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 The Baron View Post
    In reality though, they will not bet their money on the diary being authentic.

    The Baron
    And I won't bet my money on it being the authentic confession of JM/JtR, OR faked by a Barrett, in accordance with the phoney confession of 5th January 1995.

    Love and affectionate hugs,

    Caz
    X

    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
      1) If we want to be anal which seems your preferred mode Baron - FM is not James Maybrick leaving his name is it? It is simply a clue.
      2) The point being made by me is serial killer or not, murderers do leave messages and clues on walls. It is not purely in bad detective fiction but happens more than perhaps the poster realised. The serial nature makes not a jot of difference to that point. This is not something that separates serial killers from normal murderers
      3) RJ is not god. He has got the odd thing wrong. No shame in that as you say. It happens to the best of us
      4) Lastly who is threatened? I believe Maybrick was JTR. Am I 100% certain the diary is genuine? No. Do I believe the initials are there? Yes.

      As much as you and your pals want to kill this whole debate stone dead - you can’t because nuance shows it is not stone dead.

      Have a lovely day cat man.
      RJ made a major mistake when he returned his Barrett & Gray comedy box set to the sender, along with any smoking guns he thought he may have detected from their side-splitting conversations.

      For a brief taster of the kind of quality RJ so recklessly gave away, Ladies and Gents, look no further:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X80ieQVkuhg

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        And I won't bet my money on it being the authentic confession of JM/JtR, OR faked by a Barrett, in accordance with the phoney confession of 5th January 1995.

        Love and affectionate hugs,

        Caz
        X

        To be in 50% agreement with you for a day is a winning deal, I will take it!

        The fact that we don't agree on the hoaxer is irrelevant, secondary at best.


        Thank you.


        The Baron
        Last edited by The Baron; 10-19-2021, 01:25 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

          Well, 1.2million views and climbing. Being the 'loser diary thread' clearly appeals to more people than any other thread!

          PS I see you are active on a number of other threads - presumably ones not for losers - so you aren't actually the sort of poster I was attempting to encourage to post after all. Listen, feel free to go back to the chats about whether Mrs Mortimer farted whilst the kettle boiled, or how big the flower was on Stride's coat, or if it was cold in November in the LVP. Some of us are actually trying to solve the case (which possibly explains your post's deeply unpleasant hostility).
          Ike, let me apologise. I was unnecessarily rude about your posts and there isn't really any excuse for that. Despite what I think about the whole diary thing being bonkers, I shouldn't have come across as total nob - sorry.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


            To be in 50% agreement with you for a day is a winning deal, I will take it!

            The fact that we don't agree on the hoaxer is irrelevant, secondary at best.


            Thank you.


            The Baron
            You are most welcome, Baron.

            I would curtsy if me old back wasn't giving me jip.

            Nice to see the general toning down of the toxic atmos.

            Keep it friendly, folks. Life's too short, and I've no doubt the diary will outlive us all.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              RJ made a major mistake when he returned his Barrett & Gray comedy box set to the sender
              The funny thing, Caz, is that even when you're attempting to childishly 'troll' someone, you can't get your facts straight.

              This is the second time you made this claim, but it's just one of your usual muddles. I never 'returned' by Barrett tapes to the 'sender,' nor did I ever imply this. It's just some sort of strange paranoid assumption.

              Why you are so obsessed with my personal business is anyone's guess, but I received the tapes from an early diary researcher, and then, some years later, I sent what I had to a third party, who I have since lost contact with. They could be dead for all I know. There is no mystery, but it is increasingly evident that you are deeply upset that people outside the inner circle of diary belief have heard these tapes.

              Meanwhile, as you run around the internet claiming that diary skeptics have gullibly accepted every word that once fell from Barrett's lips, let me remind everyone here that there is no greater Barrett Believer than our own Caroline Brown.

              According to Caz, Barrett spent a week in the Central Liverpool Library, and this is what allowed him to give the correct citation for the Richard Crashaw quote.

              What is her one and only source for this porkie? Michael Barrett!

              And also according to Caz, Barrett had TWO copies of Richard Whitting-Egan's Tales of Liverpool: the one he supposedly never read (despite mentioning it in his research notes) and the one he later stumbled across in a bookstore.

              What is her one and only source for this porkie? Michael Barrett!

              There is not a shred of evidence that either of the above events happened, but they are accepted as facts, because, let's face it, there is no one more eager to believe the unconfirmed tall tales of Mike Barrett than Caroline Brown...as long as he was saying something she wanted to hear.

              This is why it is a good idea to give the diary believers a wide berth. Even those who know damned well that the Diary is a modern fake have a strange impulse to muse over Jim Maybrick owning the Collected Works of Richard Crashaw or having a habit of referring to his wife's godmother (a woman there is no evidence that he had ever met) as "aunt" or "auntie." To a third-party, no less!

              All for the sake of giving lip service to a fraud. It's a wind-up, folks. Rest assured.
              Last edited by rjpalmer; 10-19-2021, 02:00 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                Ike, let me apologise. I was unnecessarily rude about your posts and there isn't really any excuse for that. Despite what I think about the whole diary thing being bonkers, I shouldn't have come across as total nob - sorry.
                Well I honestly wasn't offended, Aethelwulf - I've had a great deal worse over the years and it really is water off a waxed-car's back. Harry stuck the boot in with his follow-up accusation of 'intellectual dishonesty' but I let it go as just another day with a Y in it; and anyway Caz's brilliant switchblade action had sorted him out before I had a chance to corner him in a dark vennel and tweak his handle-bar moustache keenly.

                For the avoidance of doubt (in the event that it is relevant), I didn't report your post but happy to accept your apology and move on.

                There appears to be an outbreak of civility going on suddenly. I'm not sure I like it. Thankfully, we have RJ making his 74th return from self-imposed retirement this year to get us back in the mood for a bit of Jack-related slapstick.

                PS Just before I read your first post, what went through my mind was "Ah - a new poster!" And then, "And what a great name!". As I say, I do love a little irony in the morning.

                Cheers,

                Ike
                Iconoclast
                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  All for the sake of giving lip service to a fraud. It's a wind-up, folks. Rest assured.
                  RJ,

                  You're spoiling the love-in (I wonder if Mike Barrett ever contributed to that cheeky periodical too?).

                  Saying "It's a wind-up, folks" to an already-established anti-Maybrick crowd is - let's be honest - not the most concrete indictment of his candidature for Jack the Spratt, now is it?

                  Facts, dear boy. Where are your facts?
                  Iconoclast
                  Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                  Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                    Ike, let me apologise. I was unnecessarily rude about your posts and there isn't really any excuse for that. Despite what I think about the whole diary thing being bonkers, I shouldn't have come across as total nob - sorry.
                    Easy thing to do, harder to admit to. Kudos. It's not our views, it's how we share them, or it should be but several threads on this site get bare knuckle at times, see the A6 (historically), the Wallace threads or Maddy McCann.

                    You can argue the toss and disagree with Ike all day long, he'll always reply in the spirit of gentlemanly pugilism, he'll fight his corner, you fight yours. If you think he hasn't got a leg to stand on, kick it out from under him, expect a kick back, he has one.

                    (Note: I've read "the brilliant" Societies Pillar, and Lord O's rebuttal. I don't agree with much of Ike's reasoning, but I appreciate he lays it out for all to see, and that's refreshing in this field.)

                    (PPS if you want a critique of the Maybrick Diary, see Orsam Books, there's plenty there, but it's devisive, just keep in mind David Barrat is a quality researcher and a knowledgeable guy, and that he referred to me as a "Muppet", this ain't a paid promotion.)

                    ​​​​​​
                    ​​​​​
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      The funny thing, Caz, is that even when you're attempting to childishly 'troll' someone, you can't get your facts straight.

                      This is the second time you made this claim, but it's just one of your usual muddles. I never 'returned' by Barrett tapes to the 'sender,' nor did I ever imply this. It's just some sort of strange paranoid assumption.

                      Why you are so obsessed with my personal business is anyone's guess, but I received the tapes from an early diary researcher, and then, some years later, I sent what I had to a third party, who I have since lost contact with. They could be dead for all I know. There is no mystery, but it is increasingly evident that you are deeply upset that people outside the inner circle of diary belief have heard these tapes.

                      Meanwhile, as you run around the internet claiming that diary skeptics have gullibly accepted every word that once fell from Barrett's lips, let me remind everyone here that there is no greater Barrett Believer than our own Caroline Brown.

                      According to Caz, Barrett spent a week in the Central Liverpool Library, and this is what allowed him to give the correct citation for the Richard Crashaw quote.

                      What is her one and only source for this porkie? Michael Barrett!

                      And also according to Caz, Barrett had TWO copies of Richard Whitting-Egan's Tales of Liverpool: the one he supposedly never read (despite mentioning it in his research notes) and the one he later stumbled across in a bookstore.

                      What is her one and only source for this porkie? Michael Barrett!

                      There is not a shred of evidence that either of the above events happened, but they are accepted as facts, because, let's face it, there is no one more eager to believe the unconfirmed tall tales of Mike Barrett than Caroline Brown...as long as he was saying something she wanted to hear.

                      This is why it is a good idea to give the diary believers a wide berth. Even those who know damned well that the Diary is a modern fake have a strange impulse to muse over Jim Maybrick owning the Collected Works of Richard Crashaw or having a habit of referring to his wife's godmother (a woman there is no evidence that he had ever met) as "aunt" or "auntie." To a third-party, no less!

                      All for the sake of giving lip service to a fraud. It's a wind-up, folks. Rest assured.
                      Touched a nerve there, didn't I, RJ?

                      The biggest problem you have is to prove that whoever created the diary did it to commit that loaded word 'fraud', and lived to make money out of it.

                      Otherwise you are simply stating biased opinion as fact.

                      If you had posted one straight story from the beginning about who sent you the tapes, who you sent them to after losing interest, and why you thought they contained proof of a Barrett creation and therefore a 'fraud', I'd have been able to quote you directly, but here we are and still you duck and dive, as if there's some big old mystery about all this. Anyone who wanted to claim those tapes have evidence on them that Mike had inside knowledge of the diary's creation process prior to the day he brought it to London should have put up or shut up. The only knowledge anyone can safely say Mike had about the diary's origins by April 1992 is how and when the old book got into his possession, who else was present when it changed hands and what condition it was in.

                      That situation hasn't changed from that day to this, despite the wishful thinking that so often poses as fact around here.


                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                        *cough*

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	1-q5DosI-MvJEuyJ1ZaK_r6T4D8UKEaykKDd7WF9wQM.jpg?auto=webp&s=80b18e8ac108e5189378e42dfd3087bcaab8e22b.jpg Views:	0 Size:	115.0 KB ID:	771051


                        Click image for larger version  Name:	0ce25efc-da5c-4e44-9b40-6fd7e07a9865.jpg Views:	0 Size:	146.4 KB ID:	771052

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	1473854121.png?precrop=624,442,x0,y0&height=1360&width=1920.png Views:	0 Size:	71.8 KB ID:	771053
                        Click image for larger version  Name:	0_Mercedes-Morrs-stalker-scrawled-confession-on-walls-in-lipstick-after-killing-OnlyFans-star-dad-cl.jpg Views:	0 Size:	23.8 KB ID:	771054

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	tumblr_plpajqMlNi1y4kt1do1_r1_640.jpg Views:	0 Size:	73.9 KB ID:	771055

                        Five minutes on Google Image search.
                        Your image search supports my points.

                        Here they are again.

                        3) Real serial killers almost never write anything on the walls. It is far more common in detective fiction.

                        6) Even the handful of serial killers who write things on the walls don't write their names on the wall to leave clues for the police. That only happens in detective fiction. Bad detective fiction.

                        Looking at your images.

                        * "Healter Skelter" is by real serial killers, but it is not a name.

                        * "He killed my wife" is by a killer, but not a serial killer. It is not a name.

                        * "I kill eight-year-old April Marie Tisley I will kill agin" was written two tears after her murder. It might have been written by her killer. It is not the name of the killer.

                        * The 4th picture is from the scene of a murder-suicide. It was not a serial killer. It is not a name.

                        * "I Love You Nancy" is a hoax, as rjpalmer already noted. It is not the name of the killer.

                        Real serial killers who write things on the walls don't write their names on the wall to leave clues for the police.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                          * "Healter Skelter" is by real serial killers, but it is not a name.
                          Spree killers, not serialists.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            Spree killers, not serialists.
                            He can’t tell the difference. Apparently his criteria is strictly limited to serial killers. And names. Which FM wasn’t.
                            Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                            JayHartley.com

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              It's the double standard I don't like, Harry. What about the errors and contradictions in Mike's confessions; the handwriting that isn't attributable to him or to any other modern suspect; and the Battlecrease provenance that has been hiding in plain sight, ticking away like a time bomb? If none of these taken individually or collectively are enough to budge the 11 Day Creationists from their smug complacency of a Barrett based hoax, I don't know what would.

                              It's the same intellectual dishonesty, which I regularly see from the suspect-based modern hoax theorists.

                              It's a game they are playing without the winning cards they should have had years ago.

                              Bit of whataboutism going on here, Caz.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                                If we want to be anal which seems your preferred mode

                                Speak of yourself.

                                Your chosing of words is rather baffling, sure you are ok?! You may get benefit if you stay away from your monitor for a while, some social activities I would suggest in your case




                                FM is not James Maybrick leaving his name is it? It is simply a clue.

                                Do you want to say he didn't leave his name at all, no James somewhere then?! huh?




                                The point being made by me is serial killer or not, murderers do leave messages and clues on walls

                                If that was your point, why didn't you simply say this

                                And what a cute point you are making, we know already that Jack may very well have written the GSG on a wall!




                                The serial nature makes not a jot of difference to that point. This is not something that separates serial killers from normal murderers

                                You realy need to read up further, even if this is as you believe, you were able to say that instead of posting random photos, even a compassionate grandmother can search google these days




                                It happens to the best of us


                                Not very frequently (means often) as it happens with you though




                                Do I believe the initials are there? Yes.


                                I am sure you believe in ghosts too



                                As much as you and your pals want to kill this whole debate stone dead - you can’t because nuance shows it is not stone dead.


                                It is already stone dead, you can close your eyes and plug your ears and sing No No No No I don't hear you I don't hear you all the day long, it is check mated more than 2 centuries ago, did you find bumbling buffoon during your 5 minutes search?!

                                I don't think so




                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X