Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61


    RJ,


    It may seem I’m trying to defend the diary by attempting to fend off the small pieces of evidence being used to undermine its authenticity, but I’m not. I know very little about the diary and from the little I have read, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that it had been written by Mike Barrett. It doesn’t really interest me very much.


    But I was intrigued by the list of supposed linguistic anachronisms - one-off, give her a ring, top myself etc - that were put forward as evidence of the diary’s modern creation.


    Far from being a David Irving trying to undermine the truth by focusing on minutiae, I’m primarily interested in the minutiae for its own sake. I don’t really give a toss whether the origins of any of these terms support or diminish anyone’s diary creation myth.


    But if someone says the diary’s a fake because no Victorian would have used ‘top’ to mean commit suicide by hanging and that strikes me as incorrect, I feel I am fully entitled to check it out and report my findings to those who might be interested in my findings. Those who aren’t interested, or who feel such curiosity to be akin to the methods used by holocaust deniers, should perhaps just ignore what I have to say. Or, if they feel it is outrageously unacceptable to be posted on the boards, have a word in Mr Menges’ ear.


    Gary


    Comment


    • #62
      They don't like it up 'em, Gary.

      RJ and others reveal themselves time and time again to have no actual interest in the origins of words and phrases, nor in fact in any evidence which directly challenges their entrenched beliefs in the Barretts as hoaxers, but more than anything, they can never, ever, admit to being wrong about anything.

      History doesn't matter to them. They can bend the Barretts into any shape of their own choosing. Anything to stop the ringing in their ears of the Battlecrease doorbell.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        Hi Gary.

        Why doesn't this do it for you?

        Click image for larger version

Name:	Barrett's Blunder.JPG
Views:	316
Size:	18.2 KB
ID:	737813

        Mike Barrett, who approached a literary agent using an alias, peddles a very dodgy document. He tells numerous lies, including when and why he bought his word processor. (All documented). Meanwhile, the dodgy diary fails an ink solubility test by Dr. David Baxendale, who was able to demonstrate that the ink had not yet fully bonded with the paper. Barrett later confesses to the hoax, and the above advertisement (located by David) proves to any rational person that Barrett was indeed shopping for blank Victorian paper in the weeks before showing up in London with said phony diary.

        How is this not game, set, and match?

        I mean, why does a person need at least twenty blank pages of Victorian paper if not to write in them?
        This is my timeline entry, showing that it was Keith Skinner, not Saint David, who first 'located' the advert:

        Thursday 19th March 1992
        BOOKDEALER, No. 1044, page 62:
        MARTIN E. EARL:
        'Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages'
        Extract supplied by Bookdealer, with info that issue 1044 went to press on 12th March 1992. Copy would have been received via post or fax between 6th and 12th March 1992. Ad only appeared in this issue.
        Source: Bookdealer extract and compliment slip (received by KS 8th December 2004)

        The fact remains, RJ, that when Martin Earl described in detail the tiny 1891 Victorian diary he had managed to locate for Mike Barrett, with a 25 price tag, Mike asked him to go ahead and order it for him, and it was sent out on 26th March 1992.

        If you still seriously believe Mike was expecting Anne [or some as yet unidentified mystery person] to use this for Maybrick's diary for 1888-9, I can only conclude you have gone into denial and nothing now would ever shake your faith in the Barretts as the hoaxers. You have presumably swallowed David's awesome auction whole too, and believe the scrapbook became the Maybrick diary between 31st March and 13th April 1992.

        I suspect Mike may have told Shirley early on that he had bought his word prosser for the purposes of transcribing the diary, in the hope of getting something back on expenses. An alternative explanation would be his tendency to lie about everything and anything, even when he had no reason, and even when the lies were as obvious as the nose on his face.

        Tell me, RJ, if it were found that the transcript and research notes, which Anne typed up, and which Mike gave to Doreen and co, were originally created after 9th March 1992, what would your explanation be?

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by caz View Post

          This is my timeline entry, showing that it was Keith Skinner, not Saint David, who first 'located' the advert:

          Thursday 19th March 1992
          BOOKDEALER, No. 1044, page 62:
          MARTIN E. EARL:
          'Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages'
          Extract supplied by Bookdealer, with info that issue 1044 went to press on 12th March 1992. Copy would have been received via post or fax between 6th and 12th March 1992. Ad only appeared in this issue.
          Source: Bookdealer extract and compliment slip (received by KS 8th December 2004)

          The fact remains, RJ, that when Martin Earl described in detail the tiny 1891 Victorian diary he had managed to locate for Mike Barrett, with a 25 price tag, Mike asked him to go ahead and order it for him, and it was sent out on 26th March 1992.

          If you still seriously believe Mike was expecting Anne [or some as yet unidentified mystery person] to use this for Maybrick's diary for 1888-9, I can only conclude you have gone into denial and nothing now would ever shake your faith in the Barretts as the hoaxers. You have presumably swallowed David's awesome auction whole too, and believe the scrapbook became the Maybrick diary between 31st March and 13th April 1992.

          I suspect Mike may have told Shirley early on that he had bought his word prosser for the purposes of transcribing the diary, in the hope of getting something back on expenses. An alternative explanation would be his tendency to lie about everything and anything, even when he had no reason, and even when the lies were as obvious as the nose on his face.

          Tell me, RJ, if it were found that the transcript and research notes, which Anne typed up, and which Mike gave to Doreen and co, were originally created after 9th March 1992, what would your explanation be?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Didn't Mike say he bought that as a comparison piece as he wasnt too sure if he was the victim of a hoodwink himself and wanted something to comapre what he had in his hands? Maybe I'm dreaming that.
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            This is what I don't get.

            Maybrick didn't write the diary. It's not in his handwriting.

            So why should I care what the real Maybrick 'almost certainly' would have known?

            If a counter-explanation requires that I suspend my disbelief in regards to the basic facts--ie., pretend that Maybrick was the author--- is it really a very good explanation?

            I guess what I am asking is this. Why analyze each element of a disputed document in isolation? Shouldn't one take a holistic approach, and decide what to believe based on a preponderance of all the evidence?

            Anyone can parse the 'evidence' into small pieces and then attack them individually. But isn't that what the David Irvings of the world do?

            There is a mountain of evidence that the Holocaust happened, but Irving instead focuses on small chemical anomalies found in the soil around concentration camps.

            Voila, he has proved something, at least in his own mind.

            Focusing on minutia isn't always a good thing, especially when one is being clubbed with the handle of a sledgehammer.
            Very good post. The idea of Maybrick as JtR is completely ludicrous. There's not a shred of substansive evidence that he was involved or, as far as I'm aware, that he ever visited Whitechapel.

            I don't know who wrote the diary. I suspect Mike had some involvement, but who really knows?

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              Here’s an example from 1864. It was a term used to describe an immature horse.
              Excellent find Gary.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by John G View Post

                The idea of Maybrick as JtR is completely ludicrous. There's not a shred of substansive evidence that he was involved or, as far as I'm aware, that he ever visited Whitechapel.
                How on earth do you have the status of 'Commissioner'? This cannot be your first rodeo, and yet you make as the lynchpin of your case against Maybrick that his candidature is 'ludicrous'. I've rarely read such closed-minded tosh. Have you noticed the other candidates? They are marked by two common qualities: No reason whatsoever to kill anyone, and no evidence whatsoever that they did. So why do you make Maybrick the 'ludicrous' case out of so very many you could have chosen?

                No evidence that he ever visited Whitechapel. Is that the best you've got? I hope you aren't a lawyer by profession. Is it critical to the case that there must be proof that he was in Whitechapel? Does that mean that all candidates for whom there is no evidence they were in Whitechapel are therefore exonerated from being linked to these crimes?

                For the record, there is undisputed evidence that he lived in Whitechapel with Sarah Robertson in the 1860s. He also had a brother who lived in London thereby providing him with legitimate reasons to visit the capital. Neither point proves that he was in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888, but I think you would have to explain to us why the lack of evidence that he was there somehow implies that he couldn't have been.

                Honestly, sometimes I weary of having to rail against this sort of mince infecting the Casebook.

                Ike
                Iconoclast

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  How on earth do you have the status of 'Commissioner'? This cannot be your first rodeo, and yet you make as the lynchpin of your case against Maybrick that his candidature is 'ludicrous'. I've rarely read such closed-minded tosh. Have you noticed the other candidates? They are marked by two common qualities: No reason whatsoever to kill anyone, and no evidence whatsoever that they did. So why do you make Maybrick the 'ludicrous' case out of so very many you could have chosen?

                  No evidence that he ever visited Whitechapel. Is that the best you've got? I hope you aren't a lawyer by profession. Is it critical to the case that there must be proof that he was in Whitechapel? Does that mean that all candidates for whom there is no evidence they were in Whitechapel are therefore exonerated from being linked to these crimes?

                  For the record, there is undisputed evidence that he lived in Whitechapel with Sarah Robertson in the 1860s. He also had a brother who lived in London thereby providing him with legitimate reasons to visit the capital. Neither point proves that he was in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888, but I think you would have to explain to us why the lack of evidence that he was there somehow implies that he couldn't have been.

                  Honestly, sometimes I weary of having to rail against this sort of mince infecting the Casebook.

                  Ike
                  What undisputed evidence? As far as I'm aware there's not even undisputed evidence that Sarah Robertson was ever married to this James Maybrick.

                  Anyway, the evidence is overwhelming that JtR was a local man with local knowledge . All of his activities were centred in an area of just one square mile, and even a greatly increased police presence didn't lead to him expanding this boundary. Put simply, he targetted victims in the area he was comfortable with. And the fact that Maybrick may have lived near to Whitechapel 24 years earlier does not qualify him as a local man with local knowledge. Neither does having a brother who lived in London.

                  For the record, I don't think there is much evidence against any candidate. And Maybrick does rank a notch above Jill the Ripper, the mad midwife, in my list of suspects, but that's the best that csn be said of his candidacy.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    MacNaghten makes for a better suspect than Maybrick.

                    You can be sure some of the Diary defenders don't know who Macnaghten was.


                    The Baron

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      James Maybrick spent a number of years as a shipping clerk in the docklands, which is close to the East End. He shacked up with Sarah Ann Robertson who has lived in and around Whitechapel most of her adult life and he also did business for Witt in London - where his offices were close to Whitechapel. How anyone can with a straight face say “We don’t even know Maybrick even visited Whitechapel” is certainly beyond my abilities of comprehension. He did. And quite often in his lifetime.
                      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                        MacNaghten makes for a better suspect than Maybrick.

                        You can be sure some of the Diary defenders don't know who Macnaghten was.


                        The Baron
                        Did the Ripper have any idea who McNaghten was? Or who Druitt, Kosminski, Lechmere or Maybrick were?

                        Almost certainly not.






                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          Did the Ripper have any idea who McNaghten was? Or who Druitt, Kosminski, Lechmere or Maybrick were?

                          Almost certainly not.

                          As you say, the Ripper certainly had no idea who Maybrick was.


                          The Baron

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                            Didn't Mike say he bought that as a comparison piece as he wasnt too sure if he was the victim of a hoodwink himself and wanted something to comapre what he had in his hands? Maybe I'm dreaming that.
                            Yes, Erobitha, you're dreaming that.

                            It was Anne Graham who made the flimsy excuse that Mike wanted to know what a genuine Victorian diary looked like. First off, there is no evidence that Graham even knew that Barrett made this purchase until well after-the-fact. Second, she made this excuse at the same time she was using every trick in the book to prove that Barrett hadn’t hoaxed the diary, including inventing an elaborate cover story that the diary had been in her family since the 1950s (something she hadn’t bothered to mention during the previous two years!) and even encouraged her dreadfully ill father to play along. Even Caz doesn’t believe this hokum, so why should I?

                            If you would, step back, take a deep breath, and think it through. Do you really find Anne’s explanation plausible?

                            A man in a pub is selling a questionable painting by 'Vermeer.'

                            Is your first impulse to rush out and buy a blank 17th Century canvas for comparison purposes?

                            What sort of sense would that make? What could this blank canvas possibly tell you about the authenticity of a Vermeer? Wouldn’t there have been a better way forward? Like take the 'Vermeer' to an expert?

                            It makes no sense.

                            Hi Caz - Can you or Keith produce any details of this alleged second conversation between Barrett and Martin Earl regarding the red diary, or am I to conclude that all Keith was really able to ascertain from Earl was his general policy/routine back in the 1980s and 90s? That, in fact, no record of this phone call exists, and thus we have no idea what passed between Earl and Barrett, or whether they even spoke a second time?

                            Am I understanding you correctly? You want us to believe that Martin Earl described this tiny, worthless memo book in great detail to Barrett, who willing forked out 25 pounds for it under the bizarre belief that he would be able to trade this worthless oddity, tit-for-tat, for a priceless artifact revealing the identity of one of the world’s most notorious unidentified killers? How on earth is that even remotely plausible? It doesn’t pass the smell test, and I am not certain it even passes the sanity test.

                            Let’s hang it up, shall we? This is beyond bonkers.

                            Last edited by rjpalmer; 07-21-2020, 07:47 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                              As you say, the Ripper certainly had no idea who Maybrick was.


                              The Baron
                              Did I say that?

                              Only fools and charlatans express certainty in this game.





                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                                James Maybrick spent a number of years as a shipping clerk in the docklands, which is close to the East End. He shacked up with Sarah Ann Robertson who has lived in and around Whitechapel most of her adult life and he also did business for Witt in London - where his offices were close to Whitechapel. How anyone can with a straight face say “We don’t even know Maybrick even visited Whitechapel” is certainly beyond my abilities of comprehension. He did. And quite often in his lifetime.
                                hi ero
                                but none of those things actually describe visiting WC do they? WC was a maze. i would imagine someone would have to walk those streets and alleyways, ie live there for at least a couple of months before they got to know them like the ripper did.

                                university of maryland is a big campus, i think maybe even roughly the same size geographically as wc/east end. but obviously not as maze like. i lived about forty minutes drive away when I was in HS and used to visit UM all the time. for sporting events, parties, visiting older freinds who went to school there etc. must been on campus two dozen times before i attended school there and moved into one of the dorms. i needed to carry around a campus map just to get to my classes for the first couple of weeks and didnt reaaly get to know it like the back of my hand for several months. this included many trips around campus and slightly off campus to go to stores, visit freinds, bars, parties. so i was out and about alot, not just going to classes and it still took daily treks of about twomonths to get really familiar.

                                and again, wc would have been much more complicated to navigate.so i think at least two months someone would have to live there walking the streets daily to accustomed to it like the ripper surely was.

                                maybrick would have been lost in the woods.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X