One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

Erm ... 'No' to pretty much all of your questions there RJ.

Except the one about am I just writing gibberish, of course ...

[Iconoclast]

Before anyone beats me to it, more Viz gems possibly finding a new home here on the Casebook ...

Major Misunderstanding – As his name suggests, he often misunderstands situations, and is seemingly unable to interpret incidents in their own context, instead viewing them through the prism of his own prejudices, typically centred on inter-war upper-class values. He reads the Daily Mail and is always drawn by the cartoonists with his fists tightly clenched at his waist. He is often presented as dogmatic, but ultimately as a hypocrite with no self-awareness or idea of his own position as a social relic.

But just before the Great Light Bulb himself gets too smug:

Mr Logic – ("such is my name, therefore one may infer that this strip is in some way about me") - a serious and humourless young man with no real empathy for other people. He uses highly technical and over-elaborate language rather than straightforward speech and takes everything people say to him literally. The strip usually ends with Logic becoming the victim of his misunderstandings with others.

[rjpalmer]

One last volley as I head out into the 90 F heat.

Is "provenance of purchase" (to use Ike's strange and unique phrase) now a credible substitute for an actual provenance?

One of several facts that makes people skeptical of the watch is the remarkable timing of its discovery so hot on the heels of Barrett showing up in London with the dodgy diary.

The timing is strange, is it not? Or are people suggesting that Albert and Robbie Johnson also had a shadowy meeting with Eddie Lyons down at The Saddle?

[Iconoclast]

One last volley as I head out into the 90 F heat.

Is "provenance of purchase" (to use Ike's strange and unique phrase) now a credible substitute for an actual provenance?

One of several facts that makes people skeptical of the watch is the remarkable timing of its discovery so hot on the heels of Barrett showing up in London with the dodgy diary.

The timing is strange, is it not? Or are people suggesting that Albert and Robbie Johnson also had a shadowy meeting with Eddie Lyons down at The Saddle?

Crikey RJ, I have no recollection of using the term "provenance of purchase" but whatever.

The watch emerged - IIRC - some 14 months after Mike took his DAiry to Landarn. If that's suspicious, then it is suspicious. If it's therefore a categorical indicator of a hoax, I'm a Victorian scrapbook. Wibble wibble.

Ike

[erobitha]

One last volley as I head out into the 90 F heat.

Is "provenance of purchase" (to use Ike's strange and unique phrase) now a credible substitute for an actual provenance?

One of several facts that makes people skeptical of the watch is the remarkable timing of its discovery so hot on the heels of Barrett showing up in London with the dodgy diary.

The timing is strange, is it not? Or are people suggesting that Albert and Robbie Johnson also had a shadowy meeting with Eddie Lyons down at The Saddle?

The conflation of the two things again.

The timing of the watch may have something to do with the fact it probably came from the same place. Battlecrease House, 9th March 1992.

The hoard was most likely broken up to avoid police detection or suspicion. No self-respecting antique dealer wants to be associated with stolen goods. One suspects that might not be good for business. Albert Johnson purchased it in Wallasey in July 1992. Some five months later. Nothing strange there.

If a 500-year-old sunken ship had dislodged from the seabed and its bounty was released into the ocean, would it be deemed strange that items would start appearing washed up on the shore not long after around the same time? I see nothing 'remarkable' with that.

[Iconoclast]

If a 500-year-old sunken ship had dislodged from the seabed and its bounty was released into the ocean, would it be deemed strange that items would start appearing washed up on the shore not long after around the same time? I see nothing 'remarkable' with that.

Careful, erobitha - you could be accused of viewing this through Mary Rose-tinted spectacles.

[erobitha]

Careful, erobitha - you could be accused of viewing this through Mary Rose-tinted spectacles.

I thought RJ might appreciate the sinking ship analogy.

[Scott Nelson]

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?

Close R.J. My theory is that Tony Devereux hoaxed the Maybrick Diary from a genuine document that has not yet (or may never) see the light of day.

[erobitha]

Close R.J. My theory is that Tony Devereux hoaxed the Maybrick Diary from a genuine document that has not yet (or may never) see the light of day.

I'm intrigued. Is your theory Devereux hoaxed the diary from a Harry Dam hoax?

Just wondering where Dam fits into all of this. Was he not your previous suggestion?

[Scott Nelson]

Yes Erobitha, I think the original was a Harry Dam creation.

[erobitha]

Yes Erobitha, I think the original was a Harry Dam creation.

That's all your offering?

How? When? Why?

This theory feels awfully skeletal. It could do with a bit of meat on the bones.

[rjpalmer]

Crikey RJ, I have no recollection of using the term "provenance of purchase" but whatever.

My apologies, Ike. It was Erobitha.

and it’s provenance of purchase was traced to an Antiques shop in Wallasey in July 1992

As you Maybrick chaps tend to hide behind anonymity (I can't really blame you), I sometime get confused.

Either way, though the term has a nice alliterative ring to it, I don't think the historians down at the local university are going to be overly impressed with the concept.

[Iconoclast]

Close R.J. My theory is that Tony Devereux hoaxed the Maybrick Diary from a genuine document that has not yet (or may never) see the light of day.

Scott, you describe your version of events as a theory rather than a belief, although your use of the term seems to be borderline belief system rather than rational scientific so it would have been useful if you'd added some rationale as to why you came to such a conclusion.

Ike

[erobitha]

My apologies, Ike. It was Erobitha.



As you Maybrick chaps tend to hide behind anonymity (I can't really blame you), I sometime get confused.

Either way, though the term has a nice alliterative ring to it, I don't think the historians down at the local university are going to be overly impressed with the concept.

I am thoroughly confused. My statement of provenance was in relation to the watch.

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?

[rjpalmer]

I am thoroughly confused. My statement of provenance was in relation to the watch.

Yes, understood. But that merely takes the watch back to 1992; it's not a provenance in the sense that it links the watch to Maybrick or to anyone known to Maybrick.

Further, Suzanne and Ron Murphy, who sold the watch to Johnson, insist they had inherited it from Suzanne's father, and it had been in their possession for years.

So for the 'Battlecrease' provenance to work, we have to assume they are liars who bought stolen goods, presumably from Eddie Lyons. What evidence is there for this?