One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

In the spirit of the season, I would just as soon get along without trading barbs, Ike, but "the loaded views of Paul Feldman" is not something I expected to hear from the author of Society's Pillar.

Merry Christmas

I am the gift which just keeps on giving, RJ.

[Iconoclast]

It just reaffirms Jeff Hamm's view that statistics can be terribly counter intuitive.

Even an intelligent person can misjudge what constitutes "enormous good luck."

I suppose you can use it as an example of 'fuzzy thinking' by a critic of the diary, but I think Martin's views about the diary were sound. In the video, he comments that someone would have to be utterly barking mad to believe that the first two words of the Goulston Street graffito could be read as 'The James.'

The film editor did a nasty trick by immediately cutting to Colin Wilson.

Dear me, RJ, the film editor cut to Colin Wilson because that clip stood in direct contrast to Martin Fido's. It's called 'perspective' where I come from!

Calling it a 'nasty trick' simply reveals your deep and impenetrable bias.

[Iconoclast]

I have only ever seen Martin Fido reference the logs and prescription books. If that information was shared with him by Feldman and Martin was satisfied with what was presented - we will never know.

It is a good question to ask if they existed where are they now.

A vocal critic of the scrapbook conceded he believed there was incredible luck in selecting James Maybrick as a candidate because of these reasons. He could not cite any other more compelling reasons than this one. Which means he believed whatever he saw or what he was told. That’s enough for me to consider it as a valid point.

As with Ike - even if there was a clash of dates ultimately it would not matter. Express train travel was around 5 hours from London to Liverpool and vice versa.

I was always more interested in Martin’s statement as something he believed.

Hi ero b,

Keith Skinner adds:

Martin did absolutely no research into Maybrick. If Paul Feldman told him something over the phone, Martin would very likely listen politely (except Feldman's phone calls/monologues tended to go on for several hours) and either forget it or - if it was something extraordinary he was being told about Maybrick - Martin would then check with me! Which is why Erobitha's query about Martin's belief and repeating something on camera he had been told (especially if the source had been Feldman) did give me pause to think. So having checked back through my notes, I can say that Martin did have a photocopy of MacDougall because I made a photocopy of it for him early in 1993.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Here's one you can use, Ike. One of the quack remedies found among Sir Jim's horde of old bottles and packets by Inspector Baxendale was Eno's Fruit Salt, which promised longevity.

"Sir Jimay live forever hahahahaha." No relationship to Brian Eno, I reckon.

[Iconoclast]

Here's one you can use, Ike. One of the quack remedies found among Sir Jim's horde of old bottles and packets by Inspector Baxendale was Eno's Fruit Salt, which promised longevity.

"Sir Jimay live forever hahahahaha." No relationship to Brian Eno, I reckon.

I've been on it for about ten years now, RJ. I plan to live to roughly 1,000. I know it's not 'forever' but it's a start, I reckon.

[Yabs]

Here's one you can use, Ike. One of the quack remedies found among Sir Jim's horde of old bottles and packets by Inspector Baxendale was Eno's Fruit Salt, which promised longevity.

"Sir Jimay live forever hahahahaha." No relationship to Brian Eno, I reckon.

I thought I would give it a search and was surprised to see it’s still sold.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/FRUIT-Spark.../dp/B004XTCC6O

Edit: Although I see it makes no claims for longevity now, it mainly helps wind and indigestion.
The last thing Maybrick would want in the quiet of Mitre Square is to let one rip.

[rjpalmer]

Good for those upset stomachs when the wife is poisoning your meat juice

[Scott Nelson]

I guess this leads us to a related question: how long would the smell of linseed oil remain in a document such as this which had had its front cover 'soaked' in it?

So that's: How long does the smell of linseed oil pervade a Victorian scrapbook if it is applied in or around 1992?

I think quite a long time. Certainly longer than a couple of weeks. But we don't know when Mike applied linseed oil to the Diary, or if he did at all.

Incidentally, I favor affidavit #1.

[rjpalmer]

but what we really need to understand is why anyone would choose to favour the Jan 5 1995 affidavit and disregard the April 26 1993 one. What was so compelling about the second that was so lacking in the first?

Uh, excuse me for asking, Ike, but don't you, Caz, Ero, and Keith Skinner all reject the April 26th affidavit? It can't have come from both Tony Devereux and Battlecrease via Eddie Lyons.

Are you suggesting it's kosher for you to reject it, but not for me to do so?

[erobitha]

Uh, excuse me for asking, Ike, but don't you, Caz, Ero, and Keith Skinner all reject the April 26th affidavit? It can't have come from both Tony Devereux and Battlecrease via Eddie Lyons.

Are you suggesting it's kosher for you to reject it, but not for me to do so?

I cannot speak for others, but I personally give zero credibility to any of the affidavits. I disregard all of them as being of any value in understanding the truth.

The man demonstrated he was willing to lie under oath at least once by sheer virtue of the provenances changing. If you feel the need to give any of them credibility over another, then that is your prerogative.

I am looking to try and understand the truth that does not involve contradictory affidavits from Mike Barrett.

The provenance from Mike and Anne has changed at least three times, and I still don't believe any of them to be true. I cannot believe anything either have said under oath or not.

I see no value in cherry picking any of their provenance stories.

[Trevor Marriott]

I cannot speak for others, but I personally give zero credibility to any of the affidavits. I disregard all of them as being of any value in understanding the truth.

But you have to accept that the content of the first affadavit contains so much detail about how the diary came to be forged, and who was involved, and how they were involved, which has never been totally disproved as being made up, that it has to form the mainstay of reasons for those beliveing the diary is a forgery and was forged in the way described.

I personally believe the first affadavit, but what went on between all the other parties after it was forged is highly questionable there is an old saying "no honour among thieves" which seem to fit all the falling out described in the second affadavit

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

Uh, excuse me for asking, Ike, but don't you, Caz, Ero, and Keith Skinner all reject the April 26th affidavit? It can't have come from both Tony Devereux and Battlecrease via Eddie Lyons.

Are you suggesting it's kosher for you to reject it, but not for me to do so?

Uh, excuse me for answering, RJ, but I can't speak for Caz, ero b, and Keith Skinner, I can only speak for me and the difference between thee and me is that I reject ALL of Barrett's affy Davids whereas you would have to reject only the some.

Moral High Ground 1, Roger Jeremiah Palmer 0.

[Iconoclast]

I cannot speak for others, but I personally give zero credibility to any of the affidavits. I disregard all of them as being of any value in understanding the truth.

Are you plagiarising my posts before I've even type them, ero b?

The man demonstrated he was willing to lie under oath at least once by sheer virtue of the provenances changing. If you feel the need to give any of them credibility over another, then that is your prerogative.

Aldridge Prior was lying at the nipple, mate.

I am looking to try and understand the truth that does not involve contradictory affidavits from Mike Barrett.

The provenance from Mike and Anne has changed at least three times, and I still don't believe any of them to be true. I cannot believe anything either have said under oath or not.

I see no value in cherry picking any of their provenance stories.

I am reasonably confident that a provenance built around Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992, is able to explain every detail of this case. I'll be publishing my conclusions in my brilliant 2025 edition of my brilliant Society's Pillar so get that one into your diaries, dear readers.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

But you have to accept that the content of the first affadavit contains so much detail about how the diary came to be forged, and who was involved, and how they were involved, which has never been totally disproved as being made up, that it has to form the mainstay of reasons for those beliveing the diary is a forgery and was forged in the way described.

I personally believe the first affadavit, but what went on between all the other parties after it was forged is highly questionable there is an old saying "no honour among thieves" which seem to fit all the falling out described in the second affadavit

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor. Please keep up with the posts, mate, and stop confusing our dear readers.

The one you are talking about is the 2nd affidavit. That was on January 5, 1995 in which he described in the style of the Marx Brothers out on the lash with the Keystone Cops how he created the scrapbook.

The first one was on April 26, 1993, in which he swore an oath that he received the scrapbook from Tony Devereux as initially stated when he brought the diary to a public place on April 13, 1992.

[Iconoclast]

Good for those upset stomachs when the wife is poisoning your meat juice

By the way, I've just nipped down to Ladbrokes and put a pony on Caz replying to this gem.