The Diary

[Sally]

Hmm..

Yes Kaz, but see the link above.

This lady appears to claim that it is 'impossible' that the diary was forged - apparently because nobody could forge the emotion present in the diary?

Ergo, it must be genuine? How is that opinion based upon a) any actual analysis of the script and b) any factual evidence whatever?

Its pure opinion.

As I said, I'm not sure I follow the logic...

[Kaz]

Hello Sickert, Kaz, Jason. I wonder if it's possible that you refer to forensic document examiners rather than graphologists? Graphologists are not widely respected as capable of definitively linking writers with documents; the former, are.

Cheers.
LC

When Hannah koren first read the diary she had no idea who penned it (or who was alleged to), she merely gave her 'expert' opinion on whether it had been forged.

All this "they're not experts", "they're clearly liars" is getting rather tiresome.

[lynn cates]

distinction

Hello Sickert, Kaz, Jason. I wonder if it's possible that you refer to forensic document examiners rather than graphologists? Graphologists are not widely respected as capable of definitively linking writers with documents; the former, are.

Cheers.
LC

[Jason]

I have never read this, have you got a link to those claims?

the words "most of the top graphologists" could be looked at in another way......"some of the top graphologists do believe its true "......might they also consider themselves as being top of their game in their own heads ?

[Kaz]

top graphologists in her head, not the world. Most of the real top graphologists have stated that it is a fake.

I have never read this, have you got a link to those claims?

[caz]

Ah, but I don't believe anyone with any real forgery expertise would bet good money on Mike Barrett either being its researcher, its author or its penman.

People really need to look beyond our Mike for their faker - assuming they'd like their views to count for something.

Mike as forger is the lazy thinker's answer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sickert]

Just out of interest, how do you think he managed to fool one of the top graphologists in the world in the world (Hannah Koren), in her opinion its impossible to forge?

top graphologists in her head, not the world. Most of the real top graphologists have stated that it is a fake.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Just out of interest, how do you think he managed to fool one of the top graphologists in the world (Hannah Koren), in her opinion its impossible to forge?

I believe the Diary is old, perhaps even Victorian. So no need for MB to factor into the equation as author.

[Sally]

Here's a link:

http://www.islandconnections.eu/1000...s-article.html

I confess I don't entirely follow the logic here.

[Kaz]

It is a fake from start to finish. There is nothing in there that Mike Barrett could not have found out with very little research.

Just out of interest, how do you think he managed to fool one of the top graphologists in the world (Hannah Koren), in her opinion its impossible to forge?

[Sickert]

To my mind, the diary has to fall into the "questionable" category. When you have someone confess to forging a document, there has to be strong investigation into how they might have done it. Was it really impossible for Mike Barrett to forge the diary?

I'm reminded of an artist, Han van Meegeren, accused of selling a Vermeer to the Nazis. The Dutch authorities did not believe him when he said he sold no national treasure, that he forged the painting himself! He had to do a forgery right in the courtroom to prove he had the ability to forge the painting. They still found it hard to believe.

It is a fake from start to finish. There is nothing in there that Mike Barrett could not have found out with very little research.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

To my mind, the diary has to fall into the "questionable" category. When you have someone confess to forging a document, there has to be strong investigation into how they might have done it. Was it really impossible for Mike Barrett to forge the diary?

There's been investigations galore. There is no way from Hell...er...in Hell that Mike's got the skill to forge a Liverpool Library card application, let alone a 60+ page document.

[RavenDarkendale]

To my mind, the diary has to fall into the "questionable" category. When you have someone confess to forging a document, there has to be strong investigation into how they might have done it. Was it really impossible for Mike Barrett to forge the diary?

I'm reminded of an artist, Han van Meegeren, accused of selling a Vermeer to the Nazis. The Dutch authorities did not believe him when he said he sold no national treasure, that he forged the painting himself! He had to do a forgery right in the courtroom to prove he had the ability to forge the painting. They still found it hard to believe.

[Steven Russell]

No one alive today knows who wrote it - of that I am convinced.

Why?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

You make some good points here Jason. I can't hand on heart say that the diary is a late 20th century forgery. Now I fully realise that that might make me seem gullible in some poster's eyes, but there's too much in the diary that makes you stop, ponder and wonder.

No one alive today knows who wrote it - of that I am convinced.