One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[MrBarnett]

Blimey! Where have you been?

If we aren’t allowed to directly quote him - for perfectly understandable reasons - I’m sure we can find a way to provide links to his nonsense.

[MrBarnett]

“Both Stow and the Clanger say that if James Street was in Stepney in 1881 then so was Pinchin Street, While I find no actual stated examples of this between the time Pinchin Street came into existence (said to be 1862), and 1881, in the same way that James Street was said by real people to have been in Stepney as late as 1880, if the issue here is that my sentence should have said that Lechmere had moved elsewhere in Stepney in 1881 or elsewhere in St George in the East then fine, it's nothing more than a drafting improvement, as well as a pedantic technical point which doesn't matter, because the actual point I was making was no more than that Lechmere wasn't living in Pinchin Street (Thomas Street) in 1881, as he had been when he was a child in 1861.”

Oh dear! Oh dear, oh dear…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L9sras26ClE

[MrBarnett]

“Both Stow and the Clanger say that if James Street was in Stepney in 1881 then so was Pinchin Street, While I find no actual stated examples of this between the time Pinchin Street came into existence (said to be 1862), and 1881, in the same way that James Street was said by real people to have been in Stepney as late as 1880, if the issue here is that my sentence should have said that Lechmere had moved elsewhere in Stepney in 1881 or elsewhere in St George in the East then fine, it's nothing more than a drafting improvement, as well as a pedantic technical point which doesn't matter, because the actual point I was making was no more than that Lechmere wasn't living in Pinchin Street (Thomas Street) in 1881, as he had been when he was a child in 1861.”

Oh dear! Oh dear, oh dear…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L9sras26ClE

And this was before his ‘real people’ evidence was torn to shreds (from post 433):

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...;s-lair/page29

[Observer]

“Both Stow and the Clanger say that if James Street was in Stepney in 1881 then so was Pinchin Street, While I find no actual stated examples of this between the time Pinchin Street came into existence (said to be 1862), and 1881, in the same way that James Street was said by real people to have been in Stepney as late as 1880, if the issue here is that my sentence should have said that Lechmere had moved elsewhere in Stepney in 1881 or elsewhere in St George in the East then fine, it's nothing more than a drafting improvement, as well as a pedantic technical point which doesn't matter, because the actual point I was making was no more than that Lechmere wasn't living in Pinchin Street (Thomas Street) in 1881, as he had been when he was a child in 1861.”

Oh dear! Oh dear, oh dear…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L9sras26ClE

What has all this got to do with the Maybrick Diary?

[MrBarnett]

What has all this got to do with the Maybrick Diary?

Have you not noticed Lord Orsam’s involvement in the subject?

[Observer]

Had you not noticed Lord Orsam’s involvement in the subject?

Of course I have, but your last few posts have nothing to do with his input with regard to the Maybrick Diary, more a rant, because you don't see eye to eye.

[MrBarnett]

Of course I have, but your last few posts have nothing to do with his input with regard to the Maybrick Diary, more a rant, because you don't see eye to eye.

A rant? I thought I was providing evidence of how unreliable Lord O is. Presumably you’ve checked my facts out and have come to the conclusion that I was merely ranting.

[Observer]

A rant? I thought I was providing evidence of how unreliable Lord O is. Presumably you’ve checked my facts out and have come to the conclusion that I was merely ranting.

Yes indeed, a rant, come off your high horse man, ranting doesn't change a thing. By the way, those last few posts of yours, dealt with Mr Orsam's views with regard to the Lechmere theory, this is a Maybrick thread.

[jmenges]

Lord Orsam is banned from contributing to the Casebook message boards and that ban also forbids other posters from copying and pasting his comments in any discussion thread. Whether you're
actually being a proxy poster for his Lordship, or have good and honest intentions, pasting his commentary here will not be allowed.

Thanks,

JM

Reminder.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Yes indeed, a rant, come off your high horse man, ranting doesn't change a thing. By the way, those last few posts of yours, dealt with Mr Orsam's views with regard to the Lechmere theory, this is a Maybrick thread.

A rant against ranting? Cool!

Who is this ‘Mr Orsam’ you are referring to?

[Observer]

A rant against ranting? Cool!

Who is this ‘Mr Orsam’ you are referring to?

See Mr Menges post above, and go play with the traffic

[MrBarnett]

See Mr Menges post above, and go play with the traffic

Before I do, what’s your opinion on Lord O’s Stepney research? Complete rubbish, or what? Or haven’t you the faintest?

[MrBarnett]

Reminder.

JM

Apologies, Jon.

[Observer]

Before I do, what’s your opinion on Lord O’s Stepney research? Complete rubbish, or what? Or haven’t you the faintest?

I couldn't give a monkeys what Mr Orsam has said with regard to Stepney. I have no interest in the Lechmere theory. However, the great majority of his work with regard to the Maybrick hoax makes a lot of sense. But what would I know, you refer to anyone who agrees with Mr Orsam as his "dim acolytes", this really says it all about you. And now, your traffic awaits. Have a trip down to the Highway, at the junction of Breezes Hill, last time I was there they were nipping along at 70 miles an hour.

[rjpalmer]

Mike Barrett leaning on Ryan’s Poisoned Life is a particularly unhelpful sideshow in my opinion

And what a most convenient opinion that is, Ike! I'm not sure everyone else will see it that way, however.

Here is a riddle, Ike: What is the foundation of Diary Belief?

Answer: the belief that Barrett (or the Barretts) was/were too stupid or incompetent or unsophisticated to have created the diary. That we smart literary Londoners or suave New Yorkers or sophisticated Californians of Glib Glaswegians are too intelligent to have been fooled by a couple of nobodies from the anonymous backstreets of working-class Liverpool.

We've heard it a thousand time in a thousand different ways from two dozen different people. Mike was ToO dUmb.

But it occurred to me tonight that the most delicious part of this new revelation (that Barrett undoubtedly hoaxed his notes) is that it proves that he was a clever and sly and brazen man after all. A very cheeky chap indeed.

All Mike did was drop a few page numbers from Colin Wilson and Paul Harrison, make a reference to something that could be found in Tales of Liverpool, and then he just faked the rest. He just put Liverpool Echo in brackets again and again--like this: (Liverpool Echo)--- without naming the date or the page number or anything else.

And guess what?

WE ALL BOUGHT IT.

And I can't take the higher ground because I didn't question Mike's references either. Neither did Caz Morris, Melvin Harris, Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, Tom Mitchell, Robert Smith, or anybody.

Many of us may have suspected that Mike's notes were bogus, but we couldn't really prove it.

So, Mike--this man you call an incompetent fool--fooled us all for TWENTY-NINE AND A HALF YEARS with a very simple and straight forward trick---until Lord Orsam finally decided to see if Mike's reference really could be traced to the Liverpool Echo.

And they can't be.

So, mock on, mock on. Feel free to say Mike couldn't have fooled us, Ike. Make fun of his SpeLLinG, and his crazy talk.

But from now on it will have a bitter taste, Ike, because Mike, semi-literate or not, was brazen and cunning and it took three decades for someone to demonstrate that his notes were undoubtedly fake. Even then, Lord Orsam needed to point it out to you.

Sláinte, Ike.

Tonight, please raise a toast to Bongo! A very cheeky chap.