One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John Wheat]

You'll notice that absolutely no-one is posting in agreement with you so you might just want to "shut up" (to quote you) on this point as you are making yourself look foolish in the extreme.

People who "who believe the diary is genuine" do NOT have any burden of proof whatsoever. Not even vaguely. As long as all they do is hold a belief, they have no obligation to demonstrate the proof of that belief to anyone if they choose not to. Burden of proof begins when one of those people make a pronouncement on the scrapbook that it is the authentic record of James Maybrick's crimes in Whitechapel in 1888. The moment they do that, they have acquired a burden of proof. Why is this? Well, in the service of investigative science, we must back up our public claims. Why is that? Well, because there are a large number of very stupid people in this world who are unable to distinguish what's real and what's not. They tend to err on the side of what they like so they believe those things they hear or read which they happen to like. It's called psychology. It's a trick that tyrants like to play.

Of course, this principle then expands more widely so that anyone holding a belief does NOT have prove their belief is true until such time as they make their belief or beliefs public. When they do that, they immediately acquire a burden of proof. This - as I said above - protects us as best science can against tyrannical untruths. Therefore, if you or anyone else posts on here to the effect of "The scrapbook is a hoax" then they immediately acquire a burden of proof to establish the veracity of the claim.

Honestly, Wheatie, unless you are seeking to make yourself appear very foolish, I'd shut up (to use your cliche).

Ike

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

[Iconoclast]

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

And - as long as all they do is think it - they will never have a burden of proof to justify it.

[Aethelwulf]

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

Say it how it is John. I feel a bit sorry for Ike actually - just think how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life he has wasted on this nonsense.

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

[FISHY1118]

Say it how it is John. I feel a bit sorry for Ike actually - just think how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life he has wasted on this nonsense.

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

I had to laugh .

[Iconoclast]

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

With only two core themes going on as I swim from one to 't'other.

How did the hoaxer manage to know that Florence Maybrick's initials were on Mary Kelly's wall when no-one else had ever spotted this?

And how on earth did the hoaxer of such a cheap and shoddy hoax as the scrapbook manage to get such a felicitous signature of James Maybrick into the back of that watch?

Every twenty seconds the mystery would renew. It's enough to keep a fish busy for years, it is true.

[caz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoepistemic_logic

I ero,

I suspect you were on a hiding to nothing posting that link for anyone who reads 'provenance' as Provence.

I'm reasonably confident that nobody comes here to discuss a scenic area of France.

Mind you, some posters have a habit of wandering in here every so often, and then complain about the scenery, as if they came here on holiday by mistake. Thinking about it, there is probably an argument for them misreading the road signs.

But nobody is making them stay against their will.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

That's got a certain ring to it, Abby.

Bongo Barrett the Bamboozler - par excellence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Say it how it is John. I feel a bit sorry for Ike actually - just think how many seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life he has wasted on this nonsense.

I imagine Ike as a goldfish in his little tank constantly swimming backwards and forwards between a replica watch and little stone book, open in the middle. There might be a little figure dressed in Victorian clothes in amongst some plastic weeds. Meanwhile, we all pass the fish tank thinking, what on earth is he doing in there? Trapped in his own little world.

But you don't pass Ike's fish tank, do you? You jump right in, fart and jump out again, making your tracky bottoms all wet to contribute nothing but a nasty smell.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

But you don't pass Ike's fish tank, do you? You jump right in, fart and jump out again, making your tracky bottoms all wet to contribute nothing but a nasty smell.

Love,

Caz
X

I had to laugh .

[caz]

People who "who believe the diary is genuine" do NOT have any burden of proof whatsoever. Not even vaguely. As long as all they do is hold a belief, they have no obligation to demonstrate the proof of that belief to anyone if they choose not to.

If anyone wants to dispute this, Ike, and still claims that a 'belief' has to be proved by the believer, they might want to ask Abby Normal, while he's still here on holiday by accident, for his proof that almighty God witnessed the Barretts faking the diary.

I would think He had better things to do, like watching out for dangerous drivers on Mount Sinai. When Moses came down the mountain in his Triumph, I doubt he was doing less than a ton. I can't prove it, of course, unless God sees fit to produce the speeding ticket.

But I reserve the right to believe it, and it's as likely to have existed as Bongo the Bamboozler's auction ticket.

And here endeth another lesson.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think you'll find just about every one on the site thinks you're a guliable idiot.

Guliable?

Use a spell checker, mate, and have a bit of dignity. It's not a good look for anyone who wants to argue that Mike Barrett could have written the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

I meant to add...

If the diary author concentrates on the events of Maybrick's final year that are appropriate in the context of him committing the ripper murders in 1888, is it really beyond coincidence to find Bernard Ryan recounting the same or similar details, in the context of what led up to Maybrick's mysterious death in 1889?

Love,

Caz
X

I haven't checked (yet) in Christie and Morland, Caz, but I am reasonably confident that they too will have failed to record the painting on the occasion of Jim's 50th, and the walking tour in the early part of 1889.

Now, had those two events involved Florence Maybrick - the actual subject of all three of those books - I might have been slightly more surprised on discovering their absence. Even then, it would hardly have corked me, but expecting books on Florence Maybrick to lay a detailed trail of her husband's final seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years of his life may have been an expectation too great even for those who appear to be pathologically desperate to find fault with the Victorian scrapbook.

Now, you might say that you (perhaps not you, but someone else) might argue that that is all by the way, that James Maybrick confessions ought to have mentioned his 50th birthday painting as well as his sojourn up the Brecon Beacons or wherever he went even if his wife's three biographers neglected to, but I would retort to you (perhaps not you, but someone else) that I would therefore (if these are the rules we are playing by) have expected him to have gone into at least some detail regarding his own birthday and those of his wife and children, that - indeed - he would have let us know what he got for Christmas off brother Thomas when he saw him in Manchester, and a whole host of other occasional memoranda (Easter, New Year, the cost of hansom cabs, the ready availability of freshly picked carrots even if no-one had ever up to that point used that expression, et cetera). The fact that he pretty much only ever records something if it relates in some way to his 'campaign' rather tells me that what went on at other times stayed at other times, like Ibiza when we were all a little younger.

Trust you're well, by the way.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Guliable?

Use a spell checker, mate, and have a bit of dignity. It's not a good look for anyone who wants to argue that Mike Barrett could have written the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

Given Abby Normal's analogy of my life, I assumed that Wheaty had simply pre-empted it by calling me gillable.

I am here all week but every show is sold out ...

[caz]

While I'm on the subject of spelling, the following is taken from Caz's Amazing Timeline for everyone to read and enjoy - or weep, depending on their mood:

Tuesday 2nd August 1994
Mike Barrett writes a letter to Shirley Harrison:
He apologises for any hurt he has caused Shirley, his wife Anne, his daughter Caroline, his family, Doreen Montgomery etc.
He admits:
'I allways whanted to be a writer, but I never Had iT in me.' (sic)
He writes that it was always Anne who had the ideas and ended up writing the articles bearing his name. '(SHE Did NOT However write the DAIRy)'. (sic)
'ToNy Relly did give me it.' (sic)
Mike declares his continued love for Anne, and how much he misses her and Caroline.
'IT BREAKS MY HART KnowiNg ANNe could be with somebody elese.' (sic)

Now one or two of you will be forgiven for thinking Mike had superior written communication skills, but let me assure you, he Relly Relly didn't. He allways wrot rot like this. And RJ's theory is that this man's wife came up with a fantastic idea that he should write a story about James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper, and the result was the diary, which she inevitably ended up researching and writing herself [for bleedin' obvious reasons], knowingly committing fraud in the process [because anything less would require mental gymnastics that even RJ has been shying away from.

Mike was clearly lying if Tony Devereux had nothing to do with the price of Ike's fish tank, but it's worth bearing in mind that this was written during the same period he was meant to be gathering evidence in support of his forgery claims. If influential people believed that he - Michael Barrett - had the ability to conceive, research and write the diary, or had helped to do all these things, it would be worth all the negative repercussions to be able to claim success at last as a writer. The diary had already been condemned as a hoax, so taking credit for its creation must have seemed like a better option than admitting he had been conned by whoever the real hoaxer was.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Oh my, is someone becoming obsessed? When a person has to deliberately change what has been written, you have a pretty good idea they are rattled.

.And RJ's theory is that this man's wife came up with a fantastic idea that he should write a story about James Maybrick being Jack the Ripper, and the result was the diary, which she inevitably ended up researching and writing herself [for bleedin' obvious reasons], knowingly committing fraud in the process [because anything less would require mental gymnastics that even RJ has been shying away from.

This is decidedly not my 'theory,' and, as always, you have constructed some bizarre meaning of your own in order to critique it. You're making a dog's breakfast of it--deliberately, no doubt--but if it wiles away your time, I'm glad to have helped.

I never said this was Anne's 'idea,' nor did I ever suggest that 'she did all the researching herself.' These are your own inventions.

It's interesting though.

It exposes yet again your muddled thinking. First, you have me gullibly lapping up the Barrett/Gray affidavit as gospel (which has Tony and Mike and Anne coming up with the concept together, and the general plotting) and then--in practically the same breath-- you have me supposedly believing that Anne did everything herself from start to finish and that it was "her novella."

Nothing like consistency when attacking someone's alleged "theory"!


What I actually suspect is that Graham was the primary author--I think I once threw out a rough estimate of her writing 90% of the text--but I do hope you can appreciate the difference between an initial concept, the necessary research and the actual writing?

Do you think these are invariably all the same act and done by the same person?

Have you never heard of researchers, and co-authors, and ghost-writers, and consultants, and writing assistants, etc? Or even just a kibitzer standing over someone's shoulder in Goldie Street?

Why do you think I believe Anne did all the leg work when Barrett stated that Tony Devereux helped him greatly with the concept? Wasn't Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool known to have been in Tony's possession, and haven't I mentioned this on many occasions?

Why play these games? The muddled thinking and inconsistency is all your own---it's not mine.

The writing of the diary is not particularly good and is repetitious. It also contains a malaprop or two---consistent with Anne's own malaprops. The concept itself would have taken time and thought and a certain amount of basic research to formulate, and Barrett was perfectly capable of doing much of it, and I am far from opposed to Devereux coming up with an idea or two during Barrett's drinking sessions down at the Saddle.

You see, Caz, when it comes to the Maybrick Hoax you never, EVER argue or debate in good faith. You're always out to work some silly angle.

We have further instances of Barrett pointing out that he simply made up details in the text--such as James visiting his brother Thomas at Christmas (and, by the way, as has been pointed out, Thomas was commonly referred to as Tom--another false note, perhaps. Kind of curious how Anne always religiously referred to Mike as Michael, but I digress).

Of course, nothing Barrett claimed can be taken without independent support or at least good logic, but lo and behold, Yabs has noted that the testimony of both Michael and Thomas at trial strongly suggests that this detail WAS made up. How could Bongo the Blunderer have known this? There is not a whiff of evidence that Maybrick actually visited Manchester that Christmas, which, if I recall, left you and Ike scrambling to find the sheet music to The Twelve Days of Christmas.

We certainly can't entertain the notion that a Hoaxer--even an Old Hoaxer-- might have simply made something up!

So please, Caz, don't blame me for your own confusion and misinterpretations by trying to tell me what I do or do not believe.

You seem to be further suffering from the delusion that I am accusing Anne Graham of fraud.

I said the exact opposite. I don't think she is morally or legally responsible for the Maybrick Hoax. The diary is undoubtedly a modern concoction, so the alternative is that she IS guilty of fraud--but that would be your accusation, not mine.

It is not 'fraud' to create the Diary of Jack the Ripper on one's home word processor. It is not illegal to write-up a Ripper theory in the guise of a confessional diary as a marketing ploy-especially if one's husband has convinced you that it will be sold as nothing more than a work of fiction and the publishers will be alerted to this fact when he duly arrives in London.

Much like Barrett told the subscribers to Loot Magazine that he had a contract for a children's book, so please send me your artwork--I promise it is legit and it won't end up being peddled in art shops in Southport!

Scam artists generally stick to the same m.o.

So no, Caz, you're wrong, I'm afraid. It only becomes fraud if one sells it as the real deal. I think the details of the purchase of the red diary--with Barrett being put down as a late payer--suggest he bought it behind Anne's back. It suggests to me that she hadn't been initially involved in the scheme, other than helping him write a work of fiction. No hoaxer is going to draw further attention to themselves by being a late payer when they are trying to obtain their raw materials. I take it to be more evidence of Barrett's conniving ways.

Let us return again to Anne's own account, buried in her 'confession' to Feldman, as well as in various statements to Shirley Harrison, but disguised within a transparently bogus tale of having had the diary in her youth.

She wanted Michael to write a story. She admitted helping Michael in his previous writing projects. She claims she was horrified to have learned Michael was taking the diary to London and she physically fought him because of it.

I believe her.

Why? Because it makes sense. Because it has the ring of truth. Because we have two independent witnesses. Her friend Audrey claimed Anne was deeply upset about Michael's book. Interpret it how you will---I know how I interpret it. There's no credible evidence that the diary came out of Battlecrease or that Eddie Lyons sold the Diary of Jack the Ripper to some dude down the boozer for twenty-five quid. Anne Graham was upset that Barrett was peddling a hoax and they would both be arrested for fraud--(even though I personally think she had been coerced).

Further, there is also the account of Caroline Barrett. Lord Orsam is undoubtedly correct that Caroline could have been coached--she probably was--but I don't think there is any logical reason why she would have been coached to say her parents were fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor. I think it happened. There would be no motive to coach a child to say that--it would be counterproductive. No one would even think of such a thing. It was a spontaneous admission.

This means there was conflict over Barrett taking the hoax to London.

Anne said she had tried to 'burn the diary.' The last time I checked, most stoves are kept on top of the kitchen floor--which refers back to Caroline's account. The wrestling match was when Anne tried to burn the diary in the stove--that's what I think. She may have even tried to burn the diary in the stove when Barrett was attempting to slow dry the ink or dry the spot where he had removed the maker's stamp of 1908/1909 after daubing or soaking the inside cover with linseed oil or some similar solvent. The idea that he plopped the whole diary in a bedpan of linseed oil is more tomfoolery, a ridiculous interpretation in order to dismiss a reasonable one, since it has never been disputed that the inside cover does have suspicious damage which would be consistent with someone removing a tell-tale date from a guardbook of World War I photos, a 20–30-pound expenditure as estimated by the contemporary manager at Outhwaite and Litherland.

No, Anne was NOT a willing participant in the hoax. She did help Michael in the end, but I think Anne explained her reasoning in a statement to Shirley Harison, as I have already alluded to several times.

"I thought Doreen would send Mike packing."

Is anyone here going to seriously argue that an emotionally and physically abused woman might not humor her husband, hoping the whole thing would eventually implode?

That was her rationale, and it has the ring of truth.

What about Anne's further statement: "I know nothing about contracts. I just signed what Mike told me to sign."

Does that sound like the statement of a woman who is in control of the situation?

Nobody has given me any rational reason why Anne couldn't have helped Barrett create the typescript, or why she couldn't have been coerced and bullied and manipulating into helping him.

I think she was admitting as much--in an indirect way as she pushed her b.s. story about having owned the diary since young adulthood---but, as I say, she can correct me if I have misunderstood.

I am afraid that I have limited time at the moment, so if Caz Brown continues to misinterpret and misreport my suggestion, I will simply refer readers back to this post.

Have a good day.