One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kattrup]

15) David Barett - hiding his identity under the name David Orsam - .

Hiding, huh? Please remind us what your real name is?

[The Baron]

Hiding, huh? Please remind us what your real name is?

A Man with a Vision?!


The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Hiding, huh? Please remind us what your real name is?

As an acolyte of David Barrett, one might have thought you’d have recognised the allusion I was making?

You’ll probably find that The Baron keeps quiet for this very reason.

[The Baron]

As an acolyte of David Barrett, one might have thought you’d have recognised the allusion I was making?

You’ll probably find that The Baron keeps quiet for this very reason.

I merely understand that the scars he left on you are to deep to get over it, one shouldn't respond to every aaah or oooh of you.



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Remind me again Mr. Diary defender, where were Kelly's breasts? and what did your Hoax say about their location?!
The Baron

I would politely refer you to Society's Pillar where I demonstrate conclusively that the placing of the breasts actually acts towards a confirmation of authenticity rather than against it. I believe that you know that because you have a prodigious memory, but whatever.

[Kattrup]

As an acolyte of David Barrett, one might have thought you’d have recognised the allusion I was making?

You’ll probably find that The Baron keeps quiet for this very reason.

Sorry, I didn’t, I just found it an odd choice of words from someone using a pseudonym while presenting “hiding” as a compelling truth and core fact

[Iconoclast]

Why you’d exclude his “unfortunate” theft of a handbag is mysterious. Together with his art scam, it paints him as someone not averse to breaking the law if he thinks he can get away with it.
As you say, it clearly rules him very much in as a potential con artist.

It is true that I had forgotten that very small vignette. I think I probably must have forgotten it because it was almost humorous in its small-scale and its rather puerile ingenuity.

It is many leagues away from masterminding a worldwide hoax of 63 pages without flaw and without scientific undressing, utilising many crafty snippets of Victoriana, whilst making reference to evidence which almost no-one in the entire world had known about. And that's before we mention its remarkable fortitude in surviving unmasked for twenty-eight years and counting.

Saying something has been 'unmasked' by the way ("David Orsam has unmasked it!") is not the same as actually unmasking it. In the same way, 'confessing' to a crime is not necessarily the same as confessing to a crime.

For the record, I think this shows that you have no real interest in finding out anything about Mike Barrett, his circumstances, or his reasons for his actions. I understand (from your recent post) that you 'confess' to be an historian? Are you not meant to examine sources objectively for yourself, ask questions, weigh in with other evidence, and - most importantly of all - keep an open mind?

In reality, you are so blinkered and biased you could be a Barett sock puppet. I don't think you are, which is perhaps the more disconcerting thought.

[Iconoclast]

Sorry, I didn’t, I just found it an odd choice of words from someone using a pseudonym while presenting “hiding” as a compelling truth and core fact

I'd stop there if I were you. I was using David Barett's own description of me from his website so if you find it an odd choice of words you'd have to ask him why he chose them first.

[Iconoclast]

Actually he is already in Kattrup, the man had confessed to his forgery!
The Baron

... the man had 'confessed' to 'his' 'forgery' ...

Other than that, the whole escapade is nailed-on.

[Iconoclast]

10) Between his claim in 1994 and his affidavit in January 1995, Barrett changed his story back to the scrapbook being authentic (as far as he was aware) - listen to the Radio Merseyside interviews.

My bad. The Radio Merseyside interviews were in or around the September of 1995.

[The Baron]

My bad. The Radio Merseyside interviews were in or around the September of 1995.

Wouldn't it be better if you get your core facts of the case right before writing to the young and upcoming ripperologist?!

It hurts I know.


The Baron

[Iconoclast]

Wouldn't it be better if you get your core facts of the case right before writing to the young and upcoming ripperologist?!
It hurts I know.
The Baron

In fairness, it was a surprisingly easy mistake to make given how often Barrett changed his story - I perhaps should have highlighted instead the 1994 Gray/Barrett tapes leading up to the affidavit in January 1995 where not only does Mike appear to forget he is meant to be helping Gray to find the forensic evidence to prove he wrote the diary but where he also occasionally tries to impress on Gray his interpretation of what Maybrick meant (evidence, I would suggest, that Barrett knew the scrapbook could have been authentic all along, and certainly no hoax created at his forge).

On that point, by the way, I can only assume that that was the reason why RJ decided to return the tapes to their (still unidentified) owner – and a contributing factor to the affidavit of January 5 1995 not being immediately published and trumpeted to the interested world as evidence for a hoax which had been mooted but evidently never was.

And - incidentally - in the interests of young and upcoming interests, I would be happy for you or John Wheat to backtrack to my post of earlier in the week and be specific about where you both believe I accused Stewart Evans, a leading authority on the case and self-evidently no fabricator of events, of lying? I was far too lenient then, but I shan't be so again. Accusations of mendacity cannot go unqualified for they are a slur on the original poster and a serious malinfluence on the less informed and the easily impressed upon.

I seem to have to tolerate a great deal of misinformation on this Casebook, and yet rarely seem to get clear answers to many of my questions. I suspect that I need to be less tolerant of the silence which so frequently follows, or of the twisted paths which quickly spin off from the road when the passage occasionally gets more difficult to navigate.

[rjpalmer]

On that point, by the way, I can only assume that that was the reason why RJ decided to return the tapes to their (still unidentified) owner – and a contributing factor to the affidavit of January 5 1995 not being immediately published and trumpeted to the interested world as evidence for a hoax which had been mooted but evidently never was.

And your assumption would be wrong, Ike.

I welcome the release of the tapes. Indeed, I called for the release of the tapes.

I think they amply demonstrate that Barrett had inside knowledge in the creation of this shabby hoax. Just keep in mind that Barrett is playing both sides for himself. Barrett told Gray one thing on Tuesday, and told Skinner and Feldman something else on Wednesday. The only thing relevant is what can be confirmed by logic and evidence.

As for Barrett's confessions being debunked, this is just so much hot air; a PR campaign relentlessly waged by Caroline Brown over a 20+ year period, with the blessing and cooperation of others.

Any number of Barrett's statements stand up to scrutiny; the purchase of the red diary, the ink being compatible with a type sold by Diamine, Bernard Ryan being a source for the text, Mike's miraculous and still unexplained citation of Rick's essay in the Sphere book, etc.

Mike has demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that he was involved, which is hardly stunning considering that the ink was still damp when Baxendale examined it, and Barrett had contacted Montgomery using an alias, "Mr. Williams"!!

And how could Barrett's claim to have bought the black ledger at the auction house have been debunked, when the Diary team didn't bother to competently check O & L's books for over 20 years? By then, the records had been pulped.

It reminds me a little of the story of the suspicious young wife who thinks her husband is carrying on with the secretary, but is so worried what she might find, that she washes his shirts five times before looking for lipstick on his collar. O & L apparently wasn't contacted until 15 years after they had pulped their documentation! Gray had tried, but was turned away.

Seek not, and you won't find what you don't want to see, nor what you've already convinced yourself doesn't exist!

By the way, Ike, have you had any luck in ascertaining from Keith how he first learned about the red diary? It's a bit of a mystery why he was quizzing Anne Graham about it, when we are informed he wasn't aware of Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit until years later. Who told Keith about the red diary's existence? I am not suggesting anything untoward: I am just confused about what is being claimed. Keith kept such meticulous notes that he must know how he first learned of it, if not from Barrett's affidavit, then from whom?

[rjpalmer]

I should probably avoid discussing this, but I can't help notice that the Diary's supporters pride themselves on their great insights into human nature. Many times over the years we have been treated to their musings about what Anne Graham, or Robbie Johnson, or Mike Barrett, or some other poor sap would or wouldn't have been capable of, or what their motivations would have been in a given situation, etc.

Much of their argument about the Diary's origins is centered on these psychological musings.

Yet, these recent attacks on Melvin Harris and Stewart Evans show an utter lack of any insight into their personalities. We are told that Evans only dismissed the diary because it was unwanted competition to his own book! Not because he honestly concluded it was a fake. This is madness, and even has an ugly trace of paranoia hidden within it.

We are further treated to the bizarre theory that Melvin Harris somehow manipulated Mike Barrett into giving a false confession, and apparently even supplied him with details and data. This shows an utter lack of insight into Harris and his personality. Melvin was a hardboiled rationalist along the lines of Richard Dawkins, Martin Gardner, David Hume, or Bertrand Russell. Faking data would have been utterly foreign and disgusting to him. It would have been as likely as finding antlers on a bunny rabbit. Melvin was capable of making making mistakes--we all are--but trickery wasn't in his DNA.

It also reminds me of the idiotic allegation that Harris had somehow injected trace amounts of chloroacetamide into samples of the diary's ink, in order to "prove" that the ink was Diamine.

But Harris never even had access to the ink samples! They had been saved by one of the early forensic examiners (Robert Kuranz, I believe) and mailed directly to AFI. The allegation was just so much malarkey.

Thus, in conclusion, if the Diary supporters are this bad at judging human motivation, then I hardly feel confident about their similar musings about the personalities and motivations of Anne Graham, Robert and Albert Johnson, etc.

[erobitha]

I’ve obviously never met Mr Melvin Harris. However I have read some of his work and seen some interviews with him and I would say he came across as man extremely knowledgable on all things Ripper related.

However, my own personal assumption from his subsequent behaviour around the scrapbook was that of a man on a mission. I do not doubt he believed his intentions were honourable in trying to expose what he believed to be a hoax, but in being so dogmatic in his views he elected to abandon some of his usual better judgment with regards to the means, in pursuit of the ends. There are numerous examples.

Perhaps someone can shed light on what exactly happened with Stanley Dangar and why a man who was allegedly hired by Harris, was to ultimately become a proponent of the scrapbook and watch?