google ngrams

[Iconoclast]

Okay Ike, no need to spell it out.

If you're sticking with the bizarre 'doppelganger' subterfuge, that answers my question.

Well you did ask me for a scenario which worked in the teens of what you described.

Personally, I prefer the other theory but I have to say the doppelgänger theory does explain why Barrett accepted the otherwise painfully inappropriate 1891 diary.

[Lombro2]

To believe the doppelganger theory, you'd have to believe that a thief who steals a Rolex would look at the real one to see if his is real. And believe that fences would think of hiding their stolen wares amidst legitimate goods that are the same or similar. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

That would be like a thief selling a stolen watch to a jeweler who sells watches! As if!

[Iconoclast]

To believe the doppelganger theory, you'd have to believe that a thief who steals a Rolex would look at the real one to see if his is real. And believe that fences would think of hiding their stolen wares amidst legitimate goods that are the same or similar. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

That would be like a thief selling a stolen watch to a jeweler who sells watches! As if!

Honestly, Lombro2, I've no idea what you're saying.

Keep it simple, mate. Skip the analogies. Michael Barrett would not have given a moment's thought to how rational his thought process was to anyone else. He had a priceless gold bar in his hands and the fear of losing it also would have been weighing very heavy on those hands. If he had the notion that he might protect it even in some very small way which others would consider inappropriate or irrelevant, I don't see him worrying a jot about that.

What would £25 in 1992 (around £75 today) be to an unskilled, working class bloke who has just found a gold bar and doesn't know what to do with it and fears he might lose it soon?

I appreciate that I am also working with an analogy here but I think mine is a bit simpler to grasp.



Do you honestly think Mike Barrett would act in a calm and rational manner if he had suddenly come across one of these and thought he might be able to keep it?

Even though it was obviously someone else's possession?

[rjpalmer]

Michael Barrett would not have given a moment's thought to how rational his thought process was

Notice the sophistry, dear readers. The bottom-of-the-barrel sophistry.

Tom's theory is barking mad--and he knows it--it's never made the least bit of sense--but presto/chango!--not a problem--just pretend it would have made sense to Barrett. Which of course it wouldn't have.

We can now understand why John Wheat is entirely correct to say, "The diary is bullshit!" and leave it at that without any further commentary or engagement.

Wise man, Mr. Wheat.

[Iconoclast]

Whenever a commentator on Casebook says a thory is 'barking mad', you can rest assured someone has got them beat and they know it.

It's the go-to response when you don't have a sensible response. I think we all know that.

[Lombro2]

Hey, Ike,

Do you ever feel like you're in a clown car discussion?

[Lombro2]

It’s so unfortunate that we lose our minds and our ability to understand our first language (my second which is always better when it comes to analysis) and how that make us unable to even debunk what-we-believe-is-the-equivalent-of Santa as the Ripper. Or saintly Scrooge.

I can see why you'd run away from this irrationality or follow it's smoke to see where the fire is.

PS I can't believe Scrooge Approved didn't make it on Google Ngrams!

[Iconoclast]

Hey, Ike,
Do you ever feel like you're in a clown car discussion?

I probably do - if I knew what a clown car was ...

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

I confess that I'm surprised (and highly amused) by your use of a gold brick to symbolize the Maybrick Diary. It's deliciously fitting.

It must not be the case in the UK, but here in the U.S., a "gold brick" is synonymous with a fraud, a fake, a con game.

Some historians attribute the "gold brick scam" or the "gold brick game" to the con man Reed 'Kidd' Waddell, who in the 1880s sold lead bars covered with a thin layer of gold to his dupes, who of course believed they were buying stolen gold ingots at a bargain price.

One still occasionally hears the term "goldbricker" used to describe a grifter.

I've often wondered what scams Barrett might have pulled as a 'scales man' at the scrap metal yard. A well-positioned thumb can push up on a scale as well as down.

Reed ‘Kid’ Waddell, international con man | SangamonLink

[C. F. Leon]

...



Do you honestly think Mike Barrett would act in a calm and rational manner if he had suddenly come across one of these and thought he might be able to keep it?

Even though it was obviously someone else's possession?

A standard "one of these" nowadays is more than 27 lbs (12+ kg) and stamped with the bank/institution's id. They also are alloyed with a certain agent of identifying impurities. And just what the Hell do you DO with it? Scrape off the identifying marks? A chemical analysis will identify just who it was stolen from. Melt it down? Can't be done in the local elementary school's kiln during off-hours. It takes professional equipment. Put it in a display case in the living room? That will last only until your kid blabs to his friends, who tell their parents, who then call the feds.

BTW, a standard brick is currently worth around $1.25 MILLION. (As a consequence of my rounding, it's about the same in Euros. Yes, I rounded my figures. Sue me.)

And now you know.

[Iconoclast]

A standard "one of these" nowadays is more than 27 lbs (12+ kg) and stamped with the bank/institution's id. They also are alloyed with a certain agent of identifying impurities. And just what the Hell do you DO with it? Scrape off the identifying marks? A chemical analysis will identify just who it was stolen from. Melt it down? Can't be done in the local elementary school's kiln during off-hours. It takes professional equipment. Put it in a display case in the living room? That will last only until your kid blabs to his friends, who tell their parents, who then call the feds.

BTW, a standard brick is currently worth around $1.25 MILLION. (As a consequence of my rounding, it's about the same in Euros. Yes, I rounded my figures. Sue me.)

And now you know.

I think the scrapbook was a lot less heavy, and it was to the scrapbook I was referring via the medium of a cunning analogy which RJ Palmer (spoilsport) has pointed-out was brim full of irony on my part ...

[Lombro2]

Goldbricking has many meanings. It also means:

invent excuses to avoid a task; shirk.
"he wasn't goldbricking; he was really sick"
"He's goldbricking. He avoids the task and skips steps, like actually proving his theory, and just invents an entire behavior pattern, complete life cycle and feeding habits for the Bigfoot."


a lazy person.
"hardworking Amos and goldbrick Andy"
"hardworking Ike and goldbrick $$$!"

[caz]

2. Notice the self-own in bold. What does it mean that it would "end up costing [Mike] no more than a phone call?" Once Barrett was informed by Martin Earl that he could indeed be supplied with an old blank Victorian Diary, Mike could have ended the phone call if the above theory made sense. But the theory doesn't make sense because Mike didn't do that. Mike ordered the bloody thing. It did cost him more than a phone call --it cost him twenty-five pounds he couldn't afford--for the obvious reason that a suspicious Barrett wasn't merely testing whether such an item could be obtained, he was attempting to obtain it for himself! The theory must be abandoned on this point alone.

I agree: Palmer's theory must be abandoned on this point alone. It cost Mike nothing, because he never had any intention of paying £25. He was put down as a 'late payer' and good old Anne came to the rescue. I was wrong about the cost of the phone call, though, if he made it from Goldie Street and Anne was paying the phone bills.

3. What Barrett allegedly saw down the boozer had dozens of pages of handwriting. If his goal was to test how easily such an item could be obtained, why would he ask for a diary with as little as twenty-blank pages? That makes no sense, either.

Come on! He wouldn't have been testing how easy it was to obtain exactly 63 blank pages. All he needed to know was how easily a prankster could have obtained enough blank pages to fake a diary by JtR. If a request for a minimum of twenty blank pages would have been pushing it, he could have been more confident that sixty would have been a much bigger 'ask' - much as I dislike that expression.

4. Finally, once Martin Earl confirmed that such a diary was obtainable, did Barrett cancel the alleged black-market deal with Ed Lyons, now convinced blank diaries could be easily obtained? Did he heck. None of this happened, of course, but Barrett was clearly in possession of the diary in London in April. It's a theory in search of confirmation, and the confirmation is non-existent.

Er, it wasn't obtainable - not within that short time frame, at least. The tiny 1891 diary was not exactly any prankster's dream, unless Palmer is looking for a 'mental vegetable' to fit his theory.

[rjpalmer]

Well, since I did bring this up...

Come on! He wouldn't have been testing how easy it was to obtain exactly 63 blank pages. All he needed to know was how easily a prankster could have obtained enough blank pages to fake a diary by JtR.

Whoa there. Don't blame me that your theory is flawed.

If the diary only existed as an idea or as a rough manuscript in March 1992, it would have made perfect sense for Barrett to ask for a minimum of twenty blank pages--he could always adapt or annotate the typescript to fit whatever Martin Earl could come up with.

But that's not your theory. You are claiming the diary DID exist and Barrett was shown the diary down the boozer. Even a quick examination would reveal there was 60-70 pages of handwriting in it. If Barrett was testing to see if such a blank diary could be obtained with the requisite number of pages--and that's what you stated--asking for a minimum of 20 pages doesn't make a hell fo a lot of sense, particularly to Mike's vegetable mentality, since that wouldn't allow for the creation of even 1/3rd of the diary he had seen. Wouldn't it have been far more logical and natural to ask for a blank diary with a minimum of 60-70 pages in order to mirror what he had seen???

It is interesting, however, that you are admitting in a roundabout way that Barrett was attempting to obtain the raw materials for a hoax. Kudos for that. You're 90% of the way, now just begrudgingly limp the last 10%.

It cost Mike nothing, because he never had any intention of paying £25. He was put down as a 'late payer' and good old Anne came to the rescue.

This is beside the point. Mike ordered the diary and was duly billed for it, and it duly arrived. He need not have done any of that (and could have avoided the scolding from Anne who DID pay for it) if his motive was just testing to see if it could be done. I see it as another flaw.

It's also pure speculation that Barrett never intended to pay for it. That could be the case, if overly optimistic since business owners keep sending bills indefinitely, but if Martin Fido's theory is correct, and Barrett was planning to turn Anne's typescript into an artifact, he could have wanted to find a way to pay for it without Anne's knowledge and was struggling to get it done. He could have been skimming off grocery money until he had enough for a money order, for instance. Anne controlled the finances.

I still think it is odd--and probably significant--that Anne only signed a blank cheque and Mike filled out the details. It's as if she was limiting her involvement. The delay in paying could be seen as evidence of Anne resisting Barrett's scheme. It's uncertain, but it's a strange detail and unless Keith Skinner uncovered evidence that Anne was in the frequent habit of signing blank cheques for an alcoholic (which seems wildly implausible) some sort of explanation is in order.

Still, it's good to see someone admitting that Barrett's request to Earl is only explainable as an attempt to obtain the raw materials for a hoax.

[caz]

Whenever a commentator on Casebook says a thory is 'barking mad', you can rest assured someone has got them beat and they know it.

It's the go-to response when you don't have a sensible response. I think we all know that.

What I find amusing is that we happy few Barrett sceptics have been accused in the recent past of doing the 'gaslighting', which is a bit rich when you seem to have been singled out as someone who not only has a 'barking mad' theory, but knows it's barking mad - and posters are being encouraged to join in with the pointing and laughing.

On the evening of my birthday I messaged my daughter to say: 'Just watched Gaslight with Ingrid Bergman.'

She came back, quick as a flash, with: 'No you didn't'.

Works on two levels.

Everyone who ever had a minority theory that was proved right, was considered 'barking mad' by the baying masses.

It's not anything to worry about, unless you are among those doing the baying and have no mind to call your own.

Love,

Caz
X