Fake!

[Jonathan H]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1715663.html

[Tom Mitchell]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1715663.html

Personally, I would be prepared to concede that there have definitely been hoaxes throughout history, if that is the point you are attempting to make (perhaps it isn't). The memory capacity of this Casebook may well be sorely strained if they are all enumerated in order to highlight to us the possibility that the Maybrick diary may be amongst their number.

If it eases your workload, can we all just agree that the Maybrick diary may be a fake?

PS Pardon the pun.

[caz]

Hi Tom,

Don't be a spoilsport. Let Jonathan do as much work as he likes, since he is evidently terrified of being thought gullible if he lets sleeping fake diaries lie.

The delicious irony is that those who swallow all Mighty Mel's unproven claims whole are every bit as gullible as those who swallow any of Mike Barrett's unproven claims whole.

I firmly believe that nobody alive today can tell us with any authority who wrote that diary or why.

Love,

Caz
X

[serya]

Mike Barrett swore himself that he wrote the diary, the reason being financial gain. I was just reading the affidavit.

[The Good Michael]

Mike Barrett swore himself that he wrote the diary, the reason being financial gain. I was just reading the affidavit.

My students swore they weren't cheating when I took away their cellphones.

Mike

[Tom Mitchell]

Mike Barrett swore himself that he wrote the diary, the reason being financial gain. I was just reading the affidavit.

Hi Serya,

What Mike Barrett swore to was a serious criminal offence punishable by a prison sentence.

The fact that no-one followed it up - nor that the original police investigation was re-opened as a consequence of his 'confession' - should tell you all you need to know about Mike Barrett's endless emotional and drink-fuelled claims whilst his marriage was sadly disintegrating. The fact that he got all the details wrong in his confession should also warn us against taking it at face value as evidence of a hoax.

I genuinely pity the bloke - and not in a patronising way at all. He clearly went through a personal hell, and retained little of what he gained financially from bringing the diary to our attention. He lost everything of value to him, and we should remember that when we refer to his various claims of the 1990s.

Cheers,

Tom

[Jonathan H]

The second Roswell link was to an old man, a [late] primary source, who is either lying or delusional. Because the story he is now telling is demonstrably false from other primary sources.

But ... an old veteran, who has selflessly served his country wouldn't lie about a crashed flying saucer, in fact two of them-- would he?

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/p...urgeons_photo/

A respectable doctor wouldn't lie about photographing something very strange, and obviously alive, in a Scottish loch -- would he?

To Tom

In terms of historical methodology the 'Diary' is not a reliable source because it cannot be traced, and no other primary source backs it up -- please let's leave the 'I am Jack, really!' fake fob-watch to one side -- and therefore it's limitations far outweigh its potential values.

Barrett's ex-spouse's alternative account self-servingly neutralised her oscillating ex-husband, eg. it would not matter if he went back on his retraction of his retraction, and so on.

The question is was that undeniably self-serving element, which gave the 'Diary' a supposedly new and authentic trail, just a coincidence -- or part of an improvised scam to rescue the original scam?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Irrespective of who wrote it or why, the "diary" is a crock.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Do you mean that if it actually was written by Maybrick he was just having a bit of macabre fun, not seriously claiming to be 'Jack' because, from an examination of the text itself, it is obviously not written by the authentic murderer?

I'm just just trying to clarifying your post, being the thickie that I am.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I hadn't thought of that. It's very funny.

No, I was thinking more of its 20th Century author.

Regards,

Simon

[serya]

My students swore they weren't cheating when I took away their cellphones.

Mike

Now, on the other hand, if your students confessed they were cheating, and explained the way they were cheating in detail and signed a document stating such, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them and would give the cell back and say carry on the way you were.

[Kaz]

Now, on the other hand, if your students confessed they were cheating, and explained the way they were cheating in detail and signed a document stating such, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them and would give the cell back and say carry on the way you were.

[caz]

Only the truly gullible or woefully underinformed would swallow any of Mike Barrett's diary claims whole - sworn under oath, on his grandmother's life or down the pub.

They all remain unproven or can be disproven.

Also, I totally understand why Jonathan would prefer us to leave the watch to one side. He is certainly not alone in being unable or unwilling to delve beneath the shiny new hoax surface he prefers to see and deal with what is actually there.

One handwritten, the other scratched into metal - two different objects that have kept the experts guessing about their real age for two decades and counting, while the amateurs think they know better.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Now, on the other hand, if your students confessed they were cheating, and explained the way they were cheating in detail and signed a document stating such, I'm sure you wouldn't believe them and would give the cell back and say carry on the way you were.

And if the most mischievous student signed a bit of paper, claiming to be a master forger, but couldn't give a remotely coherent, truthful or convincing account of how he did it, I'm sure you would believe him anyway and complain when the police asked you to stop wasting their time.

Love,

Caz
X

[spyglass]

Hi all,

First off, all of the arguments for and against the diary has been gone over many times...I cant see the point of starting a new thread when there are at least two already in existance.

Secondly, the fact remains it has still yet to be proven FAKE...even though some posters and authors catogoricaly claim that it is, and so to those who do, please please just PROVE IT.

I eagerly await the entrance of Soothsayer!

Regards.