Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Gladiator

    Yes. I'd seen that discussion on jtrforums before. I can't really see that any of it explains why Barrett should need a Victorian diary with at least 20 blank pages. A Victorian diary with no blank pages at all would do if he only wanted "to see how it [the journal] compared with other diaries of the period". And if he wanted to provide a copy of the text without handing over the original, a few sheets of A4 would do the job.

    Comment


    • Too me the whole problem with this diary business is not the diary itself it is the fact the person who bought it into the world can't say where it came from to try and have a long and serious debate about an historical document and to say I got it from a man in a pub it just won't do.like I have said before I have met Mike Barrett several times I found him certainly to be a character I got the impression he didn't really know what was going on.
      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Chris View Post
        Gladiator

        Yes. I'd seen that discussion on jtrforums before. I can't really see that any of it explains why Barrett should need a Victorian diary with at least 20 blank pages. A Victorian diary with no blank pages at all would do if he only wanted "to see how it [the journal] compared with other diaries of the period". And if he wanted to provide a copy of the text without handing over the original, a few sheets of A4 would do the job.
        Chris,

        Like everything else connected with the Maybrick diary, absolutely none of it is straightforward, and I certainly have no compelling answer for this latest conundrum.

        It doesn't make sense if it is a forgery and it doesn't make sense if it is authentic and it doesn't make sense whether Barrett knew it was a forgery or thought it was authentic.

        If he had wanted to hand over a copy for fear of losing control of the original, he wouldn't use A4 sheets as that would fool no-one but nor would he use an 1885 (or whatever) diary for the same reason.

        And he surely didn't need an actual 1880s diary to compare against his undated scrapbook which didn't look even vaguely like a diary and is only called a diary because that's what it was published as. I don't see that at all: "Look Anne, sure enough diaries in the LVP had dates in them". "Oh that's helpful dear - that throws so much light on our undated scrapbook me dad gave me".

        As I say, I'm all out of ideas on this latest strange turn in the diary saga ...

        Gladiator the Utterly Bemused

        Comment


        • Not to stir anything up when I mentioned the watch to Mike Barrett he looked bemused and was lost for words ......was it ever proven to be faked
          Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gladiator View Post
            If he had wanted to hand over a copy for fear of losing control of the original, he wouldn't use A4 sheets as that would fool no-one ...
            Well, if you think Caroline Morris meant he wanted to produce a more convincing fake by copying the text into a period diary, that's what I meant by "the obvious explanation"!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chris View Post
              Well, if you think Caroline Morris meant he wanted to produce a more convincing fake by copying the text into a period diary, that's what I meant by "the obvious explanation"!
              That's not what I meant.

              I thought your 'obvious explanation' was simply that he wanted a vehicle for a forgery. That's quite a bit different from his holding what he genuinely believed to be the authentic article, but - fearing it may slip out of his control - also wanting to temporarily present it in a 'safe' form.

              None of it explains why a pre-1888 diary would be suitable, however.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
                Not to stir anything up when I mentioned the watch to Mike Barrett he looked bemused and was lost for words ......was it ever proven to be faked
                No, the owner tried to sell it just recently, couldn't get what he wanted though.

                It was on a tv show, four rooms (or something).

                Comment


                • http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7541

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
                    No, the owner tried to sell it just recently, couldn't get what he wanted though.

                    It was on a tv show, four rooms (or something).
                    I believe the seller was the widow of the late Albert Johnson, who 'discovered' the watch. Time was when he turned down an offer from a Texas memorabilia collector of about $90000. Strange how the Watch has 'died', considering that it resisted even the most modern analytical techniques to disprove its suspected modern provenance. Personally, I believe that like the 'Diary' it's a fake, but an old fake. It is, incidentally, a ladies watch.

                    Graham
                    We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                    Comment


                    • With regard to the actual Victorian diary that Barrett claimed to have bought, sorry but I've not been on the boards for a day or so. However, if my memory serves, he stated that he'd gone to an auction-house somewhere (Litherland & Someone, something like that), and bid for and obtained a 'small red diary', year I believe was 1890. Unfortunately, when he related this to Paul Feldman, he quoted a purchase/payment system that the auction-house in question never operated, as Feldman was quickly able to demonstrate, so concluded that Barrett had invented this tale.

                      I haven't got my Ripper Diary and Maybrick books at the moment, having loaned them to someone with an interest in the case, so I'm afraid I can't check the above statement.

                      Very interested to see that Pinkmoon has met Mike Barrett, and that his assessment of him meshes in with Feldman's and Caz's - and doubtless everyone else who knew him. It's also interesting that nothing has been heard of or from Mike Barrett for a long time - he doesn't seem to be the kind of person to hide his light under a bushel. I wonder what the reason is for his long silence....? Having said that, the same goes for Anne.

                      Graham
                      Last edited by Graham; 08-11-2013, 08:32 PM.
                      We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                      Comment


                      • Mike is a fantasist, he tried (and failed) to prove he wrote the diary to himself and everyone around him, apparently it was all very pitiful.

                        Regarding the watch being a ladies, what does that prove/mean? The ripper was a complete nutter, why would he be completely 'normal' to the layman? surely its plausible he stole florences watch?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gladiator View Post
                          That's quite a bit different from his holding what he genuinely believed to be the authentic article, but - fearing it may slip out of his control - also wanting to temporarily present it in a 'safe' form.
                          You think Caroline Morris meant that Barrett believed he had a genuine journal written by Maybrick in a scrapbook and wanted to produce a fake version of the same text in a Victorian diary to give that to Doreen Montgomery, the plan being later to reveal that it was a fake and produce the real one? Because he thought Doreen Montgomery might steal the real one if he gave it to her? I find that difficult to believe.

                          Comment


                          • Regarding the watch being a ladies, what does that prove/mean? The ripper was a complete nutter, why would he be completely 'normal' to the layman? surely its plausible he stole florences watch?
                            I mention the fact that the 'Ripper Watch' is a ladies' watch purely in passing, without intending to prove/mean anything, but looking at this a bit more closely it seems unlikely that a respectable Victorian gent such as Maybrick would use a ladies' watch for any length of time, i.e., the time it took for the Ripper Murders to take place and enable him to add each set of initials as each murder occurred. Unless he kept it in a drawer and added the initials privately and secretly.....much more likely that someone got hold of this watch and added all the initials in one go, for reasons I can't even begin to explain.

                            You say ' surely it's plausible that he stole Florence's watch?' - does this imply that you consider James Maybrick to have been Jack The Ripper?

                            Graham
                            We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                            Comment


                            • As I said before not got a problem with diary or the watch it's the fact that no one can say where these items have come from and that will never go away I'm afraid I always thought at the time of the 100 year anniversary that some one would discover some document that was faked .I think main problem is people have been hoping to solve this and put a name to the ripper so when this diary came along it has short circuited a lot of people's rational thinking as Mr Barrett Said to me on our first meeting it can never be proved but it can never be disproved and on that I totally agree with him.I do still say Mr Barrett is the last person to get involved with in any sort of dealings especially such a large one like this diary and I will always maintain he is a charming character
                              Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                                You say ' surely it's plausible that he stole Florence's watch?' - does this imply that you consider James Maybrick to have been Jack The Ripper?

                                Graham
                                I'm yet to read any evidence that proves Incontrovertibly, Unequivocally, Undeniab.... where is soothsayer anyways???

                                Just being opened minded, I don't believe in being closed minded about something as fascinating as the 'diary'.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X