One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[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.

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.

Hi ero b,

Here is a further response from Keith Skinner:

The problem is Erobitha that the contradictory affidavits, in my opinion, cannot be rejected. They stand as historical documents and cannot be disregarded or ignored. Why were they written - when they were written? What triggered them? Look at the time span between their being sworn on oath in a solicitor's office. (I'm not even sure whether the January 1995 affidavits even made it that far.)Some of the detail can be proved to be factually incorrect. Why is this? If I understand Trevor Marriott correctly, then an affidavit is not made flippantly and it is incumbent on the person making the affidavit to ensure, where possible, the information is accurate and can be supported evidentially?

Anne Graham never made an affidavit and to the best of my knowledge she has never changed her story about the diary being in her family and giving it via a 3rd person to give to her husband. As far as I am concerned, that story still stands and has to be constantly weighed against the Battlecrease theory as well as the modern hoax theory.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

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.

Feel free to reject all of them, Ike, it makes not one jot of difference. You are still left with an obvious hoax (yes, Old Boy, it's obvious) with no credible provenance (but plenty of modern elements) in the hands of two people who have gone on record with shifting stories (and in some cases, outright lies) and wildly suspicious behavior. You seem to labor under the delusion that perpetually pointing out that Barrett was a pathological liar (something we all generally agree on) can help rehabilitate this questioned and questionable document. It can't and it doesn't. But if you wish to toss out the correct answer with the rest of the bath water, don't expect me to applaud.


I find something about Messrs A & B's refusal to give a clear an unequivocal opinion about the Maybrick Diary to be oddly passive aggressive. There is no honor in sitting perpetually on the fence bemoaning how it's all a great, great, mystery and that the correct attitude is to keep this mystery in suspended animation for another 25 years, balancing various 'possibilities' in the air as if they were juggling balls.

It just demonstrates that the theorist in question lacks the ability to rationally weigh which evidence is good and which evidence is not good and needs to be rejected. Chief Inspectors Littlechild, Swanson, and Dew might have been wrong on occasion, but I don't think they ever bit their nails. Being a baffled detective isn't a good look when the evidence is clear. Looking over Macdougall last night it appears that even Maybrick himself developed a bad case of the piles and had to resort to Pond's Extract, though evidently not from his refusing to ever leave his perch on the fence.

[rjpalmer]

Here's a question I would pose our baffled detectives, Ike.

If Rod McNeil's ion migration technique worked, why isn't anyone using it?

The ability to tell when ink went on paper would be of enormous benefit to the police, to historians, and to document examiners. And yet, 25 years on, one will look, but look in vain for anyone using McNeil's methods.

Why is that? I would humbly suggest because they didn't work and couldn't overcome various technical considerations. Dr. Eastaugh couldn't explain McNeil's methods, and McNeil himself completely undermined his own claim by later revising them upwards to including the year 1969 as a possible date for the diary. It's clear that Rendell, having invited McNeil onto his team, later regretted it and rejected his findings. Meanwhile, Lincoln scholars had already independently rejected a date McNeil gave for an obvious forgery of the Gettsburg address. His method is no more accepted as proven science than Phrenology or the Canals on Mars.

Meanwhile, even a child of six could understand the ink solubility test conducted by Dr. Baxendale. The longer an ink sits on paper, the more it bonds with the fibers. Old inks soaked in solvents take a long time to start to give up colour, whereas the Maybrick Diary ink gave it up very quickly indeed. Harrison and Smith wrote concerned letters to Baxendale (or at least one letter) trying to make him budge, but he wouldn't. He knew from many years of experience that the ink was not behaving as an 'old' ink should.

The baffled detective thus would be wise to listen to Baxendale and quit wringing his hands about McNeil. Decide what to believe.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

One of us is wrong the first affdavit is dated Jan 5th 1995 which is the one i corrcetly referred, to the second one is dated Jan 25th 1995

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

One of us is wrong the first affdavit is dated Jan 5th 1995 which is the one i corrcetly referred, to the second one is dated Jan 25th 1995

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t know if you just overlooked the 1993 affidavit or just being deliberately difficult.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt.

[erobitha]

Hi ero b,

Here is a further response from Keith Skinner:

The problem is Erobitha that the contradictory affidavits, in my opinion, cannot be rejected. They stand as historical documents and cannot be disregarded or ignored. Why were they written - when they were written? What triggered them? Look at the time span between their being sworn on oath in a solicitor's office. (I'm not even sure whether the January 1995 affidavits even made it that far.)Some of the detail can be proved to be factually incorrect. Why is this? If I understand Trevor Marriott correctly, then an affidavit is not made flippantly and it is incumbent on the person making the affidavit to ensure, where possible, the information is accurate and can be supported evidentially?

Anne Graham never made an affidavit and to the best of my knowledge she has never changed her story about the diary being in her family and giving it via a 3rd person to give to her husband. As far as I am concerned, that story still stands and has to be constantly weighed against the Battlecrease theory as well as the modern hoax theory.

Cheers,

Ike

It’s like us ‘diary defenders’ are not actually surgically attached at the hip.

In response to Keith’s comments I totally understand as a researcher and historian that Keith is looking through the lens of historical context. I totally respect his desire to acknowledge them for the reasons he wished to acknowledge them.

I do not have to give them any value and I make my own conclusions. I am an aspiring crime fiction writer so I am interested in the story, but I am also interested in the truth.

Technically Keith is right about Anne, her story actually dovetails Mike’s original statement - but that is awfully convenient for Anne’s sake. I don’t buy any of Anne or Mike’s stories at all.

A luxury I can afford more so than others. I am hoping the full truth and paper trail eventually leads to the fact the scrapbook AND watch came from Battlecrease house on the 9th March 1992.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t know if you just overlooked the 1993 affidavit or just being deliberately difficult.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of doubt.

According to casebook

https://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html

https://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan25.html

Who is being pedantic ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Some of the detail can be proved to be factually incorrect. Why is this?

It's called alcoholism, Keith, which leaves one with mental fog.

Yes, Barrett had the year wrong--hardly earthshattering considering his health at the time-- but your own investigation eventually showed that the event he described (the Barretts attempt to buy a blank Victorian Diary) did indeed happen.

It was just in 1992 and not in 1991/1990.

The advertisement in Bookdealer, issue No. 1044, dated 19th March 1992, exists. It's independent confirmation of Barrett's story.

We are supposed to ignore that because Barrett had the wrong date?

RP

[Iconoclast]

According to casebook

https://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan5.html

https://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.bjan25.html

Who is being pedantic ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No-one is being pedantic, Trevor. Casebook just isn't the fount of all knowledge that you evidently believe it to be. Mike swore his first affidavit in April 1993 in which he confirmed the Tony Devereux provenance.

By the way, if you want pedantic, Casebook is wrong: the 3rd affidavid was sworn and signed on January 26, 1995 (not the 25th).

Ike

[caz]

My thinking on the diary is not going to change any time soon unless anyone come up with some conclusive proof to show Barrett was not involved in a conspiracy to fake the diary.

Has the contents of book in question been accepted without question, or have researchers identifed flaws in its content which make it unsafe.

If I recall Lord Orsam did just that and took her to task over the contents. Of Course Caz being Caz in her inimitable way ducked and dived to retain her status quo on the book and its contents.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trev,

Apologies for the delay in responding, but real life got in the way.

I already admitted to letting the odd typo slip through when proofreading our book for the final time [gasp!], and also a continuity error [shock, horror, call the cops!], which was jumped all over by Orsam - IIRC when he no longer posted here, but his chums were quick to report on it. I don't recall Orsam himself taking me to task 'over the contents' in general, while he was still posting here, but I don't know if he has done so since, from where he lurks in Orsam Wells.

If that's ducking and diving on my part, so be it.

But really, there would be very little point in trying to explain to you the contents of a book you haven't read, when you have already chosen to believe what others have written about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

With the greatest respect Ike, I didn't take Trevor's post as insinuating that the authors made anything up.

I read it as that he just doesn't believe their "take" on the case.

The problem is, barny, Trevor doesn't know our "take" on the case, or even if we tried to present one - which would have been tricky since all three of us had different "takes" - because he hasn't read the book. So what is it that he just doesn't believe?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I still think you should clarify if you were accusing the three authors of subterfuge and mendacity.

I'm not sure any such accusation would have had teeth, Ike, considering that Trev readily admitted to not having read the book.

It would be like someone accusing Sherlock Holmes of murder, without realising he is a fictional character.

Deserving of sympathy more than censure.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What if Mike had help from Devereux, who I think, at least had a hand in writing it?

Hi Scotty,

The problem always comes back to the fact that there is zero evidence that Devereux knew about the diary, beyond what Mike or Anne Barrett claimed at various times.

None of the Barretts' claims concerning the diary's origins should be considered reliable without rock solid supporting evidence. And if we had that, nobody here would be obliged to rely on the words of a liar.

Love,

Caz
X

[barnflatwyngarde]

The problem is, barny, Trevor doesn't know our "take" on the case, or even if we tried to present one - which would have been tricky since all three of us had different "takes" - because he hasn't read the book. So what is it that he just doesn't believe?

Love,

Caz
X

Cheers Caz!

I've just received your book, and I'm looking forward to reading it again.
I read it years ago and can't remember many of the points raised, so I'm really looking forward to diving into it over the festive period.

I'm not as au fait with the whole Maybrick diary issue as you Ike and others, but I might post my thoughts on your book when I've finished it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure any such accusation would have had teeth, Ike, considering that Trev readily admitted to not having read the book.

It would be like someone accusing Sherlock Holmes of murder, without realising he is a fictional character.

Deserving of sympathy more than censure.

Love,

Caz
X

Sherlock Holmes a fictional character!!

How dare you Caz. He was born on January 6th 1854.