One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't say that you had damned or praised the book, I said that you would be able to do so from personal knowledge if you'd read it. As it is you're having to ask the opinion of the authors or somebody else.

I am not asking opinions, I am asking for conclusive proof from the book that the affadavit is false.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

I suppose you could argue that because the writing in the diary is not comparable to that of Maybrick then that is conclusive proof that the diary is a fake, which is what all of this is about whether the diary is the real deal or a fake, as to who wrote it is somewhat academic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why are you raising the affidavits if who wrote it is "somewhat academic" if Maybrick didn't? I thought you were arguing that Mike and Ann were the hoaxers? If so, the handwriting problem remains. If you're not arguing that, then we still don't know who the hoaxer was or what their purpose was in perpetrating the hoax.

[PaulB]

I am not asking opinions, I am asking for conclusive proof from the book that the affadavit is false.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear. Yes, I know you are asking for "conclusive proof", but my point is that you wouldn't have to ask if you had read the book. It's also clear that you appear to have made up your mind about the affidavit without reading what the book has to say. Surely it isn't sensible to form an opinion or reach a conclusion without consulting a book written by people who were close to the events and people concerned?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear. Yes, I know you are asking for "conclusive proof", but my point is that you wouldn't have to ask if you had read the book. It's also clear that you appear to have made up your mind about the affidavit without reading what the book has to say. Surely it isn't sensible to form an opinion or reach a conclusion without consulting a book written by people who were close to the events and people concerned?

But it is for those writers involved in the book to prove that the affadvit is false, from what i have ascertained from other sources they have not been able to do so and when asked on here that proof is conspicious by its absence. The writers are clearly trying to defend their position as set out in the book which I can fully understand, there can be noithing worse for a writer/s to set their stall out in a book and then have it shot down in flames therefater, you of all persons should know that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why are you raising the affidavits if who wrote it is "somewhat academic" if Maybrick didn't? I thought you were arguing that Mike and Ann were the hoaxers? If so, the handwriting problem remains. If you're not arguing that, then we still don't know who the hoaxer was or what their purpose was in perpetrating the hoax.

The diary has proved to be a modern day hoax it it plainly clear the reasons for the actions of those involved in the faking

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

I thought you were arguing that Mike and Ann were the hoaxers? If so, the handwriting problem remains.

Since similarities between the diary’s writing and Anne Graham’s undisguised handwriting have been demonstrated, there’s not necessarily any “handwriting problem” remaining.

If you're not arguing that, then we still don't know who the hoaxer was or what their purpose was in perpetrating the hoax.

What kind of proof do you think could be produced to convince people of who did it and why?

There are details about the forging of the Hitler diaries that are unknown or unresolved, yet we’re not discussing who their hoaxer was or what the purpose was. But when it comes to the diary, some people are willing to pretend to believe the most ridiculous arguments in order to avoid accepting even basic facts.

The guy who brought forth the provenance-free diary tried to profit from doing so. And he afterwards stated that that had been his intention from the start.
Seems pretty clear what the motive was.

[PaulB]

But it is for those writers involved in the book to prove that the affadvit is false, from what i have ascertained from other sources they have not been able to do so and when asked on here that proof is conspicious by its absence. The writers are clearly trying to defend their position as set out in the book which I can fully understand, there can be noithing worse for a writer/s to set their stall out in a book and then have it shot down in flames therefater, you of all persons should know that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can well imagine that it isn't a pleasant experience to set out one's stall and have it shown to be wrong, although I don't have personal experience of it, but if they've laid out their case in their book, isn't it up to you to show to now show why their case is wrong? Anyway, the point is that you admit that you have ascertained what they have done or not done from other sources, whereas if you had read the book for yourself you would know it for yourself. Maybe you have a good reason for relying on what other people tell you instead of investing a little time and effort in coming to your own conclusions.

[Trevor Marriott]

I can well imagine that it isn't a pleasant experience to set out one's stall and have it shown to be wrong, although I don't have personal experience of it, but if they've laid out their case in their book, isn't it up to you to show to now show why their case is wrong? Anyway, the point is that you admit that you have ascertained what they have done or not done from other sources, whereas if you had read the book for yourself you would know it for yourself. Maybe you have a good reason for relying on what other people tell you instead of investing a little time and effort in coming to your own conclusions.

I disagree I have set my stall out by saying that the affadavit is proof the the diary is a fake, In addittion experts who have examined the diary also state it is a modern day forgery, But it seems Caz who was involved in the book does not agree, So I have challenged her to produce evidence from the book to show that the diary is not a fake, and that the indpendent experts are also wrong. There is no need for me to challenge any of the book contents at this stage, that has been done by others so I would only be duplicatiing what others have previoulsy stated.

www.trevormarriott,co.uk

[PaulB]

Since similarities between the diary’s writing and Anne Graham’s undisguised handwriting have been demonstrated, there’s not necessarily any “handwriting problem” remaining.

What kind of proof do you think could be produced to convince people of who did it and why?

There are details about the forging of the Hitler diaries that are unknown or unresolved, yet we’re not discussing who their hoaxer was or what the purpose was. But when it comes to the diary, some people are willing to pretend to believe the most ridiculous arguments in order to avoid accepting even basic facts.

The guy who brought forth the provenance-free diary tried to profit from doing so. And he afterwards stated that that had been his intention from the start.
Seems pretty clear what the motive was.

I’m sorry, Katrup, I’m not travelling down this road. I just asked a simple question predicated on my impression that Roger believes the diary was penned by Mike or Anne and that Ike believes the diary was penned by Maybrick, and Roger’s assertion that Caz believed the diary to be an old hoax. I could understand why the handwriting not matching Mike or Anne’s could pose a problem for Roger’s theory, and why the handwriting not matching Maybrick’s can pose a problem for Ike, but I didn’t understand why there was a problem with Caz not identifying the handwriting of an old hoaxer whose identity she did not know.

Caz has since explained that she doesn't believe the diary was penned by an old hoaxer; she just doesn't accept that it has been shown that it was penned by Mike, Anne, or James. And she still doesn't have to identify the handwriting.

As a result of what you have just told me, I assume she doesn't accept that the diary handwriting has been demonstrated to resemble Anne handwriting. But that's slightly different from what Roger said.

As for everything else, it was in reply to an irrelevant question by Trevor on which I offered an opinion in general terms.

[PaulB]

I disagree I have set my stall out by saying that the affadavit is proof the the diary is a fake, In addittion experts who have examined the diary also state it is a modern day forgery, But it seems Caz who was involved in the book does not agree, So I have challenged her to produce evidence from the book to show that the diary is not a fake, and that the indpendent experts are also wrong. There is no need for me to challenge any of the book contents at this stage, that has been done by others so I would only be duplicatiing what others have previoulsy stated.

www.trevormarriott,co.uk

Okay, I think I am going to give up on you with this one, Trevor. I have said I understand what you have challenged her to do, and finding different ways to tell me the same thing isn't taking us anywhere. And you repeatedly admit is that your opinion of what is written in the book is based entirely on the opinion of others, which is what I said to start with. What you seem to be avoiding telling me is why you prefer to accept the opinion of others rather than read the book for yourself. But don't worry, I've lost interest in whether you read books or not.

[erobitha]

I can't take Trevor's opinions or views seriously if he is unable to understand the basic facts of how many affidavits were written and when. I don't think he can add much value to the debate to be honest.

As much as I disagree with RJ on almost every level, at least he takes the time to research his points.

What I feel both Paul B and Caz maybe alluding to is that neither side has categorically proven anything conclusively. Which means, the debate rages on and has value until we are able to conclusively understand how the scrapbook came to be and where it actually came from.

Mike SAYING he forged the diary does not make it true. He has provided ZERO proof of how he did it and when. We have no receipts, no corroboration, no accurate timings, no meaningful science or even any reliable sources of reference from his statements. If Mike produced one receipt that confirms he purchased the ink or the scrapbook, I would not be here debating anything. It would be game, set and match for the Barrett hoax theory. Mike was being spiteful and wanted to burn down Rome. He was many things, but he was not the hoaxer of this scrapbook.

I suspect RJ and maybe even Orsam too, know this deep down. They fight the pro Barrett hoax theory valiantly but they too have come up short with any absolute proof to support it. Likewise, we 'diary defenders' are also short of absolute proof. Both sides believe their cases to be strong.

I want the truth. Mike's testimonies will not leads us there. I don't believe Anne's will either.

If the scrapbook is ultimately proven to have not been the product of a Mike Barrett hoax, then history must record the fact that Mike Barrett did more damage to the credibility of the scrapbook than any of the so called 'conclusive' tests did. That damage may even be beyond repair. Which means we potentially consign what could be a very important historical document to the bin because of one man's spiteful actions against his ex wife.

People like Trevor can make whatever conclusions they want without knowing all the nuances around this, and most people have, but until we know the truth for certain, I will remain laser-focused on Maybrick as being JtR.

[rjpalmer]

But my point was that Caz was right to say that the handwriting posed problems for the theories of both R.J. and Ike, and that R.J. was wrong - unless I missed something, which is why I asked - to suggest that it posed a similar problem for her.

Hi Paul,

Unfortunately, you seem to have misread my post and are thus misrepresenting my position. Nowhere did I state that Mike or Anne ‘penned’ the diary. I stated there is compelling evidence—and I would suggest overwhelming evidence--that the diary is a modern hoax, and that Mike Barrett has demonstrated inside knowledge. I never suggested the penman’s (or pen woman’s) identity, and indeed I see no reason that I need to.

The issue I have is that Caz has implied, or has attempted to imply several times, that the failure to name the penman leaves the age of the diary an open question and an inscrutable mystery. This is a non sequitur; one can reasonably know the age of the diary without identifying the penman. It is also a rather transparent attempt to set the burden of proof unreasonably high.

As far as I can tell, what Caz is doing is entirely similar to Harry over on the “Petticoat” thread suggesting that you have failed to prove that any of the victims ever engaged in prostitution because you have failed to provide CCTV footage showing that they did.

It’s an unreasonable burden of evidence and a form of denialism; it rejects any evidence that isn’t an all-out slum drunk.

As Trevor states, the hoaxer could have successfully disguised their handwriting or obtained the services of an unknown penman--or as Kattrup suggests---disguised their handwriting when asked to supply a sample.

Thus, the identity of the penman, the age of the diary, and the Barrett’s involvement are three separate questions, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

That is what I am saying.


Cheers, RP

[erobitha]

Hi Paul,

Unfortunately, you seem to have misread my post and are thus misrepresenting my position. Nowhere did I state that Mike or Anne ‘penned’ the diary. I stated there is compelling evidence—and I would suggest overwhelming evidence--that the diary is a modern hoax, and that Mike Barrett has demonstrated inside knowledge. I never suggested the penman’s (or pen woman’s) identity, and indeed I see no reason that I need to.

The issue I have is that Caz has implied, or has attempted to imply several times, that the failure to name the penman leaves the age of the diary an open question and an inscrutable mystery. This is a non sequitur; one can reasonably know the age of the diary without identifying the penman. It is also a rather transparent attempt to set the burden of proof unreasonably high.

As far as I can tell, what Caz is doing is entirely similar to Harry over on the “Petticoat” thread suggesting that you have failed to prove that any of the victims ever engaged in prostitution because you have failed to provide CCTV footage showing that they did.

It’s an unreasonable burden of evidence and a form of denialism; it rejects any evidence that isn’t an all-out slum drunk.

As Trevor states, the hoaxer could have successfully disguised their handwriting or obtained the services of an unknown penman--or as Kattrup suggests---disguised their handwriting when asked to supply a sample.

Thus, the identity of the penman, the age of the diary, and the Barrett’s involvement are three separate questions, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

That is what I am saying.


Cheers, RP

How we disagree once again.

Mike had not demonstrated enough "insider knowledge" RJ. All his references were prompted by others. We need to get real and agree none of us actually believes Mike Barrett hoaxed the scrapbook.

I also do not believe the bar is super high to identify the penman or ultimately how Mike came into possession of it.

We should all be trying to do this.

You want to dismiss the attempts at discussion and discovery as some 'cosy mystery' that has no historical importance, because you believe the proof weighs in the favour of it being a modern hoax. And that is that.

Except, the proof does not weigh beyond doubt.

[rjpalmer]

How we disagree once again.

Mike had not demonstrated enough "insider knowledge" RJ.

Welcome to Harry's world. Saying it a thousand times doesn't make it so.

Although I hasten to add that I appreciate Harry's use of the word "unfortunate" rather than prostitute, since the former is more nuanced and thus preferable.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay, I think I am going to give up on you with this one, Trevor. I have said I understand what you have challenged her to do, and finding different ways to tell me the same thing isn't taking us anywhere. And you repeatedly admit is that your opinion of what is written in the book is based entirely on the opinion of others, which is what I said to start with. What you seem to be avoiding telling me is why you prefer to accept the opinion of others rather than read the book for yourself. But don't worry, I've lost interest in whether you read books or not.

I have to accept what i have personally assessed and evaluated from what has been presented to me and the conclusion I have arrived at from all of that.

You or Caz or anyone else is fully entitled to prove me wrong and all the others who firmly belive the diary is a modern day fake, but so far that hasnt happened

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk