One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast, I hate to break it to you, but you just described the diary as it is. So clearly: no, it did not matter.

As usual, Bongo's level of expertise can be scaled up or down as it suits you: in this case, you imagine he'd foresee all kinds of difficulties and since he did not correct for them, it follows he cannot be the hoaxer. I.e. because the hoaxer made mistakes, MB cannot have been the hoaxer.

In other cases, Bongo is an bungling fool who could not write a text to save his life or who'd never read a book in his possession.

Producing the diary was taking a chance - it could be succesful and bring reward but it could also be a risk. You're suggesting that since it was risky and could carry negative consequences, MB would not have done it.

Any criminal or quasi-criminal enterprise carries some risk and yet, there are some who try. Even married couples with kids. Usually, people focus more on the potential rewards than the inherent risk. As it happened, it was a pretty succesful gamble. No criminal charges (that I know of) and quite a lot of money.

I read this as "Diary defender wants to have the Barrett story each way he can". Seem like a reasonable interpretation of your views?

And this all built on yet another of your idle pre-suppositions that Barrett was a master hoaxer whose lies were just lies until he told the truth (and then lied again).

Seriously, who is wanting to have the Barrett story each way they can?

Barrett: "So, that was how I forged the diary of Jack the Ripper".

Lord Orsam: "Don't quite like it, Mike. I'm gonna have to change more or less your entire story to fit the tiny window we have between March 9 1992 and April 13 1992".

Barrett: "If you say so".

Lord Orsam: "Well, you've kind of said so".

Barrett: "No I haven't. Not even remotely!"

Lord Orsam: "Don't worry, you will when I've finished with the story".

Lord Orsam took the lies he liked and changed them to a truth he wanted, and you bought every word of it.

[Iconoclast]

Remind me, which auction did Barrett attend again?

And don't forget to answer this one. I want to know which auction Barrett attended.

[Trevor Marriott]

Get a grip of your brain, man.

The only auction Barrett could have attended before April 13 1992 was on March 31, 1992, and - of course - he had no idea what he might find there. So he took an almighty and quite irrelevant risk when asking for a Victorian diary when he could not possibly have known if there'd be anything he could use (or win a bid for) at an auction due to be held on March 31.

Barrett: "I'd like a genuine Victorian diary, please, Mr Earl, if necessary from a quite impossible year - I am a complete idiot after all. Don't worry if you're unsuccessful - I'll just nip along to the Last Minute Shop and outbid everyone for a Victorian scrapbook I don't even know will be there yet".

But carry on.

Ike

I should point out that it is usual for auction houses to produce a catalogue in advance of a forthcoming sale.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

I should point out that it is usual for auction houses to produce a catalogue in advance of a forthcoming sale.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There was no catalogue that has backed up Mike’s claims on any of those days (that I am aware of) which included a mixed lot as Mike described. In the internet age this would easier to find but Mike has never produced the ticket he claimed he had either.

[Abby Normal]

just for shits and giggles start reading this thread from the start.

tom mitchell lol

half the people are dead.

the other half are brain dead

[Iconoclast]

just for shits and giggles start reading this thread from the start.

tom mitchell lol

half the people are dead.

the other half are brain dead

Which half do you fall into, AbNormal?

[Iconoclast]

And don't forget to answer this one. I want to know which auction Barrett attended.

I appreciate it's still early in the morning, Katnip, but I just wanted to drop you a wee reminder that I (and I imagine everyone else on this site) want to know which auction Barrett attended.

And let us know how you know while you're at it.

[Iconoclast]

There was no catalogue that has backed up Mike’s claims on any of those days (that I am aware of) which included a mixed lot as Mike described. In the internet age this would easier to find but Mike has never produced the ticket he claimed he had either.

Hi erobitha,

You are correct - there is no extant catalogue (if there ever was one) for March 31, 1992.

And - of course - Mike Barrett was never able to prove his claims to have hoaxed the scrapbook because he cunningly (before he decided he had hoaxed the scrapbook) gave all of the evidence of such a hoax to his sister Lynn who sadly destroyed them.

According to Barrett, that is.

She - on the other hand - said he was full of shite and none of this had happened.

Cheers,

Ike

[Abby Normal]

Which half do you fall into, AbNormal?

not giving a fuk

[Iconoclast]

not giving a ***

Well that sounds pretty much par for the course for Bongo Defenders to me - their grasp of statistics is never strong at the best of times, but the emerge of three halves to the whole of this, The Greatest Thread of All, speaks loudly to the ineptitude of their general grasp of the case for or against Barrett.

[Abby Normal]

but your a clever chap icon. why waste your time here? you should be off bird dogging chicks or at least writing creative fiction stories.
oh wait . you have

[erobitha]

She - on the other hand - said he was full of shite and none of this had happened.

Cheers,

Ike

His own sister said that? Yet the reams of "experts" on this forum believe he was a master hoaxer. I wonder who knew him best. My money is on the "experts".

[Abby Normal]

Well that sounds pretty much par for the course for Bongo Defenders to me - their grasp of statistics is never strong at the best of times, but the emerge of three halves to the whole of this, The Greatest Thread of All, speaks loudly to the ineptitude of their general grasp of the case for or against Barrett.

youve been accused of being a troll and just trying to wind us up. but i think they dont give you enough credit icon.
your at least an eloquent orc.

[Abby Normal]

His own sister said that? Yet the reams of "experts" on this forum believe is a master hoaxer. I wonder who knew him best. My money is on the "experts".

put that Ancestry subscription to good use and finally confirm for us that you are, in fact, descended from Troglodytes.

[erobitha]

The number of "experts" who all jump in on this debate who claim indifference, or my personal favourite, "no dog in the race" and then go on to try and wield a dagger into the heart of this thing (and failing) is breathtaking. For a subject so many apparently do not care about or spend time on, there is an alarming amount of time spent on and discussing a subject they care so little for.

I used to like a girl at school once but I was petrified I would be made a laughing stock if I got it wrong. So I went the other way, and became a little bollocks. Needless to say I never got the girl and I never needed to act the way I did. If I pretended I didn't care enough then then maybe they will believe I didn't care. My real feelings were spared.

If people on this thread genuinely dismissed this whole thing as poppycock they wouldn't feel the need to fight it so much. In the end it would just be Ike, Caz and I rambling to ourselves.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
- Billy Shakes