One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Ill give you a lot , ill expect an answer for the diary being genuine for every point this article mentions for the diary being a fake , and when your done ill post another . That should keep you busy for a while . And every answer need to show ''Proof'' that shows that perticular point in the article is a Lie .

ACTS PLEASE, NOT FALLACIES!
Melvin Harris
Mrs. Harrison terms herself an " investigative writer", but she failed to investigate James Maybrick's handwritten Will in any depth, and she failed to investigate the nature and status of MacDougall's third-hand and falsified 'transcript'. Indeed she depended on MacDougall's bogus text when writing her book. His text provided her with glib excuses and without it the book would never have been written. (See my detailed investigation) ...

Oh my goodness, did you really just lazily post the whole of the viper Harris' treatise on the Maybrick case?

Have an opinion of your own, man!

PS I'll bet you've never actually read Harris' treatise, have you? It's quite long, you see, which is the only clue I needed.

[Iconoclast]

Gee caz I don't know else's to say it , its a wild fairytale based on a wild theory with not a sheard of evidence to prove its tru.

Were back where we started i guess. Ah well.

Fishy,

Do you type your posts on a small 'phone in the dark, by any chance?

Come down off your perch for a moment and let minnow the answer when you can and maybe that could be the fin-al word on the subject?

[Iconoclast]

Caz, don't be silly . Move on, your trying to make something up just for arguments sake.

My point was fairly straightforward and simple....... well for some anyway.

.

It's traditional - when claiming to have made a point - to have made one everyone can recognise without a 200 score on the Mensa scale or an All-Seeing Eye.

Sadly, I have neither (mind, I've never checked) so any chance you could just answer Caz's question for ****'s sake?

Sheard? You're right, she certainly is ...

[Iconoclast]

A likelier reason for Mike not mentioning it in June 1994 is that he had no idea where 'o costly' came from until later, when he found it in the library!

So, what you're saying, Caz, is that there's never been any direct evidence that Mike Barrett ever had a copy of Volume 2 of the Sphere volumes but that - if he did - he may not have had Volume 2 (with the Crashaw line in it)? But - further - that he knew it was Volume 2 because he'd found the quotation in Liverpool Central Library having been stung into action by Shirley Harrison's suggestion that he had contributed ****-all to the research for the original book and therefore, when he remembered having received them and kept them in his attic (supposedly) and couldn't get a clean copy from the volumes he apparently gave to Jenny Morrison (assuming he ever did), he simply went to a secondhand book shop and bought a copy?

I wonder, then, if that would explain why the copy he gave to an excited Alan Gray outside his [Mike's] solicitor's office in November 1994 was so obviously thumbed-through and annotated by a university (or A-level) student in its earlier (non-Crashaw) sections?

Do you think there is any possibility that Barrett just hid the secondhand copy in his coat (it was November, after all), waited a short period of time in his solicitor's office, before coming back out and handing Gray the incriminating 'evidence' as if it had been logged in his solicitor's safe for some months or even years? That would certainly have helped him satisfy the craven Gray, the viper Harris, and the ****-for-brains team at The Sunday Morons?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Just caught up with your 'Dairy of Events' posts, Caz (from the other thread, and realised that the crucial date at Mike's visit to his bemused solicitor's office was December 6, 1994, not November.

Bet it was still bloody cold, mind!

[caz]

First off, please notice how naturally and effortlessly Caz Brown projects here own strange ideas onto those she disagrees with. This is why 'debating' with her is such a painful and futile task.

Aw, I never expected to see Palmer playing the victim card, but nobody forced him to give himself any 'painful and futile' tasks.

Not once have I ever argued that Anne is 'thick.'

I do not 'clearly think this.' Maybe Caz does, but I don't, and have said so many times.

I think Anne is intelligent and capable.

But that makes no sense in the context of Palmer's theory concerning what Anne was doing for Mike in early April 1992. Maybe it's because Palmer is not a woman that he cannot grasp just how idiotic it would have been for Anne not to know her husband of sixteen years well enough to sense which way the diary wind was blowing if she was left holding the pen.

Palmer really should have the courage of his convictions and put his theory to Anne, warts and all [I'm sure Chris Jones could not object to passing on a letter from a fellow hoax theorist], because I have a feeling that's the only way he's going to elicit a response from her regarding that unhappy period of her life when the diary dominated all Mike's waking thoughts and quite turned his head. I suspect Anne would be so astounded by Palmer's opinion of her, and her life in Goldie Street, that it would provoke a response that we should all like to see - for better or worse.

The following is intrusive, but it has already appeared in print, so I'll mention it. Early on in Jones and Dolgin's book, the authors allude to a letter written by Graham to Paul Feldman, outlining years of emotional and physical abuse. Barrett, as is well known, was a raging alcoholic and could be physically violent.

Most sensible people will have the insight to realize that a victim of abuse will not always act rationally, and might well humor her alcoholic husband, especially if she was under the belief that his schemes would amount to nothing, anyway. For instance, if she believed that the literary agent Doreen Montgomery in London would 'just send Mike packing,'---which is exactly what Anne herself said. It doesn't matter in the least that this person was or was not intelligent. The courts are filled with intelligent women who got dragged into a mess by their sketchy husbands.

This has been dragged up before by Palmer, but I can tell him that no two domestic abuse victims will cope in an identical fashion, and no two abusers will behave in exactly the same way towards their victim, although there are certain recognisable patterns for anyone who has endured it, and it almost always gets gradually worse over time, along with an alcohol habit, so while we know how it ended for Anne, in January 1994, when Mike's abuse became intolerable, it's far from clear what was going on behind closed doors in Goldie Street two or three years earlier. So it's no good Palmer keep arguing from a safe distance that a woman he didn't know in 1992 and has never met 'might well' have humoured a husband he didn't know in 1992 and never met, by going along with such a scheme. Some actual evidence of this would be nice.

If Anne thought Doreen would "just send Mike packing", what does Palmer think triggered the fight, in which she tried to destroy the scrapbook, presumably risking a beating in front of young Caroline, at the hands of this raging alcoholic and physically violent husband and father? That was a bit of an overreaction, if Anne had understood it to contain a harmless fictional story, which she had agreed to copy out by hand into the old book as a sales gimmick. What was the problem, even after Doreen had seen it and been impressed? As soon as they had their first chinwag over the phone, Anne could have told Doreen with a nervous giggle how the idea for the diary had come about and how she had expected Mike to be told the story was not good enough to publish and to be sent packing. Doreen would then have felt a bit daft if she had been hoodwinked by Mike into thinking it could be the real deal, and she really would have sent him packing if he ever darkened her doorstep again. Anne could have let Doreen do the hard bit and saved herself a beating in the process if Mike was already physically violent by then.

It all just makes so much better sense if Anne was worried that Mike was trying to publish someone else's rightful property, which he had either nicked himself or received from the tea leaf. Knowing Mike, she probably thought he'd lie his way through the meeting with Doreen and be sent packing for not giving a plausible explanation for how he came into the old book's possession. IIRC, Shirley was very sceptical about his 'dead pal' story from the off, and quickly got in touch with Devereux's family to check it out, so Mike certainly could have been 'sent packing' on that basis alone.

As for the diary's handwriting not being Anne's, let me just post the following.





Twenty years later, no progress has been made. Anne's handwriting has still not been analyzed by a professional, and we can see from the above that one of the Diary's main champions--who also admitted to having extensive samples of Anne's handwriting---even gave his opinion that the 'onus' was on those who don't believe the diary is a modern fake.

Caroline Brown falls into that category.

And Keith is welcome to his opinion. We are not joined at the hip, as I have had to repeat many times, but equally any attempt to 'divide and rule' will fail miserably so I advise Palmer not to try it. My own opinion is that the burden of proof lies with anyone who is arguing that a named individual held the pen - or indeed made the scratches in Albert's watch.

Similarly, all those people who knew Eddie Lyons, or at least knew of him, back in the early 1990s, and named him in connection with the diary being found during Dodd's rewiring, had to make their evidence credible and consistent enough to amount to a compelling case which, when combined with all the circumstantial evidence surrounding the 9th March 1992 double event, would be extremely hard for any objective observer to ignore or dismiss. Only by identifying the diary handwriting as Anne's, or someone known to the Barretts, can Palmer hope to demolish the case for a fenced diary arriving in Goldie Street in March 1992, with his own case for one that was faked in Goldie Street in early April 1992. It makes no difference where we believe the onus should lie. If Palmer wants to brush the scrapbook under the floorboards, he knows what it will take to achieve it, and simply repeating over and over that it's just a 'silly' theory has achieved precisely nothing.

Anyway, as Caz obviously can't resist the urge to misrepresent the views of others, I see any further debate with her as a waste of time.

That's rich, coming from someone who read a post of mine in 'the other place' and came straight over here with a distorted version of it, omitting the crucial part and hoping that the readers would not bother to check and identify his accidentally-on-purpose misrepresentation.

It worked on FISHY, but that one needs reliable information like a fish needs a bicycle.

[Iconoclast]

So, what you're saying, Caz, is that there's never been any direct evidence that Mike Barrett ever had a copy of Volume 2 of the Sphere volumes but that - if he did - he may not have had Volume 2 (with the Crashaw line in it)?
Ike

In defence (if that were possible) of this idiotic question, I had not long got back from a 235 mile journey mainly on the mind-numbing M6.

If anyone knows what I may have meant, do let me know.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Oh my goodness, did you really just lazily post the whole of the viper Harris' treatise on the Maybrick case?

Have an opinion of your own, man!

PS I'll bet you've never actually read Harris' treatise, have you? It's quite long, you see, which is the only clue I needed.

Oh my goodness did you not read my opinion ???

Where is your proof that Harris lied or was wrong? , show proof Maybrick was jtr? not waffle and long drawn out post about stories of people involved as you and Caz loveeeeee to do .There so boring. .

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

Do you type your posts on a small 'phone in the dark, by any chance?

Come down off your perch for a moment and let minnow the answer when you can and maybe that could be the fin-al word on the subject?

I'm happy right were I am as the Maybrick hoax goes , but you might want to try coming out of the darkness that you've been in since believing the theory you invented. Just a theory , not fact .

[FISHY1118]

Aw, I never expected to see Palmer playing the victim card, but nobody forced him to give himself any 'painful and futile' tasks.



But that makes no sense in the context of Palmer's theory concerning what Anne was doing for Mike in early April 1992. Maybe it's because Palmer is not a woman that he cannot grasp just how idiotic it would have been for Anne not to know her husband of sixteen years well enough to sense which way the diary wind was blowing if she was left holding the pen.

Palmer really should have the courage of his convictions and put his theory to Anne, warts and all [I'm sure Chris Jones could not object to passing on a letter from a fellow hoax theorist], because I have a feeling that's the only way he's going to elicit a response from her regarding that unhappy period of her life when the diary dominated all Mike's waking thoughts and quite turned his head. I suspect Anne would be so astounded by Palmer's opinion of her, and her life in Goldie Street, that it would provoke a response that we should all like to see - for better or worse.



This has been dragged up before by Palmer, but I can tell him that no two domestic abuse victims will cope in an identical fashion, and no two abusers will behave in exactly the same way towards their victim, although there are certain recognisable patterns for anyone who has endured it, and it almost always gets gradually worse over time, along with an alcohol habit, so while we know how it ended for Anne, in January 1994, when Mike's abuse became intolerable, it's far from clear what was going on behind closed doors in Goldie Street two or three years earlier. So it's no good Palmer keep arguing from a safe distance that a woman he didn't know in 1992 and has never met 'might well' have humoured a husband he didn't know in 1992 and never met, by going along with such a scheme. Some actual evidence of this would be nice.

If Anne thought Doreen would "just send Mike packing", what does Palmer think triggered the fight, in which she tried to destroy the scrapbook, presumably risking a beating in front of young Caroline, at the hands of this raging alcoholic and physically violent husband and father? That was a bit of an overreaction, if Anne had understood it to contain a harmless fictional story, which she had agreed to copy out by hand into the old book as a sales gimmick. What was the problem, even after Doreen had seen it and been impressed? As soon as they had their first chinwag over the phone, Anne could have told Doreen with a nervous giggle how the idea for the diary had come about and how she had expected Mike to be told the story was not good enough to publish and to be sent packing. Doreen would then have felt a bit daft if she had been hoodwinked by Mike into thinking it could be the real deal, and she really would have sent him packing if he ever darkened her doorstep again. Anne could have let Doreen do the hard bit and saved herself a beating in the process if Mike was already physically violent by then.

It all just makes so much better sense if Anne was worried that Mike was trying to publish someone else's rightful property, which he had either nicked himself or received from the tea leaf. Knowing Mike, she probably thought he'd lie his way through the meeting with Doreen and be sent packing for not giving a plausible explanation for how he came into the old book's possession. IIRC, Shirley was very sceptical about his 'dead pal' story from the off, and quickly got in touch with Devereux's family to check it out, so Mike certainly could have been 'sent packing' on that basis alone.



And Keith is welcome to his opinion. We are not joined at the hip, as I have had to repeat many times, but equally any attempt to 'divide and rule' will fail miserably so I advise Palmer not to try it. My own opinion is that the burden of proof lies with anyone who is arguing that a named individual held the pen - or indeed made the scratches in Albert's watch.

Similarly, all those people who knew Eddie Lyons, or at least knew of him, back in the early 1990s, and named him in connection with the diary being found during Dodd's rewiring, had to make their evidence credible and consistent enough to amount to a compelling case which, when combined with all the circumstantial evidence surrounding the 9th March 1992 double event, would be extremely hard for any objective observer to ignore or dismiss. Only by identifying the diary handwriting as Anne's, or someone known to the Barretts, can Palmer hope to demolish the case for a fenced diary arriving in Goldie Street in March 1992, with his own case for one that was faked in Goldie Street in early April 1992. It makes no difference where we believe the onus should lie. If Palmer wants to brush the scrapbook under the floorboards, he knows what it will take to achieve it, and simply repeating over and over that it's just a 'silly' theory has achieved precisely nothing.



That's rich, coming from someone who read a post of mine in 'the other place' and came straight over here with a distorted version of it, omitting the crucial part and hoping that the readers would not bother to check and identify his accidentally-on-purpose misrepresentation.

It worked on FISHY, but that one needs reliable information like a fish needs a bicycle.

Where has all this "reliable information "got you in Proving James Maybrick was jack the ripper? . Yer your right absolutely f nowhere !!!!

Proof not theory please.

Keep remembering people the Maybrick dairy and watch are just theories .

[rjpalmer]

Just caught up with your 'Dairy of Events' posts, Caz

A dairy of events--featuring a state-of-the-art butter churn and a demonstration of the milking machine.

Keep remembering people the Maybrick dairy and watch are just theories .

Seeing that they've milked this hoax for three decades, calling it a dairy is fit & proper.

Look out, look out! The Typographical Taliban is about!

Two can play at this game.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In defence (if that were possible) of this idiotic question, I had not long got back from a 235 mile journey mainly on the mind-numbing M6.

If anyone knows what I may have meant, do let me know.

Ike

Hi Ike,

What it means is A) Mike was sharp enough to hoodwink a private investigator and get away with it, and B) we know Mike found the Crashaw quote by studiously searching the library because he said so. Because Mike Barrett said so.

[erobitha]

Hi Ike,

What it means is A) Mike was sharp enough to hoodwink a private investigator and get away with it, and B) we know Mike found the Crashaw quote by studiously searching the library because he said so. Because Mike Barrett said so.

I’m with you on the point that nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, could be trusted that came out of the mouth of Mike Barrett.

Nothing.

[Iconoclast]

A dairy of events--featuring a state-of-the-art butter churn and a demonstration of the milking machine.
Seeing that they've milked this hoax for three decades, calling it a dairy is fit & proper.
Look out, look out! The Typographical Taliban is about!
Two can play at this game.

I hate to spoil the pun game but my reference to Caz's 'Dairy of events' was regarding her fabled timeline that she has compiled since Inside Story came out in the early 2000s, not to James Maybrick's journal which emerged from the shadows on March 9, 1992 ('coincidentally', the same day Maybrick's floorboards came up for electrical work to be carried out by a small team which included a guy who drank in the same pub ... et cetera ...).

I am sure that Caz's amazing timeline actually exists (she posted the evidence on a related thread if we were all paying attention and performing our due diligence) and that it milks nothing but the available evidence.

We'll assume that the 'punners' were just not keeping-up as opposed to deliberately seeking to tell a mendacious version of the source of the pun they find so wickedly funny.

It's just that it's usually really hard to tell with those two, especially the viper Palmer.

Ike

[FISHY1118]

A dairy of events--featuring a state-of-the-art butter churn and a demonstration of the milking machine.



Seeing that they've milked this hoax for three decades, calling it a dairy is fit & proper.

Look out, look out! The Typographical Taliban is about!

Two can play at this game.

Yer my bad . haha