Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    I'm sorry, Kattrup, but you are making this up. If Mike only 'claimed' these things, and was known to tell ten different lies in the course of a single conversation, how can you claim with a straight bat that he 'clearly' pursued any such avenues? Where is your evidence that he received any money from Billy Graham, or attended any auction, for the purpose of obtaining something to house the Maybrick diary?
    At the very least, the fact that he recounted these things in his affidavit shows that he was aware that he would have had other options.
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    But again, why did Mike need to blurt out anything to a literary agent about the diary, before he even knew if he'd be able to obtain anything suitable for it, or how long that might take? If his initial call to Doreen had been after 31st March 1992, when in theory he finally acquired what he needed and was thus able to describe the physical book, when the inevitable question was asked, you might have had some kind of argument, albeit still a tenuous and unsupported one. But the date of 9th March for that initial phone call reduces any such argument to rubble. You can offer no plausible reason for Mike to sound out Doreen on that day, of all days, when the floorboards were up in Maybrick's old bedroom.
    But again, why would he invest in a potentially expensive project without knowing if there was interest? What inevitable question was asked?
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    So you don't see why an actual 'diary' would have been just about the last thing Mike could have used for the text as we know it, never mind the tiny 1891 specimen he specifically asked Martin Earl to order and purchase on his behalf?
    No

    Originally posted by caz View Post
    But the mere fact that Mike 'stated' this was his intention, in no way entitles you to conclude that it was, and he was telling the truth for once in his life.
    I am not. We're discussing whether MB, were he the hoaxer, would have asked for a diary. Therefore, it is pertinent to remember that MB stated what his intention was, namely to write the diary of Jack the Ripper, because if he was the hoaxer, it follows that the affidavit was true.
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Do you not, as a historian, have any responsibility to seek out independent evidence for anything and everything a known liar once stated?
    That would depend on the historical inquiry we're pursuing.
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    You have assumed this liar's motivation for the enquiry he made to Martin Earl, so how about explaining his motivation for volunteering a statement that he, his ex-wife, her deceased father and Mike's deceased pal had all conspired to commit fraud?
    Probably a combination of: frustration at seeing his creation spin out of his control, envy believing others profitted more from it than he did, anger at his exwife, desire to be recognised as talented, sharing the guilt of the crime with others etc.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

      If I may, obviously the hoaxer did the best he could. That wasn't the point. Mike supposedly wrote on his word-processor something that wasn't a day-by-day account, yet he advertised for a Victorian diary, which was not suitable for what he had written. It's quite possible that he advertised fo a diary when what he really needed was a notebook, and it's quite possible that he bought a diary that was completely useless for any purpose connected with James Maybrick. I simply wonder if Mike's advertisement for a diary had anything to do with an intention of transcribing what he'd written into it. In fact, does advertising for and purchasing that diary, as grippingly suspicious at least one of those things might be, possibly suggest that Mike might not have been the faker?
      Although the diary is not strictly a day-by-day account, it is certainly close enough that a Victorian diary could have been entirely suitable for what he had written. The text MB had written was a draft - there was no obligation to use it all, and it could be altered to fit the physical diary.

      It's quite possible he could have advertised in a way that broadened his chances of getting something useful (as we know, the advertisement only produced one result, so asking for a blank "diary or notebook" might have been better) and it is quite possible that he did not know that the diary he bought would be completely useless to him.

      I cannot think of a scenario in which advertising for a blank victorian diary and buying a blank victorian diary could suggest that MB, who happened to mysteriously come by the provenance-less diary of Jack the Ripper, might not be the faker. I guess the question is: can you? What possible reason could MB have for wanting a blank victorian diary, if not to fake a diary?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

        Hi Paul

        I had a muse about this myself several dozens of pages back. The way I see it, Mike contacted Doreen claiming ownership of Jack The Rippers "Diary". So, working from a Barrett hoax perspective, he hasn't created the document yet, but he's already mentally geared up to produce a "diary", in the sense of written by an individual privately. When Doreen takes the bait, he contacts Earl for a "diary", not accounting for the different interpretations of what a diary is, but focussing on what he perceives his diary to be. Upon recieving the red diary, he realises it's useless and looks for something else.

        A diary, as a personal, private writing, can be written on anything right? It becomes a diary if that's what the author intends. But a physical, dated diary book isn't flexible, it serves a single purpose. So when looking at possibilities for Mike buying the red diary, I tend to fall on the side of him not really grasping that concept. He thought he was sourcing his interpretation of a diary.

        (Now calm down you lot. I'm not saying this is what happened or that I believe it to be true. It's a musing, a scratched chin and a 'hmm?' A total speculation. We know Mike ordered a diary. We know he previously claimed to possess Jack's. "He advertised for a diary, when what he really needed was a notebook". He sure did. We can see that, could he though?)
        It's not total speculation, that is precisely what happened

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Straight out of the gospel according to Lord Orsam. You've studied it well, Kattrup.
          How do you know, you said you didn't read it?
          Originally posted by caz View Post
          So why do you suppose he needed an aunt to add to his already succesful [sic] picture of a typical literary hoax, produced by Bongo Barretts all over the globe when they have a spare wet weekend with nothing better to do?
          Nobody else seems to have a problem reading the argument. It certainly helps to avoid misunderstandings.

          You can find it here https://www.orsam.co.uk/bunnysaunt.htm

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

            Yes, I agree, Mike told Doreen he had Jack the Ripper's diary, and Mike advertised and bought a diary, and one can indeed write private things on anything (including a memento book containing mementos of happy days with Florrie), but does that necessarilly mean that Mike intended to write his narrative in the diary he bought? Especially when what he bought was completely useless for anything supposedly written by James Maybrick. I mean, Mike is a complete idiot, unless from time to time one wants him not to be, but was he really such as dunce that he never thought to make sure he bought a diary for a year when Maybrick would have been alive to write in it? I suppose he must have been. But what if he wasn't?
            But how do you know that MB knew the book he bought would be useless? The fact that it was from the wrong year would not automatically render it completely useless; hence why MB in fact advertised for a book from 1880-90.

            MB could have thought the dates might have been cut-offable, or that the diary would contain other pages, some blank, without dates. Diaries, calendars, day planners etc. frequently contain and contained registries of useful addresses, blank pages for notes etc.


            Comment


            • Sorry for the double post earlier, the forum seemed to freeze up and give error messages.

              Perhaps a mod could remove this post

              Anyway, I think I've replied to all the posts now, time to head off.

              Have a nice weekend

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                But isn't that only because you haven't bothered to check? When it doesn't seem to match MB's handwriting, you're enough of an expert to conclude he didn't write it. When it seems to match his wife's, suddenly an actual handwriting expert is required and you can't be bothered to have an opinion.
                Katnip,

                I'm going to try to stay calm here.

                Where did you source this little gem - that the scrapbook appears to match Anne Barrett's handwriting?

                Remember that just recently you were profoundly incorrect (yes, this is a euphemism) when you said that Barrett had attended at least one auction and it turned out that he had simply said that he had attended an auction? Your profound ignorance about this case, unless it tallies with Lord Orsam's case, is misleading (yes, this is a euphemism).

                You need to put up or shut up - show your evidence or stopping 'getting things wrong to make your argument' (yes, this is a euphemism).

                Ike
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  Katnip,

                  I'm going to try to stay calm here.

                  Where did you source this little gem - that the scrapbook appears to match Anne Barrett's handwriting?

                  Remember that just recently you were profoundly incorrect (yes, this is a euphemism) when you said that Barrett had attended at least one auction and it turned out that he had simply said that he had attended an auction? Your profound ignorance about this case, unless it tallies with Lord Orsam's case, is misleading (yes, this is a euphemism).

                  You need to put up or shut up - show your evidence or stopping 'getting things wrong to make your argument' (yes, this is a euphemism).
                  Hi Iconoclast

                  I was refering to this post, where I suggest Caroline Brown read David Orsam's piece about similarities between Anne Graham's natural handwriting and that of the diary.

                  I don't know why that would excite you so?

                  I don't think I was profoundly incorrect, so I find your moral outrage somewhat misplaced.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                    Hi Iconoclast

                    I was refering to this post, where I suggest Caroline Brown read David Orsam's piece about similarities between Anne Graham's natural handwriting and that of the diary.

                    I don't know why that would excite you so?

                    I don't think I was profoundly incorrect, so I find your moral outrage somewhat misplaced.
                    Katnip,

                    This was a debate that I (checking back) note that I dropped out of quite early on so I don't think I was ever privy to any similarities between Anne Graham's handwriting and that in the scrapbook. As you are reasonably equivocal when you use the word 'seems', I have to accept that it was somewhat my bad on this occasion and I apologise and withdraw my 'moral outrage' to use again in the future, probably sooner rather than later.

                    In the HandWriting thread on this site (I don't read JtR Forums - too posh for a working-class lad such as I), I note that Lord Orsam states that (I assume I can quote him if it's actually published on this site, by the way):

                    Diary Handwriting Post #61
                    Absolutely. One can't sensibly conclude from the similarities I've posted that Anne was the Diary's author. This is what I've been trying to stress from the start. It's possible that Anne's handwriting comes from a basic template which is and has been taught and shared by a lot of people, including the Diary author. The only point I want to make from this exercise is that it is quite a coincidence that the one person identified by Mike Barrett (in an affidavit) as the author of the Diary does happen to share a number of characteristics in her handwriting compared with the Diary author. One might say it is a coincidence which easily matches the coincidence of electrical work being carried out in Battlecrease House on the day that Mike contacted Doreen Montgomery's agency.
                    I'm not sure to what extent the two probabilities converge - it is easy to calculate the probability of the work being done in BH on the same day that Barrett rang Doreen Montgomery (you're dealing with known variables here) but not so easy to calculate the probability that a random person's free-form handwriting in English would match elements of another such document. It may well be that the similarities observed between Graham's writing and that in the scrapbook are even less likely to occur by chance alone than the March 9, 1992 'double event'.

                    It's an interesting line of enquiry (which appears to have rather dried-up at some point in May 2018) and perhaps it is an area for future enquiry; but ultimately it is clear that the argument was at least out there in some form and I missed it, so my bad.

                    Ike
                    Iconoclast

                    Comment


                    • No worries mate

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                        Ike,

                        Our Wallace is often flirting with the case. He doesn't like to admit it, but, well, you know, it pulls you in.

                        Come over to the dark side Wallace..... we're waiting....

                        (Of note, young Wallace's contribution to the Wallace case can't be overstated. A genuine maverick, but he got results, dammit!)
                        From all I have been told, the case is literally unsolveable. Not in the sense that it's a difficult riddle or you can get some pros in to tell you what went down, but that it will always just be a spectrum of probability, so it doesn't appeal to me at all. I like to get THE answer. Not an "I think it might be this but also this". Then I see polls where a large % of people vote for it just being someone who isn't even a named suspect.

                        I don't even have an opinion on who did it. I don't know anything about the case or this diary.

                        I have had a few thoughts about the crimes anyway just glossing over, but it's an impenetrable case. It would take a good year to even scratch the surface...

                        When I look at it of course I just think immediately of the obvious things you would think of in any crime, e.g. look at the person who discovered the body etc. From what I read of eyewitness accounts, the descriptions between alleged sightings differ too much and so at least some have to be unreliable. I also bet there's a lot of fantasist "witnesses" and false confessors in this case, you always get that type of thing in high profile cases... Is it considered possible a police officer did this? The victims even on high alert looking out for a "crazy" would surely trust an officer of the law, they were held in such high regards in the olden days I don't think anyone would have suspected such a person.

                        From all I know of watching true crime programs, the police often think "the person must have been a surgeon!" etc. because they cut out some organs skillfully or whatever, then they catch the guy and it turns out it's just some random dude. Maybe he murdered and mutilated small animals when he was younger like a lot of killers. So I probably wouldn't follow that too closely simply because I've seen on TV how often that suspicion has turned out to be wrong...

                        Maybe I'll kill a couple of hours reading about the murders but I don't want another case where it's like... It will take over a year just to weed out false facts... Or where there's not any feasible hope to be able to come to a conclusion that "THIS" is the killer etc.

                        I couldn't get seriously invested in a case when I'm still on the Wallace one in any event. I have I believe the full Munro and Police files coming to me and have a Blood Pattern Analysis expert in contact who I am having review the evidence. I already have two forensic professional opinions but a specialist in this particular area might be able to nail some specifics I want... I contacted Tom Slemen to see if he can provide sources for a couple of his claims.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                          I don't even have an opinion on who did it. I don't know anything about the case or this diary.
                          Hi Wallace,

                          I'm pleased to note your candour (above) and your honesty. Everyone is entitled to come on to threads like these (as if there were another!) and post what they want (within reasonably boundaries, of course, as set out by Admin), but - when you post or anyone else posts - we have an obligation to think about the potential impact on our less informed readers (of which, it transpires somewhat unexpectedly, you are a member) to avoid influencing without information.

                          To be more specific, you made your entry onto The Greatest Thread of All with this gem:

                          Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                          Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax lol.
                          Now, you were entitled to give your opinion, but when I read it I assumed you knew something I didn't.

                          You didn't.

                          Worse, you didn't know anything I knew.

                          It would have been so much more intellectually honest if you'd post:

                          Originally posted by WallaceWackedHer View Post
                          Seems obvious to me the diary is a modern hoax. But what the **** would I know - I've made no effort ever to find out anything other than than a lot of people posting on the Maybrick site seem to think the scrapbook is an obvious hoax so I'll just jump in and join the mob (where it always feels safest) lol.
                          As I say, you have a right to post it. All I would ask of our young, up-and-coming Ripperologists out there is be careful not to assume that what someone types necessarily comes from any sort of insight or knowledge. There's every likelihood that it doesn't.

                          Wallace, if you're looking for a clean solution to a 130-year old serial killer in a case replete with opinion, misinformation, and idle chatter, you should probably seek out a different murderer to hunt down.

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Will someone please think of the children!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Saying the diary could have written the diary doesn't indicate a belief that it was written by a 13 year-old. For my part, I believe that it was written by somebody much older, albeit with the mindset of someone much younger - and the writing ability to match.

                              Quite honestly, I could have done a damn sight better job of the "diary" when I was aged 11. Therefore, the notion that a 13 year-old could have written it is not a "ridiculous suggestion" by any means.


                              Great post by Sam.



                              The Baron

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                                Great post by Sam.
                                The Baron
                                Hmmm. And how I would love to see him (or anyone else) repeat the feat - at 11 years old, 39 years old (as he would now be), or 100 years old.

                                He couldn't do it. No-one could do it. Except, of course, the man who truly felt these words personally and needed these words to understand what he was doing and why he was doing it.

                                I - ironically - thank you, James, for keeping your scrapbook and allowing us at long last to solve the mystery of the Jack the Ripper murders.

                                The Ike
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X