Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Iconoclast]

I'll tell you what, the next time the jokers playing at Sid Jame's Park win a piece of silverware I'll ask you

Now that hurt.

[Iconoclast]

Why do you suppose Mike Barrett bought the maroon coloured leather diary in March 1992?

I have to say that the evidence points very strongly towards Bongo Barrett being a complete idiot. Therein lies the potential solution to your quandary. If a complete idiot thinks they'd like to know what an actual 1888 diary might look like, they might pay good money to purchase one. If a similar (perhaps the same) complete idiot thinks they might make a copy of their scrapbook to take to London (in case they lose possession of the original in the process), they might simultaneously ask that the diary they purchase contain at least 20 blank pages.

Back atcha Observer: Why do you suppose Mike Barrett bought the maroon coloured leather diary in March 1992 and was willing to accept one from 1890?

[Iconoclast]

You could pose that exact same question to the pro-diarists. Why are they here? The case has been closed (in their mind).

Well, in my case I've never had any friends so this place is perfect. It's why I love the Great Lockdown so much - 50+ years of social isolation and suddenly everyone else is at it …

(I started stocking-up in 1974.)

[rjpalmer]

they might simultaneously ask that the diary they purchase contain at least 20 blank pages.

Ike - I grant you that three is a mystical number. Seven is also a mystical number; it has great traditions behind it. Nine is another mystical number.

Twenty is strictly utilitarian. It has no mysteries attached to it whatsoever. Twenty is a shovel. Twenty is a work mule. When a person asks for twenty blank pages (40 sides) odds are he has a typescript at home that is 29 pages in length. "And so it was revealed in time, as time reveals all." Even Barrett knew that 20 blank rectangles of white couldn't tell him anything he couldn't see in one rectangle of white, and without dishing out twenty-five pounds!

As for Barrett's alleged stupidity, Shirley Harrison has written that Mike was "far from stupid." In Caz's book, Anne Graham tells how she had been charmed by Mike's intelligence when they first met at the Catholic Club.

I would never challenge the opinions of two earnest ladies.

There is a well-known photograph of Barrett, cane in hand, standing next to Paul Begg at the site of Maybrick's grave. We are told that Mike has suffered a stroke. One of the symptoms of stroke can be compulsive behavior (source: The American Stroke Society) and compulsive behavior (and lying) can also be a symptom of Korsakoff's Syndrome.

Why should I not conclude that Barrett's erratic behavior in 1995-1997 was anything other than a medical event? Why does it allow me to conclude anything about his behavior and abilities in 1992? (I feel a visit from Caz coming on! Got to run!)

You are indulging in the most blatant ex-post facto reasoning one can possibly imagine.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

I should say 'impulsive' behavior, not so much 'compulsive.' I would like a serious answer to Mike's alleged stroke, however. Are people suggesting this was faked? That it wasn't real? I am genuinely curious.

[The Baron]

I have to say that the evidence points very strongly towards Bongo Barrett being

a complete idiot.


Therein lies the potential solution to your quandary. If

a complete idiot

thinks they'd like to know what an actual 1888 diary might look like, they might pay good money to purchase one. If a similar (perhaps the same)

complete idiot

thinks they might make a copy of their scrapbook to take to London (in case they lose possession of the original in the process)

How on earth can anyone write such an excuse!

only one thing:

Despair!



The Baron

[Observer]

Now that hurt.

I'm not bragging by the way, I'd tell you who I support but you'd only laugh

[Iconoclast]

You are indulging in the most blatant ex-post facto reasoning one can possibly imagine.

Well you would say that dear boy, would you not?

By the way, what did Barrett's medical records say about his 'stroke'?

[Iconoclast]

I'm not bragging by the way, I'd tell you who I support but you'd only laugh

Go on - I love a good laugh at someone else's expense ...

[Iconoclast]

How on earth can anyone write such an excuse!

only one thing:

Despair!



The Baron

The Baron,

No problem on the despair thing - perfectly plausible in this day and age.

But, Lordy, spare a copper for a poor 'un, and share wiv 'im why Bongo wanted a diary from 1890, guv'nor.

PS I have no idea why I'm trying to put on a silly Cockney accent.

Ike Van Dyke

[Observer]

I have to say that the evidence points very strongly towards Bongo Barrett being a complete idiot. Therein lies the potential solution to your quandary. If a complete idiot thinks they'd like to know what an actual 1888 diary might look like, they might pay good money to purchase one. If a similar (perhaps the same) complete idiot thinks they might make a copy of their scrapbook to take to London (in case they lose possession of the original in the process), they might simultaneously ask that the diary they purchase contain at least 20 blank pages.

Lets be honest none of us with an interest in the case, and I'm including those who met the man, are in a position to say whether or not he had the mental ability to conceive and compose the diary. It's a pity those who were involved with Barrett at he time of the Diary's emergence failed to look into Barretts "career" as a part time writer of articles for a pop magazine. In my opinion the man, was far from being an idiot. Of coarse those with a desire to distance Barrett with any involvement in the production of the Diary would have us believe the man was little short of being an imbecile, barely able to sign his own name. How many of those individuals knew the man intimately before 1992? How many were around and were on intimate terms with Barrett at the time when those articles were produced by him for the pop magazine?

ack atcha Observer: Why do you suppose Mike Barrett bought the maroon coloured leather diary in March 1992 and was willing to accept one from 1890?

Barrett would have had no idea with regard to the format of the maroon diary. He might have envisaged it being fit for purpose with regard to it being a vehicle to produce his hoax. That is perhaps 1890 appeared only on the front page. He certainly wasn't averse to cutting pages from the scrap book. I believe the scarp book was indeed purchased when he said it was, his hoax done and dusted and ready to go before he purchased the maroon diary. I believe he wasn't happy with the scrap book, and decided to purchase a real diary, which of course wasn't fit for purpose due to there being insufficient space to accommodate the text in full.

[Observer]

Go on - I love a good laugh at someone else's expense ...

Give three cheers for S.A.F.C admit they are a bigger club than the miserable Magpies and wear a Sunderland shirt for the next three months preferably a vintage one from their 1973 cup winning side, and I might be tempted

[Observer]

By the way Ike, what do you make of this quote from the Diary?

" I believe if chance prevails I will burn St. James’s to the ground."

Was Maybrick a Sunderland fan?

I know St Jame's wasn't in existence in the late 1880's but perhaps he was a prophet

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

(I started stocking-up in 1974.)

So it was you that hoarded all the Izal!

[Iconoclast]

I believe he wasn't happy with the scrap book, and decided to purchase a real diary, which of course wasn't fit for purpose due to there being insufficient space to accommodate the text in full.

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