New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Iconoclast]

The timescale for him to have been working at Battlecrease during the day but still finding time to travel immediately across Liverpool to meet Barrett in the Saddle pub before Barrett left to pick up his daughter at about 3.30, and hand over the diary, has never been properly established but would seem to be difficult if not downright impossible ...

The distance to travel was eight miles - they'd have to be driving in a Trabant to take longer than about 20 minutes!

... if (as seems to be part of "the Battlecrease theory") he first had to pay a visit to Liverpool University with Alan Rigby who, as we know from the timesheet, recorded a full eight hours work that day

I wasn't aware that Rigby's claim was that the visit to the university was definitely March 9, 1992, but - even if it was - let's call it another hour and a half so less than two hours and Eddie's in his local with the brilliant playwright Barrett hovering when he sees the old scrapbook.

You're right - it's quite impossible.

PS Are timesheets always accurate, do you think? Doddsy's in school. Who's checking?

[John Wheat]

Perhaps you've forgotten already, Ike, but only a few hours ago you wrote:"There is a significant amount of actual and circumstantial evidence supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the scrapbook."

I want to know what the "actual" evidence is, please.

I'd like to know too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Statistically speaking it would make the case slightly weaker. We can quickly establish that by asking if the case would have been weaker if the floorboards had been lifted on, say, May 13, 1889: in that case, then the link would obviously be very much weaker. The change in probability is difficult to calculate (I'm sure a better statistician than I could do so) but the direction of change cannot change - if it would have got very weak on, say, May 13, 1889, it would therefore have to have been weaker to some degree on March 6, 1992. I'm sure our old mate Jeff would concur at least on that point.

You are demonstrating how nonsensical your statistical case is Ike because if the diary had been found three days earlier by Eddie Lyons that would have given him much more time to digest what he'd discovered and to seek out Mike Barrett in order to give or sell him the diary. The timescale for him to have been working at Battlecrease during the day but still finding time to travel immediately across Liverpool to meet Barrett in the Saddle pub before Barrett left to pick up his daughter at about 3.30, and hand over the diary, has never been properly established but would seem to be difficult if not downright impossible if (as seems to be part of "the Battlecrease theory") he first had to pay a visit to Liverpool University with Alan Rigby who, as we know from the timesheet, recorded a full eight hours work that day

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, I'll give you that last one - the scrapbook does appear to have come out of 12 Goldie Street with no provenance then or now established. I guess that is circumstantial evidence.

I'm disappointed that you feel no-one has ever presented any circumstantial evidence in favour of the scrapbook being authentic. I mean, didn't Mike Barrett produce some the moment walked out of 12 Goldie Street with the scrapbook under his arm???

Perhaps you've forgotten already, Ike, but only a few hours ago you wrote:"There is a significant amount of actual and circumstantial evidence supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the scrapbook."

I want to know what the "actual" evidence is, please.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well it clearly depends upon the scale of the flaw, Herlock. A dating error is fair enough - it is not desirable but nor is it entirely crippling. It just leaves one with some doubt. But an episodic error is not acceptable - it is entirely of consequence. Even if committed 'accidentally' it is unforgivable to present episodically impossible reports as somehow evidence of proof of anything.



Come come, Herlock - having discounted the affidavit the way you have, let's not kid ourselves that it's a trend that you're at the back of the queue of. "But he confessed" is probably the most frequently typed series of words on this website.



Whenever I'm feeling down, I cheer myself up by listening to the pantomime that Barrett made of the Cloak and Dagger meeting in April 1999. I appreciate that Lord Orsam has twisted and turned and morphed it into a crystal-clear account of the whole criminal adventure but I still find much to laugh at, to say the very least. It's not as sparklingly gruesome as Barrett's Baker Street performance of 1995, but - perhaps because it was pretty much his swan-song - the 1999 fiasco is right up there. I don't avoid it like the plague - I embrace it because it utterly betrays Barrett for the Walter Mitty performance which ended Walter Mitty's career.



Too many variables, Herlock - what exactly are you claiming I don't seem to want to talk about? If it's tittle-tattle, I'm not interested. If it's crucial evidence that can lead us to a conclusion, I'm all ears.



As I believe that there is absolutely no evidence that Mike Barrett ever set foot in O&L nor any other auction house, I have to assume that neither Caz nor anyone else on the planet can be certain that "everything" Barrett said was correct or not. He may have been there and got it all correct. He may have been there and got it all wrong. He may not have been there and got it all right. He may not have been there and got it all wrong. He may have been there and got some of it right. Et cetera. We just don't know, but what I read into Caz's comment was that to the best of our knowledge the process Barrett described was not one which accurately described the process O&L followed in 1992 as reported by Kevin What of O&L when asked a few short years later.



I've no idea.



You only know of one which reminds us all that you are no more than a Johnny-Come-Lately to this section of the Casebook. Do your own hard yards, Herlock, instead of demanding that everyone else does them for you. Some time-served under your belt would save us all a great deal of re-hashing.



Again, Johnny, you're agonisingly late to the party. The beer's either all been drank or it's gone warm. Can I suggest you read all of the Maybrick threads before you claim the fridge is empty?



Again, Johnny, it's old hat and old beer. We don't know for certain that 'a one off instance' meant 'a one-off instance' (and not simply 'a one 'off' instance') and nor do we now for certain that even if it was intended as the former that Maybrick wasn't capable to using the term 'one-off' figuratively. You are convinced by Orsam's argument and others are not.

The Hitler diaries were written on paper which was genuinely not in production until after Hitler was corpse-side down so that's a rather easy one but the Maybrick 'paper' is all about the words put on it, and that is far from conclusive. I don't deny it is one to be properly countered one day but - honestly - if you weren't such a Johnny-Come-Lately you'd already know that many categoricals in this case now also lie corpse-side down in the gutter along with the twat who was born a few weeks before Maybrick went the same way.

Barrett didn't just confess in his affidavit Ike, he did so at the Cloak & Dagger meeting in April 1999. That said, I'm pretty sure I haven't relied on Mike's confessions for anything and I haven't seen anyone else doing it while I've been posting. What I haven't seen is any good reason why his confession can't be true.

Caz was explicit that an O&L auctioneer said that "everything" about Barrett's account of the O&L auction was wrong but has yet to provide any supporting evidence.

Of course "a one off instance" is the same as "a one-off instance", there's no doubt about it, and your attempts to try and argue otherwise are laughable. Not to mention desperate. It's the mistake by the forger which proves the diary to be a fake, written in the twentieth century

[rjpalmer]

**** me, you took that one personally!

Clearly I didn't know that you had made these efforts and been rebuffed and I'm disappointed that you have been as it would have been far better from the very start had everyone taken Mr Voller's advice and collaborated. Maybe the rebuffing had something to do with the chronically polarised positions people took far too early in the war - digging trenches on both sides when we could have shared a trench or not even built any at all. I wasn't part of the antipathy back then (I just like to keep stoking it now - joke!) but I would agree that it doesn't appear to have helped the debate one iota (other than giving me something to do to avoid working for a living)....

I didn't take it personally at all. I was just informing you that what you wrote is bosh...which seems to be my main hobby these days, even on Tax Day Eve (which means I really need to shut the computer down).

Ed Lyons already denied finding the diary and denied even knowing Barrett. We are constantly told that he 'admitted' to being at Battlecrease but this is worthless because he WAS at Battlecrease...later that summer. Did he admit to being there twice? We don't know, because we can't see the transcripts.

Even if he was there, he denies having found the diary or selling it to Barrett.

Anyway, have fun with it. I must figure out how much money I need to send to the U.S. government so our man President Musk can colonize Mars while simultaneously cutting Meals on Wheels for the elderly.

Ciao.

[Iconoclast]

Summary: Lots of impassioned ranting ...
RP

**** me, you took that one personally!

Clearly I didn't know that you had made these efforts and been rebuffed and I'm disappointed that you have been as it would have been far better from the very start had everyone taken Mr Voller's advice and collaborated. Maybe the rebuffing had something to do with the chronically polarised positions people took far too early in the war - digging trenches on both sides when we could have shared a trench or not even built any at all. I wasn't part of the antipathy back then (I just like to keep stoking it now - joke!) but I would agree that it doesn't appear to have helped the debate one iota (other than giving me something to do to avoid working for a living).

I think one Edward Lyons could also pull me out of my 'dark night of the soul'. On that note, you said "Similarly, you've made no secret of your particular contempt for the 'viperous' Melvin Harris, despite him being, rather famously, a critic of religious belief to the point of writing for Free Inquiry, knocking the Miracle at Knock, etc. And yet there is not a hint that you see him as a kindred spirit". To be absolutely clear, I don't see anyone as a kindred spirit. When God made me, he didn't throw away the mould - he didn't use a mould to throw away! Probably why I'm so soft and cuddly ...

[rjpalmer]

Are there more idle speculations amongst the scrapbook-detractors than serious attempts to get to the truth of the matter, I wonder?

The hypocrisy here is breathtaking, Ike. Lord Orsam & Co ask for documents--are denied--and then you claim he is not trying to get 'at the truth of the matter.'

In the rare instance that you 'leak' transcripts to this forum, they are uniformly detrimental to the diary's cause.

In fact, I wrote to Paul Dodd, gave him my email, etc. He never responded. I also wrote to Dr. Eastaugh (twice) about the edge of the photograph he once had in his possession--he never responded. Shirley Harrison doesn't respond, either, but she's 90 now and I assume she retired after her final call to Anne (who quickly hung up the receiver once talk turned to the diary). The poor woman wanted some light at the end of the tunnel--some sort of closure--and Anne snubbed her.

I've also been roundly snubbed by everyone other than the diary critics, Ike. Kenneth Rendell got back to me, so did Maurice Chittenden (though he was suspicious), and so does your good friend, Lord Orsam. A couple of others.

To be blunt, I don't think very many people want to talk about a thirty-three-year-old hoax, Ike. It's a sore subject with many. Maybe Mr. Hartley will have better luck with his podcast, but I see that his special guest listings are still "to be announced."

The only person that can pull you out of your 'dark night of the soul' is Anne Elizabeth Graham. She aint talkin'.

RP

[Iconoclast]

Instead, all we really have is Barrett calling a literary agent on the same day that Mr. Dodd had workmen in. That's it. How often did Mr. Dodd have people in? I have no idea, but it seems like he is the sort of chap that had a lot of renovations done.

I still find it interesting that Barrett used an alias for this rather important 'phone call, but both sides of the coin/argument/divide can easily cut this one in their favour, of course; but your line above does make me wonder what stops you (or Herlock, or whoever - even Wheat) from contacting Paul Dodds directly to get answers to your questions which the likes of me have no hope of properly answering.

Are there more idle speculations amongst the scrapbook-detractors than serious attempts to get to the truth of the matter, I wonder?

[jmenges]

Not so friendly reminder:

Greetings,

Comparing one of your fellow Casebook members to United States President Donald J. Trump will be considered a gross personal attack and points will be awarded accordingly.
This is the one warning.

JM

[Iconoclast]

If we ever meet, Ike, I'll have to beat you to a pulp for that statement.

And I would expect no less, RJ. Trump has wiped-out our humble investments and I am contemplating selling the dog, though having three legs may make this a slow gain. That's the dog with three legs, obviously, not I.

Thirty-three years ago yesterday Barrett brought this hoax to London.

Good spot! In eleven days time, it will be thirty-three years since I first asked Mrs I for a date (in The Last Drop, Edinburgh Grassmarket). Met, engaged, and married all in 1992 - how could we have known how much the late Queen's annus horribilis would plague us via the antics of the late Michael John Barrett?

[rjpalmer]

You're more like Trump than you realise.

If we ever meet, Ike, I'll have to beat you to a pulp for that statement. I'll then buy you a pint afterwards.

Asking to see the documentation is not 'like Trump.' Mr. T either shreds the documentation, uses burner phones so there was no documentation to begin with, or spirits it away to Mar-a-Lardo....

....where he shows the documentation to a select group of sympathetic friends (and any Russian spies that happen to be out & about).

Does that at all remind you of the current state of affairs?

Thirty-three years ago yesterday Barrett brought this hoax to London.

[Iconoclast]

But I know better than to ask to see the transcript.

If you could just be a little bit more patient, RJ. Lord, your generation are all, "I want it and I want it now". You're more like Trump than you realise.

[Iconoclast]

Tell me something, Ike. If the floorboards had been lifted on Friday 6th March 1992 (but not on Monday 9th March 1992) would this, in your view, be a stronger "circumstantial detail" pointing towards authenticity, a weaker one, or exactly the same?

Statistically speaking it would make the case slightly weaker. We can quickly establish that by asking if the case would have been weaker if the floorboards had been lifted on, say, May 13, 1889: in that case, then the link would obviously be very much weaker. The change in probability is difficult to calculate (I'm sure a better statistician than I could do so) but the direction of change cannot change - if it would have got very weak on, say, May 13, 1889, it would therefore have to have been weaker to some degree on March 6, 1992. I'm sure our old mate Jeff would concur at least on that point.

[Iconoclast]

Ike, would you mind telling me what "actual" evidence you think exists supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the diary exists? If it's a big secret, would you at least agree that there wasn't any presented in the original edition of Society's Pillar?

It strikes me as sheer nonsense to say that there's no circumstantial evidence that the Barretts wrote the diary, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence actually is.. The very fact that the diary first emerged from 12 Goldie Street, and has no known history before this, is, on its own, circumstantial evidence of the Barretts' authorship.

Well, I'll give you that last one - the scrapbook does appear to have come out of 12 Goldie Street with no provenance then or now established. I guess that is circumstantial evidence.

I'm disappointed that you feel no-one has ever presented any circumstantial evidence in favour of the scrapbook being authentic. I mean, didn't Mike Barrett produce some the moment walked out of 12 Goldie Street with the scrapbook under his arm???