One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

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.

If you ever get to hear the Gray-Barrett comedy duo tapes, Abe, you'll note that Gray hoodwinked himself at the start and that Barrett simply let him keep hoodwinking himself as it proved to be a conduit to his having regular company and the occasional useful lift into town.

'Because Mike Barrett said so'. Indeed, that last bastion of the viper Harris' very-fabled 'integrity' carries the credibility of a snake but on this occasion - re the discovery of the Crashaw quotation - I can see no point in not believing his original version (that he researched it and eventually found it in Liverpool Central Library). His subsequent version - that he sampled it from a series of obscure and rather 'difficult' books on English literature as part of his masterly hoax - rather obviously lacks credibility when one considers that it requires him to have decided it was worth the effort to steal a quotation from somewhere to give his nascent work a little evidential context, and that he decided to do so from that collection of 'difficult' books Sphere had sent him some years earlier and which he had stuck up in his attic. I guess that bit so far is actually vaguely plausible, but why sample from volume 2 which covered the period 1540-1674 when the more obvious choice would have been volume 6 (which covered the Victorian period)? You know, the one he himself assumed he found it in ...

[Iconoclast]

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

Were you taking the piss? I couldn't find any such 'opinion' from you. I even had to ask someone else to check and they too couldn't find an 'opinion' of any form at all.

As far as I can tell, you would not dream of giving one thought to Harris being partisan, incorrect or ill-informed. The very least that would happen in that event anyway is the viper acolyte screeching in with a defence of Harris and - over in the Dread Lord's Drainpipe - pages and pages of what MacDougall meant and what he didn't mean.

As far as I can tell, you made no observations whatsoever on Harris's treatise - or certainly none that I could find. You simply offered - with the desultory cut 'n' paste commitment of a dilettante - Harris's biased opinion, without critique or question, as if it were fact and therefore proof which (coming from you) is incredibly hypocritical.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Al, Old Bean,


Watch this space, because in a day or three, or maybe this afternoon if I get the time, in a final post (yes, chuckle away, Old Friends!) I will pass along a little-known snippet of information about the now infamous Sphere History of English Literature that will demonstrate that Tom's strange but convenient acceptance of Mike's yarn about miraculously finding a five-word quote in the Central Liverpool Library is complete bollocks and based on a false assumption by Tom. This false assumption springs, in part, from Tom’s belief that he is dealing with ‘vipers’ rather than normal, honest folk. And as you rightly note, there is no source for Mike Barrett finding this quote in the CLL other than Mike Barrett himself--and yet the Diary Detectives believe him (!)

And you might also ask yourself, as we should all ask ourselves, what is Caroline Brown's source for her assumption (I put it in bold) in Post #10,109: “As far as I am aware it has never been established that Jenny ever told anyone that the crucial volume 2 of the Sphere series had been among any books Mike gave her for her son, or that this volume was retrieved by Mike. Clearly, if that had been the case, it would have been a new and barely used copy from 1989, which Mike could have handed straight over to Alan Gray, now Mike realised it would be powerful evidence for how the line came to be in Anne's fictional story, tarted up as a 'sales gimmick'.

But the volume 2 Mike eventually handed over to Alan was obviously a used copy, with its early pages all dog-eared from its previous owner's use.”

Now, I could be wrong, but based on an old post by Keith Skinner, Keith had Shirley Harrison get him in touch with Jenny, but Jenny and her son were not keen on talking to anyone. I have encountered this same hesitancy when I’ve contacted bit players in this sad saga. This was over 5 years after these painful events, and they had moved on emotionally and mentally. But most importantly we are told Jenny no longer had the books. They had been given away. I think this was around 2001-2 or so, but I am going on memory.

So, if Keith never had the opportunity to scrutinize Jenny’s books for himself (as seems to be the case, and he can correct me if I’m wrong) how does he and Caz know they were ‘new and barely used copies’ incompatible with the dog-eared volume that Mike handed over to Gray?

You see, this is the detail that apparently has Keith believing that Barrett hoodwinked Gray and Harris. Barrett’s battered copy was supposedly incompatible with these allegedly ‘new’ copies.

But again, we are up against the old paradox: the only source for Barrett having received new and barely used copies directly from Sphere in response to a charity drive was Mike Barrett himself and we have ample examples of Barrett making up strange embellishments out-of-thin-air and for no rational reason.

Let that sink in: for no rational reason.

So the question is, without getting into an argument about it, why do the Diary Detectives keep telling us to never believe a single word coming out of Barrett’s mouth and then nearly in the same breath accept a detail that has no source other than Barrett? How do Keith and Caz know that all 12 volumes once in Jenny’s possession weren’t battered, dog-eared copies? Did they ever see them? And if even if they were pristine, if Barrett’s detail about getting these books directly from Sphere was a b.s. embellishment, which can very well be the case seeing that it only came from Barrett, why couldn’t a student of English Literature own a 12 volume set, but only have studied one volume of that set, and added marginal notes, etc? Is this somehow incompatible with reality?

Let us constantly remind ourselves that with Barrett we are dealing with a baffling personality. There can be lies in truths, and truths in lies, and lies in lies, and truths in truths.

In brief, if we are going to agree on the principle that we should never believe a single word coming out of the mouth of Mike Barrett unless we have independent confirmation or solid, logical reasons for doing so, shouldn’t we stick to that principle instead of breaking it at every turn?

[rjpalmer]

Part 2.

And Al, Old Bean, here's a story about Barrett that you might not know but is well worth contemplating.

The narrative that some evidently believe is that there were 'two' Mike Barretts--a sort of Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy.

The 'bad' Mike Barrett would tell outrageous lies about having forged the diary--even slapping it with a bloody kidney--while the 'good' Mike Barrett would tell honest truths about knowing very little about the diary other than he got it from a bloke in a pub and that he certainly didn't hoax the thing with his missus.

This is the narrative, and I submit to you that it is naïve. The 'good' Barrett also told the most outlandish and irrational lies because lying was a facility that Barrett could not shut off.

Here's the story.

Sometime after Barrett confessed to having hoaxed the diary, he reverted back to the 'good' Mike Barrett and insisted that he did not. Indeed, Mike decided that he would help Shirley Harrison prove the diary's authenticity.

So, one day Mike calls up Shirley with a remarkable revelation (not unlike his remarkable revelation about finding 'O Costly Intercourse of Death') that will help her cause.

He has found the mysterious Mrs. Hammersmith from the diary! She was a real person, and he can prove it.

Imagine Shirley's excitement.

Mike then tells her a long, elaborate yarn about a woman who, apparently impressed and fascinated by the diary saga, called on him one day.

Her name was Mrs. Leadbetter

Mrs. Leadbetter knew who this Mrs. Hammersmith was; whether she was a descendant I cannot say, but she could trace her back in the annals of Liverpool history.

In recounted her story, Mike gave a wealth of details and it all sounded incredibly plausible and credible.

There's just one catch.

When Shirley wisely checked the story for herself, she discovered that there was no Mrs. Leadbetter.

It had all been b.s. from beginning to end.

And this came from the 'good' Mike Barrett...after he had already confessed.

I think we should all let that sink in.

[FISHY1118]

Were you taking the piss? I couldn't find any such 'opinion' from you. I even had to ask someone else to check and they too couldn't find an 'opinion' of any form at all.

As far as I can tell, you would not dream of giving one thought to Harris being partisan, incorrect or ill-informed. The very least that would happen in that event anyway is the viper acolyte screeching in with a defence of Harris and - over in the Dread Lord's Drainpipe - pages and pages of what MacDougall meant and what he didn't mean.

As far as I can tell, you made no observations whatsoever on Harris's treatise - or certainly none that I could find. You simply offered - with the desultory cut 'n' paste commitment of a dilettante - Harris's biased opinion, without critique or question, as if it were fact and therefore proof which (coming from you) is incredibly hypocritical.

Ike

At any point in the future is someone ,anyone, that supports Maybrick as jack the ripper going to show some god damm proof when asked to do so .

If Maybrick was indeed the killer then every single point Harris made is a lie, as far as I can see you havent offered up anything that proves he did just that .
.

You Talk a hell of a lot but say absolutley SFA.

Never forget folks the Diary and Maybrick watch are still just a theory .

[rjpalmer]

But again, we are up against the old paradox: the only source for Barrett having received new and barely used copies directly from Sphere in response to a charity drive was Mike Barrett himself and we have ample examples of Barrett making up strange embellishments out-of-thin-air and for no rational reason.

Let me clarify this, so there is no misunderstanding.

We have been told that there were two independent witnesses to Barrett's ownership of these volumes. Jenny Morrison and one of Mike's sisters.

But what the point I'm posing is whether these witnesses verified that they were 'new and unused' copies.

[caz]

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 .

Where have I ever attempted to prove James Maybrick was the ripper? Are you sure you know who you are responsing to, FISHY?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

At any point in the future is someone ,anyone, that supports Maybrick as jack the ripper going to show some god damm proof when asked to do so.

'Proof' is a very elusive unit in the world of Ripperology. There is nothing whatsoever against any other candidate for Jack, but at least two strong, physical pieces of evidence in favour of Maybrick, and a host of circumstantial evidence (which juries frequently convict on the back of).

If Maybrick was indeed the killer then every single point Harris made is a lie, as far as I can see you havent offered up anything that proves he did just that .
.

This shows that you haven't read his treatise (as we all knew you hadn't, of course). Not everything Harris argued is lie vs truth. Much resides in the land of opinion which tends not to be flavoured by either lies or truths but - rather - by that which one favours.

You Talk a hell of a lot but say absolutley SFA.

You've gone a wee bit Psycho Killer on me there, Fishy, but the truth is that I say a hell of a lot and most of it is simply brilliant. That's one of the reasons why we're up at 10,000+ posts and 1.4million+ views. Or do you think absolutely everyone who posts to and reads this, The Greatest Thread of All, is some mindless twat with nothing better to do? Why do they keep coming back, I wonder, if the case against Maybrick is so well shut and resolved?

Never forget folks the Diary and Maybrick watch are still just a theory .

Contrary to your nonesensical claim, above, which you have taken to repeating rather parrotlike (ironically), both the scrapbook and the watch are actual physical evidence against James Maybrick, and that means that neither of them is a theory. They both exist. Honestly.

[erobitha]

I have decided in my wisdom that Israel Schwartz, or the man whom history believes to be Israel Schwartz, did not witness the initial attack on Elizabeth Stride. I came to this conclusion after failing to find anything in his story corroborating with any other witness statement or with any shred of evidence in any way whatsoever. Not one sliver of actual evidence. Therefore, anything he said about Elizabeth Stride's murder is null and void. Then things start to make sense, and a proper picture of events emerges.

Mike Barrett was a thousand times more unreliable than Israel Schwartz. He never provided one jot of conclusive evidence of anything he ever said. So, I do not accept the word and testimony of proven liar Mike Barrett on anything to do with the subject matter of the scrapbook.

So, if he was a compulsive liar, that must mean he is also a hoaxer. No. It just means he was a compulsive liar.

To understand the provenance of the scrapbook, you need to remove Mike's words from your viewpoint—all of them.

What does the provenance look like when Mike's words are removed from the story based on all the available evidence?

It looks like an electrician found a Victorian scrapbook under the floorboards of Battlecrease House and handed it to a bloke in the same pub he drank at.

That is the evidence. I urge anyone sitting on the fence and reading this to think about that.

[FISHY1118]

Where have I ever attempted to prove James Maybrick was the ripper? Are you sure you know who you are responsing to, FISHY?

Love,

Caz
X

Well someone sure as hell should given given the fact a dozen years and 10000 post have transpired . What a complete and utter waste of discussion. Let's have some facts please that prove beyond doubt the diary and watch and James Maybrick wrote it and he was jack the ripper.

But give the amount of discussion we've seen, that in itself is proving impossible , so were left with , yup you guessed it just another theory

[caz]

Let me clarify this, so there is no misunderstanding.

We have been told that there were two independent witnesses to Barrett's ownership of these volumes. Jenny Morrison and one of Mike's sisters.

But what the point I'm posing is whether these witnesses verified that they were 'new and unused' copies.

My question to Palmer would be how he has ascertained that anyone connected with Mike Barrett ever verified that there was a complete set of twelve volumes, used or unused, including the only one that matters: volume 2.

It is even less easy to see how or why Mike would have ended up in possession of a complete set if one or more of the books had been used, or if all of them were used.

Melvin Harris's argument was that Mike had a copy of volume 2 and knew very well what its significance was in June 1994 but 'did not mention it to the Liverpool Post because he held it in reserve as a possible money spinner'.

Let that sink in.

Melvin appeared to be arguing that Mike lodged this volume with his solicitor and lent the other books to Jenny: 'Mike Barrett never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes.'

Obviously Mike wouldn't have lent his 'possible money spinner' to Jenny, so that at least makes some sense.

What doesn't make any sense, however, is that if Mike had this possible money spinner safely lodged with his solicitor, knowing its significance, he would then need Alan Gray's professional help to assemble the evidence to prove he faked the diary. According to Harris, Mike already had that evidence in the form of his volume 2, which he handed over to Gray for nothing in December 1994, leaving himself with no money spinner and a bill for Gray's services which he couldn't pay.

If we agree to disallow anything based on Mike's word alone, what is the evidence that he ever did have a copy of volume 2 to call his own - used or unused - before December 1994?

I have argued tirelessly that Mike's word can't be trusted on anything related to the diary's origins. The Battlecrease provenance can only benefit from allowing Mike to have lied about everything because he denied the diary came from Dodd's house. None of the evidence relating to the electricians depends on a single word that ever came out of Mike's mouth. That in itself is a powerful reason not to reject it in favour of a Barrett hoax.

If we allow for his affidavits of 26th April 1993 and 5th January 1995 to have been a pack of lies, what do we have left?

Gone is his stated reason for ordering a tiny 1891 diary with 365 printed dates in it. Gone is his claim that Anne's handwriting was in the diary. Gone is his awesome auction purchase.

I'm happy if Palmer is.

And now - I'm off on my holidays!

It seems that the only way forward for Palmer now is to get Anne to clarify when Mike was telling porkies about the diary and when he wasn't.

[Abby Normal]

Where have I ever attempted to prove James Maybrick was the ripper? Are you sure you know who you are responsing to, FISHY?

Love,

Caz
X

lol. i guess one can forgive his confusion when all youve ever done is argue on the side with the handful of gullible maybrickians. you would think that someone who thinks the diary is a hoax would argue against the diary believers and to help set them straight but you never do that do you caz? why is that...

[FISHY1118]

'Proof' is a very elusive unit in the world of Ripperology. There is nothing whatsoever against any other candidate for Jack, but at least two strong, physical pieces of evidence in favour of Maybrick, and a host of circumstantial evidence (which juries frequently convict on the back of).



This shows that you haven't read his treatise (as we all knew you hadn't, of course). Not everything Harris argued is lie vs truth. Much resides in the land of opinion which tends not to be flavoured by either lies or truths but - rather - by that which one favours.



You've gone a wee bit Psycho Killer on me there, Fishy, but the truth is that I say a hell of a lot and most of it is simply brilliant. That's one of the reasons why we're up at 10,000+ posts and 1.4million+ views. Or do you think absolutely everyone who posts to and reads this, The Greatest Thread of All, is some mindless twat with nothing better to do? Why do they keep coming back, I wonder, if the case against Maybrick is so well shut and resolved?



Contrary to your nonesensical claim, above, which you have taken to repeating rather parrotlike (ironically), both the scrapbook and the watch are actual physical evidence against James Maybrick, and that means that neither of them is a theory. They both exist. Honestly.

Sorry ike ,but your just posting the same extended long drawn out storyline about very little im afraid.

What a cheeky way of wording this last paragraph of your ""physical evidence against him "" that means nothing and you and everyone else no its . Where the evidence James Maybrick killed th c5 ?

Give me solid proof man . !

[caz]

lol. i guess one can forgive his confusion when all youve ever done is argue on the side with the handful of gullible maybrickians. you would think that someone who thinks the diary is a hoax would argue against the diary believers and to help set them straight but you never do that do you caz? why is that...

Because I don't believe that the Barretts were involved with the diary's creation, Abby, and that's what the majority of posters to this thread do believe.

I'm not bothered about one poster who believes Maybrick did it, when he is outnumbered by Barrett believers.

Think about it. How many one-liner trolls regularly turn up here to mindlessly champion the Maybrick theory? That ought to tell you something.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Because I don't believe that the Barretts were involved with the diary's creation, Abby, and that's what the majority of posters to this thread do believe.

I'm not bothered about one poster who believes Maybrick did it, when he is outnumbered by Barrett believers.

Think about it. How many one-liner trolls regularly turn up here to mindlessly champion the Maybrick theory? That ought to tell you something.

Love,

Caz
X

The trolls are those who believe the Maybrick diary. Very few support the diary because it is not the real deal.