New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Lombro2]

I'm fairly confident he wrote that long before the Kelly murder. Could be wrong, of course ...

I thought so too. Imagine my shock when I read it was after.

The Diary does mention Lowry asking for the book “long before” the Kelly murder. It’s before his visit to Michael at the “end of June”.

So he’d have waited about six months before returning the pages and/or the “items” in them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm fairly confident he wrote that long before the Kelly murder. Could be wrong, of course ...

But, also, the diary author doesn't say that Lowry made him rip out the pages, does he?

[Iconoclast]

In the Diary, Lowry "makes him" rip out the pages after the MJK murder.

I'm fairly confident he wrote that long before the Kelly murder. Could be wrong, of course ...

[Lombro2]

I'm going with a pig's kidney.

The way Anne likes making porkers....

[Lombro2]

In the Diary, Lowry "makes him" rip out the pages after the MJK murder.

So if Maybrick was using the inside cover as a cutting board, then the stains obviously wouldn't get on his confession.

Barrett must have done the same. Good thinking! Leave just one page just in case it's still wet which it would probably be in his case.

[rjpalmer]

Sheep, pig, or human?

Knife drippings? Nice touch!

Robert Smith should have the stain tested if he has the courage of his convictions.

What are the odds? Human blood or flaxseed oil?

[Lombro2]

Sheep, pig, or human?

Knife drippings? Nice touch!

[Lombro2]

Until then, how about this mock-up?





"I send you half the Kidne I took from one women prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise"

[Lombro2]

Wow, it looks like I'm actually going to the one who has to write this. Help! Help!

Maybe we should have a Buwler-Lytton contest on a "wet weekend". Best narrative that begins with "It was a dark and stormy night" wins.

[Lombro2]

4. We (actually I and no one else) can concoct—I mean construct—a seamless narrative of how Michael Barrett created his masterpiece.

The story is “analogued” in my head. I assure you there are no holes or seams visible and it will explain everything. Now I just have to get it down in the casebook. It might take a while but just be patient. I’ll just set the opening scene:

It was a dark and stormy night one wet weekend…

[Iconoclast]

2. Barrett knew where "O Costly Intercourse of Death" came from.

He said he found it in the library.

Yes, it was in the library so he could have found it with five hours of research. But, around here, five hours of research constitutes a "Library Miracle". So we can rule that out. There are no miracles!

3. Barrett said he wrote the text in the scrapbook, though I'm now starting to think it must have been Alan Gray.

[Lombro2]

2. Barrett knew where "O Costly Intercourse of Death" came from.

He said he found it in the library.

Yes, it was in the library so he could have found it with five hours of research. But, around here, five hours of research constitutes a "Library Miracle". So we can rule that out. There are no miracles!

[Lombro2]

As you said, it's important to be fair. That means you have to be able to suspend disbelief and see things the way the other side sees it, if only for five minutes. So here goes:

The proof that Michael Barrett wrote the Diary

1. He had it in his possession.


PS Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

[Iconoclast]

I'll concede the Diary is a forgery ...

That's a shame. I had you down as one of the good guys.

Come over to the proper thread and let us all know why you are conceding that the scrapbook is a hoax when you know deep down it ain't.

[Lombro2]

So we've rightly shifted the onus to prove the Diary's authenticity to the people, or person, who believe it, or believes it. Because you can prove a positive and the onus is on the people who believe something to prove it.

But inexplicably Barrett Theory Believers have shifted the onus of proving their Belief to the Non-Believers. Now the Non-Believers are working away at proving Michael Barrett didn't write the Diary and the Believers are just ducking and dodging. And of course, shifting the onus back on them, and not holding themselves up to the same standard.

They can't be taking the onus and shifting it at the same time. You read Mike's words! You listen to Mike's words! Find something that's demonstrably and unequivocably, undeniably and incontrovertibly true! I'll just sit here and sip my tea.

Why don't the Believers take the onus to prove their own theory, their own positive that they're positive about?

PS. If they won't (I'm guessing they won't since they never have), I can do it. I'll concede the Diary is a forgery and prove that Barrett was the forger. I'm not chicken. I'll take the onus and take on all the 3 amigo Non-Believers. Ready!