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 rjpalmer View Post
    Here's an example of RWE's work in The Echo. It would be somewhat odd if our old friend Tony Devereux set the type, no?


    Click image for larger version  Name:	Echo Febr 1872 RWE.JPG Views:	205 Size:	97.1 KB ID:	750056
    You might be on the money, RJ. I don't know if Tony set the type, but I'd be willing to bet my left thumb that he was well aware of these columns. As I said earlier in the thread, RWE was very popular around here, and him and his sister got about! His sister played harp at my parents' wedding!

    In the late 80's, the reissues of RWE's work were very well received. "Strange" that the "diary" surfaced a handful of years later.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      Don't know about Caz, who has been at this for quite a considerable number of years more than I, but I am dizzy with all this round and round and round we go stuff.

      Mike's attempt to purchase a DIARY not long after speaking with Doreen is NOT a smoking gun of anything. Yet, this relentless campaign never ends. In my view he was attempting to buy something that would give him an idea of something he could compare to what he had. In typical Mike fashion he didn't realise what he had was a SCRAPBOOK presented as a DIARY. Martin Earl dutifully did as requested and when the penny dropped with Mike it was too late. Like most things in Mike's life. He didn't know whether he was being sold a pup himself. Instead of finding an apple to compare with an apple, he ordered an orange. Nothing more, nothing less.
      If the police were investigating it, not that they would, but let's hypothesize for a moment... Then they'd be VERY interested in Mike's attempts to purchase a Victorian diary, mate, I mean, that goes without bloody saying. I don't know how anyone can pretend that this isn't suspicious, but there you go, it's an odd world.

      Man proclaims to find the diary of JtR and then just randomly decides to buy a Victorian-era diary with enough blank pages to...what? Doodle? Not buying it. Nobody in their right mind should buy that.

      Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      I have always personally had concerns with Anne's later version of events, and I cannot speak for anyone else's view. I still believe she has failed to be completely honest. She perhaps saw an opportunity to try and engineer the whole situation to her favour. After all, Mike knew he didn't get it from Devereuax and so did Anne. So by Anne saying she gave it to Devereaux to give to Mike left Mike in a pickle. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Nice chess move. He could feel the ownership of the scrapbook tale slipping away from him and into Anne's control. She masterfully turned the tables to her advantage. Of course, the scrapbook itself was sold to Robert Smith and remains in his possession, but for Mike it was Anne's behaviour that knocked him for six. How could she, his wife, do that to him? Pull the rug from under him like that? So that started Mike's campaign to try and regain control over the narrative and the only option left was, you guessed it, "I forged it". Not one shred of hard evidence that proves he did, but a massive F**ck You to Anne and her new best friend Feldy. "Who is the clever one now?". Mike truly believed he was getting the last laugh.
      Not many of the people involved seemed to be telling a straight story, that's what's so obviously telling about it all. You don't find a genuine artifact and tell a dozen different stories about where it came from.

      You seem to forget that there's more evidence to suggest it was forged than there is to suggest it was a genuine diary written by JtR, much less James Maybrick. The reason that the diary isn't considered genuine by anyone other than Ike and possibly Caz is because there's literally no evidence to suggest it is, and that's something many people often forget whether intentionally or not. The onus was on the people presenting it as a real artifact of historical importance to prove that it was indeed that, and that failed, for good reason. It's not for anyone to prove that it isn't fake, because that's literally not how things works. If I tell you that I've got the murder weapon of JtR in my cupboard, you don't need to waste even a minute proving me wrong.

      Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      The sad thing is that a domestic dispute that had been brewing since the scrapbook was found led to ridiculous cat and mouse statements, retractions, half-truths and lies which left a whole community still wondering "well where did this thing actually come from?".
      I'd say that the fact that they were trying to pull a fast one and didn't get away with it is the reason they all started flapping their gums and contradicting each other. This is evident in many hoaxes throughout history.

      Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      It came from under the floorboards of James May brick's bedroom on the 9th March 1992. Eddie Lyons found it and in effect sold it to Mike who had probably bragged about being a writer to him (they drank in the same pub for a while) and Eddie thought he might be able to "do something with it".
      I sincerely don't believe this version of events for a second. The timeline doesn't make sense and the story is absolute gibberish. As if Eddie Lyons would sell a potentially historical artifact plucked from beneath the floorboards of a well-known Victorian to a bloke in the pub who was fond of a drink, I mean, you've got to be kidding me.

      Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      Who put the book there? I don't know. I would like to believe it was Maybrick, but there is a good chance it might not have been.
      You can say that again, mate!



      Comment


      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
        Devereux obtained an unknown document from a workman, Darren, who found it in Battlecrease sometime in the late 1970s or early to mid 1980s. Devereux then watched the Michael Caine mini-series in 1988 and decided to write a Maybrick Diary based on this old document with modern trimmings, such as the Abberline emphasis. He then gave it to Mike Barrett before he died. The older document may be with the Devereux family or may have been destroyed.
        So now we're making up other artifacts out of thin air? What if Devereux's unknown document was actually a poem written by RWE based on a really really real super-duper secret diary written by Michael Caine, and that this was the inspiration for Barrett's Maybrick diary?

        What if my auntie had bollocks?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

          I can't actually rule this one out. There could also be a link to the house clearance in the 70's to an antiques dealer who cleared the house out. I'm talking about the watch here but the two could be linked. However, I do beleieve the more likely scenario is that it came out of Battlecrease House in March 1992.
          But you can proclaim that Barrett's search and purchase of a Victorian diary isn't a smoking gun? Brilliant.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            If Mike bought this diary for comparison reasons, why did he stipulate that it “must have at least 20 blank pages?”

            What could all these blank pages tell him about the authenticity of a written document?

            Does a man who thinks he may have just bought a genuine Rembrandt rush out and try to compare it to a blank canvas?

            And if this was an innocent purchase, why didn’t Barrett bring it with him to London? “Here, Doreen, I’ve went to great expense—forking over 25 pounds that I couldn’t afford—to do my own comparison.”

            Instead, Mike hides its existence from Shirley Harrison and Doreen for the better part of 2 years, and never mentions it?

            Anne's ridiculous explanation made no sense 25 years ago, and it makes no sense now.
            It's baffling, innit?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

              How many pages were missing fron the front of the scrapbook? I can only guess in Mike's mind that was significant enough to try and compare somehow.

              Presenting Doreen with an expense for a Victorian diary would have set off alarm bells don't you think?

              As for Anne, I know others are a little more understanding and sympathetic to her than perhaps I am. I do feel the Barretts as a couple have made the doggiest of dinners of this whole thing, and as a result, we may never get to know the true origins of the scrapbook.

              I will maintain to the day I die that it was not Mike or Anne who wrote it.
              Unless you prefer to live life as a fantasist, the entire thing should set alarm bells ringing, but there you go.

              Occam's Razor be damned.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                I will maintain to the day I die that it was not Mike or Anne who wrote it.
                And you'll do that based on absolutely nothing but a feeling.

                The diary was never proven to be a genuine historical artifact, we already know that such diaries can and have been forged before by simple minds, Mike Barrett was a writer, he sought out a Victorian diary, not one provenance for the finding of the diary adds up, the fact that there even is more than one provenance speaks volumes, the diary itself contains inconsistencies, it even contains a list, verbatim, that was published in a book long after Maybrick was dead and buried... I mean, seriously, people. Seriously...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

                  And you'll do that based on absolutely nothing but a feeling.

                  The diary was never proven to be a genuine historical artifact, we already know that such diaries can and have been forged before by simple minds, Mike Barrett was a writer, he sought out a Victorian diary, not one provenance for the finding of the diary adds up, the fact that there even is more than one provenance speaks volumes, the diary itself contains inconsistencies, it even contains a list, verbatim, that was published in a book long after Maybrick was dead and buried... I mean, seriously, people. Seriously...
                  its a fascinating psychological case study thats for sure
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

                    Unless you prefer to live life as a fantasist, the entire thing should set alarm bells ringing, but there you go.

                    Occam's Razor be damned.
                    Hi Mike,

                    Fairly decent season for The Toffees, many debating whether the lack of home fans affects the teams, but that's not an issue at Goodison, the silence is the norm. Sorry, had to get that in there. I'm a Villa man, have at ye!

                    Many good points on this, the perpetual thread. I particularly enjoyed your "Diary Poetry", "Tin Matchbox I may have listed, I drank in the Poste House before it existed"

                    Anyhows, here a question for you.

                    The diary that Mike ordered is seen as a 'red flag' for his hoaxing predisposition, despite the reassurance that it was purely sourced as a value reference for a Victorian diary that he bought down down the pub. But I'd say, also waving the red flag, is Mike's transcript on his word (insert mike's stupid misspelling which proves his inability to forge a diary here) processor. Now, this may be an innocent file, or even a back up to his story, that it's just a simple transcript of the diary he received, made legible for those interested in his find.

                    But does it strike you as odd that the guy who ordered a blank diary also had a transcript of the doubtful diary on his word (insert misspelling here to prove he couldn't have faked the diary, because he was too thick) (processor)

                    What's on that transcript? Is it a word for word copy of the "diary"? It should be. If we're to believe what we've been told. Or does it contain scenes from the cutting room floor? Does it have so much as a single line that's not in any way in the diary? I'd assume so, because it's never been released. It can be, easily, but it's not. Like the interview tapes with Gray.

                    If there's nothing to hide, hide nothing. Like you say, it's not up to us to prove forgery, until that transcript appears, and the Barrett / Gray tapes appear, I can only assume someone has something to hide.

                    The argument whether the diary is fake is dead and gone. What was the Barrett's involvement? Prove me wrong, let's see that transcript, let's hear the tapes. That can happen tomorrow, regardless of RJ giving his tapes away.

                    Until then I'll keep waving my red flags.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      Hi Mike,

                      Fairly decent season for The Toffees, many debating whether the lack of home fans affects the teams, but that's not an issue at Goodison, the silence is the norm. Sorry, had to get that in there. I'm a Villa man, have at ye!

                      Many good points on this, the perpetual thread. I particularly enjoyed your "Diary Poetry", "Tin Matchbox I may have listed, I drank in the Poste House before it existed"

                      Anyhows, here a question for you.

                      The diary that Mike ordered is seen as a 'red flag' for his hoaxing predisposition, despite the reassurance that it was purely sourced as a value reference for a Victorian diary that he bought down down the pub. But I'd say, also waving the red flag, is Mike's transcript on his word (insert mike's stupid misspelling which proves his inability to forge a diary here) processor. Now, this may be an innocent file, or even a back up to his story, that it's just a simple transcript of the diary he received, made legible for those interested in his find.

                      But does it strike you as odd that the guy who ordered a blank diary also had a transcript of the doubtful diary on his word (insert misspelling here to prove he couldn't have faked the diary, because he was too thick) (processor)

                      What's on that transcript? Is it a word for word copy of the "diary"? It should be. If we're to believe what we've been told. Or does it contain scenes from the cutting room floor? Does it have so much as a single line that's not in any way in the diary? I'd assume so, because it's never been released. It can be, easily, but it's not. Like the interview tapes with Gray.

                      If there's nothing to hide, hide nothing. Like you say, it's not up to us to prove forgery, until that transcript appears, and the Barrett / Gray tapes appear, I can only assume someone has something to hide.

                      The argument whether the diary is fake is dead and gone. What was the Barrett's involvement? Prove me wrong, let's see that transcript, let's hear the tapes. That can happen tomorrow, regardless of RJ giving his tapes away.

                      Until then I'll keep waving my red flags.
                      I'm a red, mate! It's going well for the blues at the minute, though, which means it's going well for me financially, so I'm not gonna grumble.


                      I don't think misspellings are any kind of a good indicator of whether Mike did or didn't write the diary, as I often make mistakes and typos, myself, and I know that many writers of varying degrees of talent do. I mentioned Tom Slemen earlier, and his books are riddled with typos, alas, this is what keeps food on editors tables!

                      I wouldn't doubt that Mike will have had a draft or two of this diary, like any average writer would and should, and we mustn't forget that Mike WAS a writer, after all. To be clear, though, the diary doesn't need to have been penned by Mike, not physically, since Anne was also around. Mike managed to get paid for writing articles, so him not being able to get through a paragraph of commendable grammar isn't much of a damning statement on his ability, it all gets edited afterwards, but as we know, there's a few unnecessary letters added to words within the diary, so it's neither here nor there, imo.

                      I'm not sure why Mike would need to buy a Victorian diary for some kind of reference point, I'm not sure why anyone would buy that as an excuse. The hunt for and purchase of said scrapbook is quite literally the most rouge of hues as far as red flags go, but some people seem to be able to ignore it when it's so blatantly obvious an issue.

                      So far, all evidence points to the diary not having been written by Maybrick, and there's certainly no evidence to suggest it wasn't written as recently as it cropped up. There's no reason for anyone else to have penned it besides the small handful of people who proclaimed any sort of provenance to it, and imo, all available evidence leads to the Barretts.

                      Were drafts of the Mussolini diaries ever seen? I'm not sure I can think of many hoaxes where artifacts of the ruse were ever presented until long after the fact in some cases and not at all in others.

                      The fact that the Barretts were trying to pass the thing off as real to begin with kind of suggests that they wouldn't be daft enough to leave drafts or transcripts lying around.

                      When there's literally zero evidence to suggest anyone else wrote it, all sensible reasoning dictates that it most likely came from the folks who brought it into the public eye to begin with, especially when one of them blatantly went about locating a Victorian diary around the time it all kicked off... Not even Sherlock Holmes would need to emphasize that, Watson's nan could've thunk it on a Sunday afternoon while peeling spuds.

                      I'm glad you enjoyed my ode to Sir Jim!

                      Cheers!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

                        And you'll do that based on absolutely nothing but a feeling.

                        The diary was never proven to be a genuine historical artifact, we already know that such diaries can and have been forged before by simple minds, Mike Barrett was a writer, he sought out a Victorian diary, not one provenance for the finding of the diary adds up, the fact that there even is more than one provenance speaks volumes, the diary itself contains inconsistencies, it even contains a list, verbatim, that was published in a book long after Maybrick was dead and buried... I mean, seriously, people. Seriously...
                        I love your inimitable style Mike. You strike me as a no-nonsense Scouser who shoots from the hip and says what he sees. Whilst I admire your commitment to your own sense of logic, you have made more leaps than Kris Akabussi. Which is perfectly your right.

                        I do not believe the scrapbook is a modern hoax penned by the Barrett’s. It doesn’t mean that is the only outcome or else it is was penned by Maybrick. There is a whole myriad of other scenarios in between I cannot rule out. If you think Mike was the creative talent that wrote the scrapbook then more power to you. I believe him and his wife were incapable. Which has as much validity as your feeling that they were.

                        What is that saying about opinions....

                        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mike J. G. View Post

                          But you can proclaim that Barrett's search and purchase of a Victorian diary isn't a smoking gun? Brilliant.
                          Why would Mike buy an 1891 diary? Pretty sure even Mike was bright enough to know Maybrick was pretty well dead by then.

                          You might want to revisit the dates of when he tried to buy the above and when he claimed to have bought the scrapbook, alongside when he spoke to Doreen. I’d be keen to get your version of events of how you think things played out.
                          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            Why would Mike buy an 1891 diary? Pretty sure even Mike was bright enough to know Maybrick was pretty well dead by then.
                            Hi Ero,

                            Why buy an 1891 diary? That's debatable, it's obfuscating the far more important point, namely why did he attempt to buy a blank diary in March, placing the request shortly after contacting Doreen?

                            Far too much time is given to arguing about the description given to Mike, could he have returned it and what not, and it's all a bit moot really.

                            We know, without doubt, that soon after telling Doreen he had acquired the 'Diary of Jack The Ripper', Mike attempted to buy a blank Victorian diary. Whether he obtained one or not, or bought an unsuitable one is completely irrelevant. His intention was there. And both he and Anne kept that detail quiet. That's suspicious right? Man who claims to have as yet unrevealed Victorian diary tries to secretly buy blank Victorian diary. And just to reiterate, it does not matter a bit that he bought an 1891 diary. He wanted a blank one. Before revealing the "real" one.

                            As far I can gather, the best defence for this conundrum is that he wanted a blank diary to gauge the price of the 'diary' in his possession. Because that makes sense. That'd be like someone offering me a never before seen George Orwell manuscript, and me buying a blank 1930's exercise book to hash out the price. It's ridiculous. Of course, if I contacted a publisher claiming to have in my possession a handwritten, never before seen George Orwell novel, then after gaining interest in said novel, I went out to buy a blank 1930's exercise book, that might be seen as suspicious, right? Well, it's exactly the same concept.

                            It's the Bookseller advert that counts.
                            Thems the Vagaries.....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                              Hi Ero,

                              Why buy an 1891 diary? That's debatable, it's obfuscating the far more important point, namely why did he attempt to buy a blank diary in March, placing the request shortly after contacting Doreen?

                              Far too much time is given to arguing about the description given to Mike, could he have returned it and what not, and it's all a bit moot really.

                              We know, without doubt, that soon after telling Doreen he had acquired the 'Diary of Jack The Ripper', Mike attempted to buy a blank Victorian diary. Whether he obtained one or not, or bought an unsuitable one is completely irrelevant. His intention was there. And both he and Anne kept that detail quiet. That's suspicious right? Man who claims to have as yet unrevealed Victorian diary tries to secretly buy blank Victorian diary. And just to reiterate, it does not matter a bit that he bought an 1891 diary. He wanted a blank one. Before revealing the "real" one.

                              As far I can gather, the best defence for this conundrum is that he wanted a blank diary to gauge the price of the 'diary' in his possession. Because that makes sense. That'd be like someone offering me a never before seen George Orwell manuscript, and me buying a blank 1930's exercise book to hash out the price. It's ridiculous. Of course, if I contacted a publisher claiming to have in my possession a handwritten, never before seen George Orwell novel, then after gaining interest in said novel, I went out to buy a blank 1930's exercise book, that might be seen as suspicious, right? Well, it's exactly the same concept.

                              It's the Bookseller advert that counts.
                              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?

                              I am taking Mike JG’s logic of using Occam’s Razor. Mike B said he bought the scrapbook, which apparently to some was under oath and thereby sacrosanct, in Jan 1990. An advert was placed looking for a Victorian Diary in March 1992. If we take these chain of events on face value then what happened here?

                              If he already had the scrapbook why did he need a diary?
                              Last edited by erobitha; 02-12-2021, 07:58 AM.
                              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                                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?

                                I am taking Mike JG’s logic of using Occam’s Razor. Mike B said he bought the scrapbook, which apparently to some was under oath and thereby sacrosanct, in Jan 1990. An advert was placed looking for a Victorian Diary in March 1992. If we take these chain of events on face value then what happened here?

                                If he already had the scrapbook why did he need a diary?
                                Hi Ero,

                                The same sworn affidavit that makes "Lord Orsams awesome auction" laughable? We can't pick and choose when Mike is reliable. Of course, the Gray interview tapes would help, but let's face it, they're not appearing any time soon.

                                But let's remove shonky dates and Mike's questionable assertions of facts, which he patently can't be relied upon less his auction might be genuine, it's there in the affidavit, let's look at verifiable facts. Fact, Mike contacts Doreen in March, claiming to have the diary of Jack the Ripper. Fact, he then tries to obtain a blank diary from the Victorian period, after claiming to have said Diary. Fact, no one at all claims to have or had seen said diary before this.

                                Man claims to have Diary of Jack the Ripper, tries to obtain a blank Victorian diary, then produces a "diary" in a scrapbook with a load of missing pages and a scrap of a later photo. With dubious handwriting which is not in any way debated as not being Maybricks. Said procurer is pathological liar, but claims of a 1990 obtaining are not questionable, but later, provable claims of trying to obtain a blank diary for forgery purposes are nonsense, because he's a pathological liar.

                                Regardless of affidavits, Mike appears in March, claiming to have the diary of Jack the Ripper. He then tries to obtain a blank Victorian diary. He then produces a shonky scrapbook with pages removed and not Maybrick's handwriting.

                                Let's remove ourselves from his affidavits, and his later claims, which are all apperently nonsense. Prior to any of this, at the time he contacted a publisher, and received interest, he then went out to buy a blank Victorian diary. Nevermind the 1891 red diary, it matters not a jot. He lied to Scotland Yard about source material. He, and his wife, kept schtum about buying a blank diary. But the sworn affidavit of a drunken pathological liar is fine when he mentions earlier dates. Not so when it concerns independently verifiable sources, like Earl, or the auction.

                                And it's worth pointing out, the Bookseller ad was independently verified. Not by Mike. Alluded to, in his affidavit, but verified independently. It's a fact. Unlike Eddie and the Battlecrease biscuit tin. The one that you couldn't fit a scrapbook in.

                                Maybe Mike wasn't the mastermind behind the hoax, but sure as **** he was responsible for unveiling it.
                                Thems the Vagaries.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X