Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Iconoclast]

And is that the same Michael Barrett with whom Anne had a stand-up-knock-down punch-up on the sitting-room floor, witnessed I believe by their daughter? Or is the simple and logical answer that there were two Mike Barretts?

Graham

Of all the scary thoughts in this scary world right now, that one is right up there with the viral best of them ...

[Graham]

And is that the same Michael Barrett with whom Anne had a stand-up-knock-down punch-up on the sitting-room floor, witnessed I believe by their daughter? Or is the simple and logical answer that there were two Mike Barretts?

Graham

[Iconoclast]

I have my boots on, and I'm out the door, but first, I found what I was looking for....

In regards to Mike's imbecility:

"Soon after returning to England, she [Anne Graham] accompanied a girlfriend to the Liverpool Irish club, where she met Michael Barrett, 'nicely dressed, articulate and intelligent,' for the first time. On 4 December 1975 they were married..." Ripper Diary, p. 208.

Nothing whatsoever about an imbecile in a tinfoil hat, just off the short bus from Merseyside.

Is this a ringing endorsement of Bongo's mental faculties in the mid-1970s, or a post-hoc rationalisation of what she had gone and done?

[Iconoclast]

First of all the abbreviations fly thick and fast around these parts, what's an SMB?

Sad Magpie Bastard. I'm sure you can work out our retort, very much along those lines (I don't want to swear, so I'll just say it rhymes with 'hack 'em').

Also, the fact remàins that by failing to reveal the true nature of the advert, and only mentioning "why did Barrett advertise for an 1890's diary" when in actual fact the advert specified 1880-1890 , you broke your own cardinal rule of trying to influence the casual browser, (with limited knowledge) to this forum.

It was entirely unintentional. By homing-in on the only problematic year in the set, I had attempted to prevent people responding along the lines of "Why would a diary dated 1880-1889 be a problem?" which would have served only to distract and to quickly unravel any attempt at logical reasoning I was making.

Furthermore, seeing as he asked for at least 20 pages Mr Palmers analysis of the situation makes perfect sense to me.

But your preference is irrelevant. As I argued so brilliantly in my brilliant Society's Pillar, what is relevant is whether or not there is a reasonable alternative interpretation of the facts. In this case, the possibility that Barrett needed blank pages in order to create a copy of the original to take to London (it wouldn't matter that the handwriting would be his as he would produce the original as soon as the London People showed interest in coughing up the moolah) provides the reasonable alternative which cocks your preference immediately into a right old snoop.

By the way, rjpalmer's strategy of inventing a conversation which never happened between Earl the Bookseller and Bongo the Barrett very much cuts both ways. If we can assume that the advert was entirely Earl's invention based upon the presumed conversation he had with Barrett beforehand, the conversation could have gone somewhat more like this:

BONGO: I'm after a genuine Victorian diary.
EARL: Jolly good. Any particular year, sir?
BONGO: Well 1888 or 1889 would be great but any diary from the 1880s would do at a push.
EARL: Very good, sir. And is this diary to be blank or used?
BONGO: Oh, it needs to be blank - I'm planning to write in it.
EARL: I see, sir. [Thinks: A little bit late but what the hell.] Does it need to be entirely blank or can it be partly used?
BONGO: Partly used is okay. Some unused pages at the back are what I need. Maybe ten or twenty?
EARL: Fine, sir, I shall get right on it. [Thinks: If I can be arsed - I'll be lucky to make a tenner out of this one.]

[Two days later, Earl remembers to get right on it]

EARL: [Thinks: Oh what the hell was that rubbish bit of business that Scouse lad brought to me the other day? A diary from 1880-1890, yes; and it has to have some unused pages. He didn't say specifically how many and some of these things are really quite small so I'll say at least 20 - that should suffice. He'll never see the advert so who cares?]

By this means, the confusing 1890 and the specific request for at least 20 pages are actually irrelevant as they would have stemmed from the irrelevant Earl rather than the very relevant Barrett. We would all be arguing the toss over what some old duffer thought he heard two days earlier.

Now, if Barrett needed the blank pages to write a copy of the actual scrapbook, we don't need this exchange between Earl and him, but it does at least serve to remind us that what we assume is sacrosanct (1890, at least 20 blank pages) may be far from it.

Obviously, I have no idea how the conversation went down, but the critical bit is neither does Lord David Orsam nor his evil acolyte rjpalmer ('gardening' is a famous euphemism for 'burying the bodies', by the way). So we need to call canny before we start using invented conversations to determine the truth of any matter.

Ike

[Observer]

I specified 1890, Observer, because - of the years 1880 to 1890 - that is rthe only one which makes a mockery of the argument that Barrett was planning to use it to create what ultimately became the scrapbook. You should trust me, Observer - I may be an SMB (as are you, in a different form, of course), but I am super-rational when I need to be.

I love that rjp - doffing his cap to Lord Orsam - has decided that Mike Barrett definitely didn't specify the wording of Earl's advert, and that he did not mention 1890, and that Earl thought the 1880s included 1890. Just me being super-rational again here.

I need to be quick - I sense some footy-related posts coming up and they're far more interesting!

Cheers,

Ike

First of all the abbreviations fly thick and fast around these parts, what's an SMB?

Also, the fact remàins that by failing to reveal the true nature of the advert, and only mentioning "why did Barrett advertise for an 1890's diary" when in actual fact the advert specified 1880-1890 , you broke your own cardinal rule of trying to influence the casual browser, (with limited knowledge) to this forum.

Furthermore, seeing as he asked for at least 20 pages Mr Palmers analysis of the situation makes perfect sense to me.

[Iconoclast]

Gentlemen,

I really do hate to wee-wee all over Ike's Tyke fireworks, but I really do think that the record gate for a Third Division match is held by the Aston Villa v AFC Bournemouth game on 12 February 1972 - 48,110. Naturally, Villa won 2 - 1. I was there, half-way up the Holte End having my ribs snapped one by one. Ted McDougall scored first - as he would - but Vowden equalised then Andy Lochhead got the winner. Probably the best game I ever saw at Villa Park.

Graham

Shoot the marketing guy at Sunlan, Graham. He said it in 'Sunlan 'til I Cry', though in retrospect he may have referred solely to League One (another idiot who thinks football was invented in 1992).

[Iconoclast]

I know it's been discussed ad nausea but why specify 20 blank pages if the object of the exercise was to merely take note of what a Victorian diary looked like?

The alternative argument is that he wanted to copy the scrapbook to take to London in case he was accosted by one of those Cockney ruffians like Oliver Twist and had the original stolen from him - so he decided to use an actual 1880s (or even 1890) diary for this purpose. Hence, he needed some blank pages at the end.

[Iconoclast]

… he'd have made something up.

I can't help thinking you didn't mean to type this.

[Iconoclast]

Where did you get the idea that Mike Barrett requested an 1890's diary?

It seems you also have a penchant to capture the easily-lead-to- facts brigade's attention. It appears from your post above that Mike Barrett requested a diary specifically from the year 1890, which is not the case.

Courtesy of David Orsam. Here is the advert for the maroon diary, which appeared in The Bookdealer a weekly publication for books wanted and for sale.

"Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890 must have at least 20 blank pages"

I know it's been discussed ad nausea but why specify 20 blank pages if the object of the exercise was to merely take note of what a Victorian diary looked like?

I specified 1890, Observer, because - of the years 1880 to 1890 - that is rthe only one which makes a mockery of the argument that Barrett was planning to use it to create what ultimately became the scrapbook. You should trust me, Observer - I may be an SMB (as are you, in a different form, of course), but I am super-rational when I need to be.

I love that rjp - doffing his cap to Lord Orsam - has decided that Mike Barrett definitely didn't specify the wording of Earl's advert, and that he did not mention 1890, and that Earl thought the 1880s included 1890. Just me being super-rational again here.

I need to be quick - I sense some footy-related posts coming up and they're far more interesting!

Cheers,

Ike

[Graham]

By the way. At what point in time do you think the Diary was written?

I don't know with any degree of accuracy. How could I? However, I would refer you to Rod McNeill's analysis which suggested that the ink went onto to the paper in or around 1921 IIRC, plus or minus a dozen years. This was rejected by Kenneth Rendell, who actually employed McNeill, because for whatever reason he, Rendell, wanted the Diary to be a new hoax. And then there was Alec Voller, Chief Chemist of Diamine Inks Ltd (I very briefly met him once upon a time) who stated that (a) the ink was not Diamine as Barrett had claimed and (b) it had not gone onto the paper in recent years. And he should know, I'd have thought. Voller thought the document was at least 90 years old. As always with statements such as those by McNeill and Voller, there was a howl of protest from those who held fast to their belief that Barrett had created it. I have never believed that, and I doubt if I ever will. So if he didn't, then someone else must have. For what it's worth - not much, I have to confess - I would put a bob or two on the possibility (I said possibility, not probability) that it was written at a time when Florence Maybrick was still in gaol.

Graham

[Graham]

46,000 for a third division game? Are you sure, that's phenomenal.

Gentlemen,

I really do hate to wee-wee all over Ike's Tyke fireworks, but I really do think that the record gate for a Third Division match is held by the Aston Villa v AFC Bournemouth game on 12 February 1972 - 48,110. Naturally, Villa won 2 - 1. I was there, half-way up the Holte End having my ribs snapped one by one. Ted McDougall scored first - as he would - but Vowden equalised then Andy Lochhead got the winner. Probably the best game I ever saw at Villa Park.

Graham

[rjpalmer]

I have my boots on, and I'm out the door, but first, I found what I was looking for....

In regards to Mike's imbecility:

"Soon after returning to England, she [Anne Graham] accompanied a girlfriend to the Liverpool Irish club, where she met Michael Barrett, 'nicely dressed, articulate and intelligent,' for the first time. On 4 December 1975 they were married..." Ripper Diary, p. 208.

Nothing whatsoever about an imbecile in a tinfoil hat, just off the short bus from Merseyside.

[Observer]

St. James' very much was in existence in 1888 though - as the home of West End - it is most unlikely that James Maybrick would have been aware of it.

All rivalries apart, I don't think either club can particularly laud it over the other - both have underperformed profoundly relative to their huge potential. Over 46,000 attend Sunderland-Bradford but that's remarkable only for the sad fact that it's in the third-ranking division of English football (a record attendance which may never be beaten). Neither of us have anything to crow about. Even your 1973 miracle (the only game I have ever wanted Sunlan to win, by the way - though I was a naïve 11 year old at the time watching only his second FA Cup Final) was your first 'title' since 1937. Newcastle have won four 'titles' since that time, but even the 4th was a chasmous 51 years ago.

For the record, since 1973, the three north-east clubs have gone to Wembley around 20 times or more and somehow contrived to lose every single one of them. Middlesbrough's 2004 League Cup triumph over Bolton, of course, being played at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, that is a terrible indictment of the curse that sits over us in the capital. Personally, I believe that the north deserves its own 'Wembley' where internationals and cup finals can be played every other year, but I don't hold out much hope on that one.

Ike

46,000 for a third division game? Are you sure, that's phenomenal.

[Observer]

And then of course his description of how he bought the scrapbook at Outhwaite & Litherland was rigorously denied by an executive of that auction house, who stated quite categorically that Mike's description in no way tallied with the manner in which their auctions were conducted.
But naturally, the Barratt Supporters Club may now come out with something along the lines of, "Ooooh, he didn't buy it from O & L at all, see, that was just his way of throwing people off the scent, you understand. He got it from somewhere else and isn't telling. So there!"

Graham

A number of years had transpired before Barrett revealed the manner in which he bought the scrapbook. Barrett was the type who if his memory was vague as to the exact procedure of purchase involving the lot he purchased at the auction, which included the scrapbook, he'd have made something up. Hence the discrepancy between his recollections and the actual manner in which Outhwaite and Litherland conducted their auctions. He was never lost for an answer that's for sure.

By the way. At what point in time do you think the Diary was written?

[Observer]

I think having '1890' blazed across every page would have made it much less 'fit for purpose'. There is no way that Barrett could have known what he was going to get so it was a profoundly stupid gamble to request an impossible diary for the hoax. Yes, what he got could have had '1890' on a single leading page and this, of course, he could then have attempted to remove. With that in mind, it would have widened his search significantly had he simply requested a 'Victorian period' diary whilst labouring under the assumption that it would only be dated on the one page (or perhaps a couple of pages) which could then be removed.



The rational request was to specify 'No later than 1889', but that's not what he requested.

If you can't show that his request for an 1890 diary made sense, then you definitely can't leap from there to 'I believe he wasn't happy with the scrap book, and decided to purchase a real diary'. That's clearly pure speculation. It's fine to have it, but also good to recognise it overtly so that the easily-led-to-'facts' brigade are not easily misled to falsehoods.

Ike

Where did you get the idea that Mike Barrett requested an 1890's diary?

It seems you also have a penchant to capture the easily-lead-to- facts brigade's attention. It appears from your post above that Mike Barrett requested a diary specifically from the year 1890, which is not the case.

Courtesy of David Orsam. Here is the advert for the maroon diary, which appeared in The Bookdealer a weekly publication for books wanted and for sale.

"Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890 must have at least 20 blank pages"

I know it's been discussed ad nausea but why specify 20 blank pages if the object of the exercise was to merely take note of what a Victorian diary looked like?