One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Ike— what evidence can you produce to show that Alan Gray was working “at the direction” of Melvin Harris? This is quite the allegation. Who told you this or is it your own invention?

If Gray was working for Harris, why did he complain that Barrett wasn’t paying his fees? Doesn't that suggest this was merely an arrangement between Barrett and Gray, and you’re just weaving more paranoid conjectures, having misunderstood what was really going on?

It’s odd, Ike. You never seem to be bothered by the internal inconsistencies in your theories.

[Trevor Marriott]

Before I come back to you on this point, can you just be 100% clear about how you conclude the below, please?



You have now stated it twice in two days so you must have evidence which is absolutely incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable which proves the diary to be a fake otherwise you wouldn't - in all seriousness - simply type it in a post on a website and think that that is sufficient to make the case?

To be clear, 'incontrovertible, unequivocal, and undeniable' means absolutely beyond any form of dispute or counter-argument, Trevor.

As a retired murder squad detective, Trevor, I trust your standard of proof is impeccable here.

Ike

I am not going to go into all the tests and examinations that have been carried out by experts to prove the diary is a fake, because I am sure you are aware of all of those, but it seems for some reason you are not prepared to accept that as evidence, which I accpet you are fully entitled to do so.

But in addittion we have evidence from Barrett in the form of a signed and sworn affadavit in which he not only admits to faking the diary, but sets out in great detail how he went about it, coupled with the experts analaysis of the diary which shows it to be a fake. I dont know what more you expect as evidence, to me what is relied upon is good evidence, and given the passage of time is as good as it is going to get.

Let me throw the ball in your court, what is the evidence you are seeking to rely on to show that the diary is genuine and was written by Maybrick? If you are going to dimiss those who suggest it is a fake, you have to stand up and be counted and provide details of why you think it is genuine for your the evidence you seek to rely on to be tested

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

This is the first time we’ve learned that the ‘craven and desperate’ Alan Gray was an alcoholic whose wife had recently left him. Sloppy syntax reveals sloppy thinking.

The only thing craven and desperate, Ike, is your muddled and inaccurate interpretations of these events. Why do you still allow a team of researchers who couldn’t solve the case of the bogus diary (Feldman & Co) to be your interpreters? That was your first mistake and it will forever remain your last mistake.

I can be accused of ambiguity, RJ, but not sloppy syntax. The second use of 'he' was ambiguous in retrospect but not syntactically nor semantically (the sentence still made perfect sense) and anyone knowing even a tiny amount about this case knew that. You were just scoring cheap (really cheap) points and it's such a shame when you descend to that level to seek an advantage.

I just live with the fact that people type quickly when they are posting. If I didn't, I'd pick Trevor up for his consistent misspelling of 'affidavit'. It just doesn't matter, we get the point.

Your broad brush sweep of the 'team of researchers' who couldn't solve the case of the bogus diary is meaningful only if it were a bogus diary and we are a long way from proving that to be the case (though I note that Trevor has replied to my last question seeking his proof so I'm excitedly signing-off this post so that I can have my eyes opened by his deep wisdom in the Maybrick case).

Ike

[rjpalmer]

You were just scoring cheap (really cheap) points and it's such a shame when you descend to that level to seek an advantage.

I'm scoring cheap points?

You claimed that Harris was directing Alan Gray. What evidence do you have for this?

You also characterized Gray, now deceased, as cowardly (craven) and desperate. What is your evidence for this?

Syntax: "the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language."

RP

[Iconoclast]

I am not going to go into all the tests and examinations that have been carried out by experts to prove the diary is a fake, because I am sure you are aware of all of those, but it seems for some reason you are not prepared to accept that as evidence, which I accpet you are fully entitled to do so.

But in addittion we have evidence from Barrett in the form of a signed and sworn affadavit in which he not only admits to faking the diary, but sets out in great detail how he went about it, coupled with the experts analaysis of the diary which shows it to be a fake. I dont know what more you expect as evidence, to me what is relied upon is good evidence, and given the passage of time is as good as it is going to get.

Let me throw the ball in your court, what is the evidence you are seeking to rely on to show that the diary is genuine and was written by Maybrick? If you are going to dimiss those who suggest it is a fake, you have to stand up and be counted and provide details of why you think it is genuine for your the evidence you seek to rely on to be tested

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

The 'expert' analysis has not in any way, shape, or form proven the Victorian scrapbook to be a hoaxed document (if it had, we wouldn't be here arguing the toss) - you are getting confused with people claiming it is a hoax (like you do) when their interpretation of the evidence they are citing is not adequate to make their case or when they don't even have any evidence to refer to. The 'experts' have offered their opinions that the document is a fake but no one 'expert' has EVER provided evidence which can be viewed as incontrovertible. Ever, Trevor. So you are buying into what I am not buying into. I will buy into what you are buying into when I see evidence of a fake which cannot be understood in any other terms (and when the 'experts' are not simply citing their own opinion).

You can cite Mike Barrett's second affidavit until you are blue in the face - repeating it will never make it less fraught with error, nor ever contradict the fact that it was not his first affidavit and that that one swore to the truth of his claim that he received the scrapbook from Tony Devereux (already written). So you like the second one, I get that, but detectives liking a potential suspect for murder probably was enough to send them down for life when you were a copper but probably isn't quite enough in these more constrained days. You'd probably have to prove it, I think.

With regard to the evidence which supports the authenticity of the diary, I would honestly have to refer you to my brilliant Society's Pillar - ideally the 2025 version which is going to be an even bigger blockbuster than the original though obviously you've got to be a wee bit patient for that one - but I could distil my primary evidence down to the presence of 'FM' on Kelly's wall (initials predicted in the diary in the context of Kelly's death) and James Maybrick's highly-idiosyncratic signature appearing in the back of his watch with the confession "I am Jack" and his victim's initials. There's more, but that's the distilling bit. You know where to go for the rest, mate.

Please - everyone - don't retort "The letters aren't there" or attempt some deconstruction of Maybrick's signature in the watch. They are there, and so is the signature in the watch.

You are all very welcome.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

the 'team of researchers' who couldn't solve the case of the bogus diary is meaningful only if it were a bogus diary and we are a long way from proving that to be the case

Even your supporters don't believe you, Ike, and acknowledge the handwriting is not Maybrick's. It's lonely on the island where you live.

[Iconoclast]

I'm scoring cheap points?

Yes, you are.

You claimed that Harris was directing Alan Gray. What evidence do you have for this?

As I understand it (and you have said you had the tapes), Gray reveals in one of the magical Gray-Barrett tapes that Melvin Harris was encouraging Grey to get Barrett to agree to sign the affidavit which he eventually did on January 5, 1995.

You also characterized Gray, now deceased, as cowardly (craven) and desperate. What is your evidence for this?

I see you avoided quoting the "contemptibly lacking in courage" definition which I think rather neatly describes Grey's 1994-1995 tunnel-vision trust in Barrett's every word.

Syntax: "the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language."

Brilliant - thank you, RJ. My sentence wasn't just well-formed, it was beautifully-formed!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

If Gray was working for Harris, why did he complain that Barrett wasn’t paying his fees? Doesn't that suggest this was merely an arrangement between Barrett and Gray, and you’re just weaving more paranoid conjectures, having misunderstood what was really going on?

Gray was not being paid by Barrett, that we can be quite sure of. I don't know whether Harris paid Gray or not.

It’s odd, Ike. You never seem to be bothered by the internal inconsistencies in your theories.

Well I would be if there were any!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Let me throw the ball in your court, what is the evidence you are seeking to rely on to show that the diary is genuine and was written by Maybrick? If you are going to dimiss those who suggest it is a fake, you have to stand up and be counted and provide details of why you think it is genuine for your the evidence you seek to rely on to be tested

Just for the record, Trevor, you threw the ball back into my court and I answered your question.

It was you - not I - who claimed to have proof of something. You gave us "experts said something about it being a fake" and "it's a complete piece of pish" (I'm paraphrasing here - you get the point) but at no point did you give the proof.

Have you got it?

If you have, could you drop us all a quick note to let us know what it is, please?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

This is a transparently ridiculous claim, Ike. The penwoman could have corrected errors and made minor (or major?) adjustments when writing out the pre-existing text into the ledger. It’s obviously a two-way street.

And, of course, despite the passing of over 25 years, the public is still not allowed to see the typescript and thus has had no opportunity to form their own opinions. It must be quite the doozy.

Whenever I hear "this is an obviously ridiculous claim", it is always clear that someone is rattled. Even if it were wrong, it's clearly not a ridiculous claim!

The diary was difficult to transcribe in places and the Barretts typed it incorrectly as 'save the whore's mole bonnett' instead of what we recognise now to be the semantically relevant 'save the whore's mole bonnett'.

There is no two-way street operating here, RJ.

[Iconoclast]

It's lonely on the island where you live.

No more so, I imagine, than the planet where you live, RJ.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

The 'expert' analysis has not in any way, shape, or form proven the Victorian scrapbook to be a hoaxed document (if it had, we wouldn't be here arguing the toss) - you are getting confused with people claiming it is a hoax (like you do) when their interpretation of the evidence they are citing is not adequate to make their case or when they don't even have any evidence to refer to. The 'experts' have offered their opinions that the document is a fake but no one 'expert' has EVER provided evidence which can be viewed as incontrovertible. Ever, Trevor. So you are buying into what I am not buying into. I will buy into what you are buying into when I see evidence of a fake which cannot be understood in any other terms (and when the 'experts' are not simply citing their own opinion).

There is a plethora of evidence showing it is a fake, you need to accept that or produce evidence which shows it isnt a fake never mind muddying the waters with facts that do not prove the case either way.

Not forgetting the writing in Maybricks will is not the same handwriting as in the diary!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can cite Mike Barrett's second affidavit until you are blue in the face - repeating it will never make it less fraught with error, nor ever contradict the fact that it was not his first affidavit and that that one swore to the truth of his claim that he received the scrapbook from Tony Devereux (already written). So you like the second one, I get that, but detectives liking a potential suspect for murder probably was enough to send them down for life when you were a copper but probably isn't quite enough in these more constrained days. You'd probably have to prove it, I think.

It is bound to have errors Mike was back pedalling trying to dig himself out of the big hole he had dug himself in forumalting the first affadavit and potential criminal proceedings against him desapater times call for desperate measures and it is quite clear the at that time Mike was desperate to back pedal

With regard to the evidence which supports the authenticity of the diary, I would honestly have to refer you to my brilliant Society's Pillar - ideally the 2025 version which is going to be an even bigger blockbuster than the original though obviously you've got to be a wee bit patient for that one - but I could distil my primary evidence down to the presence of 'FM' on Kelly's wall (initials predicted in the diary in the context of Kelly's death) and James Maybrick's highly-idiosyncratic signature appearing in the back of his watch with the confession "I am Jack" and his victim's initials. There's more, but that's the distilling bit. You know where to go for the rest, mate.

Please - everyone - don't retort "The letters aren't there" or attempt some deconstruction of Maybrick's signature in the watch. They are there, and so is the signature in the watch. Ike

I think you need to look at what consitutes evidence, because as I see it you have nothing from an evidential perspective, which negates the belief that firstly the diary is a fake, and secondly Mike and others were involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary. The watch and the mythical initials are nothing more than smokescreen that have sadly muddied the waters as far as all of this is concerned.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Just for the record, Trevor, you threw the ball back into my court and I answered your question.

It was you - not I - who claimed to have proof of something. You gave us "experts said something about it being a fake" and "it's a complete piece of pish" (I'm paraphrasing here - you get the point) but at no point did you give the proof.

Have you got it?

If you have, could you drop us all a quick note to let us know what it is, please?

Ike

What do you expect as real proof ? please tell us what would make you believe that the diary is not a fake?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

What do you expect as real proof ?

This:


>>"If the author had talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax"


Funny thing is, David Orsam has cited a reference to the Liverpool Football Club dating back to 1874!




So in essence, there is nothing that can prove the diary is a fake!



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

What do you expect as real proof ? please tell us what would make you believe that the diary is not a fake?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

I thought you'd never ask, mate (although I obviously had to correct your question in my mind):

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Ike