One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I wouldn't be surprised if those two blokes would believe a Ripper diary written in a modern spiral notebook etc Or text written with a green ballpoint pen was written by James Maybrick.

It's hard saying, John. I would hope not.

But what I do know is that their willingness to turn a blind eye to the obviously bogus handwriting exposes the flimsiness of Caroline's argument.

[rjpalmer]

I must have missed the post where RJ explains how the scrapbook was proven Edwardian. Was he basing it on a throwaway remark to simply muddy waters?

Do keep up, Jay.

From three weeks ago:


"Glad you (finally) caught it, Ike! It was deliberate and it wasn't the first time.

If Caroline Brown (and your own good self?) can continually refer to the photo album as Victorian, I am going to start referring to it as Edwardian as a counterbalance to her less-than-judicial declaration.

That, Dear Sir, is why I'm here.

Rendell's team referred to it as Victorian or Edwardian and it has never been conclusively dated."


I then asked Caz to outline the advances in bookbinding and paper production that occurred between 1888 and 1909 that allowed her to call the photo album Victorian rather than Edwardian, but I'll let you work out for yourself whether she gave me a straight answer.


Personally, I'll put my money on Edwardian. We've been told the front inside cover is damaged. Why might that be?

There's no remaining stench of linseed oil, evidently, but unexplained damage on a hoax tends to stink to high heaven all on its own.

[John Wheat]

Well, John, I can't imagine that much would surprise a bloke who thinks a liar wrote the diary because this liar said so during the lowest period of his life.

Love,

Caz
X

You could call Mike Barrett a liar or you could call him a conman.

[erobitha]

Do keep up, Jay.

From three weeks ago:


"Glad you (finally) caught it, Ike! It was deliberate and it wasn't the first time.

If Caroline Brown (and your own good self?) can continually refer to the photo album as Victorian, I am going to start referring to it as Edwardian as a counterbalance to her less-than-judicial declaration.

That, Dear Sir, is why I'm here.

Rendell's team referred to it as Victorian or Edwardian and it has never been conclusively dated."


I then asked Caz to outline the advances in bookbinding and paper production that occurred between 1888 and 1909 that allowed her to call the photo album Victorian rather than Edwardian, but I'll let you work out for yourself whether she gave me a straight answer.


Personally, I'll put my money on Edwardian. We've been told the front inside cover is damaged. Why might that be?

There's no remaining stench of linseed oil, evidently, but unexplained damage on a hoax tends to stink to high heaven all on its own.

So that’s no then.

[caz]

You could call Mike Barrett a liar or you could call him a conman.

He was both.

But what experience did he have with faking documents, or creating literary hoaxes, and making loads of money out of them?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

You could call Mike Barrett a liar or you could call him a conman.

I fully appreciate that you won't give a toss, but I've removed the 'Ignore' on your posts as - from those I have seen in replies to your posts that I have missed - you appear to at least be making an argument now instead of posting facile one-word responses to reasoned propositions.

In response to your comment above, Mike Barrett was an unequivocal thief (early 1970s conviction), an unequivocal liar (you really have to hear the Alan Gray tapes never mind his published affidavits), a mooted scrap metal dealer (I'm not aware that there is any evidence that he ever was), a barely-semantically-valid 'journalist' (he secured some 'celebrity' interviews during the mid to late 1980s), and a mooted conman (he apparently sought sketches to 'illustrate' a book and then attempted to sell those sketches onwards which makes him a mooted conman in my book, but - to be clear - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he was a conman because he created the text of the Maybrick scrapbook). In consequence of the latter part of my parentheses, we can definitely say that he was also not the world's greatest forger, nor even the worst one, come to that, given that there is no evidence he 'forged' (hoaxed) anything in his life.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

He was both.

But what experience did he have with faking documents, or creating literary hoaxes, and making loads of money out of them?

Love,

Caz
X

Well, as of course you know, Caz, Michael Barrett had no established back story in the world of forgery or hoaxing anything whatsoever. He was very much the one-hit wonderman of that particular genre - like God and His best-selling 'The Bible' (whatever happened to Him, by the way?), Zagar & Evans and their 'In the Year 2525', and the bloke selling face-masks down our local in November 2019 (now that seriously put Melvin Harris to shame).

Honestly, guv'nor, it's a fair cop, I've got Shergar in me barn, Lord Lucan's me gardener, the original Jules Rimet trophy's on me mantlepiece, and I wrote the Maybrick scrapbook. No, but, really, I did. I wouldn't lie about such a thing!

[rjpalmer]

you really have to hear the Alan Gray tapes

If John Wheat "really has to hear" the Alan Gray tapes, then why doesn't the person allowing you access allow others to hear them?

What is so damning about these tapes that they can only be heard and interpreted by those in the inner sanctum?

[rjpalmer]

a mooted scrap metal dealer (I'm not aware that there is any evidence that he ever was)

His own sister described him such.

[John Wheat]

He was both.

But what experience did he have with faking documents, or creating literary hoaxes, and making loads of money out of them?

Love,

Caz
X

But the diary is not a literary masterpiece in fact it's terribly written and could have easily been written by a conman with no previous experience of literary hoaxes. So your point is moot.

[John Wheat]

I fully appreciate that you won't give a toss, but I've removed the 'Ignore' on your posts as - from those I have seen in replies to your posts that I have missed - you appear to at least be making an argument now instead of posting facile one-word responses to reasoned propositions.

In response to your comment above, Mike Barrett was an unequivocal thief (early 1970s conviction), an unequivocal liar (you really have to hear the Alan Gray tapes never mind his published affidavits), a mooted scrap metal dealer (I'm not aware that there is any evidence that he ever was), a barely-semantically-valid 'journalist' (he secured some 'celebrity' interviews during the mid to late 1980s), and a mooted conman (he apparently sought sketches to 'illustrate' a book and then attempted to sell those sketches onwards which makes him a mooted conman in my book, but - to be clear - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he was a conman because he created the text of the Maybrick scrapbook). In consequence of the latter part of my parentheses, we can definitely say that he was also not the world's greatest forger, nor even the worst one, come to that, given that there is no evidence he 'forged' (hoaxed) anything in his life.

Ike

No I've noticed that you have changed your stance on a whim. If anything I'm disappointed you won't stick to your guns. As for the forgery gubbins see my reply to Caz.

[Iconoclast]

No I've noticed that you have changed your stance on a whim. If anything I'm disappointed you won't stick to your guns. As for the forgery gubbins see my reply to Caz.

What was the whim? Which guns should I be sticking to?

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here - I just don't understand what you've written.

[John Wheat]

What was the whim? Which guns should I be sticking to?

I'm not trying to be a smart arse here - I just don't understand what you've written.

Okay to put it more simply you've decided to reply to me again fairly quickly after saying you're ignoring my posts which is disappointing because I thought it was something you would stick to.

[Iconoclast]

Okay to put it more simply you've decided to reply to me again fairly quickly after saying you're ignoring my posts which is disappointing because I thought it was something you would stick to.

I've decided to reply to you again because the thing you were doing which caused me to 'ignore' you, you appeared to have immediately stopped doing. Obviously, I was 'ignoring' you so if you were still posting those stupid one-word and one-line cliched responses, I wouldn't know. I only knew what people were replying to. Being a man of real integrity (not the pretend kind of a certain individual back in the 1990s when he was actually terrified his own Ripper work would sell even less than the copies he was planning himself to buy), I act on my values not on my ego. If, however, I had not seen an unusual spate of attempted arguments by you when others therefore replied to you (I can't 'ignore' those), then I would most definitely be sticking to my guns.

The conclusion that you should;d draw - though, as I say, you won't give a toss either way - is that if it turns out that you are still posting those facile responses, then I'll definitely be sticking to my guns next time.

[Iconoclast]

No I've noticed that you have changed your stance on a whim. If anything I'm disappointed you won't stick to your guns. As for the forgery gubbins see my reply to Caz.

PS It's a whim if it's done on the spur-of-the-moment which my 'unignoring' you was not.