or Feldman or Harrison could have found documentation proving Maybrick HAD traveled to Manchester at Christmas 1888. They could have found a strangulation murder in Manchester. The game would have been up. Barrett’s confession could be shown to be bollocks.

Instead, we have the two quotes reproduced by Yabs, which strongly suggest that the Manchester Christmas episode WAS a fabrication. Score another goal for Barrett.

But it doesn’t bother you, Caz. Of course not. You’ve already convinced yourself.

And of course, the bit about Maybrick being 'thick' with Thomas was something Mike gleaned from Ryan. Is it accurate? Was Maybrick 'thick' with Thomas?

[caz]

Sorry to spring it on you, Caz, but you're not right.

The person I gave the tapes to has dropped off the face of the earth. I have no way of retrieving them.

Don't say you sent them to Bongo Barrett??

[caz]

I fully understand what you are attempting to say, Caz. Let me just take a moment and explain why this is such an appallingly bad argument, and why I didn’t think it deserved a rebuttal.

What you are saying is that the hoaxer wouldn’t have risked using Ryan’s “paraphrased” quote of Fuller, because it would have been too dangerous—someone might have noticed that it was just a paraphrase and not a ‘real life’ statement (in fact, Ryan correctly quotes Fuller, but what you are saying is that the hoaxer couldn’t have known this).

This argument **might** have held water (at least a drop or two) if I was arguing that the hoaxer was Mark Hoffman, the master forger of Mormon fame, with an I.Q. of 145.

But we’re talking about Mike Barrett. Remember him? The same guy you constantly argue is an idiot and a person willing to take risks. Suddenly you’re arguing that Mike wouldn’t have taken the risk, or couldn't have made a mistake so subtly stupid?

No, I'm suggesting that if Anne had had anything to do with it, she'd have been wise to caution Mike against copying verbatim from any modern author who was not actually quoting from a primary source, but appearing to paraphrase. If Mike had been going it alone, he might well have stupidly copied five consecutive words from Ryan, without checking what Dr Fuller's actual words to his patient were, but it would be one extraordinary coincidence that out of every potential sequence of five words throughout Ryan's book, which Mike could have chosen to pop into the diary verbatim, he selected the same five words used back in 1889 by the primary source. If you're putting the 9th March 1992 double event down to coincidence, I wish you luck doing the same with the Ryan/Fuller double event. You then have to consider the likelihood of this being a one off lapse on Mike's part, to copy a string of words verbatim from his modern source. How many times could he have expected to get away with doing this by pure chance alone?

Secondly, most reasonable people would assume that Ryan, in paraphrasing Fuller, was referring to the trial testimony or some other primary source. I don’t’ think they would worry too much that a historian was simply making it up.

You really, really don't get this, do you?

Dr Fuller : '...nothing much wrong with...'

Ryan : '...very little the matter with...'

Bongo's DAiry : '...very little the matter with...'

Spot the fatal error, RJ, if Bongo had copied Ryan's paraphrasing, and if Dr Fuller had said much the same thing only in slightly different words. I think you need to read the relevant paragraphs on pages 42-43 of Ryan's paperback, consisting of around 90 words describing Fuller's examination of JM, diagnosis and prescriptions, and compare them word by word with Fuller's testimony from page 83 of The Trial of Mrs. Maybrick. Ryan paraphrases throughout, and you will only find one point where Ryan's words coincide with Fuller's. And your Bongo picked them out.

In a similar vein, consider this:

Dr Fuller: '...very little the matter with...'

Ryan : '...nothing much wrong with...'

Bongo's DAiry : '...nothing much wrong with...'

Thirdly, this is the same document that makes all sorts of idiotic uses of secondary sources! The diary also quotes an internal City of London police document and gives the game away by retaining the syntax of an inventory. It quotes a statement that Dr. Hopper made at trial---ie., 3 months after Maybrick was already dead (!) It invents a murder in Manchester that never happened. It makes no effort to imitate Maybrick’s handwriting. It invents a Mrs. Ham(m)smith. It repeats two apparent errors that were in Don Rumbelow’s book (because certain documentation hadn’t yet been made available to him), etc. etc. Thus, it is a tough sell to argue that this particular “error” (which isn’t an error) is somehow uncharacteristic of either the diary or of Barrett. It's neither.

I wish you'd stick to the point, RJ. Your argument is that Bongo and Mrs. Bongo used Ryan's book to create the diary. My point is that you have yet to demonstrate that this is the case. I simply don't believe that anyone - Bongo, Mrs. Bongo, you or Lord Orsam - could have read Ryan's book and selected, by pure chance, the actual words Dr Fuller said he told JM.

In short, I am arguing the hoaxer used modern, secondary sources. I am NOT arguing that he used them intelligently.

What you still don’t seem to understand, Caz, is why various people have bothered to point out that the Maybrick Diary could have been created with 2 or 3 modern secondary sources. It is not in order to PROVE that Barrett used these 3 and only these 3 sources. That would be stupid and pointless. Barrett could have consulted as many books as he wanted to consult—though I doubt he consulted many.

What I want to know is why you are fixated on 'Barrett' [or even Mrs. Barrett] as the person who consulted the suggested sources and used them to create the diary, when you only have his word for it that he had anything to do with it, when his personal life had collapsed and he was trying to salvage something - anything - from the ruins. His word during that period is not worth thruppence, because he lied - all the time - and you don't see any need to try and get inside his skin and work out why he might have been lying about his part in the diary story. You see the bare bones of a forgery claim with nothing holding it together and that's good enough for you, despite everything you have read in recent weeks that could have given you pause if you hadn't closed your mind tight shut so many moons ago.

The reason we do it is because one of the prime arguments used by Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, and “Iconoclast” is that the Diary is a deeply complex document—so complex and showing so much insight and research that it couldn’t possibly have been created by Mike and Anne Barrett.

By showing objectively—and undeniably—that it COULD have been created using 2 or 3 secondary sources, one can demonstrates that this argument is bogus. That is main point of the exercise.

Well the exercise won't work, RJ, if the handwriting in the diary isn't Mike's, and it isn't Tony's, and it isn't Gerard Kane's, and it isn't Billy Graham's, and it isn't Anne's.

The second reason is to test Barrett’s forgery claims. Barrett himself alluded to having used Ryan’s text. A careful analysis of that source shows that Barrett’s claim is highly credible. The hoaxer COULD have found all the information he needed in that book. And you don’t appear to have any credible explanation how Mike could have known this. You only seem to argue that Mike could have done even MORE research…which is a mighty strange argument, and a mighty strange way of looking at it.

With all good wishes.

I don't get this, RJ. Mike was contracted to help Shirley with the research for their book on the diary - their book. Co-authors, working together from mid-1992 to mid-1993. He was very eager to help and was privy to all the research and information. You either believe him when Shirley told him about Ryan's book and he said he'd never heard of it, or you don't. He recalled this when talking to Keith in April 1994, and said it again in January 1995, shortly after swearing his affidavit. He only had to read carefully through the book, on Shirley's advice, and compare it with the diary transcript Anne had typed up with his help. There was nothing wrong with his ability to read and refer to a book when he wanted information. It was his inability to write that always let him down so very badly, and so very obviously. You give him way too much credit by suggesting he could only have known what he knew by 1994/5 if he had used Ryan's book to create the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[Yabs]

Hi all.
More of Fuller’s quote, if it helps...

He had lost some sensation and felt numb. The examination lasted over an hour. I found there was nothing the matter with him, I told him there was very little the matter with him, but that he was suffering from indigestion, and that I was perfectly certain there was no fear of p^ralyns The symptoms were those which might be attributed to indigestion. When I told him this he was more cheerful. I did prescribe for him These two prescriptions (produced] are the ones. 1 prescribed on the 14th for him. This one is an Aperient, and the other a tonic with liver pills.
On the following Sunday, the 21st deceased came to my house and told me he felt much better