One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Are you seriously thinking that Keith would suggest that the affidavit's veracity could or should be dismissed in its entirety just because Mike had an impure motive?

Yes, Paul, that's my interpretation of Keith's statement. If he's not implying this, I'd be curious to know what he is implying.

I could be misinterpreting Keith's point, of course, but he seems to be suggesting that the motive of Mike writing the affidavit is more important than addressing the content itself--a stance which throws our discussion into the realm of psychology and seems calculated to cast doubt on the affidavit without actually first ascertaining whether or not it is true.

Which is why I think the following are fair questions: other than wrong dates--which are a common error in documents-- what has been shown to be factually incorrect in Barrett's 5 January 1995 affidavit? And if the events that Barrett describes are true, what difference does his motive make?

Surely the first and foremost question when faced with a confession is determining whether or not it is true? If a man confesses to robbing a bank, and can prove that he did, indeed, rob the bank, do we need to know why he confessed? Why do people generally confess? By contrast, if his confession has been shown not to be true--and as far as I know, that is not yet been shown to be the case---only then do we need to hand the baton over to the psychologists.

Hasn't Keith explained his thoughts on this matter at some point in the last 25-years?

I'm not sure he has. There's a fair amount of things about Barrett's affidavit that Keith hasn't explained over the years, primarily why he thinks Barrett needed a genuine Victorian Diary with 'at least twenty blank pages' (which we now know is what Mike requested) before bringing a hoaxed document to London for the first time. If, as Anne has claimed, the diary that Barrett purchased was bought for comparison purposes, why did he need twenty blank pages and, indeed, why would he have been entirely happy with a genuine Victorian diary entirely made up of blank pages? What can twenty blank pages tell someone that ten blank pages or even one blank page can't? I think most rational people would conclude that a person who is requesting a specific amount of blank pages intends to write something on them, which in turn suggests that Barrett's affidavit is a legitimate confession.

To me, the answer to this question is first and foremost, and I'd be curious to hear Keith's thoughts on this matter, especially since he once said he would eventually provide them.

All the best,

RP

[rjpalmer]

Your error was thinking that Caz believes the diary to be an old fake, wheras she says that she doesn't believe that at all, but believes that nobody has satisfactorilly identified who penned the diary or when.

Thanks for the clarification, Paul.

It is perhaps a good thing that Caz doesn't believe the diary is an old document, fake or genuine, otherwise she would need to answer quite a few uncomfortable questions of her own.

I think they call this sort of thing 'nailing one's colours to the mast,' and not ever doing so certainly has its advantages.

[rjpalmer]

I think they call this sort of thing 'nailing one's colours to the mast,' and not ever doing so certainly has its advantages.

Of course, colours or not, one can't help notice which way her cannons are pointed!

[Iconoclast]

Ike thinks the diary is real... without having identified the handwriting [A paradox, to be sure, since it is not Maybricks!]

Well the 'paradox' is created by some less than clever word play, RJ, isn't it? If I think that Maybrick wrote the scrapbook then - by implication - I accept that the handwriting was his. If it was his, then it did not match those examples we have of his formal hand so - by implication - I infer that he must have written privately in a different hand. This is inevitable and logical even if - to you - it is untrue. I myself wrote in a very different hand (even slanting completely the other way) when to myself than when writing to someone else (in the days when people did that) and I imagine that perhaps others may also do so and did so too.

I believe it is a proven modern fake... without having identified the handwriting, though I have my suspicions.

Well whoopy-do. So you have an opinion based upon no evidence whatsoever (or perhaps Orsam's so-called revelation that Anne's hand can be seen in the scrapbook) and you have suspicions based upon the only version of the scrapbook which allows you to sleep at night.

In brief, I don't need to identify the handwriting to justify my beliefs, any more than you do. I think there is enough evidence to conclude it is a modern hoax, and that puts the ball squarely in the court of "Mrs. Williams."

You don't need 'enough evidence'. If you had evidence, a single piece would do. No-one has this (certainly not Orsam's 'one off instance') so your conclusion remains your opinion. You're not alone in that opinion, of course, but equally nor are you therefore right in holding it

I also think Mike demonstrated inside information. As I've said a number of times, I don't feel the need to name the getaway driver to be confident that John Dillinger robbed the bank.

Ooh, hold on, I think we're about to actually get some concrete evidence of a hoax here, dear readers. I wonder what it could be?

Mike Barrett told Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post as early as 26 June 1994 that he bought the scrap book at Outhwaite & Litherland. ... Yet, if Barrett had merely made up this detail, how in the blazes could he have known that Outhwaite & Litherland really did hold an auction of Victorian and Edwardian items three years earlier (on 31 March 1992)—which dovetails perfectly with his later admission (confirmed admission!) ...

Mike Barrett knew that O&L were a local auction house? That's it? Because that's essentially what you've just said. Next you'll be asking how in the blazes could he have known that O&L really did hold auctions! My dear readers will have noted by now that what you are actually did was to infer that the auction house O&L so rarely held auctions that to hold one between March 9, 1992 and April 1, 1992 (allowing for the minimum of eleven days required to create the scrapbook) was something which Mike would actually had to have known! I on the other hand would question how in the blazes an auction house could pay the salaries if it was so indifferent to their being held? You inferred that Mike needed to know that one would be held on March 31, 1992, but clearly there was no requirement for him to have known that specific date; and you inferred that the one held on March 31, 1992, was the most unusual of all because it was dedicated to Victorian and Edwardian items as opposed to being one of scores of such auctions hosted regularly by O&L which may or may not have included some Victorian and Edwardian items. So, dear readers, that is how RJ attempted to hoodwink you all to his blinkered cause.

You're very welcome.

Further, notice that this account also dovetails too perfectly with Mike's repeated admission that he obtained the scrapbook so late in the game that it left him only 10 or 11 days to transpose the [pre-existing] typescript before he was to meet with Doreen Montgomery in London. How do you explain this?

Well, RJ, I explain this deep mystery as follows: Mike Barrett knew that there were only so many days between March 9, 1992, and April 1, 1992, so he knew that if his story was to be believable, he had to have acquired the scrapbook during that brief window. The reality is that he could have acquired that scrapbook ten years earlier on a whim or for some other purpose and only at the last decided to use it for his fake but that would not have worked with everything else he was claiming so his story had to have the late entry of the magical scrapbook from an auction which had no equal before it nor after it - yes, Victorian and Edwardian items on sale auction at an auction house which possibly occasionally held auctions in between its more regular coffee mornings and bible reading classes.

Again, the details are too subtle and too perfect to have been dreamed up by a man in Barrett's mental state in June 1994.

Subtle and perfect are not words that spring to mind for me. Awareness of how few days there always are between every March 9 and April 1 is not subtle, and perfect would surely be terrible hyperbole for such mundane knowledge?

Surely, Mike couldn't have known that years later someone named Lord Orsam would have chased down the advertisement in Bookfinder, checked with the auction dates of O & L, and worked out the chronology, realizing it fit with Barrett's "11 day" admission?

I don't imagine for a moment that he needed to. I imagine that he just assumed that auction houses held regular enough auctions that his claim would not be invalidated. Indeed, I assume that he didn't even assume it, he just said it. Mike was not one for caring too much, it would seem, about saying things which may not prove to be accurate. For the record, I could have sworn it was Keith Skinner, by the way, who first chased down the ad some fifteen years or so before the rather less nimble Lord Orsam?

Too clever by half, no?

Apologies for the delay in posting this, I read that last point and literally pissed myself. I'm cleaned-up again now and ready to face the rest of your remarkable post.

Or is it too clever by a country mile? Barrett's spontaneous lies were never this subtle. They were transparently barking mad--like his claim that he worked for MI5, etc. --which I have always interpreted as the ravings of someone who wanted everyone to think he was totally crazy, because by now he was "walking back" an initial confession--a truthful confession-- that he now regretted.

So Mike's colourful claims were simply deep cover for his even deeper subtlety? Well, you could be right. They definitely passed me by.

Nor do I entirely dismiss the suggestion of Maurice Chittenden that Barrett was paid-off to keep his gob shut by someone with a big investment in a still pending film deal ...

Source, please, RJ. I don't recall where Chittenden made such a claim.

... though I hasten to add that there is no proof of this beyond Barrett's unconfirmed claim (in the same affidavit) that Anne Graham told him to keep his mouth shut and he would soon get a paycheck. (I think she was specifically referring to pending royalties).

I think you've just confused yourself as well as the rest of us, RJ. The proof that Chittenden said X is that Y claimed that Z said he should keep his mouth shut?

And, of course, Baxendale's solubility test is independent confirmation that the diary really could have been created that recently.

It does rather beg the question why this little gem of yours has never gained a single bit of traction in thirty years? It's like the scrapbook had a note inside saying "It was mE Miik BaRit whot wrotTEd it" and everyone just skipped over that bit.

As Lord Orsam once noted, Barrett had cried wolf so many times that by the time he finally got around to spilling the beans, no one took him seriously.

And you and Lord Orsam imagine that's a point which works in Mike's favour? Damn, I need to change again ...

Ike


[/QUOTE]

[Iconoclast]

Why didn't you just ask Stephen Ryder if 'diplomacy' led him to write what he did about our book, instead of interpreting it that way, in a mean-spirited attempt to bring it ever so slightly closer to your own take, where you demonstrate yet again your inability to tilt in a different direction, no matter what new information might come your way.

Here's the funny think about Inside Story, Caz, as I imagine you have long-since spotted: it's just a book about what was going on with the whole diary thing between 1992 and 2002 or so.

Anyone who reads it will also spot that. The trick with all of this - to avoid making yourself look rather amateurish - is to write about what you have read yourself not to rely on tenuous inference from those who might just harbour a prejudice or two.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Correction to RJ's latest spin:

I don't claim to 'believe' the diary is an old hoax.

I certainly can't claim to know when it was written or who wrote it, so what good would 'belief' do me?

I merely continue to question the 'correctness' of a belief in the Barretts as hoaxers, working right up to April 1992 on their joint enterprise.

RJ will just have to get used to it.

But what do any of our opinions matter if we can't back them up with hard evidence? We are entitled to hold them but perhaps not too firmly.

If our opinions change and evolve it is precisely because evidence gradually shifts them for us ...

[Iconoclast]

I have not aired any opinions on your book, I simply asked if the book contained conclusive primary evidence, not wild speculative guesses, or conjecture that proves the affadavit to be false because in my opinion the truth about the diary rests with that first affadavit.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, Trevor, if you take that stand - that "the truth about the diary rests with that first affadavit" then you are bound to restrict what you research about the scrapbook and how you therefore think about the scrapbook.

And this is why you haven't read the very book you are commenting on and therefore why you are so badly misled about what the book's purpose is and what points it illustrates.

[Iconoclast]

But surely if you are going to hoax a diary the first thing you are going to do it to disguise the handwriting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, if you are going to hoax a diary the first thing you are going to do is to match the handwriting!

[Iconoclast]

Or, when asked for a sample of your handwriting for comparison, disguise your handwriting in the sample.

Yes indeed. I've never quite understood why anyone would think a hoaxer would use their own handwriting. Rookie error, clearly, if they did.

[Iconoclast]

But my point was that Caz was right to say that the handwriting posed problems for the theories of both R.J. and Ike, and that R.J. was wrong - unless I missed something, which is why I asked - to suggest that it posed a similar problem for her.

Not so for me, Paul. Until we have an example of Maybrick's handwriting when composing solely for his own eyes, we cannot say with any certainty that that handwriting is not his.

[Iconoclast]

Is the book infernally expensive? If not, wouldn't it be better to buy it and invest a little time in reading it, then you'd be able to see exactly what was said and praise or damn from first-hand reading?

It would certainly seem so, Paul. No wonder they all live on super yachts ...

[Iconoclast]

I am not asking opinions, I am asking for conclusive proof from the book that the affadavit is false.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See, Trevor, this is the age-old problem. After thirty long years, this 'shabby' diary still cannot be conclusively authenticated nor disproven (despite many outrageous claims to the contrary in the case of the latter).

That's why we are all still here debating it ...

[Iconoclast]

I can't take Trevor's opinions or views seriously if he is unable to understand the basic facts of how many affidavits were written and when. I don't think he can add much value to the debate to be honest.

As much as I disagree with RJ on almost every level, at least he takes the time to research his points.

What I feel both Paul B and Caz maybe alluding to is that neither side has categorically proven anything conclusively. Which means, the debate rages on and has value until we are able to conclusively understand how the scrapbook came to be and where it actually came from.

Mike SAYING he forged the diary does not make it true. He has provided ZERO proof of how he did it and when. We have no receipts, no corroboration, no accurate timings, no meaningful science or even any reliable sources of reference from his statements. If Mike produced one receipt that confirms he purchased the ink or the scrapbook, I would not be here debating anything. It would be game, set and match for the Barrett hoax theory. Mike was being spiteful and wanted to burn down Rome. He was many things, but he was not the hoaxer of this scrapbook.

I suspect RJ and maybe even Orsam too, know this deep down. They fight the pro Barrett hoax theory valiantly but they too have come up short with any absolute proof to support it. Likewise, we 'diary defenders' are also short of absolute proof. Both sides believe their cases to be strong.

I want the truth. Mike's testimonies will not leads us there. I don't believe Anne's will either.

If the scrapbook is ultimately proven to have not been the product of a Mike Barrett hoax, then history must record the fact that Mike Barrett did more damage to the credibility of the scrapbook than any of the so called 'conclusive' tests did. That damage may even be beyond repair. Which means we potentially consign what could be a very important historical document to the bin because of one man's spiteful actions against his ex wife.

People like Trevor can make whatever conclusions they want without knowing all the nuances around this, and most people have, but until we know the truth for certain, I will remain laser-focused on Maybrick as being JtR.

Goodness me, ero b, amongst the many thousand replies to the original poster I would have to say that this one of yours is Top Ten. Absolutely nailed-on.

You are in serious danger of becoming the voice of ******* reason on this, The Greatest Thread of All, mate.

[Iconoclast]

How we disagree once again.

Mike had not demonstrated enough "insider knowledge" RJ. All his references were prompted by others. We need to get real and agree none of us actually believes Mike Barrett hoaxed the scrapbook.

I also do not believe the bar is super high to identify the penman or ultimately how Mike came into possession of it.

We should all be trying to do this.

You want to dismiss the attempts at discussion and discovery as some 'cosy mystery' that has no historical importance, because you believe the proof weighs in the favour of it being a modern hoax. And that is that.

Except, the proof does not weigh beyond doubt.

Seriously, ero b, you should be called to the bar, mate. You're on fire!

[Iconoclast]

You naysayers keep criticising those who say the diary is a fake but you are short on being able to prove the diary to be authentic and written by Maybrick ...

Oh dear dear me, another book you haven't read yet, Trevor?

It's called Society's Pillar and it's pure dead brilliant, so it is.