The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)

[John Wheat]

What Ike is dancing round is that there is no plausible reason why the Barretts couldn't have created the diary.

[rjpalmer]

Ike is probably still recovering from yesterday's shocking events in Birmingham and will answer in due time, but in his defense--yes, I wrote that--in his defense!---I can understand why the question of Mike & Anne's potential authorship doesn't interest him.

He believes Maybrick wrote the diary, so by logical extension Mike & Anne couldn't have. He probably finds the question impertinent. It's like asking him if he fancies Miss X, when he's married to Mrs. I. He only has eyes for Maybrick.

More strange are those who don't think Maybrick wrote the diary, have no other specific author in mind, insist they are perfectly happy with it being a modern fake, but who nonetheless dismiss the possibility of Mike & Anne's authorship with ferocity---as if even posing the question is a sign of mental derangement or a bizarre flight of fancy.

[John Wheat]

Ike is probably still recovering from yesterday's shocking events in Birmingham and will answer in due time, but in his defense--yes, I wrote that--in his defense!---I can understand why the question of Mike & Anne's potential authorship doesn't interest him.

He believes Maybrick wrote the diary, so by logical extension Mike & Anne couldn't have. He probably finds the question impertinent. It's like asking him if he fancies Miss X, when he's married to Mrs. I. He only has eyes for Maybrick.

More strange are those who don't think Maybrick wrote the diary, have no other specific author in mind, insist they are perfectly happy with it being a modern fake, but who nonetheless dismiss the possibility of Mike & Anne's authorship with ferocity---as if even posing the question is a sign of mental derangement or a bizarre flight of fancy.

Hi RJ

That doesn't alter the fact that there is no plausible reason why Anne and Mike Barrett couldn't have written the diary. Also there is no proof whatsoever that James Maybrick wrote the diary. However I too find it strange that those who believe the diary a modern fake but dismiss the idea the Barrett's wrote it completely out of hand.

Cheers John

[Iconoclast]

Rather than having to invent a host of imaginary events - and ignore a load of made-up ones which clearly don't fit with what is known - how about if the true events of 1992 were as follows?

March 9, 1992: Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling find an old Victorian document under the floorboards of James Maybrick's last residence. They take their find to The Saddle, near to where Eddie lives.
March 9, 1992: Mike Barrett goes into The Saddle and comes out with the Maybrick scrapbook [this is the quicker version than the one where he sees it but doesn't come out with it].
March 9, 1992: He has read through the scrapbook and realises he's picked-up a potentially priceless - and probably very hookey - document.
March 9, 1992: He rings Rupert Crew Ltd. to see if they'd be interested in seeing it. They are interested.
March 10, 1992: Mike does not want to have to take the original scrapbook to London and nor does he want to run the risk of having to give it back if someone in authority asks for it (or at least asks to see it). He also wonders if this is a joke and therefore he'd like to know how easy it would be to locate a Victorian diary. So he contacts HP Bookfinders and places an ad for a Victorian diary into which he plans to write as much of the original diary as he can and take that to London rather than risk taking the original.
March 29, 1992 (or so): He gets the best HP Bookfinders can find and it's clearly inadequate for creating a copy to safeguard the original. He's disappointed and realises he's going to have to take the original document to London where - for all he knows - it will be taken off him. The good news, however, is that more or less three weeks have passed. no-one has come knocking at his door wanting their Maybrick scrapbook back.
March 30-April 12: Mike dictates the scrapbook's contents to Anne who types them up to the best of her and Mike's ability so that Rupert Crew will have a good transcript of the text to make reading easier.
April 13, 1992: Mike goes to London and the rest is history.

There, now. No need for any of the thousand histrionics and contortions required to support any other theory of what actually happened.

So simple. So much so that there is no plausible reason why Mike Barrett couldn't have received an authentic confession of James Maybrick's crimes in 1888.

My question to you is, Why could this not have been true? Not, Is it true?, note, but Why could this not have been true?

I welcome your thoughts, everyone, as this seems to be the preferred means of framing the key questions on Maybrick these days.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Rather than having to invent a host of imaginary events - and ignore a load of made-up ones which clearly don't fit with what is known - how about if the true events of 1992 were as follows?

March 9, 1992: Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling find an old Victorian document under the floorboards of James Maybrick's last residence. They take their find to The Saddle, near to where Eddie lives.
March 9, 1992: Mike Barrett goes into The Saddle and comes out with the Maybrick scrapbook [this is the quicker version than the one where he sees it but doesn't come out with it].
March 9, 1992: He has read through the scrapbook and realises he's picked-up a potentially priceless - and probably very hookey - document.
March 9, 1992: He rings Rupert Crew Ltd. to see if they'd be interested in seeing it. They are interested.
March 10, 1992: Mike does not want to have to take the original scrapbook to London and nor does he want to run the risk of having to give it back if someone in authority asks for it (or at least asks to see it). He also wonders if this is a joke and therefore he'd like to know how easy it would be to locate a Victorian diary. So he contacts HP Bookfinders and places an ad for a Victorian diary into which he plans to write as much of the original diary as he can and take that to London rather than risk taking the original.
March 29, 1992 (or so): He gets the best HP Bookfinders can find and it's clearly inadequate for creating a copy to safeguard the original. He's disappointed and realises he's going to have to take the original document to London where - for all he knows - it will be taken off him. The good news, however, is that more or less three weeks have passed. no-one has come knocking at his door wanting their Maybrick scrapbook back.
March 30-April 12: Mike dictates the scrapbook's contents to Anne who types them up to the best of her and Mike's ability so that Rupert Crew will have a good transcript of the text to make reading easier.
April 13, 1992: Mike goes to London and the rest is history.

There, now. No need for any of the thousand histrionics and contortions required to support any other theory of what actually happened.

So simple. So much so that there is no plausible reason why Mike Barrett couldn't have received an authentic confession of James Maybrick's crimes in 1888.

My question to you is, Why could this not have been true? Not, Is it true?, note, but Why could this not have been true?

I welcome your thoughts, everyone, as this seems to be the preferred means of framing the key questions on Maybrick these days.

Ike

Are you in a competition to see how many barmy reasons you can offer up for Mike's attempt to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages in one post Ike?

Let's see what we've got:

1. Mike is worried for some unexplained reason about taking the original photograph album to London (because London is a hotbed of diary thieves?) and, rather than just type out a transcript on his word processor, wants to create a duplicate so he can cleverly show Doreen a definitely fake Jack the Ripper diary in his own childish handwriting, but in a diary from the 1880s so she'll think it's the real McCoy, and gain her trust that he owns a genuine Jack the Ripper diary before revealing that the real diary is at home because that's definitely going to work.

2. Mike is worried in case "someone in authority" (who exactly? the prime minister?) asks to see it, so he wants to create a new diary in something which will likely look nothing like the large black photograph album he'd been given so he can show that person a fake Jack the Ripper diary in his childish handwriting, but in a diary from the 1880s, because that will obviously satisfy them and make them go away thinking "Well that was a dud lead I was given about Mr Barrett owning a stolen Jack the Ripper diary in a large photograph album because the one he showed me was in a diary, not a photograph album, so I guess there must be two Jack the Ripper diaries in existence, goodness what an extraordinary coincidence."

3. Mike suspects it's all "a joke"' - ha ha! - so he wonders how easy it would be to obtain a large old looking black photograph album of the type he's been given....oh no, scrap that, he doesn't care about getting something that looks anything like what he's been given, he pointlessly just wants a diary from the 1880s even though he has no idea when the large photograph album was manufactured, whether it was the 1880s, 1910s or 1950s, so that obtaining a diary from, say 1884, will literally tell him nothing about whether he'd been given a genuine Victorian diary of Jack the Ripper in the large old black photograph album and will just be a waste of £25 even though he doesn't need to purchase the thing once he discovers that that an 1891 diary is available to purchase but, of course, he does because of the ludicrous points 1 and 2.

It makes no sense at all Ike but if it makes sense to you and helps get you through a difficult time in your life I'm very happy for you.

[Iconoclast]

It makes no sense at all Ike but if it makes sense to you and helps get you through a difficult time in your life I'm very happy for you.

A difficult time in my life, eh? And you're definitely not on the wind-up at all, then.

As you have dismissed my three points so very much out-of-hand, I guess by implication we should all just run with the fourth with just happens to be yours. Quelle surprise.

I assume that you must be the mystery guest on 'The Mind of Mike' podcast which RJ mentioned recently? If not, you really should be ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

A difficult time in my life, eh? And you're definitely not on the wind-up at all, then.

As you have dismissed my three points so very much out-of-hand, I guess by implication we should all just run with the fourth with just happens to be yours. Quelle surprise.

I assume that you must be the mystery guest on 'The Mind of Mike' podcast which RJ mentioned recently? If not, you really should be ...

No wind up Ike.

I appreciate that it almost feels like we all dreamt it but I certainly remember an anguished thread entitled "What is the Point of it All?" in which the poster spoke of "my long dark night of the soul" and reflected on the possibility that he'd been "investing so much time over the years proselytising and fighting to defend a belief no one else believes". That poster then disappeared for many many weeks and, for a brief moment in time, it seemed that he was at peace with himself. But of course not. And so it goes on with him playing the daily game of trying to argue the unarguable and defend the indefensible. How tragic.

[John Wheat]

Rather than having to invent a host of imaginary events - and ignore a load of made-up ones which clearly don't fit with what is known - how about if the true events of 1992 were as follows?

March 9, 1992: Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling find an old Victorian document under the floorboards of James Maybrick's last residence. They take their find to The Saddle, near to where Eddie lives.
March 9, 1992: Mike Barrett goes into The Saddle and comes out with the Maybrick scrapbook [this is the quicker version than the one where he sees it but doesn't come out with it].
March 9, 1992: He has read through the scrapbook and realises he's picked-up a potentially priceless - and probably very hookey - document.
March 9, 1992: He rings Rupert Crew Ltd. to see if they'd be interested in seeing it. They are interested.
March 10, 1992: Mike does not want to have to take the original scrapbook to London and nor does he want to run the risk of having to give it back if someone in authority asks for it (or at least asks to see it). He also wonders if this is a joke and therefore he'd like to know how easy it would be to locate a Victorian diary. So he contacts HP Bookfinders and places an ad for a Victorian diary into which he plans to write as much of the original diary as he can and take that to London rather than risk taking the original.
March 29, 1992 (or so): He gets the best HP Bookfinders can find and it's clearly inadequate for creating a copy to safeguard the original. He's disappointed and realises he's going to have to take the original document to London where - for all he knows - it will be taken off him. The good news, however, is that more or less three weeks have passed. no-one has come knocking at his door wanting their Maybrick scrapbook back.
March 30-April 12: Mike dictates the scrapbook's contents to Anne who types them up to the best of her and Mike's ability so that Rupert Crew will have a good transcript of the text to make reading easier.
April 13, 1992: Mike goes to London and the rest is history.

There, now. No need for any of the thousand histrionics and contortions required to support any other theory of what actually happened.

So simple. So much so that there is no plausible reason why Mike Barrett couldn't have received an authentic confession of James Maybrick's crimes in 1888.

My question to you is, Why could this not have been true? Not, Is it true?, note, but Why could this not have been true?

I welcome your thoughts, everyone, as this seems to be the preferred means of framing the key questions on Maybrick these days.

Ike

Considering the appalling provenance of the Diary it is up to those who believe the Diary to have been written by Maybrick to prove it not the other way round.

[Iconoclast]

No wind up Ike.

I appreciate that it almost feels like we all dreamt it but I certainly remember an anguished thread entitled "What is the Point of it All?" in which the poster spoke of "my long dark night of the soul" and reflected on the possibility that he'd been "investing so much time over the years proselytising and fighting to defend a belief no one else believes". That poster then disappeared for many many weeks and, for a brief moment in time, it seemed that he was at peace with himself. But of course not. And so it goes on with him playing the daily game of trying to argue the unarguable and defend the indefensible. How tragic.

I loved this one. Just like your Barrett-twisting, you and RJ were up to Ike-twisting too. How I laughed at the two of you! I didn't like to contradict poor old RJ as his was such a good post (I chuckle endlessly at the memory of his psychoanalysis - I even gave it a 'Like', wouldn't you?), but yours I just laughed at because it was so redolent of everything you've been doing since you came over to the real Jack the Ripper threads.

There was nothing whatsoever anguished about my thread. Nothing at all. I was being utterly ironic. I loved how much you and RJ read into "the long dark night of the soul". It was just a line I happened to be listening to from a Van Morrison track! I had no idea it meant fall from grace or whatever bollocks the religious nutters think it means!

It is true that I received almost no responses to my request (I got three if anyone is counting) and I did think I should just be concentrating on SocPill25 - which you thought was me at peace with myself, what twaddle! Plus, I was just enjoying the football, such fun!

But what brought me back in was watching a Maybrick video on YouTube which concluded that it wasn't him and reading the comments beneath it in which quite a few people said that they actually thought Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and I realised I'd been asking the wrong people the question. There are millions of people out there and relatively few in here. I was a voice in the wilderness (get the religious imagery, everyone?) but only because I was choosing to spend my time in the wilderness!

I'm probably a fool for coming back in but someone has to save my dear readers from your Johnny Come Lately posturing.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Considering the appalling provenance of the Diary it is up to those who believe the Diary to have been written by Maybrick to prove it not the other way round.

Oh dear. How embarrassing. You're talking about the burden of proof, right? Look it up. Definitely look it up before you make your next cut and paste claim.