One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

‘Clearly lying?’ Only if we accept Orsam’s research as gospel.

What is your counter explanation, Gary? If you are suggesting that Barrett--of all people--isn't lying?

Are you suggesting that these notes represent Mike's true and genuine research into the Maybrick case since August 1991?

[MrBarnett]

What is your counter explanation, Gary? If you are suggesting that Barrett--of all people--isn't lying?

Are you suggesting that these notes represent Mike's true and genuine research into the Maybrick case since August 1991?

It would be rude of me to jump the queue and answer your question before you’ve answered mine.

How weak are the two examples I mentioned?

[rjpalmer]

It would be rude of me to jump the queue and answer your question before you’ve answered mine.

How weak are the two examples I mentioned?

Sorry, Gary, but I'm not playing these games. I'll answer your question but let me clear the air: I have no interest in becoming involved in the long and bitter dispute between you and Orsam.

Despite your assumptions, I am not defending Orsam or every line of his articles; he is capable of addressing your concerns directly through his website--and knowing Lord O, he probably will.

Frankly, I find these long running disputes rather silly and damaging, and my only interest at the moment (as far as this thread is concerned) is the history of the Maybrick Hoax. Thus, I found Orsam's article extremely interesting and thus I commented on the parts that interested me.

As I read Orsam's article, he states that some examples are stronger than others, others being weaker. Anyone interested can read the articles and see that he admits this and goes to considerable lengths to show other possible sources: Moreland, etc.

But those sources ultimately fail.

It is the combination of all the examples, weak and strong---with The Brittanic citation being the death-blow--that gives the game away; combined, of course, with the undeniable fact that most of Mike's 'research' can't be traced to The Echo. If that doesn't mean Mike was lying, I wish you would tell me what it means.

So no, I don't find those examples weak. I think they give support to the stronger examples. As always, it is the preponderance of the evidence that kills this hoax.

Or are you suggesting that Orsam is wrong, and that all of Mike's research can be found in The Echo, and thus the notes are legitimate?

[Iconoclast]

Your glaring ignorance of the Diary saga never ceases to amaze me, Ike.

Well I do like to amaze our dear readers, RJ. The question is, did I really miss anything?

None of this is either here, nor there. I believe Birchwood; he had no reason to lie. Barrett's claim of a having kidney disease was treated as great big joke by the Diary Faithful; Birchwood saw medical documentation that showed otherwise. I will once again point you towards Barrett's highly fluid and competent signature of the mid-1980s.

I imagine that it is perfectly plausible that Mike had renal issues, but that - knowing him - was probably many miles away from dialysis, fatigue, etc.. I'd like to check this with this Peter Birchwood. Do you happen to have an email address for him?

It seems to differ considerably from the BloCk LEtteR examples that Caz uploads to our screens from time to time.

But am I right in thinking that you've shown us Mike Barrett's signature and then attempted to compare it with his writing style? If so, I honestly doubt that even Bongo would sign his name 'm bARreTT' so I'm not amazed, no, that his writing challenges did not leak into his signature at any point in his life.

Are you suggesting that Birchwood lied about the bank asking him for a new signature?

RJ, what the **** do I care if Peter Birchwood's bank asked him for his life story never mind his signature? Unless you are implying that Birchwood's bank asking for a new signature from Peter Birchwood implies in some way that his uncorroborated tale about Mike Barrett's health must therefore be true? (Or did you get confused over whose signature had been requested by whose bank?)

If you don't want to believe it, Ike, be my guest.

Well, let's put it this way, I'm not quite fully there yet.

Now, until Keith can tell us why he wrote 'apparently not' in 1999, I don't think there is much reason to keep speculating about Mike's notes. Particularly since Shirley herself dated these notes to before Mike brought the diary to London in her 2002 book (which was written at around the time of Keith's annotation).

I think this sort of debate is a good example of why that bloke Ethelberg had a go at this, the Greatest Thread of All recently. I honestly don't give a **** when and why Mike created his faked research notes. It adds nothing whatsoever to our understanding of the critical parts of the case.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Aethelberg?

[Iconoclast]

Aethulwolf?

[rjpalmer]

I imagine that it is perfectly plausible that Mike had renal issues, but that - knowing him - was probably many miles away from dialysis, fatigue, etc..

Hi Ike,

I'm not sure if I can attribute your doubts to your bad reading habits (recently on display when Caz clearly wrote she HADN'T edited Mike's letter) or simply your deep skepticism of everything beyond the truth of the Maybrick Diary.

Let me reiterate, from Mr. Birchwood: "I have seen a report by a doctor confirming that by the mid-1980s Mike had indeed suffered serious kidney failure and that later he underwent dialysis treatment."

You think he's lying about the dialysis and want me to send you his email? Do I have that right?

I sent you a PM, Old Boy, but there's no free lunch.

RP

[MrBarnett]

‘Off Tithebarn Street’

Here’s a mystery Lord O didn’t address - where did Ryan get ‘off Tithebarn Street’ from? He was a New Yorker, a graduate of Princeton. Would such a usage have been common in his circle?

There are numerous examples of ‘off Tithebarn Street’ in the Liverpool Echo. I’m sure it would have been perfectly natural for MB to describe somewhere as ‘off’ a large street. It’s something I might say, but would Ryan? Any New Yorkers or Old Princetonians out there who can help?

Perhaps there’s a ‘Secret Source of Bernard Ryan Jr’ that has yet to be discovered.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

Let me reiterate, from Mr. Birchwood: "I have seen a report by a doctor confirming that by the mid-1980s Mike had indeed suffered serious kidney failure and that later he underwent dialysis treatment."

You think he's lying about the dialysis and want me to send you his email? Do I have that right?

Yes, that would be lovely, thank you.

And no, RJ, even though I don't know this bloke from Adam, I don't imagine for a moment that he's lying but I do want to know his source because it's a remarkable claim which is not corroborated in any record (book, email, post, etc.) I've ever seen.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

‘Off Tithebarn Street’

Here’s a mystery Lord O didn’t address - where did Ryan get ‘off Tithebarn Street’ from? He was a New Yorker, a graduate of Princeton. Would such a usage have been common in his circle?

There are numerous examples of ‘off Tithebarn Street’ in the Liverpool Echo. I’m sure it would have been perfectly natural for MB to describe somewhere as ‘off’ a large street. It’s something I might say, but would Ryan? Any New Yorkers or Old Princetonians out there who can help?

Perhaps there’s a ‘Secret Source of Bernard Ryan Jr’ that has yet to be discovered.

I imagine Ryan would have said in that peculiarly American way (where events only EVER happen at intersections), "Gee Bud, it's at Tithebarn Street and Whitechapel. Hey Dolores, eggs over easy and cwoffee and dwonuts - make mine to go!". Et cetera.

Honestly, my ear is quite the instrument, is it not? It must be like being there for you lot, eh?

[rjpalmer]

Yes, Ike. Being There as in Jerzy Kosinski.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, Ike. Being There as in Jerzy Kosinski.

Had to look that one up, RJ.

Struck me as appropriate that the transcendental medication centre described in Wiki "was for many years located at the corner of Chauncy and Garden Streets [hence, the character Chance Gardiner, I assume]" which seems to me to be the only point on any street where anything ever happens or exists in America. What the **** do you do with the bits that aren't on the corners?

Eggs over easy and what have you ...

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Have a good night, Ike.

Here’s something that might inspire you. I was just looking at an old ‘Maybrick’ poll found in the archives.

While I agree with your sentiment that popular opinion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, judging by this earlier poll (Feb 2014) support for the Maybrick Hoax has significantly decreased since the publication of Robert Smith's book and the emergence of the 'Eddie Lyons' provenance.

This, despite it being vigorously promoted on this website by you-know-who.

Back in 2014, only about 63% of Casebook respondents thought the Diary was a modern fake; about 26% thought it was an old hoax; whereas 11% thought it was real. (see below)

By contrast, Erbo's 2022 poll shows that Casebook respondents who believe the Diary is a modern fake has risen to 69% --a modest but not insignificant increase of 6%--while belief in the Diary has remained static at 11%. The most noticeable trend is the belief that the diary is an old hoax has dwindled from 26% down to 5.56%.

If these results can be trusted, the 'Eddie Lyons' tale has diminished belief in the 'Old Hoax' theory--possibly because two provenance theories are worse than one, particularly when the same group has championed both.

We can’t know if we have the same respondents, of course, and our current sample is smaller, but the numbers suggest that roughly 80% of those who once believed the diary was an old hoax have retreated to either “undecided” (which was not an option in 2014) or have decided it is a recent fake (about 25% in the latter group).

In short, belief in the old hoax theory seems to be at an all-time low, Ike, so if there was ever a time for you to strike a blow against this heresy, now is it. The Army you face is very small.

You out number them 2 to 1. What are you waiting for?

[caz]

Here's another blooper from Barrett's notes, quite hilarious. I think Orsam discussed this previously, but I can't find his reference.

Anyway, Barrett always claimed that he first realized Maybrick was the diarist when he read Richard Whittington-Egan's Tales of Liverpool, a small booklet that had two chapters on the Maybrick case. He was very consistent about this.

Here's how he originally told it to Shirley Harrison:




Barrett must have been thunderstruck. Here, at long last, was the identity of the diarist! He 'read' Richard Whittington-Egan's book and must have eagerly inhaled its contents. He later refers to the book in his research notes.

(Not surprisingly, Barrett later told a different version--he saw the book, not in the library, but in a bookstore. There is no reason to believe either account, however, because Barrett's personal copy was later found by Scotland Yard in the possession of the Devereux family, where it had been since at least July 1991).

Yet, when Mike comes to write his 'research notes' he writes the following:



Stop the presses.

How could Barrett have 'first thought' that Florrie and James had been married in St. James Church Liverpool?

What previous research had left Mike with this wrong assumption that was now being corrected by Richard Whitting-Egan's book??

He told us that Richard Whitting-Egan was his first introduction to the Maybrick case! Now RWE is correcting his long-held belief??

Obviously, another blunder by Barrett, suggesting that Richard Whittington-Egan wasn't the first time Mike had ever heard of James and Florrie's marriage. He's given the game away.

And, as I keep pointing out, Mike's ownership of RWE's book predates the 'miracle' at Dodd's house by a good eight months.

At this point, denial is the only default position.

Oh for goodness sake, RJ. God gave you brains, so use them. Mike read St. James's in the diary, before identifying Maybrick from RWE, and simply assumed it was a reference to the one in his home town.

[caz]

In the diary, the apostrophe in St. James's is correct, which is fairly unusual. Elsewhere, the hoaxer seems to have a general phobia of apostrophes.

Odd.