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 StevenOwl View Post
    Jesus wept - I'm losing the will to live with all these armchair detectives who think they have it all sewn up and yet still aren't aware of the basics regarding what lies Bongo told and when. Honestly Caz, I really don't know how you find the energy to keep serving them their arses back on a plate (but I'm very glad that you do).
    In Switchy's case, Owly, just like Maybrick did - ... damaged of course, severely damaged.
    Iconoclast
    Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
    Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

      It's not clear where there are any dates in the material you quote that would preclude Maybrick from being JtR, perhaps you could point them out? It seems perfectly reasonable that the hoaxers used Ryan's book and my point was that there is no reason to think he/she/they got "lucky" with the dates mentioned in MacDougall since it would be no great matter to actually consult the book and check.

      And as usual you insinuate that if the hoaxers could not be absolutely certain of never being uncovered, they would not have attempted the hoax, which is just nonsense.

      The fact that you claim you personally would not have attempted a hoax is no reason to think that hoaxers would not attempt it.
      Talk about missing the point!

      With hindsight, and with all the known surviving records at one's fingertips, it's very easy to say that not much luck was involved because nothing has been found to clash with Sir Jim's supposed trips down south to down whores.

      The point is, if the Barretts had read those passages in Ryan when planning their funny little hoax, they'd have been forgiven for saying: "Eff this for a game of soldiers! We've picked the wrong man for the job here. How could we hope to get away with using Maybrick as our Jack, with him going up and down to his local chemist like a fiddler's elbow, up to five times a day during the Autumn of Terror?" They'd have had no reason for optimism, would they?

      I really can't see Mike having the time or the patience to plough through all the available documentation he could have got access to, on the off-chance of coming to the last syllable of the last word on the subject, having found nothing to compromise his fraudulent enterprise. Why would anyone do that? And yet without doing it, they could have expected to come unstuck after reading what Ryan wrote.

      The fact that they didn't, doesn't alter the fact that they couldn't have known that at the time.

      Love,

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


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

        That seems a very idealistic view of how things ought to work, would you not agree? I mean, we know the handwriting does not match yet the diary did not actually "fall". It still got published and generated income and status for people, some of whom continue to participate in propagating the charade to this day.

        That is not the only inference to draw: the fact that no effort was made to imitate Maybrick's handwriting suggests that the faker did not expect a handwriting comparison to be conclusive or even important for the scam to pay off. And in fact that is exactly what has happened, is it not? The handwriting does not match, but we still have people unwilling to accept that it is a modern fake, or even that it is a fake.

        As mentioned there's at least a third choice: the faker did not think the handwriting comparison would mean much. And I'm unsure how you can say that Mike not attempting to fake Maybrick's handwriting would indicate that Ann did not attempt it? Keeping in mind, of course, that Mike consistently claimed that it's her handwriting and indeed there are many similarities between her handwriting and the handwriting found in the diary.

        But given that there's no particular reason why Mike and Anne could not have penned it, and given that nobody can detect anyone else who could have done so without resorting to exceptionally silly arguments with no factual basis, why should this theoretical line of reasoning be explored or given any creedence?
        I thank you for that, but it isn't clear to me why you think what did happen is relevant to anything I said. The faker didn't know what would happen, nor could he have foreseen what happened happening. As for your final paragraph, you are basically saying what I'd already said - I said nobody could detect a Mr Big the Forger, and you said "nobody can detect anyone else who could have done" it. You said "here's no particular reason why Mike and Anne could not have penned it" and I had said that the particular reason is that they wanted the diary to be accepted as genuine, would have anticipated a handwriting comparison, and done something to overcome it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          His first affidavit, Columbo? That was the one where he claimed he was given the diary in good faith by a mate who died.

          Have you been taking lessons from not so clever Trevor?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          I stand corrected. Not that I'm as worried about it as Stevenowl.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            Mike didn't pen the diary, Trev.

            If you believe his affidavit you'd know why he didn't.

            One answer down, just the one to go: whose handwriting was it anyway?

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            I have said all along that there were other persons beside Mike involved in this conspiracy, the problem is positively identifying them, and that could be the answer to the handwriting conflict. I bet no one has checked the handwriting of all the other protagonists.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              I have said all along that there were other persons beside Mike involved in this conspiracy, the problem is positively identifying them, and that could be the answer to the handwriting conflict. I bet no one has checked the handwriting of all the other protagonists.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              So why is it that no one really believes Barrett and his wife couldn't have faked this? He explains it plainly enough yet no one seems he could've concocted this scheme as he says. He says his wife transcribed the diary on his computer/word processor. and probably she or he most likely copied that to the diary. Some say he lied in his confession, etc,. But as far as I know, which is very little, there has not been a 3rd party coming forward. Caz I'm sure will "hand me my arse" but I'm willing to risk it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Robert's legal advice, which came from Harbottle & Lewis, the Queen's solicitors, was that Smith Gryphon should purchase rights in the diary for a nominal 1. As he said to me, evidently you think your grasp of copyright law is superior to that of Harbottle & Lewis. Robert's final opinion of you as an informed commentator is probably better imagined than repeated here.
                Thanks, Caz.

                I have no doubt whatsoever that Robert Smith was indeed advised by Harbottle to buy Mike's diary for 1 but that really doesn't settle the matter in my mind. It would certainly protect Smith's own financial interests, since Mike selling it to Feldy for 14,000 would complicate matters and potentially place the copyright in Feldy's hands rather than Smith's, but I'm asking why it would have protected, as Smith says, 'the diary.' Nor does it explain why Robert Smith portrayed this transaction as a humanitarian mission, not at the request of Harbottle, but to keep Mike from the bottle. But I'll drop the matter for the time being. The reason I think it is relevant, and why I pursued it in the first place, in part is because Mike refers in the affidavit that we are discussing to his belief that he was "hoodwinked" by Smith, and feeling "hoodwinked" might have some bearing on determining the motive for Mike's affidavit that still seems to be baffling Keith.

                Meanwhile, on the subject of Smith, here's something Robert Smith posted to Casebook on 1 July 2004. It's quite interesting.

                "You may remember that on 23rd January 2004, I appealed on these boards for a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine ink. I had already been in lengthy correspondence with a UK laboratory and had received a financial estimate for tests to compare the diary ink with Diamine ink, which Mike Barrett claimed he had bought to write the diary.

                If I can locate a bottle of Diamine, I will announce when the tests are to take place, and when completed, promptly post the full report of them on the Casebook for all to see." --Robert Smith.



                In reading an article by David B. at the Orsam Books website, I saw a reference to Smith actually obtaining such a bottle of pre-1992 Diamine Ink from Shirley Harrison, who obtained it from Alec Voller himself. This was over ten years ago.

                So where are the results of these tests that Robert Smith promised to "promptly" carry out and post to this website? Have I missed it? If you recall, I was absent from the boards for a span of around 7 years, but I've made quite a long search and I'm not seeing the results of this test.

                Am I to believe that Smith didn't actually carry out these tests despite obtaining the bottle of pre-1992 Diamine Ink? Or was there perhaps another issue? I think we can safely assume that Smith's willingness to carry out the tests, coupled with his 'lengthy correspondence' with the UK lab, must signal that he had been assured that the proposed tests would not have damaged the diary further.

                With all the very best wishes,

                RP
                Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-17-2021, 04:06 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  Talk about missing the point!

                  With hindsight, and with all the known surviving records at one's fingertips, it's very easy to say that not much luck was involved because nothing has been found to clash with Sir Jim's supposed trips down south to down whores.

                  The point is, if the Barretts had read those passages in Ryan when planning their funny little hoax, they'd have been forgiven for saying: "Eff this for a game of soldiers! We've picked the wrong man for the job here. How could we hope to get away with using Maybrick as our Jack, with him going up and down to his local chemist like a fiddler's elbow, up to five times a day during the Autumn of Terror?" They'd have had no reason for optimism, would they?

                  I really can't see Mike having the time or the patience to plough through all the available documentation he could have got access to, on the off-chance of coming to the last syllable of the last word on the subject, having found nothing to compromise his fraudulent enterprise. Why would anyone do that? And yet without doing it, they could have expected to come unstuck after reading what Ryan wrote.

                  The fact that they didn't, doesn't alter the fact that they couldn't have known that at the time.
                  Talk about missing the point indeed.

                  Try going back through the discussion, reading it and understanding that you have indeed missed the point I was making.

                  You then introduce a new point that YOU wish to make, which as usual is nonsensical. The fact that YOU read the passages you quoted as an insurmountable obstacle to casting Maybrick as JtR does not mean that others would. Because, as I think we established, there are no dates mentioned that would decisively clash with the Ripper-timeline.
                  So wow, you feel MB&co would be forgiven for feeling intimidated by the mentions of Maybrick going frequently to the chemist or the doctor.

                  So what? They do not need your forgiveness and one could equally say they were encouraged by the passages, since no dates were mentioned, in fact it is precisely mentioned that Maybrick went out of town and had his medication prepared in advance for such occasions.


                  "Eff yeah! We've picked the right man for the job here. How could anyone hope to prove Maybrick as our Jack wrong, with him going out of town often and no dates recorded for his visits to the doctor during the Autumn of Terror?" They'd have had every reason for optimism, wouldn't they?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    Hi Scott,

                    I wonder if Martin Howells would agree about there being 'zero' evidence?

                    He seemed to have been quite impressed by the fact that Mike's personal copy of Tales of Liverpool, with its two chapters on the Maybrick case---not to mention it being the same booklet cited in Mike's research notes and elsewhere--was provably in the possession of Tony Devereux since at least July 1991. (Long before Dodd's floorboards were lifted). This suggests Devereux & Barrett discussed Maybrick, and even Paul Feldmann accepted this as convincing circumstantial evidence.
                    Below is a response from Keith for Scott Nelson, concerning what RJ posted above:


                    Roger Palmer is misleading the Message Boards by distorting and putting his own spin on information and presenting it as fact. There is no evidence, for example, that Martin was...

                    "quite impressed by the fact that Mike's personal copy of Tales of Liverpool, with its two chapters on the Maybrick case---not to mention it being the same booklet cited in Mike's research notes and elsewhere--was provably in the possession of Tony Devereux since at least July 1991."

                    Here is the exchange between Mike Barrett and Martin extracted from the Liverpool interview of September 1993 - pp12-13

                    MH: Yeah, it's just that one of the daughters has
                    apparently said that in fact she remembers
                    that book Murder Mayhem and Mystery being
                    lent to the younger daughter. Tony
                    Devereux's.

                    MB: Well which daughter? Sorry.

                    MH: The younger one. I don't know the names. In
                    other words that the book that you had which
                    was your book.


                    From which exchange Palmer concludes the above. Furthermore, Palmer does not take into account the subsequent research which showed that Devereux's daughter was loaned the book by her father at the beginning of 1991. He infers that Martin was familiar with the two chapters in Tales Of Liverpool and that Martin was aware of Mike's research notes. And Palmer does not know the precise details of the Scotland Yard investigation which occurred in October 1993 (the following month). I'm not sure of Palmer's source for claiming 'and even Paul Feldmann accepted this as convincing circumstantial evidence'.

                    So really Scott should be advised that a great deal of Roger Palmer's ignorance about the details of the early investigation and ongoing research, comes alive in his writing.

                    Best Wishes
                    Keith


                    Hi Scotty,

                    I would just add my own observation that having a copy of the very popular book, Tales of Liverpool, with no distinguishing features, does not amount to evidence that the person with the book - in this case Tony Devereux, who passed it on to his daughter in January 1991 - ever 'discussed' Maybrick with Mike Barrett or anyone else [the Maybrick chapters are towards the end of the book] or ever heard a word about the deeply unpopular Maybrick diary.

                    RJ wrote:

                    This suggests Devereux & Barrett discussed Maybrick...
                    What 'suggests' something to RJ is not 'evidence' that it actually happened, as should be crystal clear by now, given his long and winding track record of reading too much into any given situation; twisting people's words to make them 'suggest' what he wants them to; or trotting out old information, where it suits his purpose to ignore subsequent research which has provided him with updates and corrections.

                    RJ must know damn well he is doing this, in addition to questioning fellow posters' sanity and attributing beliefs, claims and arguments to me and others, which we have not expressed, and I can only think he is reduced to being a wind-up merchant, no longer caring how his posts reflect on his own integrity. It's rapidly heading towards zero, like the evidence for Devereux's awareness of Mike Barrett's diary.

                    Love,

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


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                      I thank you for that, but it isn't clear to me why you think what did happen is relevant to anything I said. The faker didn't know what would happen, nor could he have foreseen what happened happening. As for your final paragraph, you are basically saying what I'd already said - I said nobody could detect a Mr Big the Forger, and you said "nobody can detect anyone else who could have done" it. You said "here's no particular reason why Mike and Anne could not have penned it" and I had said that the particular reason is that they wanted the diary to be accepted as genuine, would have anticipated a handwriting comparison, and done something to overcome it.
                      The later events I thought were relevant to and illustrative of how the choice you presented the faker with, and your overall assumption that the diary would fall at the first hurdle if the handwriting did not match, were insufficient as a basis for a line of reasoning. Because, for instance, the handwriting actually does not match, yet the diary has not fallen at that hurdle.

                      But we can leave out the later events, if you like.

                      I just felt that the "simple" choice you presented the faker with was too simple, in that there is at least a third option: to consider the handwriting comparison irrelevant.
                      For instance, in one of the magazines that Mike wrote for, there was an article 1986 (the same period as Mike was writing for the magazine) about the Hitler Diaries and how the forger made 3m pounds off them - it was stated in the article that a handwriting comparison had been made but the samples submitted to experts had been too small to enable them to be certain in their analysis.

                      So a forger, perhaps one who'd read that article because it was from a magazine he submitted articles to, could know that a handwriting comparison was not always conclusive. If the forger believed that there were very few examples of Maybrick's handwriting available (incidentally, Mike later stated he did not try to copy Maybrick's will because he believed it was not in Maybrick's own hand), he or she might plough on ahead without caring too much about matching the actual handwriting of his or her subject.

                      Indifference to handwriting comparisons combined perhaps with perceived difficulty in obtaining examples of Maybrick's handwriting is therefore a third option for a faker.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        So what was the motive for the diary creator, as I stated previous its not the thing you would set out to do one sunday afternoon when you were bored it took a lot of time to write and a lot of research. I question just how much information would have been available to the writer if as you suggest the diary is an historic fraud?

                        Now let me turn to the confessional affadavit which if that was all made up and if as you say Barrett was an gibbering alcholic who by your decsription of him could not string two sentences together, then how did the contents of the affadvit come to be in so much detail?, and how do you know so much about him as a person to make that judgement.

                        After all why did he need to go into such detail in the affadavit, he could have simply made an affadavit just making a brief admission to faking it with no need to say what he said, and no need to involve anyone else.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        If he did it, Trev, all he had to do was to whip out his ticket, showing that he obtained the diary scrapbook from an O&L auction! No other details necessary; no affidavit; no motive; no lies mixed in with truths; no memory feats needed; no nothing.

                        Orsam believes Mike had this ticket in 1999, so where was it in 1995, 1994, 1993 and 1992? And why did Mike never use it, given his claim in the affidavit that he had been trying to expose the diary as a fraud since December 1993?

                        If he was afraid of being arrested, why was he not afraid that the affidavit would have the same result?

                        Think, Trev, think. You have a brain in there somewhere, and I don't think you are short of opinions, so think about this:

                        What stopped Mike from ending all this in December 1993, by showing that auction ticket?

                        If anyone else wants to come up with an idea, feel free.

                        Or does everyone now doubt the wisdom according to Orsam?

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          Irrelevant. The dates in MacDougall don't conflict with the diary. The forger need not have known about them. And if he did know about them, they don't conflict so it doesn't matter one iota.

                          Further, despite Martin's statement, the forger didn't get 'lucky,' because the odds were actually in the hoaxer's favor that the dates wouldn't conflict.

                          As for Ryan, Caz's point is incomprehensible. The forger doesn't give a rat's about matching Maybrick's handwriting, but they care about some obscure point that no one can understand?

                          Do take a basic logic course, Ike, and get back to us in 2025. You're wasting everyone's time.
                          I thought you preferred 'hoaxer', RJ.

                          A 'forger' typically makes some attempt to 'forge' something. The diary is not a forgery, nor has Maybrick's handwriting been forged.

                          That should give anyone pause before they assume the Barretts were responsible, and took their material directly from Ryan's book. Doesn't the book describe Maybrick's Will? Did the Barretts assume this would not have survived for comparison purposes?

                          What is always forgotten is that regardless of who wrote the diary, there is zero evidence that the Barretts had any previous experience with literary hoaxes, or could have anticipated what to expect, when handing over the diary to be pored over by strangers in London.

                          Could they reasonably have expected the handwriting to be overlooked as a total irrelevance? How about the internal content, claiming Sir Jim was free on the murder dates to bugger off to London, unencumbered by documented doctors' visits in Liverpool, or five-a-day drug top-ups, as implied by Ryan?

                          "Doesn't matter, nobody will bother checking and, even if they do, the odds are in our favour that nothing will be found - medical, professional or personal - to take Maybrick out of our phoney frame"?

                          Are you for real? How were the Barretts meant to calculate the odds from those passages in Ryan?

                          How were they meant to calculate that the odds were also in their favour that, where the Hitler Diaries hoaxer quickly came unstuck and earned himself a prison sentence, the Barretts would not have their handiwork subjected to similar scrutiny, and would go on to make lots of lovely lolly?

                          Nothing mattered. They got away with the loot [until Mike went and blew it all for no obvious reason], so naturally they must have known the odds were in their favour from the start - assuming they even cared.

                          Whoever knew hoaxing was such an easy game? Evidently the Barretts did. No beginner's luck necessary.

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


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            (emphasis added)

                            Folks, please notice the calculated use of the word IF in the above statement. Caz is a sly one; she knows what she's about.

                            As I have already pointed out my reasoning to Paul, I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

                            Let me just mention something.

                            Mike Barrett swore a signed statement that he hoaxed the diary along with his then-wife.

                            Please tell us, Caz. Has Eddie Lyons signed a similar statement, admitting to theft and the sale of stolen goods? Can you produce this document for our viewing pleasure and assessment?

                            This must really get your goat, Caz, because I don’t need to accuse Mike of anything--he already accused himself. I am merely exploring whether Mike's signed confession was true, and I think there is evidence that it was true, at least in part if not in its entirety.

                            By contrast, my understanding is that Eddie Lyons has denied the accusations that you have leveled against him. He denies being a thief. He denies being a fence. He denies finding the diary in Dodd's house. He denies having sold anything to Barrett.

                            Can you show otherwise?

                            In brief, Barrett admitted to his hoax, and thus we have the greenlight to explore whether he was being truthful.

                            By contrast, you are accusing a 'still living' man of stealing the document from Paul Dodd's house--Eddie Lyons, to be specific--so is it not a massive "cop-out" that you don't need to offer evidence for this outlandish suggestion beyond speculation piled upon speculation?

                            The projection machine is working overtime, today.
                            Jesus, this is getting surreal.

                            My 'if' was a mere figure of speech, but you see it as 'calculated' and me as 'a sly one'. Wow. I wouldn't like to be inside your head.

                            Please tell us, RJ. Has Anne Graham ever accused herself, in a signed statement, of helping Mike create the diary? No? Why do you think that is? And why would you expect Eddie Lyons to have accused himself of anything to do with it? Mike would seem to have been the odd one out, accusing himself of fraud, when normal people, like Anne and Eddie, don't tend to accuse themselves of bad or criminal behaviour, regardless of innocence or guilt.

                            I have levelled no 'accusations' against Eddie. I have only ever posted extracts from the large volume of material that has been accumulated, concerning what he has claimed, and what he has denied, and what others who were associated with him have claimed. It's suggestive - a term you will be familiar with - but I have no personal knowledge that would allow me to accuse him directly of anything. Some of his accounts directly contradict the accounts of others who claimed to be in his company at the time, so either those people have lied or Eddie has. Mike gave his diary a Fountains Road provenance, a year before he knew that Eddie, who lived on the same road, had worked in Maybrick's old house. That is what I would call 'suggestive', if not downright awkward. But it's not an accusation. I leave others to do the accusing.

                            You accused Anne only the other day of 'gaslighting' over the 1891 diary, which Mike ordered and she ended up paying for by cheque in May 1992. So please tell us where she has admitted, in a signed statement, to knowing and deliberately concealing the date and details of Mike's request and order in March 1992.

                            Or are you now backing away from Anne being involved along with Mike, using the old get out of jail free card: "Mike accused himself"?

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


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                              Let's end this discussion by mentioning that MB stated knowing such things was easy if doing documentary research and that he was a researcher and before he started anything he researched - and that Skinner acknowledged that MB had actually studied the Maybrick case for some time.
                              Is that true, or did Keith merely 'acknowledge' what Mike himself claimed to have done? Keith has no independent evidence that I am aware of, that Mike had 'studied' the Maybrick case, or done any related 'research' into it, at any time prior to March 1992. Mike's research notes don't count as they were produced by your suspected hoaxers. Nor do the two chapters in Tales of Liverpool, which anyone could have read without this being evidence of further study or research.

                              Shirley Harrison, who was in the best position to know, wrote in her 1994 paperback that she had sometimes asked Mike: 'to do simple research in Liverpool, so that he could feel involved. He was always desperate to play his part, and yet I knew how confused and agitated he became when he could not understand the fairly simple tasks I set him'.

                              At any rate: the discussion was about the argument that the hoaxers were extremely lucky that there were no dates mentioned among the many dated prescription bottles that clashed with Ripper-murders. The simple counter-argument I made is that it need not have been that lucky, since there were actually very few dates for autumn 1888 (thus it was not necessarily extremely or very or extraordinarily lucky) and that there's no reason the hoaxers could not have researched it beforehand - because the information was certainly available, whether you then mistakenly consider it a "great" matter or not.
                              Which is all well and good, Kattrup, but if Mike had researched this beforehand, or knew that Anne had done so, he could have used the knowledge gained to impress Shirley when he was meant to be helping her with the 1993 edition.

                              Alternatively, if he only pretended to come across as 'confused and agitated', to avoid any suspicion that he had been down this route before when creating the text of the diary, he could have used the knowledge gained to add some much needed support when he decided to confess to what they'd done and how they'd gone about it.

                              But then we return to RJ's 'mental fog' to explain why Mike wasn't thinking straight by then. So confused and agitated was he by January 1995, that it didn't even occur to him to catch the nearest way and wave his auction ticket around. Much too simple.

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • All the pompous posturing on this thread is very silly, but when in Rome…

                                TO KEITH SKINNER.

                                Please, Keith—you have forwarded a highly deceptive statement, and I find it beneath you. I trust you will be honest enough to come back and acknowledge this.

                                You write:

                                “Roger Palmer is misleading the Message Boards by distorting and putting his own spin on information and presenting it as fact.

                                Hold the phone, Keith. To the contrary, I did no such thing. This only appears to be the case because you mischaracterize what I actually wrote by leaving out the initial clause that I “wondered” if Martin would agree—and posed it as a question complete with a question mark!---and then you compound your misrepresentation of me by leaving out another word from my statement.

                                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                                Hi Scott,

                                I wonder if Martin Howells would agree about there being 'zero' evidence?

                                He seemed to have been quite impressed by the fact that Mike's personal copy of Tales of Liverpool
                                How on earth is this me “presenting it as fact?”

                                Your version: “There is no evidence, for example, that Martin was..."quite impressed by the fact that Mike's personal copy of Tales of Liverpool, with its two chapters on the Maybrick case”

                                But that’s not what I wrote, Keith, and I suspect you know this.

                                seemed quite impressed,” signals that it was my interpretation. He seemed to me to be quite impressed. I never implied it was anything other than my interpretation.

                                Am I not allowed my interpretations or are the message boards only allowed to accept YOUR interpretations and those of Caroline Brown, who you have previously acknowledge is your spokeswoman, by acknowledging that you agree with everything she posts?

                                Really, Keith, your attack is ridiculous.

                                What I said was a “fact” IS a fact: “Tales of Liverpool” has two chapters on the Maybrick case (fully one sixth of the booklet) and Mike’s copy of this book (as confirmed by Devereux’s daughers) was in Tony Devereux’s possession by at least the Summer of 1991. That is, long before Dodd had the electrical work done on his house. How is this misleading?

                                What I suspect is bothering you is that this flies in the face of your “Battlecrease” provenance, as does Barrett’s attempt to buy the raw materials for the hoax, as does the timesheet showing Eddie Lyons was not working on the day in question. Yet you assure us you have no agenda and don't wish to promote your own ideas.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-17-2021, 05:08 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X