Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post
    The Battlecrease provenance only survives because of the absence of anything concrete to demolish it
    The effortlessness in which you switch the onus onto your audience is remarkable, even in a casual comment such as the one above, leaving me to wonder if you even realize you're doing it.

    A similar sentiment was expressed earlier on this thread: "there is nothing to prove that Mike DIDN'T know Eddie Lyons."

    Do you see how it works?

    The Battlecrease provenance 'exists' and thus 'survives' because the public hasn't 'demolished it'--and the onus is on them to do so.

    Let's see if the same approach works for me:

    "The only reason Mike and Anne survive as the prime and obvious suspects in the hoax is the complete absence of anything that proves their innocence. In 30 years, the diary's supporters have not come up with one coherent reason why Mike and Anne couldn't have faked the diary."

    Let's see if this 'flies' unchallenged.

    I'm guessing it won't.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      Let's see if the same approach works for me:
      "The only reason Mike and Anne survive as the prime and obvious suspects in the hoax is the complete absence of anything that proves their innocence. In 30 years, the diary's supporters have not come up with one coherent reason why Mike and Anne couldn't have faked the diary."
      Let's see if this 'flies' unchallenged.
      I'm guessing it won't.
      Well, never one to be left behind, I'll start:

      1) The obvious one - they had no motive. Despite Barrett's claims, they were NOT struggling to pay the mortgage or indeed the gas bill, newspaper boy, or milkman (kids, ask your grandparents for the latter two).

      2) The risk they were taking was off the scale relative to the likelihood of return. They were perpetuating a fraud (in your world) so they were staring down the barrel of a ten-stretch in chokey ("The Fraud Act is typically used to charge individuals involved in these types of offences, and the maximum sentence under this act is 10 years imprisonment. However, it is important to note that a sentence of this length is typically reserved for the most severe cases, such as large-scale fraud.​"). Who would be taking young Caroline to school and university if both parents were banged-up in Joliet, as it were?

      3) Neither had any known track record whatsoever of attempting such a feat before they were suddenly inspired to make a well-known middle class Liverpool cotton merchant come celebrity murder victim the most infamous criminal in history: the level of implausibility involved speaks to the extremely low probability that anyone in their right mind would consider such a venture as worth starting.

      4) Barrett had some previous in the celebrity gossip rags in the 1980s and was a known blowhard so who better to turn to to be rid of an old Victorian scrapbook with a tale in that was extremely hard to read? The illusion of his literary prowess explains why he was able to take possession of the scrapbook whilst never for a moment conveying any sense that he could have actually written such a text it held. In reality, Barrett was either utterly illiterate or else suffered from raging dyslexia (his random use of upper and lower cases probably speaks to the former but that's me just guessing).

      5) The transcript that they typed out to help people understand the scrapbook text did not mirror the very text they were supposed to have written. This is clear evidence of their innocence unless you argue further that not only were they suddenly amazing hoaxers (ex nihilo) but they were also crafty enough to make errors in the transcript to make it look as though they definitely didn't write it.

      Now, you will say that none of these is proof-positive of Mike and Anne's innocence, but others might look at the holistic sum of the parts and consider the utter implausibility of such a scenario having been so well proven that any alternative possibilities require too much stretching to be realistic.

      Ike
      Last edited by Iconoclast; 12-05-2023, 05:46 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        Pretty much, Ikypoo. Your colourful prose is unique to you, but so is the colour palette I see in it. When you posted those comments by Keith, the change of font colour was irrelevant to me. I simply saw your true colours followed by Keith's, as if you were together in the same room, speaking in turn. I have no idea what you look like - I can't recall ever seeing a photo - but I'd be amazed if you and Keithypoo could be taken for identical twins.
        Definitely not identical twins, Caz!

        I find that whole synesthesia gig absolutely fascinating. I first came across it in the mid-1980s where someone could hear colours, but yours sounds really psychedelic (man).

        Ike
        Spliff anyone?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

          Hi Scott. So you think your theory is more likely than Eddie finding the book on the 9th March 1992 and Mike getting wind of this on the same day and phoning a literary agent in London?
          Well, it would take Devereux out of the picture if that were the case. But I see Devereux as having been more involved, not just as a handler.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
            It's an interesting question for both Bruce (and perhaps Keith who clearly spent a great deal of time debating and researching with Bruce over something like ten years or something): What was the turning point (if there was one) which moved Bruce's views away from "It's too good to be a fake" and towards "but it's too good for James therefore it must have been Michael)". I have obviously simplified the question horrendously, but hopefully the spirit of my enquiry is clear.
            It would appear that there was no turning point for Bruce Robinson - he is on record as writing to Shirley Harrison as early as New Year's Day 1994 with his theory that Michael Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. He even signed it off, "Everyone Loves Jack" which is reasonably prescient of him, I'd say.

            I think this still makes his famous claim consistent with a belief that - if it were faked (and he had faked it) - it would be the very summit of his literary achievement. He could presumably hold this view whilst believing that Michael was actually the infamous killer, I guess. I had always rather assumed that there was a turning point, but perhaps there never was.

            Ike

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
              Well, never one to be left behind, I'll start:
              Thanks, Ike, for transferring the onus onto yourself, but you spectacularly miss the point.

              There is no need for you to do so--it is up to me to prove my case, just as it is up to you to prove yours.

              Just as it is up to Caz to prove that Eddie Lyons stole the Diary of Jack the Ripper from under Paul Dodd's floorboards, fenced it to a stranger, and then lied about it.


              But, just for fun, let me dismantle your facile arguments.


              1) The obvious one - they had no motive.

              Barrett was unemployed, living off a tiny disability check, and had new mortgage payments since moving to Goldie Street. That's motive.

              Once accepted, the Diary had pre-orders in the tens of thousands, became a bestseller, and has been translated into multiple languages.

              Money is a motive.

              2) The risk they were taking was off the scale relative to the likelihood of return.

              They both cashed numerous royalty cheques. Has either gone to jail?

              Everyone who has ever hoaxed something, or has committed an alleged crime, takes a risk, so this is another facile point.

              And you overstate the risk. Unlike Konrad Kujau, who hoaxed the Hitler Diaries, Barrett was clever enough not to sell the thing itself. That's what sent Kujau to prison.

              By contrast, Barrett agreed to collaborate on an investigation into the diary authenticity with his collaborator, Shirley Harrison. No law against that.

              Due to freedom of the press, there is a lot of leeway. Were the hoaxers of the "Autopsy of an Alien" sent to prison? Or Von Däniken​ for writing the "Chariots of the Gods?" There's no law against writing rubbish or making a documentary about rubbish.

              Barrett adeptly sidestepped the issue by transferring ownership to Robert Smith for less than the price of a pint of ale.

              It would have required Smith to press charges and why would he have done that, having realized many thousands of pounds above his investment?

              3) Neither had any known track record whatsoever of attempting such a feat before....

              Really, Ike, is this the best you got? Timothy McVeigh had no 'track record' of blowing up buildings, does that make him innocent of bombing the Oklahoma City Federal Building? Barrett had a 'track record' of purse snatching and assault--which is far worse than a literary hoax.

              ...."they were suddenly inspired to make a well-known middle class Liverpool cotton merchant come celebrity murder victim the most infamous criminal in history."

              Why Liverpool is in red is a mystery, since Mike and Anne lived in Liverpool, and Barrett owned a 'Maybrick' book before Dodd ever had his floorboards lifted.

              No one ever accused Van Gogh or Lewis Carroll, either, but some misguided soul still wrote a book. Every so-called 'candidate' that comes along has an originator, and Barrett, we've been told, was a true crime enthusiast.

              4) Barrett had some previous in the celebrity gossip rags in the 1980s and was a known blowhard so who better to turn to to be rid of an old Victorian scrapbook with a tale in that was extremely hard to read? The illusion of his literary prowess explains why he was able to take possession of the scrapbook whilst never for a moment conveying any sense that he could have actually written such a text it held. In reality, Barrett was either utterly illiterate or else suffered from raging dyslexia (his random use of upper and lower cases probably speaks to the former but that's me just guessing).

              It was not your intention, Ike, but you've succeeded admirably in showing why Mike Barrett perfectly fits the profile of a literary hoaxer. A struggling journalist, pathological liar, and alcoholic.

              Very much par for the course for this sort of scheme. With Celebrity having gone belly up, he needed a new project. Mike was just a lower-level version of Kujau, Chatterton, etc. with a capable collaborator.

              5) The transcript that they typed out to help people understand the scrapbook text did not mirror the very text they were supposed to have written. This is clear evidence of their innocence unless you argue further that not only were they suddenly amazing hoaxers (ex nihilo) but they were also crafty enough to make errors in the transcript to make it look as though they definitely didn't write it.

              ​No comment.

              The public has not been allowed access to this document in over 30 years. Look up the phrase discovery in its legal context.

              This document is not in evidence, so your point is invalid.


              Clearly, there is no crying need to start a new thread-- "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes Barrett's Authorship"--because your fledgling attempts are entirely unconvincing.

              But thanks for playing along.


              RP
              Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-05-2023, 07:16 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                But, just for fun, let me dismantle your facile arguments.

                1) The obvious one - they had no motive.
                Barrett was unemployed, living off a tiny disability check, and had new mortgage payments since moving to Goldie Street. That's motive.
                Once accepted, the Diary had pre-orders in the tens of thousands, became a bestseller, and has been translated into multiple languages.
                Money is a motive.
                No doubt Anne Graham will explain to you at some point how her then unemployed husband, living off a disability allowance, in rented accommodation, managed to miraculously raise a deposit and secure a mortgage to buy the house in Goldie Street in 1989? At what point after their move did it occur to Mike he had no money to make the monthly repayments? You can imagine the red-face on the bank manager who approved that one, eh? Is there any evidence, apart from what Mike claimed, they were actually in debt?

                2) The risk they were taking was off the scale relative to the likelihood of return.
                They both cashed numerous royalty cheques. Has either gone to jail?
                Everyone who has ever hoaxed something, or has committed an alleged crime, takes a risk, so this is another facile point.​
                It's most definitely NOT a facile point. My point was that the Barretts went into this fraud full in the knowledge that THEY COULD HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE OUTCOME WOULD BE not that they were 'not willing to take a risk'.

                Why Liverpool is in red is a mystery, since Mike and Anne lived in Liverpool, and Barrett owned a 'Maybrick' book before Dodd ever had his floorboards lifted.​[
                Liverpool was in red - as well you know - to highlight the utter implausibility of anyone (from Liverpool or not) choosing to create a hoaxed scrapbook of Jack the Ripper and pretend it was written by someone from Liverpool.

                And which 'Maybrick' book did Mike own, by the way? Unless of course you mean Tales Of Liverpool which of course is not a book about James Maybrick but contains only two small chapters (ten pages in total) out of thirteen chapters, briefly summarising the Maybrick story. I'm quite sure you know this and would not want to mislead people into believing that Mike owned a full length study of the Maybrick Case.​ I note that you qualified 'Maybrick' with apostrophes but it would be easy to misunderstand this if you were not fully up with the case.

                Ike

                Comment


                • I don't know whether to be appalled or to congratulate you, Ike, on reaching the 700th page of this thread.

                  Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                  Unless of course you mean Tales Of Liverpool which of course is not a book about James Maybrick but contains only two small chapters (ten pages in total) out of thirteen chapters, briefly summarising the Maybrick story. I'm quite sure you know this and would not want to mislead people into believing that Mike owned a full length study of the Maybrick Case.​ I note that you qualified 'Maybrick' with apostrophes but it would be easy to misunderstand this if you were not fully up with the case.
                  There's nobody reading us, Ike, other than you and I and six or seven reasonably educated kibitzers, so there's no fear of being misunderstood. Richard Whitting-Egan it is.

                  How long does an account of the Maybrick saga need to be for a hoaxer to consider him relevant fodder for a 29-page typescript about Jack the Ripper? Is there a specific number of pages required to reach some sort of critical mass?

                  There's been entire books written about George Hutchinson-as-Jack (at least four that I can recall) based almost entirely on a single police statement and a couple of press clippings. There rest is padding and theory.
                  ​​
                  Nor did I suggest that RWE's booklet was the ONLY book about Maybrick that Mike consulted. Barrett--oddly insightful--referred to Mr. Ryan's full-length study at the 1999 Cloak & Dagger hootenanny.

                  But what should worry you--but obviously doesn't--is that Mike already owned this 'Maybrick' booklet when Mr. Dodd was still pulling on his woolen underwear in the evenings because the storage heaters had not yet been installed.

                  Barrett couldn't have faked owning RWE's booklet --an entirely trustworthy witness or pair of witnesses--The Devereux Sisters--confirmed it.

                  Granted, a more sophisticated hoaxer might have opted for a local chap; then again, based on the incompetence of the 'Tilly' letter, I'm not sure that is a legitimate argument, either.

                  There's been a few 'commuters' put forth as the Whitechapel fiend over the years. Prince Eddy and Lewis Carroll come to mind.
                  Last edited by rjpalmer; 12-05-2023, 10:58 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post



                    5) The transcript that they typed out to help people understand the scrapbook text did not mirror the very text they were supposed to have written. This is clear evidence of their innocence unless you argue further that not only were they suddenly amazing hoaxers (ex nihilo) but they were also crafty enough to make errors in the transcript to make it look as though they definitely didn't write it.


                    Ike
                    Good Lord.

                    I speculated some time ago that the reason for the non production of the transcript was precisely because it doesn't match the diary, so thanks for confirming my suspicion Ike.

                    Evidence of innocence, or evidence of a first draft? Just release the transcript. Frankly, admitting it doesn't match is worse than withholding it in it's entirety while keeping schtum. I don't think you've done yourself any favours there.

                    Are we talking the odd word here and there, which would be entirely understandable, or something more substantial? Well, I'd need to see it to judge that.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      There's nobody reading us, Ike, other than you and I and six or seven reasonably educated kibitzers, so there's no fear of being misunderstood.
                      I don't think a thread gets to 1.4m views by garnering a handful of nutters from the lunatic asylum, RJ.

                      Richard Whitting-Egan it is. How long does an account of the Maybrick saga need to be for a hoaxer to consider him relevant fodder for a 29-page typescript about Jack the Ripper? Is there a specific number of pages required to reach some sort of critical mass?
                      Well, if one follows that logic, one requires none. If a lack of reason to connect James Maybrick with Jack the Ripper is our Rosetta stone here, we don't need Tales of Liverpool at all to understand that its pages 'point' us towards evil Jack. Why would a book about the Maybricks of Liverpool prompt any thoughts whatsoever about the Ripper of Whitechapel? You cunningly make the claim without evidence but you leave it implied so that you aren't caught out, but you did not bank on Detective Iconoclast of the Yard who saw right through what you attempted to do there. RWE could have written 200 pages on the Maybricks of Liverpool, but how many of those words would have directed our nascent forger towards an association with Jack the Ripper? Just to save you some cognitive dissonance, RJ, it's none whatsoever. Zip.

                      There's been entire books written about George Hutchinson-as-Jack (at least four that I can recall) based almost entirely on a single police statement and a couple of press clippings. There rest is padding and theory.
                      In the case of Michael Barrett's brilliant Maybrick hoax, he needed only to hear the name 'Maybrick', it seems, which he could have heard in the butcher's, the library, on the bus on his way to Bluecoat Chambers, on the radio, on television, over a pint with the stupidest bank manager in history, or any of a million other ways. He certainly didn't need to read about the Maybricks of Liverpool in a book to put two-and-two together to get five canonical Whitechapel murder victims. Which bit of RWE do you think was the critical piece to set his mind racing towards a Jack the Ripper 'diary' hoax? The mention of the celebrity murder trial? His tragic wife's many troubles? Her adultery? The focus on cotton? Their middle class lifestyle? His lack of a previous criminal record? Their proximity to Whitechapel in Liverpool, perhaps (though I don't think this gets mentioned, does it?)? I'm struggling so I'll need you to enlighten me: what was the spark in Tales of Liverpool that set him off on his devilishly clever journey towards fame and fortune?

                      So, the Barretts of Liverpool owned a very short and inexpensive book about Liverpool and you think that's hugely suspicious? RWE was a stocking-filler for any Scouse lad or lass struggling to think about what to buy their partner for Chrimbo in the late 1980s and early 1990s. And the Barretts were one of them. But it's much worse than this - apparently the Devereux sisters can confirm that the copy that their dad had was borrowed from Bongo Barrett so that's clearly a red flag right there, everyone! Someone told someone that Barrett had a copy of Tales of Liverpool which mentioned the Maybricks so there it is in black and white, the unequivocal evidence that Barrett was planning the hoax of the century, and (by then) had actually pulled it off.

                      Nor did I suggest that RWE's booklet was the ONLY book about Maybrick that Mike consulted. Barrett--oddly insightful--referred to Mr. Ryan's full-length study at the 1999 Cloak & Dagger hootenanny.
                      I'm currently reading The Anarchy about the East India Company. It's 2023 and I am absolutely certain I've never seen it before and certainly not read any of it, but - if we subscribe to your logic - my knowing of it now is a cast iron proof that in truth I first cast my eyes over it in 2016.

                      But what should worry you--but obviously doesn't--is that Mike already owned this 'Maybrick' booklet when Mr. Dodd was still pulling on his woolen underwear in the evenings because the storage heaters had not yet been installed.
                      If the Barretts didn't own this book, I'd be more concerned! My old mum was born and raised in North Shields and possesses what must be a full set of books, booklets, and pamphlets on Shields. I know this for a fact because I bought her every one of them for various Christmasses and birthdays over the years. Tales of Liverpool is a cheap and cheerful stocking-filler, no more, no less, and I suggest that it found its way onto Merseyside book shelves faster than the dust it then accumulated sitting there, the sad destiny of so many similar gifts.

                      Barrett couldn't have faked owning RWE's booklet --an entirely trustworthy witness or pair of witnesses--The Devereux Sisters--confirmed it.
                      We are willing to concede that Barrett almost certainly had a copy of this totally innocuous book, RJ, if you are willing to concede that you have been striving for years to make far more of it than could ever be justified in a court of law.

                      There's been a few 'commuters' put forth as the Whitechapel fiend over the years. Prince Eddy and Lewis Carroll come to mind.
                      Any other completely unlinked, non-murderous examples from further afield than Liverpool, though, I wonder?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                        Good Lord. I speculated some time ago that the reason for the non production of the transcript was precisely because it doesn't match the diary, so thanks for confirming my suspicion Ike.
                        You evidently haven't been keeping up with this, The Greatest Thread of All, Abe, as I have posted numerous times about this very dab.

                        Evidence of innocence, or evidence of a first draft?
                        Well, it was presented to the world as a typescript to make it easier to read the difficult text, but I suppose it could have been an earlier draft subsequently turned into a 'typescript' as part of the devilish plot to fool the world and make a fortune to piss up every back wall in Liverpool. Mind you, it would have had to have been a not-very-much-earlier draft as it's more or less word for word the same as the final text we see in the scrapbook today (which should answer your question regarding how many differences there were).

                        The most glaringingly [that one's for RJ] obvious example is the line which looks for all the world in the scrapbook like, "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnet". Every man and his dog and the Barretts would quite rightly have diligently typed-out "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnet" and - lo! - that is exactly what they did. This proves (at very least to me) that the scrapbook came first and the typescript followed thereafter. But it doesn't make any sense, does it? In retrospect, it's very clear that the editors of Harrison's first book on the subject realised the line was intended to read, "Christmas save the whore's mole bonnet" and that's what they put into the transcript at the end of the book. It's barely more semantically enlightening, but at least it just about makes some sort of vague sense unlike its predecessor.

                        Off the top of my head, I don't recall the other errors of transcription by the Barretts. I think there's maybe only one other or maybe two others (to iterate my earlier answer to your later question)..

                        Just release the transcript. Frankly, admitting it doesn't match is worse than withholding it in it's entirety while keeping schtum. I don't think you've done yourself any favours there.
                        It's not mine to release, Abe, so I haven't done myself any favours nor lost any either. You know who to ask and you have his email address so I suggest you do that.

                        Comment


                        • Just a quick one regarding the letter "K" scratched onto that pocket watch.

                          How common was that particular formation of the letter "k" in Victorian times?

                          The letter on the watch looks remarkably similar to the "K" of Maybrick's signature, but was that a unique written formation or a common one?

                          If we could gather 100 written letter "K"s from authentic Victorian signatures from documents signed at the time, and then compared them.... how similar would Maybrick's letter K from his signature compare to 99 other signatures?

                          If there are multiple cases of the same formation of the letter, then that dilutes the case for the authentication of the watch. However if Maybrick's letter K stands out as unique and no other letter K comes close to his, then it surely proves that Maybrick scratched the watch and strengthens his case as an authentic Ripper fantasist of Bachert ilk?

                          RD
                          "Great minds, don't think alike"

                          Comment


                          • Just to throw a curveball...

                            Any chance that Florence Maybrick made the diary and had the watch engraved to implicate her husband, whom she would later (allegedly) poison?

                            Was James framed?

                            Florence knew his signature after all.

                            Just wondered if anyone has ever considered that as an option?

                            Michael Maybrick sounds even more dodgy than both James and Florence.


                            RD
                            Last edited by The Rookie Detective; 12-06-2023, 10:08 AM.
                            "Great minds, don't think alike"

                            Comment


                            • Hi Ike,

                              It's only ever the 'mole bonnet' line that's mentioned. That an editor changed 'soul' to 'save' isn't much of a issue. If it looks like 'soul' in the diary and it says 'soul' in the typescript then no problems, it's a match either way. Neither interpretation makes sense but 'soul' doesn't demonstrate one way or another, typescript first or diary first?

                              But how many other differences are there, and to what extent are they? You might not be able to publish the full article but you can release snippets, so give us a few more.

                              If the differences are somewhat insignificant, as they very well may be, why the reluctance to just put it out there? The 'mole bonnet' line if anything supports the idea of the typescript being exactly that. Mike read the diary, it makes no sense but he transcribed it faithfully. Can't see the problem with that myself. I agree with you on that point.

                              Anyways, until the typescript has been released it can't be used as evidence to exonerate the Barretts.
                              Thems the Vagaries.....

                              Comment


                              • If James Maybrick's father William was an Engraver, did he work on pocket watch engraving by any chance?

                                RD
                                "Great minds, don't think alike"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X