One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Yabs]

In the 1880s?

Yes it would appear so?
freshly picked raspberries for example has a lot of search hits in the 1800s.

Or were picking me up on my pickled onion joke?
If so, my apologies it was a bad one.

[rjpalmer]

Far be it for me to spoil my own fun, but Marshall McLuhan famously also sort of said if you highlight the text you have cut and pasted into the editor and click on the Tx button on the editor ribbon, it should revert all of your text to the default font. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't seek the advice of your aristocratic friend - there's nothing he doesn't know, you know!

Cheers,

Icke

I realize that, Ike. What I don’t understand is your disdain for Times New Roman, Georgia, or Courier New.

What are you, a typographical prude?

What’s wrong with Baskerville Old Face, for instance?

Seeing that you've managed to convince yourself that the Maybrick Diary is in James Maybrick's handwriting, I would have thought that you would be the last person to notice such textual inconsistencies.

Please explain.

Or maybe not...I have to run.

Tomorrow!

RP

[Iconoclast]

Agreed. We absolutely do not have to accept that the red diary was purchased before the scrapbook.

But that is not the issue under consideration.

The issue was that Barrett claimed this in his confession, and Harrison, Gray, Harris, Skinner, etc., were attempting to test whether Mike's confession was credible.

As such, Barrett's chronology needed to be properly checked, but, unfortunately, it wasn't.

It's not a blame game. It's just an unfortunately reality that we are stuck with.

I think you underplay the significance of this issue, RJ. I don't think the issue is about whether or not the apparent notaries of this endless debate properly followed-up the March 1992 chronology. If the process for making the purchase via O&L was incorrect for 1990 or 1991, it wasn't suddenly going to become correct for 1992. Mike got the critical details utterly wrong, and only the most wishful thinking revisionist interpretations have attempted to salvage his confession. Not a single word that ever came out of that man's mouth was ever intended to be set in stone. Every word was up for grabs for either repeating, amending, or contradicting as he saw fit in that moment. As long as he was talking, that was all that mattered to him. Certainly not the truth. I suspect that Mike Barrett couldn't handle the truth, hence his ceaseless abuse of it.

[rjpalmer]

I think you underplay the significance of this issue, RJ. I don't think the issue is about whether or not the apparent notaries of this endless debate properly followed-up the March 1992 chronology. If the process for making the purchase via O&L was incorrect for 1990 or 1991, it wasn't suddenly going to become correct for 1992. Mike got the critical details utterly wrong, and only the most wishful thinking revisionist interpretations have attempted to salvage his confession. Not a single word that ever came out of that man's mouth was ever intended to be set in stone.

Don't be silly, Ike. Here’s how it ‘went down.’

Mike admitted to Alan Gray that he had hoaxed the diary. Gray said, ‘prove it.’

Mike said, okay. In 1990, I tried to buy a blank diary—the infamous ‘red’ diary---but it proved to be too small. Anne paid for it. It still exists.

Now, in the simplistic world you want me to inhabit, Mike is simply a liar. He can’t be trusted. He made the whole thing up.

Except that he didn’t.

No one had known about the purchase Mike described, but the truth of his statement was confirmed when Keith Skinner obtained the red diary from Anne Barrett along with a receipt for its purchase. The advertisement in Bookdealers was further confirmation that Mike was telling the truth. Barrett had gone shopping for a blank diary—just like he had told Alan Gray.

Mike just had the date wrong. Anne’s receipt showed this purchase was in 1992--not 1991.

And, of course, it should hardly be surprising that Mike was in a muddle over dates because he had been drinking heavily, and was diagnosed with memory loss. It is even stated that he had suffered a stroke.

And if Mike had the date of the red diary wrong, then he had all the dates wrong, because the events he described were all connected, and all dated to the same era.

This is grade school stuff, Ike. People often get dates wrong, which is why we rely on documentation. I'm really quite surprised that you are struggle with this basic concept.

All the best.

[Iconoclast]

Don't be silly, Ike. Here’s how it ‘went down.’

To be clear, right at the start (for the easily influenced), this is how you are going to spin it that it went down.

Mike admitted to Alan Gray that he had hoaxed the diary. Gray said, ‘prove it.’

Careful RJ, your phraseology is clearly working to poison the well (which influences how the impressionable interpret the events of March 1992): Mike claimed to Alan Gray that he had hoaxed the diary. 'Admitted' is not permissible here because it implies subsequent confirmation.

Mike said, okay. In 1990, I tried to buy a blank diary—the infamous ‘red’ diary---but it proved to be too small. Anne paid for it. It still exists.

Now, in the simplistic world you want me to inhabit, Mike is simply a liar. He can’t be trusted. He made the whole thing up.

Except that he didn’t.

There is nothing simplistic about a world where a man is a proven liar. Mike Barrett was a proven liar. You and I both know that he was a proven liar. Please don't call it simplistic in order to marginalise my position (again, those who do not understand much about the case will read that as read and it is not).

As I was at pains to say in post #6335, 'Here's a thought. Maybe he was more or less just making all of it up based upon things which had happened but for reasons which your myopia cannot focus on?'. I cannot imagine a world where someone could literally lie about everything. Even Aldridge Prior (fictional character, by the way) mentioned things which were true - the Nolan Sisters existed and he owned a fridge - but he conflated what was true to become what was patently untrue (the Nolan Sisters at no point in their illustrious careers lived in Aldridge Prior's fridge).

No one had known about the purchase Mike described, but the truth of his statement was confirmed when Keith Skinner obtained the red diary from Anne Barrett along with a receipt for its purchase. The advertisement in Bookdealers was further confirmation that Mike was telling the truth. Barrett had gone shopping for a blank diary—just like he had told Alan Gray.

Yes, just as Aldridge Prior had a fridge, so Mike knew that he had sought out a replacement diary when he acquired the valuable original in March 1992. He sought out a fridge, as it were, but at no time did the Nolan Sisters live in it.

Mike just had the date wrong. Anne’s receipt showed this purchase was in 1992--not 1991.

It's evidently catching, RJ.

[QUOTE]And, of course, it should hardly be surprising that Mike was in a muddle over dates because he had been drinking heavily, and was diagnosed with memory loss.[/QUOTE

But everything he said which works in favour of Orsam's theory was remembered correctly and everything which contradicted it was misremembered?

It is even stated that he had suffered a stroke.

And it was stated in Viz Comic that the Nolan Sisters lived in Aldridge Prior's fridge. Mike Barrett himself claimed that he had had a stroke, but his medical records - revealed by his GP Dr. Khan with Barrett's permission - showed that he had not had a stroke. Fridge, singing sisters, Prior.

And if Mike had the date of the red diary wrong, then he had all the dates wrong, because the events he described were all connected, and all dated to the same era.

This is grade school stuff, Ike. People often get dates wrong, which is why we rely on documentation. I'm really quite surprised that you are struggle with this basic concept.

All the best.

I assume by 'grade school stuff' you mean, 'This is simple if you are hellbent on seeing everything about Barrett as pointing directly to him being a hoaxer of the James Maybrick scrapbook?

You may find that that is more like kindergarten stuff, RJ.

Cheers,

Ike

PS Off out with the dogs again so no time to proof this before I post it.

[John Wheat]

The Diary clearly wasn't written by Maybrick. So who still cares wether Mike Barrett wrote the diary or someone else did?

[Iconoclast]

The Diary clearly wasn't written by Maybrick. So who still cares whether Mike Barrett wrote the diary or someone else did?

For those who are new to the Maybrick scrapbook or who know of it but little about it, you would do well to avoid end-game assertions such as this. John Wheat (inter alia) has no example of how James Maybrick wrote privately (for his own eyes) to compare with the scrapbook so neither he nor anyone else can say with certainty that the scrapbook was not written by James Maybrick.

This may have helped to account for how the scrapbook is still debated thirty years after first coming to light.

[Iconoclast]

Aldridge Prior. Michael Barrett. Both owned fridges which Oirish singing sensations failed to take up residence in. Very suspicious. I rest my case.

To be clear (now that I am back from walking the dogs and realise I did have errors in my post), I am not suggesting for a moment that Mike Barrett could not have created the Victorian scrapbook, but I am suggesting that the case in favour of it requires a singular view of the circumstances which is not justified by the evidence. So, yes, our aristocratic friend is able to make a very unlikely timeline just about work to put forward a theory of how Barrett may have done it (the 'magic bullet' theory involving eleven frantic days of transcribing from a pre-existing version on his computer), and the one thing that keeps getting regurgitated is that Barrett attempted to purchase a Victorian diary which might look like the one he ultimately produced on April 13, 1992. How very suspicious - it's obvious what he was up to, isn't it? Let's not bother thinking about this one any further, guv. He's bang-to-rights darn ma manor.

If you have a particular - myopic - view of this time period, and if you like the theory that Barrett was our master hoaxer, then it is all-too easy (perhaps inevitable) to fall into the trap of assuming that that version must necessarily be the actual one which occurred. If you apply yourself to the issue on a less immediate level you might ask yourself: If Mike Barrett had acquired what was clearly a very valuable historical document during the week beginning March 9, 1992, and if he had good reason to question exactly how legal his acquisition of it was, is there any reason at all why at that very moment he should seek out a doppelganger - a document which was likely to have the same characteristics as the one he had just acquired?

Can anyone think of a reason why he might do so?

If you can, then that becomes another valid, plausible, but ultimately unproven theory to explain Barrett's actions of March 1992.

If you can't, you're simply not trying hard enough.

Ike

[John Wheat]

For those who are new to the Maybrick scrapbook or who know of it but little about it, you would do well to avoid end-game assertions such as this. John Wheat (inter alia) has no example of how James Maybrick wrote privately (for his own eyes) to compare with the scrapbook so neither he nor anyone else can say with certainty that the scrapbook was not written by James Maybrick.

This may have helped to account for how the scrapbook is still debated thirty years after first coming to light.

Considering the Provence of the diary is appalling it's up to those who believe it to be written by Maybrick to prove it and they can't because it wasn't.

[erobitha]

Considering the Provence of the diary is appalling it's up to those who believe it to be written by Maybrick to prove it and they can't because it wasn't.

Out of curiosity, why do you focus purely on the scrapbook? Why does the watch get so easily dismissed?

[John Wheat]

Out of curiosity, why do you focus purely on the scrapbook? Why does the watch get so easily dismissed?

Because without the diary the watch means nothing.

[Iconoclast]

Because without the diary the watch means nothing.

You reveal your general lack of knowledge on the issue when you say that.

If you don't know why that is the case, you simply confirm that you have a general lack of knowledge on the issue.

Why do you think the watch might be able to stand in its own right? (That is, independent of the scrapbook, or co-existent as a possible precursor of it.)

[John Wheat]

Considering the Provence of the diary is appalling it's up to those who believe it to be written by Maybrick to prove it and they can't because it wasn't.

I see no one has given any proof that the diary is the genuine article. What a surprise. If it is the genuine article then where's the proof? And why is the diary's provenance so appalling? I'd have thought anyone who had a belief that the diary is the real deal would be keen to answer these pressing questions but no. No answers whatsoever. The continued silence on this speaks volumes and makes those that believe the diary is genuine look like the fools they so obviously are. As for the watch where is the proof it's the real deal?

[erobitha]

You reveal your general lack of knowledge on the issue when you say that.

If you don't know why that is the case, you simply confirm that you have a general lack of knowledge on the issue.

Why do you think the watch might be able to stand in its own right? (That is, independent of the scrapbook, or co-existent as a possible precursor of it.)

I do find it fascinating that the watch is conflated with the scrapbook. Perhaps the master modern hoaxers had intended it to be like that?

Seeing as the watch never left the Johnson family and it’s provenance of purchase was traced to an Antiques shop in Wallasey in July 1992, I find how the two can be linked together as some kind of joined-up forgery fascinating. The watch was never sold. Who exactly benefitted I wonder?

I recommend people pay close attention to the watch reports and in particular the aged brass particles in the base of the engravings. Not only that, compare the signature vs the Maybrick marriage licence. The ornate M, the looped Y and the double-looped K.

Someone has gone to incredible lengths to create something so compelling that never made anyone any money.

[John Wheat]

I'll ask again where is the proof that the diary is the genuine? And where is the proof that the watch is genuine?