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

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is my point. You attempt to present an argument but we can’t get past the derivative issues which have been addressed a million times because someone will then post (having almost no knowledge of the case and no knowledge that the issues have been addressed over and over again - maybe not satisfactorily in their opinion but addressed nevertheless) and we go around again making no progress.

You know you’re onto a loser when the responses you get assure you that you’ve got literally every detail of every idea you’ve ever presented stonewall wrong. So you’re either stupid and can’t make a cogent argument without erring or else it’s not worth responding because you know there will be no real discussion or concessions of any form.

You really know it’s a forlorn journey you’re on when you present an argument which gets roundly mocked by various quarters whilst the doyens of the argument you are countering get away with exactly the same process without a word of criticism.

All anyone can ask for is that arguments are heard and given fair airtime not crushed with frequently really dreadful logic.

Finally, if you have to ask for answers to the old canards, you should know you’re in serious danger of being a Johnny-Come-Lately to this (or any other) particular debate.

Hi Ike,

In #199 you asked for an answer to the question as to why Michael Barrett's affidavit included the wrong date for when Barrett started to expose the fraud. Could that question not reasonably be described as an old canard?

I have to ask though, in regard to your last question, surely you aren’t suggesting that those of us who don’t have years of experience of all things diary should bother contributing?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it does not concern you that Barrett’s request included 1890, you really should ask yourself why you might be ignoring it.

Hi Ike,

Have you considered the possibility that what Mike was attempting to get hold of was authentic paper which would be scientifically indistinguishable from paper from the time of the Ripper murders?

[caz]

As far as I know, it doesn't matter if an expert looks at a forged document one day after it's been forged or one year afterwards, or at least it didn't in 1992. There obviously weren't any reliable tools to enable them to differentiate between the two, other than perhaps a solubility test but not everyone seems to accept the result of the one that Baxendale did. So I'm not terribly impressed by the fact that the forger might only have just finished writing it before producing it. I suspect that's true of all or most forgers. They want to make their money as fast as they can.

Morning Herlock,

I just wanted to remind you that in this case, Mike Barrett would have wanted his wife's 'blind forgery' - if you believe RJ Palmer's theory has merit - to be mistaken for a document dating back to 1888, so there'd have been no benefit to him whatsoever if the experts in 1992 could not tell the difference between one penned yesterday and one penned a year ago. He'd have been hoping, on 13th April 1992, on the train to London, that nobody who might be invited to examine the diary that day, or in the days, weeks and months to come, would be able to distinguish between ink applied to paper in early April 1992, and ink applied when Maybrick was alive.

I still wonder what knowledge Mike would have had about such matters before you could Google it, and how confident he'd have been on a scale of one to ten, that it wouldn't go very quickly pear-shaped if he and Anne had created a document such as this one.

Surely, you have to take into account what the people who actually met or knew the Barretts would think of all this, and not just dismiss them as no more qualified, or even less qualified to comment, than those of you who don't know the real Mike or Anne from the mythical Adam and Eve - or the fictionalised Macbeth and Lady Macbeth if you prefer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

The Barrett accusers do not consider the 1891 maroon diary to be evidence. What--or who-- has left you have that false impression?

Someone has misdirected your attention with that little red diary, has decoyed you down the garden path.

Don't let them do that.

If it does not concern you that Barrett’s request included 1890, you really should ask yourself why you might be ignoring it.

[Iconoclast]

… throwing out the same questions over and over that have already been explained doesn't help.

This is my point. You attempt to present an argument but we can’t get past the derivative issues which have been addressed a million times because someone will then post (having almost no knowledge of the case and no knowledge that the issues have been addressed over and over again - maybe not satisfactorily in their opinion but addressed nevertheless) and we go around again making no progress.

You know you’re onto a loser when the responses you get assure you that you’ve got literally every detail of every idea you’ve ever presented stonewall wrong. So you’re either stupid and can’t make a cogent argument without erring or else it’s not worth responding because you know there will be no real discussion or concessions of any form.

You really know it’s a forlorn journey you’re on when you present an argument which gets roundly mocked by various quarters whilst the doyens of the argument you are countering get away with exactly the same process without a word of criticism.

All anyone can ask for is that arguments are heard and given fair airtime not crushed with frequently really dreadful logic.

Finally, if you have to ask for answers to the old canards, you should know you’re in serious danger of being a Johnny-Come-Lately to this (or any other) particular debate.