One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Like Brexit must have been a good idea, in spite of all the evidence of our eyes and ears to the contrary, because the vote was 52% in favour?
Every day is a school day in this place.
Love,
Caz
X

The blindingly obvious error of Brexit was to assume that it wouldn't be voted for, thereby lazily agreeing a first-past-the-post vote would be honoured (because the assumption was that the Remain vote would win). If you are debating something which cannot be in any way easily corrected if it goes wrong, you need your outcome to be unequivocal. Random sampling error (and plebiscites are random because in practice the whole population does not vote) will produce marginal differences every time the same vote occurred. If the plebiscite took place every day for a month, there would be 30 (it was June, after all) different outcomes because each vote would consist of a different sample of the population (not everyone who voted on June 1 would be able to vote every day). Some of those outcomes may have favoured Leave but the vast majority may have favoured Remain. We'll never actually know if the vote we got was just one well within one standard deviation of the mean (where most results sit in a normal distribution curve of outcomes), but what we can say is that 52% Leave could easily have been a random outcome in a sample that could generally have produced Remain votes.

For example, let's say every day that month except June 23 was brilliant sunshine so for every day bar one, the British public got their hankies onto the top of their heads, rolled up their trouser legs, and trooped off to vote Remain primarily 'cos "this feels like Spain!" and it felt great.

But let's imagine that on June 23 - the day of the actual plebiscite - it pissed down the whole day and the wind blew a hoolie so all the Remain voters thought, "This feels like Manchester, I'm not going out to vote and it doesn't matter anyway 'cos everyone knows Remain is going to win and what difference will my little old, wet, vote make?" and you have a whole bunch of motivated Leavers pouring out into the streets 'cos they know every single vote really does count (collectively). What do you get that one day in 30? You get the possibility of a sufficient 'swing' to Leave to hit one vote over 50% or just a little more even though statistically speaking you'd have generally got a decent Remain majority. That's what statistics can do - if you don't set the threshold for "Leave" high enough, you run the risk of a Type I error (and you accept "Leave" instead of "Remain"). If the threshold for Leave had been, say, 60%, I think we'd still be eating mange tout and the French could do absolutely haw-hee-haw about it.

At just 52% Leave, we have no way of knowing if that's actually what the British public wanted that day only that that is what the British public who voted that day wanted. If we'd had 60% Leave, I think we could all have accepted that that was what the majority of the British people truly wanted. The first-past-the-post principle was madness for such a monumental moment in British history.

Remind me, what was the weather like on June 23, 2016?

[Yabs]

By the way, Yabs, you really shouldn't be so dismissive. In logic, if one takes a theory to its extreme cases (what you call 'silly'), one quickly establishes the plausibility of the whole theory. If you discuss examples which are mundane, commonplace, and intuitive, you will learn nothing about the boundaries of whatever theory you are discussing. By taking an argument to its extremes, you test its robustness under stress. If a theory fails at its extremes, it fails everywhere else (including in the mundane, commonplace, and intuitive applications of it).

Did you not know that?

I think we can all consider that may be the case, It’s just the way you personally present a point.
As a priority you seem preoccupied with point scoring by sarcasm and being a smart ass than you are scoring points for your actual belief.
Plus I’m not sure having read a lot of your posts what exactly would be the one thing that would prove to you the diary is fake?

You’re not satisfied with phrases that shouldn’t be in the diary.
Not satisfied that the whole Maybrick story contained there can be found in one other book.
Not swayed by it containing mistakes like where body parts were left.
Not swayed by Barrett trying to find a blank diary.
You’re not swayed by Barrett admitting writing it.


And if these things don’t singularly sway you, as a whole they should at least give you serious doubts.

So what would be an example of a singular proof that you would accept?
And considering the threads title, if there is actually nothing that would convince you, then there’s no further point in posting here, or the thread even existing.

[Iconoclast]

I think we can all consider that may be the case, It’s just the way you personally present a point.
As a priority you seem preoccupied with point scoring by sarcasm and being a smart ass than you are scoring points for your actual belief.
Plus I’m not sure having read a lot of your posts what exactly would be the one thing that would prove to you the diary is fake?
You’re not satisfied with phrases that shouldn’t be in the diary.
Not satisfied that the whole Maybrick story contained there can be found in one other book.
Not swayed by it containing mistakes like where body parts were left.
Not swayed by Barrett trying to find a blank diary.
You’re not swayed by Barrett admitting writing it.
And if these things don’t singularly sway you, as a whole they should at least give you serious doubts.
So what would be an example of a singular proof that you would accept?
And considering the threads title, if there is actually nothing that would convince you, then there’s no further point in posting here, or the thread even existing.

Yabs,

Thank you your reasoned response.

I should stress here that I am a Maybrick believer so I'm looking primarily for evidence that Maybrick wrote the Maybrick scrapbook. In response to your fair challenges, I would say:

You’re not satisfied with phrases that shouldn’t be in the diary.
I have not ruled-out that 'one off instance' may well be a genuine anachronism (because the Dark Lord has made a clear and evidence-based case for it being anachronistic so it would be improper to ignore that evidence) but I see no argument for other phrases being properly anachronistic because improper evidence has been provided for it (this evidence is mainly Google nGrams which are patently argumentative not substantive); coupled with my concern that reported 'anachronisms' have subsequently been proven to be era-appropriate - the best example I can think of is the insistence that 'top myself' was an inappropriate use of the term for 1888 until Mr MrBarnett showed the clear evidence that it was absolutely appropriate for 1888. Overall, I mistrust 'evidence' based upon weak sources such as personal incredulity, personal opinion, or from controversial sources such as Google nGrams.
Not satisfied that the whole Maybrick story contained there can be found in one other book.
This does bother me, yes, and I do need to take more time to re-read Ryan to establish the absolute certainty of this.
Not swayed by it containing mistakes like where body parts were left.
I'm not swayed if there is a plausible alternative for the error or apparent error. In the case of Kelly's breasts, I find nothing convincing about the author's error - in the sewer that was her room that morning, I am not even vaguely surprised if the author read about her breasts being left on the table and he mirrored that in his scrapbook because he couldn't remember one bit of gore he had created from another. I'm also of the opinion that it is a reasonable alternative to conceive that he did both - left her breasts on the table and then removed them again to put one at her feet and one at her head (he even writes that he thought of leaving them at her feet which is remarkable if the author didn't know he had left one breast at her feet). You have to put yourself in that room, committing the terrible acts he did, high on arsenic and - for all we know - drink, and then assess how likely your memory would be if you were writing about it a few days later after reading the newspapers.
Not swayed by Barrett trying to find a blank diary.
Not even vaguely swayed - indeed, I find this evidence of authenticity for reasons I have documented in very recent posts.
You’re not swayed by Barrett admitting writing it.
Oh, I'm definitely not swayed in the slightest by Barrett claiming (not 'admitting' - you are prejudicing the evidence by your language here). People who make these claims provide evidence to support their claims and Barrett singularly failed to produce a shred of evidence despite claiming many times that he could and that he would. He was a pathological liar (which both sides to this debate accept). In those circumstances - a pathological liar with a massive motive for lying about the scrapbook being a hoax makes claims which he cannot support - you and everyone else should run a mile from the possibility that he hoaxed the scrapbook. It bothers me hugely that people accept it so willingly, so utterly without doubt or even question. It smacks of 'evidence' you want to believe in rather than 'evidence' you should believe in.

I have proposed that there two pieces of evidence which point directly at authenticity: 1) the author tells us that he left Florrie's initials all over the room (albeit, this requires interpretation but it isn't hard to interpret it thus) and - lo and behold! - there are her initials on Kelly's wall and a very clear 'F' carved into her arm (and why are her legs staged as if a rather inarticulate 'M'?); and 2) Maybrick's signature is in his watch and the 'k' is so idiosyncratic as to be undeniably his.

So what would be an example of a singular proof that you would accept?

Well, I assume you mean proof of inauthenticity, yes? I don't know what it would be but examples would include:

• The author's use of 'one off instance' if it could be shown that no-one with a British or American background could possibly have constructed that linguistic combination in 1888. I understand that Lord Orsam has claimed it, and I understand that he has provided some reasonably compelling evidence to support it, but I do not believe that he has provided so compelling an argument as to be completely convincing (given the positive evidence I cite above). I'm intrigued. I'm fascinated. But I'm not yet convinced. I reserve that right and do not expect to be criticised for holding that view (should anyone think of suggesting it). The same would be true of any other of the many claimed anachronisms in the text.
• Contrary to RJ Palmer's claims of very recent posts, if Mike Barrett had provided any receipt whatsoever from Outhwaite & Litherland for anything at all that he had purchased there since early 1990, and assuming the items were not listed (or else they were listed and they clearly stated 'Victorian scrapbook' or some such identifier), then I would be satisfied that this was evidence that backed-up his hoax claims. The same is true for the items he claimed he purchased from the art shops.
• If Anne Graham came forward and showed evidence that Mike and/or she had hoaxed the scrapbook, I would accept that.
• If that particular scrapbook could be shown to have definitely not been produced before 1890, I would accept that.
• If the mounted shapes which left their imprint on the cover sheet could be shown to categorically not have been the right size for anything at all in 1888 (as opposed to possibly having been calling-cards/business cards, carte de visit photographs, or whatever), I would accept that.

I'm sure there'd be more if I gave it more thought, but hopefully this gives you a flavour of why I take the position that I do on Maybrick.

And that's without touching on any of the truly astonishing coincidences and circumstantial links to Maybrick which bigger belief!

And all will know, as time will show
That I'm society's pillar ...

[rjpalmer]

Keith Skinner is such a rare visitor to this forum that I feel I must return and respond to a remarkable statement he makes in Post #9987:

"As I recall, Shirley never quizzed Mike about the Ryan book. She asked him in the very early months of research if he had ever heard of The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick by Bernard Ryan -to which Mike replied no. Mike then went along to Liverpool Central Library and borrowed it. This was after the diary had been brought to London and the transcript made - and prior to the research notes being given to Shirley."

Question. How can Keith know that this conversation between Shirley and Mike about Ryan's book occurred before the research notes were given to Shirley? He wasn't there, was he?

What Mike told Keith on 11^th April 1994 was this:

MB: Ehm going right back, you know the 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' I didn’t know that existed until after Shirley, until after I met Doreen. Many months afterwards Shirley Harrison said to me over the phone one day, “Have I ever heard of the book called The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick?” I said, “No I hadn’t.” So I went to the library and got it and read it then and what have you. I also read the ‘Fifteen Years’, which you can’t take out. So that was well after the research had actually commenced.'

That could easily have been – and strictly speaking must have been – after June 1992, as any conversation in June would have been only two months after the meeting with Doreen.

The only other time Mike is known to have addressed the point was on 18^th January 1995 when, according to a transcript provided by Caz, the exchange with Shirley and Keith went as follows:

SH: And when did you start looking at other books? What other sourcebooks did you use for checking out the Diary’s history?

MB: After that, the only other books I used were after you mentioned – you mentioned, you mentioned, straight from the horse’s mouth, you mentioned ‘The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick’.

SH: Yes.

MB: Now, I didn’t know anything about that.

SH: No.

MB: You mentioned that and then obviously I went and got ‘The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick’, which even confirmed even more.

KS: This was after Tony’s death?

MB: Oh this was after I spoke to Shirley, this was well after.

KS: Yeah.

MB: This was well after. I mean, I didn’t know ‘The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick’ even existed. It was only Shirley that told me about that.

Nothing is said by Shirley in terms of timing, so unless Keith has further information, he can't possibly know whether the conversation about Ryan's book occurred before July/August 1992 or afterwards. Mike certainly gives the impression that it must have been after July. He says it was "many months" after the April meeting and "well after" it, while a conversation in June would only have been two months after the April meeting.

How does Keith know that the conversation wasn't actually in response to Shirley reading Mike's research notes? This makes far more sense and supplies a context for the question being posed. Perhaps she read the notes and then asked him if he had read Ryan's book.

Mike also claims that he went straight to the library after being told about Ryan. If that was the case, why couldn't he simply have added in any information from Ryan to his research notes for Shirley---after all, the point wasn't to prove what work he had done in 1991 but to assist her with the book. He was signed on as her collaborator. Why would he have needed to pretend that those notes had all been compiled in 1991? Why couldn't he have just said he'd updated them in line with her suggestion to read Ryan's book?

The ironic thing is that, in the same post, Caroline writes: " I don't recall claiming that Shirley had 'quizzed' Mike about Ryan's book. I thought I had merely suggested that she could have mentioned it to him before he handed his notes over to her in the summer of 1992."

In other words, it is pure speculation. I have seen no evidence that any such conversation took place before Barrett handed in his bogus research notes.

[rjpalmer]

Whoever wrote the diary needed an earlier source than Ryan for some of the text.

I'm confident that David Barrat, Chris Jones, and others will be eager to hear the evidence for this claim.

[rjpalmer]

[*]Contrary to RJ Palmer's claims of very recent posts, if Mike Barrett had provided any receipt whatsoever from Outhwaite & Litherland for anything at all that he had purchased there since early 1990, and assuming the items were not listed (or else they were listed and they clearly stated 'Victorian scrapbook' or some such identifier), then I would be satisfied that this was evidence that backed-up his hoax claims.

Yeah, sure, Ike.

Nobody in their right mind believes you.

You don't believe the best document examiners on either side of the Atlantic. You don’t even accept the obvious implications of Martin Earl's advertisement showing that Barrett wanted a blank Victorian diary with "at least twenty blank pages,” but you're going to suddenly jump up and wave the white flag if Barrett (who is dead) waves an anonymous receipt from an auction house in the air, showing nothing more than at some point in the past 3 years he bought "miscellaneous items."

Let's face it, Ike. You’d be tripping over yourself to explain it away. And this one, unlike the Earl advertisement, or Mike’s remarkable ability to come up with the Crashaw quote, or the bogus Victorian handwriting, or the chloroacetamide, isn’t even a very difficult one to explain away. Just Mike digging around in a drawer and finding an old miscellaneous receipt.


But this is all part of the ol' shell game: "I’m a reasonable man, folks! I’d be easily convinced by evidence that doesn’t exist and can’t possibly reemerge after all these years. See how reasonable I am?"

[Iconoclast]

Yeah, sure, Ike.

Nobody in their right mind believes you.

The irony of you accusing me of lying I trust is not lost on you and a certain someone else. I await your apology which - as I understand it - is the 'honourable' thing to do if a person has certain standards. For the record, dear readers, I won't be holding my breath either.

If Mike Barrett had produced a receipt from Outhwaite & Litherland for approximately the right time period and approximately the right price, I'd have had to accept it. I would not have then said, "Oh, he must have conveniently and innocently bought something at auction which he later used as evidence of a hoax he didn't create". I don't know anyone who has ever bought anything at an auction (obviously pre-eBay). I don't know anyone who frequents auction houses.

If an auction ticket had been produced and Outhwaite & Litherland had validated it as one of theirs, I'd have accepted that as game up and I may then have focused on how it was possible for an innocent man (Maybrick) to stumble so hopelessly into the Jack the Ripper case the way his life caused him to do.

But - look - don't get all whiny and whingy about things that are said about you and then go off and call people liars.

[Iconoclast]

You don’t even accept the obvious implications of Martin Earl's advertisement showing that Barrett wanted a blank Victorian diary with "at least twenty blank pages,” ...

I don't know how many more times I have to present a reasonable alternative to your (and the Dark Lord's) closed-minded view on this.

Here's the scenario:

Barrett's got this gold-dust Victorian scrapbook in his hand and he doesn't want to lose it so he's going to put some steps in place to try to protect it. He knows in his heart of hearts that's it's utterly hookey so he thinks that someone (he doesn't know who, obviously) might come knocking on his door wanting it back. Are you getting it so far?

So he needs a document that resembles the one he has in his hands. It doesn't have to be a perfect match. It just needs to be something he can say "Here's the document I got the other day" if someone in authority (such as the polis) come asking.

So he seeks a genuine 1880-1890 diary and he seeks sufficient blank pages so that when the complainant says "Mine had several blank pages at the end" Mike can say "And so does mine, just like you said".

I think that that adequately deals with him asking for a diary from 1890 when James Maybrick was dead a year which is something Orsam and yourself have stumbled very badly over (having to resort to the truly tenuous argument that Mike's request for a 'diary' was because he actually expected a 'notebook' which is apparently what you believe we all would expect to receive having made such a clear and specific request).

Now, then, who's interpretation is the most believable here and who's the most facile?

I leave it to my dear readers to decide ...

[Iconoclast]

In truth, if Orsam and RJ are right, Mike Barrett should have asked for an 1880-1890 notebook or a scrapbook or a guard book or a photograph album - anything whatsoever as long as it wasn't a diary - but he didn't. A diary was the very dab he asked for. He was happy with dates exceeding Maybrick's death on May 11, 1889. It's the absolute death knell to their desperate theory and - as Lord Orsam has said - that's all he's got here, so his theory FAILS and FAILS big time.

Ah well, never mind ...

[rjpalmer]

We've reached the 10,000th post of this sorry saga, and it lands on a low point:

Barrett's got this gold-dust Victorian scrapbook in his hand and he doesn't want to lose it so he's going to put some steps in place to try to protect it. He knows in his heart of hearts that's it's utterly hookey so he thinks that someone (he doesn't know who, obviously) might come knocking on his door wanting it back. Are you getting it so far?

So he needs a document that resembles the one he has in his hands. It doesn't have to be a perfect match. It just needs to be something he can say "Here's the document I got the other day" if someone in authority (such as the polis) come asking...

Complete drivel, Ike.

A blank or partially blank Victorian diary would not resemble a large, oversized Victorian or Edwardian photo album filled with writing about Jack the Ripper.

Barrett (pretending for a moment that the Eddie Lyons provenance is true) would have NO IDEA what the owner knew about the diary or how easily it could be identified.

The only person who could have ratted him off was Eddie Lyons and Eddie also knew what the diary looked like (in your theory).

It's bizarre. It makes no sense whatsoever.

That said, congrats on your 10,000th post. It's been one heck of a waste of cyber ink.

[Iconoclast]

We've reached the 10,000th post of this sorry saga, and it lands on a low point:
Complete drivel, Ike.
A blank or partially blank Victorian diary would not resemble a large, oversized Victorian or Edwardian photo album filled with writing about Jack the Ripper.
Barrett (pretending for a moment that the Eddie Lyons provenance is true) would have NO IDEA what the owner knew about the diary or how easily it could be identified.
The only person who could have ratted him off was Eddie Lyons and Eddie also knew what the diary looked like (in your theory).
It's bizarre. It makes no sense whatsoever.
That said, congrats on your 10,000th post. It's been one heck of a waste of cyber ink.

On the contrary, we end of a high note - the very apotheosis perhaps of the inanity of believing that Mike Barrett had some involvement in the creation of the Maybrick scrapbook simply on the basis that he sought out a diary (you know, the thing with dates printed 365 times) from a year after James Maybrick died.

How many of us would have even hoped briefly that we might have sourced the very dab? An actual Victorian scrapbook with twenty or so blank pages? And how many of us would have prudently settled for a genuine diary from around that period, ideally bearing twenty or so blank pages?

I think we all know the answer, including you.

It matters not what Barrett imagined the true owner might have known about the stolen document. He was not covering every angle - just enough angles to surprise the polis (or whoever) and to increase the chances that he would get away with his little subterfuge.

Owner: But - hold on - my document was a huge scrapbook, like a photograph album. What you've got there is a pathetic little diary from 1890!
Mike: Well, I'm sorry, I really can't help you. This is what I got down the pub.
Polisperson: Right enough, Mr. Owner, what's the chances that you'd accuse Mr Bongo of having a Victorian document with twenty-odd blank pages in, and that's exactly what he's got.
Mike: Maybe there were two documents? Maybe three, I don't know. All I know is that this is the one I bought.
Polisperson: I think we've taken up more than enough of Mr Bongo's time, don't you? Sorry to bother you sir. Have a good evening.
Mike [Cackling insanely inside his head]: Oh, I will, officer!

Now, that's the flippant version. Hopefully you are able to strip out the flip and see the point I'm making? All Barrett has to do is to produce something that looks like the Victorian scrapbook and the owner would do the rest, ensuring that Bongo kept what he had acquired by denying that this was what he (Mr. Owner) was expecting.

It's actually a rather clever Chess move. It's all about the surprise and maintaining the high ground.

PS Don't forget the apology you owe me ...

[Iconoclast]

Complete drivel, Ike.
It's bizarre. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Just some friendly feedback, RJ. Making comments such as this fools no-one, not even the thickest of my dear readers. Saying something is 'drivel' and 'makes no sense whatsoever' when it is at least as likely if not more so than your own theory just compromises your argument from the very start.

PS Don't forget you owe me an apology. We're now all waiting to see what sort of standards you adhere to.

[Iconoclast]

PS Don't forget you owe me an apology. We're now all waiting to see what sort of standards you adhere to.

Goodness, such a yawning gap there during which the civilised side of The Pond slept, and in which you could have filled a moment or two over your cwoffee 'n' dwonuts with the apology you owe me.

I'm starting to think you're psychologically incapable of doing so. Are you one of those people who think that a single apology on a specific subject will open the floodgates to people distrusting everything you've ever written or said?

Personally, I'm very together mentally (despite what you all might think) so I'm happy to dispense an apology where one may be fit (as I feel I have shown), even if it is to my most sworn opponent, the Evil Antagoniser, the Dark Lord, the Chigwell Chunderer Himself, the Anti-Matter to Keith Skinner's Matter, the Grief Thief of Time crawling off (Now Jack my fathers let the time-faced crook and all that) and otherwise really rather swell guy.

Release the quill and dip it deep into yon cyber ink, the very dab, sir, and satisfy me! (Oo er, matron.)

Honest Ike

[rjpalmer]

PS Don't forget you owe me an apology. We're now all waiting to see what sort of standards you adhere to.

An apology? Mr. Muddy Mud, the Bumbling Buffoon, owes you an apology?

Hardly, Old Boy. As you said to me earlier in the week when I called you out, "I am just expressing my view."

Nor is there anything to apologize for.

It is entirely possible that you have convinced yourself that had Barrett waved a generic auction ticket from 1990 in the air, with no way of linking it to the photo album, particularly since O & L have pulped their records, and at any rate, didn't identify such small lots individually, you would have immediately abandoned your credulity and hoisted a white flag in the air, admitting it's all been a scam and you have been utterly bamboozled, but based on my own observations over the past 10,000 posts, I remain wildly skeptical of this and I do not believe it, nor do I believe anyone else in their right mind believes it either.

I said what I meant.

The entire schtick of this thread is for you to dismiss, ignore, or explain-away whatever evidence for modernity or culpability is presented for your royal inspection. For instance, Barrett shows remarkable insight in claiming that he had read only one book on the Maybrick case--The Poisoned Life--the same book that independent research has shown would have supplied all the necessary details--and you wave your hand as if brushing aside a mosquito, and suggest this knowledge was supplied by a person we can only refer to as Secret Scholar. Why? Because you can't even demonstrate who, in 1999, ever voiced this insight other than Barrett himself.

If no rational explanation is forthcoming, you simply invent something out of thin air, evidence be damned.

Similarly, you attempt to explain-away, but not convincingly I hastily add, Barrett's attempt to purchase a blank or partially blank diary, his ownership of the Sphere Guide, his lying about the word processor, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

So, no Ike. No apology is forthcoming. I can't prove it of course, since you have chosen something that can't possibly happen as your alleged breaking point, which I find quite interesting in itself.

The ticket can't possibly resurface after all these years, and the records are pulped, so you are entirely safe in making this impossible-to-prove declaration of your reasonableness.

I remain skeptical in the extreme. Sorry if Mr. Muddy Mud has upset you and you now have your kilt in a twist. That's as close to an apology as you are going to get.

[rjpalmer]

By the way, Ike, I sent you a PM.