One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Trevor Marriott]

I find this thread fascinating. The amount of times the same people keep coming on and declaring time of death of the scrapbook / watch / candidacy of James Maybrick with nothing to support it.

Yet here we are again. Try as you might, you fail each time to kill it stone dead. This fallacy that time is somehow not kind is rather absolutely the opposite.

Cut to five years time when Trev and RJ are still replying to posts on this thread trying to strangle the whole thing dead and trying to convince readers with half-baked arguments and grand declarations.

Perhaps for all of our sakes we collectively focus on how both the watch and scrapbook ACTUALLY came to be. Give up the Barretts and Johnson forgery angles. Perhaps let's work together to get the actual truth?

I imagine we won't. We will be back here again.

It really is a mad world.

Perhaps you and all the other misguided diary believers can come up with some proof to back up what you all keep banging on about that the diary is the real deal, I wait with baited breath but I dont hold out much hope.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

Perhaps you and all the other misguided diary believers can come up with some proof to back up what you all keep banging on about that the diary is the real deal, I wait with baited breath but I dont hold out much hope.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are we in the "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" game?

Kinky Trev.

You first.

[John Wheat]

Are we in the "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" game?

Kinky Trev.

You first.

Considering the appalling provenance of the Diary surely the emphasis is on the Diary believers to prove its authenticity.

[Trevor Marriott]

Considering the appalling provenance of the Diary surely the emphasis is on the Diary believers to prove its authenticity.

Exactly, and they are not able to do that otherwise we would have had it rammed down our throats long before now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

Considering the appalling provenance of the Diary surely the emphasis is on the Diary believers to prove its authenticity.

Yes, John, you are - in the general sense - absolutely 100% correct and I genuinely couldn't agree more. Whether the diary has an appalling provenance (or contains 'anachronisms' or 'errors' or whatever) is almost secondary to the bigger issue which is that the onus over time is for this document to be proven authentic not the other way around.

But - in the specific sense - every single time one of your brethren makes a claim without the evidence to support it, they give themselves a burden of proof which they never fulfil.

So it's fine for each of us to hold and indeed express our personal opinions (and we hope they won't be offensive). If you say "It is my overwhelming belief given the evidence before me that this document is a fake" then I would support your right to say it. I might ask "What evidence do you find so compelling?" but I don't expect you to have to answer my question. I'd like to think you would but you are certainly not morally or intellectually required to answer.

"It has all the hallmarks of a fake ..." [fine with me, that's someone's opinion and they are entitled to hold and express it] "and it has been proven to be a fake" [ah - a burden of proof has just appeared and that must be qualified with the evidence].

Mike Barrett was the master of the categorical claim without supporting evidence and he was therefore a member of 'Tease With Incontrovertible Tumbleweed' and Trevor's predictable response to ero b was exactly as I predicted in #7622:

Diary Denier: It's an obvious fake. It's been proved to be a fake time and time again.

Diary Researcher: Oh, I didn't know that. What was it that proved it to be a fake?

Diary Denier: Well, you can't show that it's authentic.

Diary Researcher: I didn't say I could prove it was authentic, but I have written a book covering all of the salient points and here's two of the really compelling ones.

Diary Denier: Those examples are just rubbish.

Diary Researcher: Well, I've done my bit, let's get back to answering the issue you raised - what evidence is there that proves it's a fake?

Diary Denier: It's an obvious fake.

It is my opinion (which I hold with 99.9% confidence) that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic but if I turn that opinion into a categorical claim and say that it is authentic or has been proven to be authentic then clearly I give myself a burden of proof to back it up or else my claims will look as shallow as Mike Barrett's.

Now, no categorical claims were being made regarding authenticity then suddenly Trevor pipes up with one - 'the diary has been proven to be a fake'. And what's his only argument to support it? Well, it's that no-one has proven it to be authentic. That's not evidence. Trevor fell into that trap, and you followed him into the pit.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Exactly, and they are not able to do that otherwise we would have had it rammed down our throats long before now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And that's fine Trevor but if you come on here making categorical claims which you cannot provide the evidence for, you will have your claims challenged.

I think we all know that what you really meant was "I believe it's a fake and I believe it's been proven to be fake" and - if that was what you meant - that's your opinions on the matter and you are very welcome to them.

Opinions are like driving in the inside lane - there's little danger in tootling along at 60 along with the Eddie Stobart lorries. Making your opinions known is like driving in the middle lane at 70-75 - do it long enough to make your point and then get out of the way again. When you shift your opinions up a gear or two and turn them into categorical claims, you've put your jalopy into the outside lane and you should know there's inevitably a bunch of crazy BMW drivers roaring-up behind you.

How fast are you able to drive, Trevor?

Ike

[PaulB]

Considering the appalling provenance of the Diary surely the emphasis is on the Diary believers to prove its authenticity.

I bowed out of the "diary" debate a long time ago and I have no real idea of the back and forth arguments that have occupied 7500 posts on this thread alone, but are all the so-called "diary believers" really diary believers? What if they don't believe the "diary" is genuine, but don't accept that it has been demonstrated that the "diary" was created by Mike Barrett, or whatever the theory is? If that's the case, they're asking the "non-believers" to prove their argument that Barrett wrote it, or whatever.

[Iconoclast]

I bowed out of the "diary" debate a long time ago and I have no real idea of the back and forth arguments that have occupied 7500 posts on this thread alone ...

There are other threads, Paul???

... but are all the so-called "diary believers" really diary believers?

Of course, most of us know that the answer to that is 'No'. There are a few hardy sorts who won't be budged (ero b, Spider, Tempus Omnia Revelat, my mate FDC, etc. - oh, and me!) but very few posters come out of the closet with a firm 'I am a pro-diarist, please don't judge me or send me for electric shock therapy'). In answer to your question, maybe that's because most of them were never in the closet in the first place?

What if they don't believe the "diary" is genuine, but don't accept that it has been demonstrated that the "diary" was created by Mike Barrett, or whatever the theory is?

In that case I would applaud them for their application of evidenced-based logic in the second half of your proposition.

If that's the case, they're asking the "non-believers" to prove their argument that Barrett wrote it, or whatever.

I'd hate it if they ever did that (for obvious reasons) not least because it would ruin my daily home-based laughter therapy (which I signed-up to in order to avoid electric shock therapy). I still have to wear the tag, of course.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

How fast are you able to drive, Trevor?

I'm going to get in quick here before Caz beats me to it (where is she, by the way? I'm quite missing the gore):

Question: How fast are you able to drive, Trevor?

Answer: As fast as the power of my cargument.

Da-dum!

[Iconoclast]

It is my opinion (which I hold with 99.9% confidence) that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic but if I turn that opinion into a categorical claim and say that it is authentic or has been proven to be authentic then clearly I give myself a burden of proof to back it up or else my claims will look as shallow as Mike Barrett's.

Ike

I know, I know, dear readers - the truth is my brilliant Society's Pillar did exactly that. I know.

I just get forgetful these days ...

[PaulB]

There are other threads, Paul???



Of course, most of us know that the answer to that is 'No'. There are a few hardy sorts who won't be budged (ero b, Spider, Tempus Omnia Revelat, my mate FDC, etc. - oh, and me!) but very few posters come out of the closet with a firm 'I am a pro-diarist, please don't judge me or send me for electric shock therapy').



In that case I would applaud them for their application of evidenced-based logic in the second half of your proposition.



I'd hate it if they ever did that (for obvious reasons) not least because it would ruin my daily home-based laughter therapy (which I signed-up to in order to avoid electric shock therapy). I still have to wear the tag, of course.

Ike

I wasn't directing my comments to you, Ike, so much as to those who blanket everyone who questions the modern fake argument as "diary believers". Not accepting assertions such as Trevor's that the "diary" is a modern fake, does not mean it is believed to be genuine. As I have said many times, I think the polarization between believer (Feldman) and non-believer (Harris) split resources and damned a proper investigation of the "diary".

[Iconoclast]

Last one from me for a minute or two, dear readers.

For those of you who worry that perhaps the likes of Roger Marriott and TJ Palmer aren't always presenting balanced and consistent views based upon the evidence, you know you have got me to keep them out of the outside lane.

No, honestly, you're all very welcome.

Ike

[caz]

Caroline, is it possible Mike was attempting to write his own version of a "Maybrick Diary", before giving up and handing over what he already had?

Hi Scotty,

I suppose anything was possible with a man like Mike Barrett. There has to be an explanation if - as all the evidence I have seen and heard screams - Mike had already seen the old book containing Jack the Ripper's diary when he put in his request.

There is zero evidence that Mike even had Maybrick in mind that early on, or had worked out if 'Jack' could be identified as a real person. Put yourself in anyone's shoes, seeing that old book for the first time. How would you know it was meant to be the writer's actual diary, as opposed to their idea for a novel based on the ripper's world famous crimes?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No I havent read the book...

Thought so. You haven't even looked at the nice pictures, have you?

Then may I kindly suggest you refrain for passing further comment on what you assume the book contains and what it doesn't, before you make an even bigger tit of yourself - if that's possible?

If not for your own sake, for RJ's, who must be squirming with every new ill-informed post you write, in support of the beliefs he holds so dear. Your kind of support does more damage to the Barrett hoax theory than any diary 'defender' could do.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Perhaps you and all the other misguided diary believers can come up with some proof to back up what you all keep banging on about that the diary is the real deal, I wait with baited breath but I dont hold out much hope.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

All two of them, Trev? Ike and Ero?

It floors me that even though Barrett believers outnumber diary believers in this place by at least ten to one, you seem to think there is a whole army to defeat.

Love,

Caz
X