One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John Wheat]

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.

Garbage. Only an imbecile would believe that.

[John Wheat]

Until someone provides some actual proof that the diary or the watch for that matter are the genuine article. Then I'll leave the diary believers to there delusions.

[erobitha]

Garbage. Only an imbecile would believe that.

Excellent in-depth riposte.

At least Orsam has the class to counter his arguments constructively with some mild name-calling.

For the benefit of other readers, evaluate the science yourselves.

Critical thinking on both sides of the debate is required.

Moronic name-calling with no counterarguments solves nothing.

[rjpalmer]

If Mike Barrett had acquired what was clearly a very valuable historical document during the week beginning March 9, 1992, and if he had good reason to question exactly how legal his acquisition of it was, is there any reason at all why at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?

Hi Ike.

Most of what you've written doesn't require a response, but I can't resist responding to the above nonsense.

First off, the red diary is not a 'document.' It is entirely blank. There is not writing in it whatsoever. Your use of the deceptive term 'document' speaks volumes. For comparison purposes to a historical document, it is entirely worthless.

Further, the advertisement placed by Martin Earl confirms, beyond any doubt, that Barrett was willing to purchase an entirely blank diary filled with entirely blank paper. What can a blank sheet of paper tell someone? Nothing, of course. More to the point, what can 20 sheets of blank paper tell someone that one blank sheet can't? Is this some sort of Zen puzzle? Barrett needed at least twenty blanks sheets. Blank sheets are for writing on. The implication is painfully obvious. And you've never offered any coherent counter-explanation.

Secondly, what do you mean by having 'the same characteristics?'

During you're absence, we've been repeatedly told (by Caz) that Martin Earl, having reached Mike on the phone, described in intricate detail the attributes of the red diary. That it was tiny. That is was not really a diary, but a memo book. That is was stamped on every page with the year 1891. That is was entirely and utterly blank.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 'characteristics' of this 'document,' as described by Earl, were 'likely' the have been 'the same' as the scrapbook that was being peddled by Eddy Lyons? On what planet?





Or, rather, are you suggesting that the street-smart Barrett, a former scrap-metal dealer (an occupation not known for 'giving a sucker an even break') believed he could trade this tiny, blank, daily planner straight across to Eddy Lyons for "what was very clearly a very valuable historical document" ??

Those are your own words, Ike. Very clearly a very valuable historical document.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

P.S.

As for Barrett's stroke--this is a bit rude, I suppose, but the diary friendly folks have published so much conflicting information (and misinformation) over the years, that I'm really in no position to accept any dogmatic claims without evidence. I'm willing to accept the possibility that Barrett may have faked his stroke, but I would need to examine the evidence.

How about his wrist injury? Do you believe he faked that, too? Why would he?

[Iconoclast]

Until someone provides some actual proof that the diary or the watch for that matter are the genuine article. Then I'll leave the diary believers to there delusions.

What you're actually saying is, "I will believe that the scrapbook was written by James Maybrick only when that has been categorically proven to be the case". This position on this (or any other) issue obviously makes your contribution useless to the debate.

And it is a debate because there are knowledgeable people who believe the scrapbook was written by James Maybrick and put forward their reasons, knowledgeable people who believe the scrapbook could have been written by James Maybrick (but aren't sure), knowledgeable people who believe the scrapbook could have written by James Maybrick (but think probably not), and knowledgeable people who believe the scrapbook was written by someone entirely different.

The reasons people give are generally captured in these posts so asking for someone to provide the reasons for which they take one of these four positions is rather insulting: it's like saying, "I can't be bothered to follow the argument, but I disagree with your position and I'm just going to say it".

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.

Most of you've written doesn't require a response, but I can't resist responding to the above nonsense.

First off, the red diary is not a 'document.' It is entirely blank. There is not writing in it whatsoever. Your use of the deceptive term 'document' speaks volumes. For comparison purposes to a historical document, it is entirely worthless.

Further, the advertisement placed by Martin Earl confirms, beyond any doubt, that Barrett was willing to purchase an entirely blank diary filled with entirely blank paper. What can a blank sheet of paper tell someone? Nothing, of course. More to the point, what can 20 sheets of blank paper tell someone that one blank sheet can't? Is this some sort of Zen puzzle? Barrett needed at least twenty blanks sheets. Blank sheets are for writing on. The implication is painfully obvious. And you've never offered any coherent counter-explanation.

Secondly, what do you mean by having 'the same characteristics?'

During you're absence, we've been repeatedly told (by Caz) that Martin Earl, having reached Mike on the phone, described in intricate detail the attributes of the red diary. That it was tiny. That is was not really a diary, but a memo book. That is was stamped on every page with the year 1891. That is was entirely and utterly blank.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 'characteristics' of this 'document,' as described by Earl, were 'likely' the have been 'the same' as the scrapbook that was being peddled by Eddy Lyons? On what planet?

Or, rather, are you suggesting that the street-smart Barrett, a former scrap-metal dealer (an occupation not known for 'giving a sucker an even break') believed he could trade this tiny, blank, daily planner straight across to Eddy Lyons for "what was very clearly a very valuable historical document" ??

Those are your own words, Ike. Very clearly a very valuable historical document.

Cheers.

I'm really not wishing to get into the semantics of what the word 'document' means. I leave that for our aristocratic friend to take every word at its most literal in order to find some long-winded way of disputing it in order to kid himself he's actually made a point worthy of note or insight. (For the record, it did have some writing - not typing, writing - in so why on earth would you claim it was entirely blank?) If you didn't follow me, I will be polite and accept that I must have been altogether too ambiguous on this point so let me clarify, by 'document' I meant a 'diary' or a 'thing'. If you really want to be pedantic, I strongly suggest that you look up the definition of 'document' as it includes anything which contains information. As the maroon diary was not blank - as you claim - and had typed information (at very least, the dates of the year) in and someone's written notes, I overwhelmingly feel this is a level of pedantry which deserves to have been preserved in New Times Roman, as it was originally typed (I choose my words carefully).

In all honesty, the pedantry of the reply you posted (I choose my words carefully) has almost winded me. The air has literally been knocked out of me by such an extreme act of irrelevant pedantry (honestly, RJ, you are spending too much time in the wrong company) but I feel I must respond promptly.

By 'the same characteristics' (again, I'm astonished I'm having to waste my time typing this), I meant:

A diary from that period
Something which has pre-existing content (asking for at least 20 blank pages implies that some non-blank would be fine)
At least 20 blank pages

If Barrett had a document (OMG, there I go again - sue me!!!) from the right period and with twenty blank pages then that would have 'the same characteristics' as the very valuable document he had mysteriously acquired. The very dab for his clever - if ultimately redundant - purpose.

Or, rather, are you suggesting that the street-smart Barrett, a former scrap-metal dealer (an occupation not known for 'giving a sucker an even break') believed he could trade this tiny, blank, daily planner straight across to Eddy Lyons for "what was very clearly a very valuable historical document" ??

This is the second time in a couple of days you've made this point but I honestly don't understand what it means. Why would Barrett be seeking to trade a worthless Victorian diary for an extremely valuable one? My assumption is that Barrett simply handed over the £25, the deal was done, and tens of thousands of pounds were subsequently made by its publication?

Those are your own words, Ike. Very clearly a very valuable historical document.

Not your best day for posting, RJ. Are you honestly suggesting that the Victorian scrapbook was not a very valuable historical document? It was historical (however recently you might claim, history is history) and quite a few bob was made from it. Where did I make my mistake?

[rjpalmer]

Something which has pre-existing content (asking for at least 20 blank pages implies that some non-blank would be fine)

Serious question, Ike. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this rigmarole?

The above remark wouldn't be worthy of a third-rate defense attorney. It's just more "Maybricksplaining"

Barrett was willing to accept an entirely blank diary. Earl's advertisement makes this abundantly clear, and no amount of wriggling can change that.

The ridiculous notion that Barrett's request for 'at least twenty blank pages' was a roundabout way of asking for some 'non-blank' pages with writing is as about as desperate a suggestion as one can imagine. Why not state "the diary should contain at least some Victorian writing for comparison purposes"?

Sadly, I once had to dismiss our old friend Tom as a wind-up merchant, and that ol' feeling is coming back...

Please try maintain at least make some semblance of a rational argument.




To the uninitiated: in "Maybrickian" parlance, the request for an 'unused' diary means that Mike was actually hoping for a partially filled-out diary with some 'non-blank' pages; he just had a very awkward and irrational way of requesting it!

[rjpalmer]

This is the second time in a couple of days you've made this point but I honestly don't understand what it means.

My apologies, Ike, but I'm surprised that you haven't seen fit to keep up with Caz's posts. I suggest you either scan the archives, or ask her for the full details, as I will likely be accused of misstating her position.

As I understand her theory, Barrett's curious purchase was an attempt to trade a tiny, blank, intricately described memo book to Eddy Lyons in exchange for what you now describe as "a very valuable historical document."

If this suggestion leaves you confused and unconvinced, you have my full sympathy.

And even though Barrett was obviously willing to accept an entirely blank diary from Earl, Caz seems to believe that Mike's request for 'at least twenty blank pages' was somehow an attempt to compensate for the 17 blank pages at the back of the 'Maybrick' scrapbook.

I've never quite grasped why she believes this would have been necessary, not does it even coincide with Mike's actual request to Martin Earl.

Maybe you should swing back by tomorrow morning and ask her.

Enjoy your day.

[Iconoclast]

Serious question, Ike. Who exactly are you trying to convince with this rigmarole?

Well clearly not those whose minds are closed to any other possibility than that Bongo Barrett writted the DAiry in those magic bullet days of early April 1992.

... that ol' feeling is coming back...

RJ, you and I have always had a fairly convivial exchange of views which is fine with me. I've always felt your tone was generally distinctively easy going and good-natured. It's good to know that you and I will understand one another fully when occasionally the tone sharpens. No offence and all that. I miss the sparring as I think I have said before.

Please try maintain at least make some semblance of a rational argument.

I genuinely don't believe that you would recognise it if I did, but - Lord - how I try!

Barrett was willing to accept an entirely blank diary. Earl's advertisement makes this abundantly clear, and no amount of wriggling can change that. ... The ridiculous notion that Barrett's request for 'at least twenty blank pages' was a roundabout way of asking for some 'non-blank' pages with writing is as about as desperate a suggestion as one can imagine. Why not state "the diary should contain at least some Victorian writing for comparison purposes"?

Absolutely no wriggling whatsoever going on from my side. If I need a document (OMG, is it, is it not, I'm so confused!!!) which looks like something I've just acquired, I'll take an unused one (I'll just fill it myself to look used) or ideally a partly used one (saves me the bother), but I will need at least twenty blank pages otherwise it's not going to look like the one I've just acquired - you know, the one that may very well have been recently nicked. To be clear, there is absolutely no requirement for 'comparison purposes' so no need to state it.

Your old friend,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

My apologies, Ike, but I'm surprised that you haven't seen fit to keep up with Caz's posts. I suggest you either scan the archives, or ask her for the full details, as I will likely be accused of misstating her position.

I may just have to do that as I wasn't aware she'd made such a claim.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Excellent in-depth riposte.

At least Orsam has the class to counter his arguments constructively with some mild name-calling.

For the benefit of other readers, evaluate the science yourselves.

Critical thinking on both sides of the debate is required.

Moronic name-calling with no counterarguments solves nothing.

Honestly, erobitha, I think he'd have been happier if you hadn't corrected it!

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

P.S.

As for Barrett's stroke--this is a bit rude, I suppose, but the diary friendly folks have published so much conflicting information (and misinformation) over the years, that I'm really in no position to accept any dogmatic claims without evidence. I'm willing to accept the possibility that Barrett may have faked his stroke, but I would need to examine the evidence.

How about his wrist injury? Do you believe he faked that, too? Why would he?

It is fine with me if you don't accept this on face value - that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. It's true, though, for the record.

Barrett's wrist injury, as I vaguely recall, came at the same time that he put his hand through Anne's flat window so I assume that it was kosher and that it was caused by the glass he broke. If it wasn't kosher then - yes - he must have faked it (obviously), and - if he did - I can only imagine he was seeking sympathy and adding to the general Tale of the Day that his life was under threat from Paul Feldman's henchmen in Landarn.

I'm clearly not on top of that one right now so I hope others don't take it all too literally. I could have got my details wrong.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

If I need a document...which looks like something I've just acquired, I'll take an unused one (I'll just fill it myself to look used) or ideally a partly used one (saves me the bother), but I will need at least twenty blank pages otherwise it's not going to look like the one I've just acquired

What the actual flip. What exactly are you suggesting, Ike? Or are you just trying to be deliberately unintelligible?

Are you implying that Mike Barrett hoaxed the Maybrick Diary from a genuine document that has not yet seen the light of day?

That the Maybrick Hoax is Mike's hoax of a real document?

And that this is why Mike would have been satisfied in obtaining entirely blank pages from Earl because, to use your phrase, he would 'just fill' those in himself?

Or are you just writing gibberish?

Okay, now I really am going.

[Iconoclast]

Garbage. Only an imbecile would believe that.

Another of my favourite Viz characters ...