One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

Hi David,

I've no doubt that he had some involvement. However, he subsequently withdrew his original confession, so he therefore wasn't consistent over what he said happened.

Which brings us full circle, how do people decide which of his stories to believe and which to throw out. So many people want to believe his story about Tony giving it to him and disregards his affidavit, others Vice a versa

[pinkmoon]

Even if anne and caroline decide to come clean and tell the truth about the dear diary we will never believe them due to all the previous lies they have told.

[GUT]

Even if anne and caroline decide to come clean and tell the truth about the dear diary we will never believe them due to all the previous lies they have told.

Probably.

[caz]

Yes, the source is the Sunday Times report of 19 September 1993:

"For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in just a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."

Oh and the Sunday Times always gets it right, do they David? In this instance I hope they got this wrong, rather than Baxendale talking to journalists and drastically altering the conclusion he had reached two months previously, for reasons that are not clear.

I find it quite extraordinary that you regard Dr Baxendale's conclusions regarding the solubility test as nothing more than his "personal interpretation". It is the opinion of the expert on this case who conducted a solubility test within months of the discovery of the diary. I fail to see how you can be doing anything other than questioning his competence.

Not at all, David. I have no reason to think Baxendale was incompetent in carrying out his solubility test or getting a valid result. I merely have to take into account what Eastaugh found a short time later. Fair enough if you want to question how he reached his conclusions, but that's all I'm doing with Baxendale's. No 'expert' is 100% infallible, even though I do appreciate why you might think otherwise.

What I do question is how Baxendale's 'since 1945' conclusion morphed into 'probably... in the past two or three years' if he only tested the diary on the one occasion. Did you not find that a little strange yourself when reading Ripper Diary? Questioning is always good.

Wasn't this "originated since 1945" quote, that you have mentioned for the first time in this discussion said by Baxendale purely in the context of there being nigrosine in the ink?

Er, no. Firstly, what does it matter who mentioned this first, since you have read Ripper Diary so you presumably know that Baxendale, in his more detailed account, summarised the results, beginning with the 'freely soluble' ink and concluding with: 'An exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945'. If the solubility by itself told him 'probably within two or three years', what was he doing putting more confidence in his erroneous belief that nigrosine had only been in use since the 1940s, and using this as his benchmark instead? Ironic really when you think about it. He was able to question in the July what 'freely soluble' was telling him, choosing to err on the side of caution and allow that the ink could have met the paper nearly five decades earlier, when he thought nigrosine was in its infancy. He was out there by seven decades.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Re Eastaugh:

Let's take his statement:

"It was clear that the solubility of the ink was similar to the Victorian reference material and unlike the modern inks dried out for reference."

How is anything about the solubility of the ink "clear" without performing a solubility test?

I have no idea, David. You'd need to ask Eastaugh.

What Victorian reference material is he talking about?

Ditto.

What does he mean by "modern inks dried out for reference"?

Ditto.

What modern inks is he referring to and why were they "dried out"?

Ditto.

Unless you can answer these questions I cannot imagine why you wish to rely on such a statement.

I don't wish to 'rely' on any statement made by Eastaugh, Baxendale or my cat.

Given that this man is not a forensic document examiner, and did not conduct an ink solubility test, why are you relying on what he says over and above Dr Baxendale?

I'm not. Where have I suggested I was relying on Eastaugh 'over and above' Baxendale?

Did Baxendale compare the freely soluble diary ink with the solubility of the ink on any other documents of known ages, from Victorian to present day?

Unless you can answer this question - and the one about his drastic change of opinion from as early as 1945 to no earlier than 1989 - I cannot imagine why you wish to rely on the latter conclusion as quoted in the Sunday Times.

No wait, that's daft. I can readily imagine why.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Given that we don't know if Doreen asked him any such questions and, if she did, whether he simply gave evasive responses, that doesn't strike me as much of a response. But given further that he couldn't have had the 1891 Diary in his possession when he spoke to Doreen, the above statement (made in response to me saying that he would have had to remove traces of it being an 1891 Diary) doesn't actually make any sense unless you are suggesting that he might have told Doreen that the Maybrick Diary was labelled as an 1891 Diary.

Sorry, David, but this time I don't have a blessed clue what you are on about. But I won't bother presuming what you may have meant. If you wish to clarify it for me go ahead.

I will say you seem rather obsessed with the image of Mike having to remove the 1891 before filling the blank pages and trying to pass the thing off to Doreen as the 'real thing' (no shi* Sherlock), which is something I never had in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well Caz even with using my "considerable imagination" I fail to understand this explanation.

Firstly, how would a small red 1891 diary (or most other forms of diaries) have been regarded as a "similar book" to the larger black Victorian guard book?

It wouldn't, David. You are not seriously suggesting he wanted to receive a small 1891 diary, for any reason? I thought your theory was that Mike was trying to obtain something much more like the large Victorian guard book which comfortably accommodated the diary draft (but failed miserably, presumably because he worded the advert poorly).

As, on your account, he had the larger black Victorian guard book in his possession in March 1992, why did he not describe exactly what it was he was after in his advertisement?

That goes for you too. If he and Anne knew the kind of book they were after for their little project (particularly the size and number of blank sides), why such a vague and poorly worded advert that produced something so utterly useless?

Secondly, and in any event, why didn't he just write out the words into a cheap modern exercise book? Why did it have to be in a Victorian diary from within a few years of 1888?

I have no more idea than you, David. But while you regard it as impossible for Mike to have done this for reasons unconnected with forgery, I don't. If he already had the diary in front of him when placing that order, and had got it from someone who adamantly refused to say where it came from, he'd have been arguably worried it may have been nicked and since reported stolen by its rightful owner. Was Doreen going to say "Bloody hell, Mr Williams! I'm afraid I must inform the police about this. It looks just like the diary that went missing from the Black Museum"?

Thirdly, if he wasn't intending on making alterations to the diary he was seeking, are you seriously suggesting it would be in any way helpful (or sane) for him to have presented Doreen with a diary from 1891 (or any year other than 1888) by way of introducing her to the concept of a Diary said to have been written in 1888?

No, but then presumably he wasn't expecting the diary to be dated 1891. But if he had merely wanted to offer Doreen a taster, he had a tongue in his head and could have explained that this was the nearest book he could get to the one he had been given, which was signed off in 1889. Clearly the little red diary was nothing like the large guard book so there was no point using it for any purpose or showing it to Doreen. It could have been dated 1870, 1900 or 1888/9 for all the use it would have been. The 1891 is a red herring as far as I can see.

As a general point, do you not accept that the amount of effort, not to mention the expense, he put into finding such a diary was quite considerable?

Yes, but his wife had the expense and was furious about it. Again, do you not accept that Anne, knowing her husband a trifle better than we did and being a sensible woman, would have made it her business to tweak the wording of the advert if she knew they were about to forge the diary together and were looking for something to put it in? Mike put a whole lot more effort into his various forgery claims, and to hell with the expense - his considerable royalties dried up as a direct result - so when it suited him he could certainly put in the effort and expense.

You must surely admit that doing this would have been literally insane when a few photographs of the actual diary plus a typed transcript (or manuscript transcript in a modern book) would have sufficed perfectly well?

Photographs would have been just as dodgy if Mike feared he had a priceless stolen document on his hands.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But, really, to ask me for "tangible evidence" that Mike was intending to deceive Doreen in circumstances where he has gone to the extreme trouble of placing an advertisement in a trade journal for a Victorian Diary with blank pages shortly before producing a Victorian Diary with 64 pages cut out from the front is a bit rich. His actions speak for themselves.

They might do as far as you are concerned, David.

What concerns me is that nobody - not you, not me, not Keith, not the late Melvin Harris - has ever had the full picture. Most of us at least recognise this much, but you appear to believe you have solved this human puzzle with an unknown quantity of pieces missing.

Clever old stick, aren't you?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The thing is Caz that I said to you last year:

"I can't consider, or comment on, things that I know nothing about and are being kept secret (a la Pierre) can I?"

To which you replied:

"I have repeatedly acknowledged this."

Further, you told me quite clearly that I was free to take or leave this "secret evidence" and I said quite clearly that I would prefer to leave it. So why do you keep mentioning it in your replies to my posts?

Because you can take it or leave it but my public replies to your posts necessarily reflect the Battlecrease evidence. Oh and I won't be told by the likes of you what I may post about and what I may not. At least I am not accusing anyone still alive of writing the diary.

Your answer seems to be that you are talking to "Others" in your replies but I have no idea what it is you want to convey to others who also do not know what this secret evidence is. The only thing I can sensibly say is that you are doing exactly what Pierre is doing in the "I know something you don't know and it is proof of everything but I'm afraid I can't tell you what it is" category. You must see that it makes any form of sensible debate impossible and I can only repeat that if you continue to make the point about this "secret" evidence I cannot continue to debate this issue with you.

Wonderful, I could do with a break from answering your questions. The gutters need clearing out.

Battlecrease evidence anyone? It's out there - and I'm only mildly surprised nobody has spilled the beans yet.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To this I can only repeat that if your answer to every suspicious event that points towards Mike Barrett having been involved in forging the diary is to say "secret Battlecrease evidence" then it makes any form of sensible debate impossible and I don't even see the point in your continuing with it. I certainly won't be.

Good. Then don't.

Did you hear my sigh of relief? Or are your fingers still in your ears?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well clearly if the diary came out of Battlecrease, some people might consider it to be genuine for that very reason. Isn't it obvious?

And that scares the living daylights out of you?

This is essentially thread about whether there is evidence to show that the diary is not genuine. So that's what I am addressing my mind to.

Not very wise if you are relying on Mike's words and actions. They may show you the diary is not genuine, but they can show me nothing. I reached the same conclusion without needing any help from Mike thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

My answer is that no-one saw the writing in the Diary before Mike acquired it because it's not possible bearing in mind that I think he was involved in forging it.

That's an 'interesting' way of looking at things, David. x is not possible bearing in mind that you think y. Hmmm, what a wonderfully satisfying philosophy.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think you do still need to address the strangeness, Caz. If you think you have "clarified" anything, that clarification has passed me by.

I don't need to do anything further, David. You have already admitted in no uncertain terms that your imagination won't stretch to any explanation for the purchase of the 1891 diary that doesn't involve Mike in 'the' diary's creation, which is tantamount to saying that no amount of jumping through your hoops will change that.

What would have been the point of going to all the trouble and expense of writing it out in a genuine Victorian Diary when he could have just written it out in a modern exercise book or prepared a typed transcript?

You have already decided on 'no point' (although I never suggested writing the whole thing out). Why do you keep prodding me for a second opinion which you neither want nor need?

And, indeed, wasn't the very reason that Mike and Anne said they had the whole diary transcribed on their computer because they prepared it for Doreen in March 1992?

In March, or before March? When did Doreen first see this transcript? And in any case, what significance does this have if the transcript was typed on Doreen's request after Mike had spoken to her? Any evidence that it wasn't - apart from your reliance on Mike's eccentric relationship with the calendar?

Surely if Mike wanted to show Doreen what the Diary looked like he could have just shown her some photographs couldn't he, if he was worried about transporting the diary itself?

Indeed, unless you consider the impossible, that he thought the diary might be an extremely valuable stolen object?

Copying out the text of the Diary into another Victorian diary to show Doreen what a Victorian diary with writing in it looked like????? Seriously???? What would have been the point of that?

Ooh lovely, another string of question marks!!!

Not the whole text (as I keep repeating!!!), but just a few choice titbits to get a literary agent's mouth watering. If he could have done this using a book that looked similar in age to the guard book, it would have given her a better impression of what he had than if he showed her a modern exercise book.

No? Didn't think so.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The simple facts of the matter are these:

You wondered why the watch was being sidelined...

I know why the watch is sidelined on almost every Maybrick thread not specifically watch related. I don't recall 'wondering' why the watch 'was being' sidelined here on this thread (it wasn't - someone referred to it here and I responded), although I can see why you thought that. Perhaps a direct quote of my post in full would clarify things and show me the error of my ways. I'm always willing to put my hands up if I did write: 'I wondered why the watch was being sidelined on this thread'.

That was really as far as this discussion needed to go but you then dragged it out...

I've slapped my wrist for that several times. Have you slapped yours for dragging it out yet again?

Why this discussion is continuing today I have no idea.

That makes two of us - and probably everyone else who is bored to tears reading along.

Why you regard me as having "spanked" you soundly I also have no idea but I guess it explains why you can't seem to let this wholly irrelevant issue die.

I can't let it die???????????????????????

Stop it, my sides are aching. If I wet myself may I send you the laundry bill?

Breaking news - Battlecrease - the watch - Battlecrease - the watch - look away there's nothing to see here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is nothing "strange" about what I posted. All you are doing in your confused response is conflating two separate issues arising from Barrett's affidavit. One is about the dating of the purchase, the other is about the auction process. The latter point is irrelevant to my post which was only about the dating, not about the auction process.

It might be irrelevant to you, old bean, but it is absolutely relevant to the subject of demonstrating truths or untruths among Mike's forgery claims.

If we stick with the dating, which is what my post in response to yours was directed to, what I quoted was the only statement made by Whay about the date of the purchase. Did you really not understand this Caz?

No, because I consider Whay's little word 'never' to be rather definitive when we 'stick with the dating'. Does it really matter if the alleged date of the alleged purchase was given by our seriously date-challenged Mike as 1987, 1992 or 1990, as he finally settled on, if the event itself was contradicted by Whay's 'never'?

You don't set the parameters of this debate, so I will decide what I consider relevant to include in my responses. If you conclude that Whay's 'never' is even less reliable than Mike's '1990' (unless Mike was so drink befuddled that his description of the way O&L conducted their sales was bound to be unrecognisable to Whay, which would still make it useless as evidence that he was ever really there buying that guard book), there's no more to be said on this topic than there was on the watch.

Love,

Caz
X