The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

Yes, RJ, which elements of Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit "have been confirmed"?

I'll borrow one from your playbook, Ike.

I'd name all the elements right here & now if I thought for a moment, you wouldn't immediately spin them.

I count six, arguably seven, elements in Barrett's confession that have been directly or indirectly confirmed.

But I'm currently toying with the idea of writing up my final analysis of the diary so I don't need to discuss it again. Something along the lines of 'the top twenty reasons we know the Diary is a modern fake, and that Barrett was undoubtedly involved.'

I'll give you a heads up when or if it drops. I have other irons in the fire.

[rjpalmer]

I'd give you the very quotation if I thought for a moment RJ wouldn't immediately spin it. .

I enjoyed the above comment from Ike, Herlock.

It's a good companion piece to this recent one:

It is customary - especially when challenged - to be clear on a citation but if you just want to make a claim here without backing it up, I guess there's little anyone can do (bar wonder ether you are correct or not)?

But please don't cite reasons why you won't when perhaps people are wondering whether in truth it is more that you can't.

I, of course, immediately posted the relevant citation from Dr. Joe Nickell (even though Nickell's quote should have been obvious to even the most neophyte Maybrickian) to prove my accuracy.

What is stopping Ike from jumping in if he has the quote? Or are people now wondering whether in truth Ike can't give the quotation?

As for me, I'm afraid I have little insight into the accuracy of Caroline's claims. I'm still waiting for evidence that Barrett 'immediately invited the experts to examine' the diary.

I was under the impression, based on her theories, that Barrett didn't immediately invite any experts to examine it, and within minutes of seeing the diary called up a literary agent.

Perhaps it's just me, but I find that worrisome. Barrett's behavior compares unfavorably even to the behavior of Russell Edwards and Tim Atkinson who did seek expert opinion. Mike went straight to the fountain of cash flow and there's not even any solid evidence that the diary physically existed when he made that first call to London under the alias "Mr. Williams."

[Iconoclast]

What elements?

Yes, RJ, which elements of Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit "have been confirmed"?

Did you mean the bit where he gave his name truthfully this time?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Roger, can I just check something with you. Is: "she was speaking to Doreen for the first time and telling her the diary was safely in the bank in case of fire or theft", as Caz put it, an accurate summary of what was said?
Are you able to pinpoint the source of Anne's expressed worry about fire for me? I've seen it mentioned in posts but I don't quite know where it came from.

I'd give you the very quotation if I thought for a moment RJ wouldn't immediately spin it. Maybe I wouldn't have been so alert to the possibility if he hadn't just posted the following gem:

It is a puzzle for the reader to solve, and Barrett, infamously, was a maker of children's puzzles for Look-In before he came forward with the hoaxed diary.

I think this could be the very apogee of RJ's ceaseless attempts to turn every event into a bright torch shining on a Barrett hoax.

[Iconoclast]

Hey, Ike, how do you like being called a "religionist"? About as much as Caz likes being called a "Maybrickian"?

So, in this faith-based "religion", is Maybrick God or the Devil? Is he an object or worship? Or is he your Profit?

I'll ask him when I get down there, Lombro2.