One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Goodness, gracious me, RJ. Post-March 1992, there is always the possibility that someone simply told Mike that everything regarding Maybrick was to be found in Ryan and therefore - when he started to self-identify as the world's greatest forger - he made use of that information.

Now if only there was some actual evidence for this being the case, Ikypoo.

Oh, wait, there is. Mike's research notes were not individually dated, and were not handed over to Shirley in any case until the summer of 1992, when her own research into Maybrick and the available literature was well under way. Mike claimed on at least two occasions on the record - for what it's worth - that he had never heard of Ryan's book before Shirley asked him if he'd read it. Palmer obviously has to believe Mike was lying about this, but it ain't necessarily so. It's also fairly obvious that when Mike was claiming inside knowledge of the diary's creation, his best bet was to cling to Ryan's book as his own personal Maybrick bible. It's just a shame that he screwed up when trying to impress Alan Gray, and had Maybrick confirming in his private diary what Ryan went on to write the following century. Ryan got it right because Maybrick himself said so! You had to be there - at least in spirit - to catch wonderful moments like this. Mike was either a fool to trip himself up so easily, or a master of the double bluff.

The problem with your arguments, RJ, is that you only ever seek out those which support your theory on the Barretts (a theory which is so ridiculous as to be utterly risible). So you present angles as though they are facts. This is your greatest weakness.

It's a shame. If you could overcome this blinkered, narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned myopia, your thoughts might actually add some value to the debate. Mind you, it's easy to sympathise with your condition given how constraining those bloody drainpipes you peer down are.

It's a crying shame that Palmer's belief in the Barretts as hoaxers has been so deeply entrenched for so long now that he doesn't even realise that all his arguments depend on him being right about this, and they all fall down around his ankles if he's wrong. So what is the point of him spending all this time and effort on argument, when he needs conclusive evidence for his belief, at which point all further argument would instantly become redundant anyway.

That's why Palmer needs to confront Anne sooner rather than later with his beliefs, because she will know if he is right or wrong about her - or not even close.

Until he does that small thing, he is destined to keep returning here with the same old arguments on repeat, which won't even apply until the Barretts have been proven guilty as charged.

[Yabs]

“Who actually believes his claims, apart from a couple of keyboard warriors who have a psychological need to be right, and a handful of one-liner merchants who don't demonstrate a single original thought on the matter?”

Now that was priceless, Caz!

you could always put up another poll regarding who believes what and their opinion on Barrett being the driving force and see how that pans out

[caz]

Ike, Old Man, I've got to take off for a few days, but let me repeat my question, because I would love to see your answer. I've never seen Keith Skinner address this and when I ask Caz about it, she just talks in circles and makes no sense whatsoever.

If was the Diary came out of Battlecrease via an electrician, why didn't Anne Graham simply admit this to Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, or Carol Emmas?

We've been told Anne was 'free and clear' of Mike and had been for months. She was refusing her royalty checks, we are told.

Her story all along (including when quizzed by Harold Brough after Barrett's confession) is that Mike got the diary from a man he knew from the pub. It would have been a minor admission to say that she wasn't sure if this man was Tony Devereux or someone else.

Instead, she sends everyone on a wild goose chase for years. She produces photographs for Feldman to theorize about, etc. She even allows researchers in to quiz her dying father.

As far as I can tell, you have utterly no explanation for her extraordinary behavior.

I'll look forward to your response on returning.

Ciao.

I have to wonder if Palmer read the request, made immediately before he wrote the above, to tone down the personal insults.

I have not talked 'in circles' about this and my point - repeated several times now - makes perfect sense. It is Palmer who has offered no explanation for Anne telling an unprovable story about where the diary came from, when it is his belief that she knew Mike could prove her a liar any time he wanted, simply by producing proof of how they created the diary together.

If Palmer wants to consider that Anne didn't know this, or that Mike couldn't have proved his claims - despite doing a fair impression of someone who was desperate to do so - I'll be all ears, like King Charles.

[rjpalmer]

you could always put up another poll regarding who believes what and their opinion on Barrett being the driving force and see how that pans out

Exactly. And let's poll Dolgin and Jones's readership, too.

Caz inhabits a dream world where only 'keyboard warriors' (and let's pretend not to notice her 9,661 keyboard generated posts, the vast majority banging on about the Maybrick Hoax) are gullible enough to think that the diary is a modern fake with Mike and Anne up to their elbows in it.

When, in reality, pretty much everyone does, and rightfully so.

I suppose one should just go away and let them believe. They will anyway.

[rjpalmer]

I have to wonder if Palmer read the request, made immediately before he wrote the above, to tone down the personal insults.

Palmer? Or the "keyboard warrior" or "Mr. Muddy Mud"?

And I'm fairly certain the request was mainly aimed at Thomas Mitchell, but I'll stand corrected.

[caz]

On the subject of Chloroacetamide, if anyone is interested, paper manufactured in the LVP was treated with Chlorine. It is quite feasible that the tiniest amount of chlorine contaminated with the ink would register as Chloroacetamide on a gas test.

It would explain why such a minuscule amount was detected on one of the tests and none found in another. If Chloroacetamide was more abundant in the ink itself the amounts detected would be significantly higher.

Something new I learned from an ink expert this week.

Hi ero,

I would add that, as with Ryan's book, there is no conclusive proof that Mike had ever heard of Diamine ink before it was suggested to him.

Whoever wrote the diary needed an earlier source than Ryan for some of the text. And the scientific evidence for the old book having had a close encounter with Diamine is not exactly convincing either.

Mike was like a sponge, soaking up handy tips for his forgery claims, and like a parrot when coming out with them to mimic genuine inside knowledge.

Even Bertie Blunt's parrot could have taught himself to say "Ryan" and "Diamine" to show what a clever old bird he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How is that an answer?

I'm not asking whether she knew about Eddie Lyons or not. I'm asking why she told the Formby/Yapp/'I saw it in 1968 and my dying father can confirm it' story.

She didn't know where it came from, so she simply made up a story and told it to Bob Azurdia, to Carol Emmas (her friend and co-author), Keith Skinner, and to Paul Feldman (her alleged romantic interest) just for the fun of it?

If you don't mind me saying, Jay, you have a strange way of responding without actually saying anything.

So maybe Palmer will finally give us all the definitive explanation for Anne telling her story, and why she told it in the immediate wake of Mike's first attempt to 'confess all' if she knew he had the means at his fingertips.

[caz]

Yes, she could have done, Scotty, but it is far more likely that she did not hear of Eddie Lyons' name for a long long time after March 1992. It's also very likely that Mike failed to mention any of the events of March 9, 1992, until he was good and ready to.

Especially if Anne was under the thumb at the time, Ike, as we are led to believe, and had to do exactly what she was told, like a good little wifey:

"Ask no questions, girl, and you'll be told no lies. Well, maybe just the odd couple of dozen and what have you..."

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Barrett's c*ck-and-bull anecdotes aside...

What else has Palmer got?

No tapes, no tapes... no nuffink.

He'd better ask Anne then.

[Iconoclast]

you could always put up another poll regarding who believes what and their opinion on Barrett being the driving force and see how that pans out

Wow, that's true, Yabs!

And we could file it away with the polls from 1AD asking Romans if they think the Roman Empire will last forever, and 999AD asking how many people think there's a God, and the polls from around the same time asking people if they think the Earth is flat, and the polls from the 1500s asking people if the Sun revolves around the Earth, and the polls from ...

Polls prove so much, don't they? No wonder science uses them to establish immutable laws of nature.

[Iconoclast]

Exactly. And let's poll Dolgin and Jones's readership, too.

Absolutely, RJ - and while we're at it let's ask Catholics which team they prefer, Rangers or Celtic.

[Iconoclast]

Exactly. And let's poll Dolgin and Jones's readership, too.

Caz inhabits a dream world where only 'keyboard warriors' (and let's pretend not to notice her 9,661 keyboard generated posts, the vast majority banging on about the Maybrick Hoax) are gullible enough to think that the diary is a modern fake with Mike and Anne up to their elbows in it.

When, in reality, pretty much everyone does, and rightfully so.

I suppose one should just go away and let them believe. They will anyway.

Roman Empire, belief in God, Earth centre of universe, Earth is flat, Catholics prefer Celtic. Human beliefs are never wrong once they become quorate, eh?

[caz]

Wait a minute, Thomas.

Do you mean to say that Barrett was a pathological liar?

A case so extreme that he’d make a fit example for a textbook on abnormal psychology? A bizarre jumble of pathological lying, Korsakov’s Syndrome, evasion, standard Scouser blarney, flimflam, and a man who is playing both sides for himself with no rational explanation for ninth tenths of his b.s.?

My Gawd, who would have believed it? In thirty years, I think you’re the first person to notice this about Barrett.

This is a major breakthrough. It changes everything.

It kind of fits the profile of those wretched souls who make confessions to crimes they didn't - or couldn't - commit, doesn't it? Few are actually believed without any proof, but the odd one has to pay when the police fail to find a better bet. The odd one may also live for many years, or even for the rest of his days, as a guilty man before the case against him is eventually overturned when good sense and justice finally enter the building.

[Yabs]

Wow, that's true, Yabs!

And we could file it away with the polls from 1AD asking Romans if they think the Roman Empire will last forever, and 999AD asking how many people think there's a God, and the polls from around the same time asking people if they think the Earth is flat, and the polls from the 1500s asking people if the Sun revolves around the Earth, and the polls from ...

Polls prove so much, don't they? No wonder science uses them to establish immutable laws of nature.

Well it would prove that people who believe Barrett was the author aren’t just a small handful of people with a psychological need to be right.


Point being, that suggestion was more than a little rude to those who haven’t got any motive for believing Barrett was the author, surely that can only apply to those that have written books and want to retain the same theory that they’ve presented to the world

[Iconoclast]

It kind of fits the profile of those wretched souls who make confessions to crimes they didn't - or couldn't - commit, doesn't it? Few are actually believed without any proof, but the odd one has to pay when the police fail to find a better bet. The odd one may also live for many years, or even for the rest of his days, as a guilty man before the case against him is eventually overturned when good sense and justice finally enter the building.

Why don't we just the Casebook readers to complete a poll, Caz? For every single issue ever discussed about Jack the Ripper or indeed any other subject, let's just establish our truths by the popularity by which they are held.

Okay, I'll start: Who thinks polls are of any value whatsoever in determining any sort of truth at all, ever, on any subject?

A: Me
B: Me mum in Carstairs
C: Yabs