One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Well perhaps you will take up the gauntlet and prove conclusively that the affadvit is false, because it clearly describes in many ways how the diary came to be forged.

You naysayers keep criticising those who say the diary is a fake but you are short on being able to prove the diary to be authentic and written by Maybrick, take your head out of the sand for once and look at what is staring you in the face. The diary has been proved to be a fake by many means and by many experts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

Hi Roger,
I obviously did misunderstand your post. Sorry about that, but I suspected that I might have done, which is why I sought clarification. Thanks for the explanation, I hope all is well with you and yours and that plans for Christmas aren't scuppered by this new variant.

Cheers
Paul

[PaulB]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
I'm afraid I'm neither interested in nor in a position to prove you or anyone else wrong about the diary, irrespective of what they believe or when they believe it was written. I was just curious to know why you are so resistant to reading a book on the subject, and are instead willing to accept second-hand opinions rather than do your own research. You may have reached your own assessments and evaluations, as you keep saying in one way or another, but, as you again acknowledge, it's "from what has been presented to" you, not from what you have found out for yourself. But please, it's clear you are avoiding the question, so let it drop.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I'm afraid I'm neither interested in nor in a position to prove you or anyone else wrong about the diary, irrespective of what they believe or when they believe it was written. I was just curious to know why you are so resistant to reading a book on the subject, and are instead willing to accept second-hand opinions rather than do your own research. You may have reached your own assessments and evaluations, as you keep saying in one way or another, but, as you again acknowledge, it's "from what has been presented to" you, not from what you have found out for yourself. But please, it's clear you are avoiding the question, so let it drop.

The opinons are no more second hand than the opinions of the writers of the book.

I have assesed and evaluated the affadavit and in my opinon it is the real deal, That being said as I keep saying no one has been able to prove otherwise.

And again at the risk of having to keep repeating myself there is a wealth of corroboration in the public domain from independent experts that confirm the diary is a fake, perhaps you should take the blinkers off and go check it out. You clearly have an agenda with this issue, which I can understand as you were it seems yet again involved directly involved right at the beginning of this fiasco as you were with other contentious issues that have arisen over the years with.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[StevenOwl]

The opinons are no more second hand than the opinions of the writers of the book.

I have assesed and evaluated the affadavit and in my opinon it is the real deal, That being said as I keep saying no one has been able to prove otherwise.

And again at the risk of having to keep repeating myself there is a wealth of corroboration in the public domain from independent experts that confirm the diary is a fake, perhaps you should take the blinkers off and go check it out. You clearly have an agenda with this issue, which I can understand as you were it seems yet again involved directly involved right at the beginning of this fiasco as you were with other contentious issues that have arisen over the years with.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Congratulations on the most ill-informed post in Casebook history. Serious question - were you ever really a proper detective? I only ask as all your posts on this thread are ignorant to the pint of embarrassment.

[rjpalmer]

As far as I can gather, only four reasons have been given for believing the diary is an old document.

1. William Graham claimed to have seen the diary in the 1940s.

2. Rod McNeil’s ion migration test determined that ink went on paper between 1909 and 1933, inclusive.

3. The chemist Alec Voller noticed the ink was ‘bronzed’ during a visual examination in October 1995, which suggested to him antiquity.

4. [by implication] a miniscule piece of metal, ‘darkened with age,' was found in a scratch on the back inside cover of the ‘Maybrick’ watch. I say by implication because this refers to the watch, of course, and not the diary.

Are there any others?

On that note, I think I will stumble down to the pub for a pint or two of embarrassment, and maybe a chaser of humiliation.

[PaulB]

The opinons are no more second hand than the opinions of the writers of the book.

I have assesed and evaluated the affadavit and in my opinon it is the real deal, That being said as I keep saying no one has been able to prove otherwise.

And again at the risk of having to keep repeating myself there is a wealth of corroboration in the public domain from independent experts that confirm the diary is a fake, perhaps you should take the blinkers off and go check it out. You clearly have an agenda with this issue, which I can understand as you were it seems yet again involved directly involved right at the beginning of this fiasco as you were with other contentious issues that have arisen over the years with.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
I haven't said what I think about the diary, I have not disagreed with your assessment of it, and I clearly told you that I am not interested in arguing about it and don't feel sufficiently informed to do so. So there was no need to accuse me of wearing blinkers etc. All I was interested in was why you don't want to read a book, but you keep avoiding the question and instead repeat the same things which I have already told you several times I understand. You said you haven't read the book and based your assessments and evaluations of the book on "what has been presented to me" by other people. I don't understand why you prefer relying on what others have given or told you instead of reading the book and drawing your own conclusions, but you have a problem explaining that, please let it drop. It was only a passing curiosity and really isn't very important to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Congratulations on the most ill-informed post in Casebook history. Serious question - were you ever really a proper detective? I only ask as all your posts on this thread are ignorant to the pint of embarrassment.

I can assure you that there are many other ill informed posts on this topic yours being just one of them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I haven't said what I think about the diary, I have not disagreed with your assessment of it, and I clearly told you that I am not interested in arguing about it and don't feel sufficiently informed to do so. So there was no need to accuse me of wearing blinkers etc. All I was interested in was why you don't want to read a book, but you keep avoiding the question and instead repeat the same things which I have already told you several times I understand. You said you haven't read the book and based your assessments and evaluations of the book on "what has been presented to me" by other people. I don't understand why you prefer relying on what others have given or told you instead of reading the book and drawing your own conclusions, but you have a problem explaining that, please let it drop. It was only a passing curiosity and really isn't very important to me.

Paul
You are wrong I have based my opinion on the affadavit and have clearly stated that I believe it to be the real deal. Caz clearly disagrees with my opinion as do others who belive the diary to be the authentic, which she is quite entitled to do so, all I have done is to ask her to provide evidence from the book which will show that the affadavit is not the real deal. I have thrown down the gauntlet to all the others who belive it to be false but to date no one has been able to provide that information. I dont see what reading the book will achieve.

A simple answer would have been to refer to Anne Grahams radio interview where she denies being involved, but having listened to that interview I wonder why Anne Graham was not signed up as a storyteller for Jackanory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Paul
You are wrong I have based my opinion on the affadavit and have clearly stated that I believe it to be the real deal. Caz clearly disagrees with my opinion as do others who belive the diary to be the authentic, which she is quite entitled to do so, all I have done is to ask her to provide evidence from the book which will show that the affadavit is not the real deal. I have thrown down the gauntlet to all the others who belive it to be false but to date no one has been able to provide that information. I dont see what reading the book will achieve.

A simple answer would have been to refer to Anne Grahams radio interview where she denies being involved, but having listened to that interview I wonder why Anne Graham was not signed up as a storyteller for Jackanory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know what you think about the affidavit, I haven't disagreed with you, I haven't voiced an opinion about it, and I've told you that I don't feel sufficiently informed to do so. I also know that you asked Caz to provide you with evidence from her book that proves your assessment wrong, but that request is precisely the reason I asked you why you didn't read the book and see what the argument is for yourself. You have determinedly avoided answering that question, and as it clearly embarrasses you, move on to something else.

[Iconoclast]

Mrs Iconoclast and I are just back from an unexpected trip to Edinburgh so I'm afraid, dear readers, I have been largely unavailable to protect you from the vicissitudes of this most endless and frequently mind-numbing of debates.

Picking up occasionally during my absence the ongoing themes, it is interesting to stand back and observe what is going on here and what is going on here is one of four core 'camps' and a small gaggle of picnickers arguing the same points over and over from their particular perspectives. These consist of:

1) Those posters who are absolutely convinced that the Maybrick scrapbook is a hoax and who believe only those arguments which support that belief, absolutely without exception and who are comfortable massaging information to support that belief whether it has been properly researched or not;

2) Those posters who are absolutely certain that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic, who focus on those aspects of the case which appear to point strongly towards authenticity, and who therefore challenge all evidence supposedly supporting the hoax theory (especially where non sequiturs pose as argument);

3) Those posters who are absolutely certain that neither case has been properly made and who therefore challenge all examples of inadequate logic and inconclusive evidence presented as unequivocal;

4) Those posters who present their own theories which are often left of left-field and which garner little interest and have next to no evidential support to back them up.

Picnickers) Those posters who not unreasonably want their fifteen minutes of fame by posting on The Greatest Thread of All (they're my favourite type, by the way, as I get to charge them exorbitantly for photographs).

Which camp are you in, dear readers?

More from The Great Iconoclast very soon.

The Great Iconoclast
Probably Quite a Lot Cleverer than Yowww

[The Baron]

Anne Grahams radio interview where she denies being involved, but having listened to that interview I wonder why Anne Graham was not signed up as a storyteller for Jackanory

From radio interview with Anne Graham:

"- you gave it to Tony Devereux who was a mutual friend of the three of yours?

- Anne Graham: No, he was a friend of mine, I’d only met him about – sorry, a friend of Michael’s, I’d only met him myself about twice before."





The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Hi Baron--

She gives an 'evil' diary that she has kept hidden since her teenage years to a man she barely knows so he can pass it on to her own iLLiteRAte husband so he can write a fictional story about it before later helping her ILiteRAte husband type up research notes about it when they instead decide to take it to a literary agency for publication.

What is there not to believe?

[erobitha]

Finally a thread of the debate we can agree on!

Her story has no logic in it at all.

You believe she is throwing a curve ball because she knows it was hoaxed and wants another bite at that big fat publishing cherry.

I say she did it because she had no idea where Mike actually got it from and to take control of the situation she concocted this story so Mike didn’t drag the whole thing down in flames.

[rjpalmer]

Here is a further response from Keith Skinner:



Anne Graham never made an affidavit and to the best of my knowledge she has never changed her story about the diary being in her family and giving it via a 3rd person to give to her husband. As far as I am concerned, that story still stands and has to be constantly weighed against the Battlecrease theory as well as the modern hoax theory.

Anne may or may not have made an affidavit, Keith, but according to Paul Feldman she was sitting beside Mike when he signed those early ones. Is your information different?




page 222-223, Feldman