|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Timothy_L
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 7:41 pm: |       |
I am wondering if anybody has done any kind of in-depth interviewing of Mike Barrett to force him to give useful information. Most notably, has he been given a polygraph test by a qualified expert and been interviewed by a trained interogator, police or otherwise?
Furthermore, has any kind psychiatrist/pschologist interviewed Mike Barrett in regards to determining some kind of pattern for his behavior in the past to see if there is some kind of behaviorial pattern that could shed some light in his continued story flip flopping?
Finally, although this may be deemed barbaric, has anybody attempted some kind of physical "interview" with Mike Barrett to see if any information could be gleaned? Or, some kind of drugs that could be used to break his will down?
Although none of the above methods are fool-proof, if Mike Barrett was involved in forging the diary it could put the whole diary debate to rest.
Thanks in advance for your answers,
Tim
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:12 am: | |
Hi Tim,
If Mike Barrett was involved in forging the diary it would have put the whole diary debate to rest - many years ago IMHO.
I have every faith in researchers such as the late Melvin Harris and Keith Skinner to have nailed Mike for his part in a modern hoax conspiracy, if that is where the truth lies.
I may not have the same faith in the boys in blue, but the police did question Mike back in 1993 and no case could be made against him.
Whether all this makes Mike too slippery for the combined forces of Melvin, Keith and Scotland Yard, or a scallywag caught up in something he still doesn't fully understand, is a matter of opinion.
I do know that the investigation continues, actively, quietly and constructively. If Mike was involved in a modern hoax, let's keep our fingers and toes crossed that it can eventually be proved to everyone's satisfaction, so we can all move on.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Timothy_L
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 1:04 pm: | |
Furthermore, has anybody bothered to look into Barrett's past in terms of his writing and spelling? I see in what I have read of his that he seems to constantly spell things wrong and then bring attention to the fact that he isn't a good speller, which I find suspicious. Usually bad spellers aren't aware that they are spelling things wrong and just treat it as their normal writing.
At any rate:
1) Has anybody located a batch of MB's writing pre-diary. Something like an old poem, old school writings, notes, something written before the diary was ever an issue? And then checked his spelling abilities and compared the writing to that of the diary?
2) Was the diary fingerprinted when it first appeared on the scene? I imagine it is totally contaminated with fingerprints by now, but initially they may have yielded some useful information.
3) Has/was the diary (been) tested for fibers and such? IE, any indication of small particles from clothing, hair, etc that would only be consistent with that of the late 1800's?
4) How about palms prints that would be consistent with the hand that had written the diary when it was initially "discovered"?
5) Has the diary ever been dismantled? In other words, has the cover paper ever been separated from the actual cover (the cardboard part) to see if perhaps some kind of maker's mark existed that wasn't obvious unless the diary was totally disassembled?
Tim
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Hi Tim,
Usually bad spellers aren't aware that they are spelling things wrong and just treat it as their normal writing.
Evidence please. I know several people who are well aware that spelling is not one of their strong points. I am constantly referring to the dictionary to check when I'm not sure I have spelled something correctly. In fact, everyone must know they are not perfect at spelling, since everyone spells incorrectly 'incorrectly'. 
I should think the early publicity surrounding Mike's 1994 'confession' would have sent everyone who knew him, including schoolfriends, teachers, workmates, friends and relations - and some who didn't know him, such as journalists - scurrying off to find examples they could compare with the diary facsimile in Shirley's book.
Yet not a single person has come forward to say that Mike's writing pre diary emergence would suggest that he could have penned the thing himself. I find that fairly remarkable in itself, unless Mike is so popular with everyone off the boards that no one would ever dream of dropping him in it.
What on earth would fingerprints show, apart from the fact that Mike had presumably read the diary before bringing it to London? Even if his were the only prints on or in the diary by this time, it would prove nothing, but that seems highly unlikely to have been the case.
The diary is actually hardbound in black cloth with leather binding, so I don't know where you get the 'cardboard part' from, or the 'cover paper'.
I don't have answers to your other questions, maybe someone else can help.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Hi Tim,
Either by deliberate design or by the sheer nature of his personality (I suspect the latter), Mike Barrett has accomplished something quite perversely brilliant. He has rendered himself completely unreliable in all things and to everyone. Whether or not he was involved in this hoax, turning to him or his past behavior for evidence becomes a no-win situation, since anything he has said or done in the past can always be instantly doubted and rendered useless as evidence because he has demonstrated himself to be such a repeated liar and thoroughly unreliable.
It's sad but true.
--John
PS: Remember, everyone here knows these are hoaxes. We are all now just killing time arguing about their age. That's how bored we are.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 6:07 am: | |
Hi everyone,
I love this thread it's fantastic!
Jenni |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 495
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
In certain stages of alcoholism, the mind simply does not form coherent memories. I agree with John's assessment about the 'sheer nature' of Barrett's personality. But it's also probable that Barrett was simply unable to give a coherent account of 1989-91. He had been drinking too heavily.
I also don't think Caz quite accurately portray's Melvin Harris's position. Harris stated on more than one occasion that he felt that Barrett had proved inside knowledge of the Diary's creation. So this is quite different than saying that Barrett wasn't "involved'.
Be that as it may, the theory that Barrett was simply lying in order to destroy Paul Feldman, or for the purpose of self-aggrandizement, etc., can be laid to rest. To use an old racing term, Barrett had been lying "out of the gate"...For instance, early on, he lied about why and when he bought the word processor. Mike's attempt at a "confession" doesn't explain these early deceptions.
|
T
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
Caz,
I'm interested in why I have to prove that most people who are bad spellers do know it.
But yet, you do not have to prove that somebody from long ago does not recognize MB's writing simply because they have never come foreward. You are arriving at a conclusion based on nothing but your general observation, yet I am chastized for it??? You don't have any proof whatsoever regarding what childhood friends etc looked at the writing or if anybody did recognize but did not come forward.
Fingerprints could have proven a lot. OBVIOUSLY, I was not implying that MB's fingerprints needed to be checked for. But you certainly could have seen whether AB's, BG's, any of those electricians from the house, or that Kane character had any prints on there. That could have answered a lot of questions about who had handled the diary.
My reference to taking apart the binding was because sometimes people put marks where they are not so obvious. For example, do you remember the Atari 2600? There was a game called Adventure for it. Programmers were not allowed to credit their name to Atari 2600 games. thus the designer of the program created what is called an "Easter Egg", which was soemthing that could be done in the game to announce his name. He did indeed implant this and the game was released without the company knowing about the Easter Egg. A while later, somebody did a special sequence in the game and the author of the game took credit.
My point is, often anonymous authors sometimes put clues somewhere that is not obvious so that they are forever remembered in history. Perhaps something was put somewhere that could only be found by dismantling parts that would normally not be dismantled. That's what I meant.
The only thing that seems difficult to put aside in this case is the watch, although it obviously has not been extensively tested.
I will respond here regarding my other thread regarding MB. Truth drugs and interrogation work period. You may think that we are in some special liberal age, but you just have your head in the sand. Physical intimidation always has worked and it always will. We are no different now than we were in our so-called witch hunting days. I am not suggesting that you get a false confession, I am suggesting that you put more pressure on the guy than having a couple of over the hill pencil pushers interview the guy. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:49 am: | |
Hi Tim,
You wrote:
I am not suggesting that you get a false confession...
How would we know if and when we got a true confession out of Mike?
There is no proof anywhere on the planet that Mike has yet told a single truth about when, where or how he acquired the diary, or a single verifiable fact about its creation.
People will swallow whole the bits they want to believe. I accept nothing that Mike has ever come out with, unless it has been verified independently, and that includes the one about finding 'o costly...' in the Liverpool Library - although I calculated on my recent trip there that if he had worked his way from left to right along each shelf, and from top to bottom shelf, a block at a time, starting with the left-hand three blocks clearly labelled English Literature (facing, and visible from, the entrance to the International Section), and moving towards the right-hand two blocks of Poetry Anthologies, he would have reached the three copies of the Sphere Vol 2 on the shelves in 1994 (only one there in October this year), after looking at approximately 190 other volumes, fewer if today's stocks are greater than ten years ago. The books are arranged alphabetically by author, or editor in the case of Ricks, and the Vol 2 can be located easily on the middle shelf of the middle English Lit block, and stands out from the predominantly dark colours of the surrounding volumes because its cover is creamy white.
Whatever else Mike could have manipulated and lied about, he could not have arranged those books in a better way before coming out with his tale of discovery. This part of the library was overdue for a complete reorganisation when I was there, so it may have been the last chance for anyone to see the shelves much as they would have looked in 1994.
By the way, there is a very well-stocked little second-hand bookshop in Mount Pleasant, that has been in the same business since 1982 (and a shop of some sort since 1785). It is virtually the only shop on the hill, apart from a couple of cafes and a barbers. The original YMCA building is opposite, but going on up the hill one finds mainly hotels, right up to "Paddy's Wigwam", as the magnificent RC Cathedral is affectionately called by the local population, Catholics included.
Mike's claim, to have found a Vol 2 in a book shop in Mount Pleasant back in 1994, may have been just one more throwaway lie. But it seemed to serve no particular purpose when he told it, and he managed to base it on a real shop that could well have stocked Vol 2 at the right time.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 8:02 am: | |
Some dreams never die.
Same old things, as always.
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 5:17 am: | |
Don't you think real research and thorough investigation are the only things that can finally put an end to dreams, one way or t'other?
If I were to discover, or if Keith Skinner were to discover, in the process of our research and investigation, that Mike was involved in the diary's creation (as many are happy to believe without moving from their computer screens), your own dream would come true - and you could leave this place knowing that your work here was done.
The only possible reason I can think of for sneering at this kind of research and not encouraging it is that you'd miss it like hell if you could no longer sit and pontificate over other people's imagined shortcomings.
You really should get out more.
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 8:55 am: | |
Awwww, such a brave and bold piece of ground-breaking "research" -- describing the books she saw on the library shelves. Of course, I think I saw a picture of these very same books on these very same shelves in some book or other.  Still...
It doesn't make the miracle of Mike's lie any more likely of course. But it sure increases Caroline's net worth as a "researcher," I guess.
I shouldn't have sneered at her immortal dream.
I'm sorry,
--John (in his place and quite happy there)
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 277
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Whatho John,
At least Caz had a look and didn't depend on a photograph.
By the way Caz, was there any John Betjeman there? England's greatest poet without a doubt.
Cheers, Mark (Come friendly bombs, Slough's need is even greater now) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 920
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 6:37 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I'm afraid you missed the joke about which book it was.
But thanks for the thought. I am, as Randy Newman once sang, "In America..." and so sadly must rely on the picture I saw in the book (which, like the testimony above, also in no way makes the miracle likely to have happened).
With gratitude, "at least,"
--John (still proudly hugging)
PS: If it's thorough research and data we're after, I have a couple of suggestions... Nah, never mind. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:42 am: | |
But John, any suggestions you could possibly make to anyone here have been thought of by others, before you even heard of the diary and watch; considered and, where possible, initiated - by others who don't yet know the truth but would like to nail it down.
We already know you are not 'after' thorough research and data, as you make it crystal clear that you already know the truth - no further information required.
Unfortunately, Keith Skinner and I, to name but two, cannot claim the same. That's why the investigation continues. You may think I'm in it for the belly laughs or to satisfy masochistic tendencies, but do you seriously think either would apply to Keith?
My little counting exercise, of course, is new information, that obviously you didn't get from any picture in any book, since you and Chris Phillips were only recently labouring under the sorry misapprehension that Mike would have been faced with thousands upon thousands of books (everything in the entire history of literature written in the English language, in fact), had he been searching for 'o costly...' without knowing in advance where it could be found.
Incidentally, I don't think Mark misses much.
Whatho Mark! Oddly enough, I didn't think to look in any of the 20th century sections. What must I have been thinking of? (Slaps forehead in frustrated disbelief.)
Some miracles just aren't what they used to be.
A bit of support from John, for trying one's best in trying circumstances? Now that's what I would call a miracle this Christmas.
Love,
Caz
X
 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Ok,
I have just one thing to say I will keep it brief and to the point. I am sure Keith Skinner is a great bloke, and a totally nice guy. I have many of his books they are all great - not a single duff one among them! I have the one you wrote with him (AND Seth Linder!), I would recomend it to all manner of people and in fact do. BUT, why are we discussing him knowing he never posts on these boards? How are we to know what he thinks or why he acts? I'm sure what you say about him is true, BUT that is not the point.
Nor do I think you are in it for the reasons you put above. But you are as sad as me for contributing to the sheer delight that is these Maybrick related boards (though of course the fact I butted in here probably makes me that bit sadder!)
Of course O'costly was possible. How did it get in there in the first place (note you know what I am like about these things but this thread is called Mike Barrett questions!!)
That was brief, geez i would hate for it to have been long!
Ho Ho Ho!!!
And I have no doubt you are trying your best Caz, keep it up!
Jenni
ps at least I'm in a good mood and it's nearly Xmas!!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 572
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:05 am: | |
Caroline Anne Morris wrote:
My little counting exercise, of course, is new information, that obviously you didn't get from any picture in any book, since you and Chris Phillips were only recently labouring under the sorry misapprehension that Mike would have been faced with thousands upon thousands of books (everything in the entire history of literature written in the English language, in fact), had he been searching for 'o costly...' without knowing in advance where it could be found.
In case there's anyone there who really thinks Barrett could have found this obscure quotation by chance, they may like to have a look at the previous discussion, where the probability of this happening was discussed in great detail (268 messages at the last count):
../4922/9427.html"#C6C6B5"> |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
And off we go into exactly the same discussion we've had here a thousand time, without even a single real reason to suspect that Mike's amazing miracle story was anything but one of his usual lies.
As I said earlier, with complete accuracy, some dreams never die. Same old things, as always. One line excerpted from one poem on one page in one book -- excerpted incidentally just like it is in that other book Mike himself owned -- the diary. But Mike the man just found it in the library. We've heard the fantasy before and it hasn't changed a bit and it's still impossible.
I won't even ask Jenni any questions. 
But it is very cute how Caroline seeks my support for "trying one's best in trying circumstances?"
Of course, exactly how the circumstances became so "trying" is another wonderful story, not fully covered in any book (yet).
As to Jenni's wonderful question about why Caroline keeps dropping Keith's name at every chance -- well, there's probably not a fully qualified psychologist among us, but there really doesn't have to be, does there?
And I certainly don't have to be original when I argue that the diary and the watch should be properly and thoroughly tested by scientists who are given unlimited access to the material they are testing -- that it's the ethical and the responsible thing to do and that if it is not done that too will tell us plenty, both about these artefacts and the people who own them. No. That in no way needs to be an "original " position. It is the rational and intellectually honest one. So repeating it is just fine with me.
As for the fabled "ongoing investigation" -- I have done plenty of research on a professional and scholarly level, throughout my adult life, and not once did I ever hesitate to discuss it with interested parties while I was doing it or to describe it in the ridiculously mysterious and self-important terms I've seen this little project referred to by Caroline. You'd think she was chasing Jack himself, for god's sake. If the hyperbole and all the governmental "no comment" nonsense she spouts about it weren't so trivial and therefore comical, they might almost make one sad for her.
It's a just a little academic project -- a search after answers to some historical questions, like who forged the diary. People in certain disciplines in my business do it every day. And they hardly start talking like they were developing top secret weapons systems. It's just ridiculous (and a touch pathetic).
Still, I've seen this sort of pompous paranoia about diary silliness once before, in the guise of multi-page legal documents and secrecy oaths. So I'm not surprised that it haunts these boards in Caroline's posts as well.
As always, amazed at the goofiness around here,
--John
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
Oh yes, one other thing.
As part of Caroline's habitual rewriting of my writing, she says to me:
"We already know you are not 'after' thorough research and data, as you make it crystal clear that you already know the truth - no further information required."
Once again, for the record and for the ten millionth time since I arrived on these boards -- I do NOT know who created either the watch or the diary and I do NOT believe the necessary material evidence exists to establish a provable case against any single person in either of these hoaxes. I have NEVER ONCE said that I do know who is responsible or accused anyone in particular of these acts.
Caroline can "infer" all she wants from my claims about these things both obviously being hoaxes and from my listing the many impossible yet necessary coincidences that would have to be true for them to be anything other than modern hoaxes -- but she has never once seen me write a sentence that actually says that any particular person created either of these hoaxes. I know she wishes I had, so she could argue against it. And she'll no doubt suggest she can read it from other things I have written (the way some old gypsies read tea leaves apparently). But ignore such desire-driven drivel. If I decide to claim I know who wrote the diary or engraved the watch, I'll do so. As of now, I don't.
So her claim cited above is simply false. It is, as usual, an inaccurate presentation of what I believe.
And if her desire drives her to be this inaccurate about my own words and beliefs (when I know what they are), I can only wonder what effect it has on the accuracy of her other super duper top secret official "investigations."
Just thought I'd get on the record yet again, as I'm sure there's more misreading on its way,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on December 21, 2004) |
Lee McLoughlin
Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
I dont know if this has been disscussed already or not, or on the other hand if this is niave, but could MB have "interferred" in the diary and inserted "oh costly..."
Has anyone checked the handwriting of this line or other curious entries with MB's handwriting? |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1228
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
Hi Lee
The sudden appearance of the words
Oh costly intercourse
of death
in the Diary (facsimile page 250 of the Hyperion edition of Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper) to my eye appears to be in the same less than neat or shabby handwriting as the other entries in the document, so there is no indication that Barrett might have inserted it into someone else's document.
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:47 pm: | |
You know I'd just like to point out the original question in the thread is amongst the finest in diary world history..oh i know us being hopelessly off topic is a recurring theme of mine usually followed, in all fairness, by something which is hopelessly off topic!
Chris,
ummm.....!!!!
John,
dear dear me John!!! i will email you to explain why i have a life!!
Secondly, John, in order to wonder who forged the diary we would have to stop arguing about all the other stuff and come to some kind of agreement as to when it was forged. The words never in a month of sundays spring to mind!!
And John, you are always amazed by the goofiness around here. Really, I am surprised you are still caught out by it!
Lee,
Have you a copy of Shirley Harrison's excellent book? (for the record i am not being sarcastic here!). I myself have the 1998 Blake edition which contains a copy of the diary as it looks. A quick look of pp426 of said book would answer your question to your satisfaction.
Jenni
ps you are all great!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:37 pm: | |
Hi Jenni,
I know you have a life. I also know that Mike lied (as usual) about the Miracle of the Library.
Oh, and before we come to "some sort of agreement as to when" these hoaxes were created, we should all come to some sort of agreement that they are indeed both hoaxes. Or have we already done that? I can never tell.
Lee,
I don't know whose handwriting the Crashaw line (and the rest of the diary) is written in. I do know whose handwriting it clearly is not, though.
James Maybrick's.
The handwriting in the diary in no way shape or form resembles even remotely the handwriting of the real James Maybrick. This much we know.
Guess what that means?
Yup.
He didn't write it.
In case anyone had forgotten,
--John
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 278
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:09 pm: | |
Whatho John,
I agree Mike probably lied about his miracle in the library but who can we be so sure? I think it's difficult to tell when Mike was lying or being truthful.
I must temper that last remark as I have never met Mike and for all I know he may have a nose like Pinochio (is that spelling right?) and, of course, his solicitor may be reading this post!
I realise it is difficult for you to undertake any original research with you being stuck out there in America and you have to work on other people's findings but you could always visit us. We're quite nice you know. If not, you could always employ your own research agent; it just so happens I know a very good bloke but modesty stops me from giving you his name.
Cheers, Mark (researcher to the stars) |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 279
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Whatho Caz,
Oh I miss much, especially after 11 o'clock and a long discussion with my friends: Messrs Greene and King.
Cheers, Mark (mine's an IPA please) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
I agree Mike probably lied about his miracle in the library but who can we be so sure? I think it's difficult to tell when Mike was lying or being truthful.
Do you really mean you think it's believable that James Maybrick picked this quotation from Crashaw, and Barrett managed to find it in the library by sheer chance, or am I misunderstanding?
When I first heard this story, I found it so incredible that my reaction was, "Well surely no one can believe the diary is genuine now."
But maybe I'm wrong. Am I?
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
John,
I hate arguning wioth you but no you do not 'know' that. that is the most likeyl option based on the facts..maybe!?
Chris,
to answer the question you put to someone else (he he!!) No I don't think that is what happened. i think we are assuming that barrett and the forger are one and the same when this is not necessarily the case. However, it is possible that what you describe above happened, but unlikely!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 576
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Jenni
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that Barrett was necessarily the faker, but I am arguing that it's astronomically unlikely that he could have identified the Crashaw quotation by chance.
Obviously there's a connection there, which means that Barrett was able to identify the quotation without supernatural help.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on December 21, 2004) |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 108
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Okay..
Someone please point me in the right direction here.
Just why is it so unbelievable that Mike Barrett might have had a hand in composing the Diary?
Thank you in advance,
Lyn
(It's just that I've avoided most Diary threads in my lifetime, so I'm a little slow on the uptake here)
(Message edited by lindsey on December 21, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:26 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
The miracle never happened. It was a lie. I've spent more than half my life in libraries -- in the literature sections of libraries, researching citations. The odds against Mike Barrett doing what he said he did with those five unidentified words are astronomical. And given the fact that he's a proven serial liar, I can say with a good bit of confidence that the million-to-one shot he claims happened... didn't.
There are two books with that single line from that single poem by that single author excerpted and cited within them. Mike Barrett owned them both.
You can feel free to interpret that fact any way you'd like.
As for my undertaking or arranging for "original research," you reassure me that you over there are "quite nice, you know."
Well, I'm sure YOU are.
Unfortunately, I've already had some experience with this topic and such a task, and "nice" is not the word I'd use to describe it.
But I'm sure that was just a single bad apple.
Anyway, I'm quite happy here reading the words of my fellow posters and responding to their logic (or their lack of it) and every now and then putting in a word for the obviously ethical and moral choice -- getting the diary and the watch properly and thoroughly tested using the latest technologies and giving the scientists unlimited access to the material.
It won't happen. I know. And I know why, too.
But it's still the right thing to do and I think more and more people realize that all the time.
Lyn,
It's not unbelievable. Just unprovable.
Happy holiday week, everyone. I'm having a blast,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 7:19 am: | |
Hey Chris,
yes the odds are high against but that doesn't make it any less possible. Or maybe i missed something?
Hi Lyn,
It isn't unbelievable. It is quite, quite believable!  What we are arguing about here is whether the so called miracle in liverpool library could have happened. And all I am saying is it could have happened, therefore it is not nec. evidence Barrett faked the diary or knew the faker! Phew!
Hello John,
where, where, where, where, is the evidence that million to one shots never happen!? By design they have/ do surely happen or must be possible to happen, no?
Where???
Jenni
ps where is the thread we already had this conversation cut and paste would be so much easier!!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 7:52 am: | |
Jenni,
We have indeed already had this discussion. There's no real point in having it again, is there?
You wrote to Chris:
"the odds are high against but that doesn't make it any less possible"
Actually, Jenni, it does. In fact, that's exactly what "the odds are high against it" means -- that it's considerably less possible.
And when it's a pathological liar telling you that it happened, well, the odds that it's a lie get pretty damn decisive.
As for evidence, if nothing else, I have over twenty years worth of first hand experience in the literature sections of libraries, and I'm telling you it didn't happen.
You can believe that or not, you can believe your own experience or not, but in the the end, if you believe Mike, you're just a sucker.
And I refuse to be one.
--John
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi All,
John wrote:
As to Jenni's wonderful question about why Caroline keeps dropping Keith's name at every chance -- well, there's probably not a fully qualified psychologist among us, but there really doesn't have to be, does there?
As for the fabled "ongoing investigation" -- I have done plenty of research on a professional and scholarly level, throughout my adult life, and not once did I ever hesitate to discuss it with interested parties while I was doing it or to describe it in the ridiculously mysterious and self-important terms I've seen this little project referred to by Caroline. You'd think she was chasing Jack himself, for god's sake. If the hyperbole and all the governmental "no comment" nonsense she spouts about it weren't so trivial and therefore comical, they might almost make one sad for her.
He blew it this time, because this time I really was only the messenger. John is actually shooting Keith, not the messenger, with his nasty little barbs, because Keith was the one who emailed me, saying I could advise the board that a serious investigation is ongoing in London and Liverpool, and that the results will not be discussed here until everything has been verified and documented.
Hi Chris P,
You wrote:
When I first heard this story, I found it so incredible that my reaction was, "Well surely no one can believe the diary is genuine now."
Yes, that was exactly what Mike thought would happen when he called Feldy's secretary to announce the news that he had just found 'o costly...' in the library. He told her during the same call that he could now claim he knew the poem all along and everyone would believe he must have forged the diary.
I don't know why people keep talking about this 'million-to-one shot', when we know the quotation was in at least three of the library books at the right time for Mike to find it, and we also now know roughly how many - or how few - other books Mike would have been faced with if he started with the most appropriate sections: probably fewer than 200, and possibly a lot fewer. If he glanced along the middle shelf of the middle block marked 'English Literary History', he would have seen the words 'English Poetry & Prose, 1540-1674' on three of the twenty-five or so spines.
Hi Lyn,
You asked:
Just why is it so unbelievable that Mike Barrett might have had a hand in composing the Diary?
That's not what some people are claiming here. They are claiming that it would have been quite impossible for anyone searching in Liverpool Library to have found the quotation there (despite the number of related books and their positioning, as I descibe above), as Mike claims happened back in 1994.
They are also claiming that it is beyond coincidence that Mike also owned his own copy of the book containing the quotation. And so it might well be, but only if they swallow Mike's story of having obtained his copy back in 1989, before the diary emerged. Evidence for this? None whatsoever.
Hi John,
I'm slightly puzzled by your admission that it's 'unprovable' whether Mike might have had a hand in composing the Diary. You insist the library discovery didn't happen, and therefore Mike knew where to find the quotation before the end of September 1994 - ie in his own book at home. The implication is clear, so let's cut the crap: according to your scenario, Mike could hardly have been ignorant about his book being used in the process of composing the Diary.
You claim to know that 'the obviously ethical and moral choice -- getting the diary and the watch properly and thoroughly tested using the latest technologies and giving the scientists unlimited access to the material' won't happen, and 'why' it won't happen.
Leaving aside the diary for a moment, would you care to tell the board exactly why you believe Albert won't be getting his watch tested again, and why you think this makes him, as its owner since 1992, somehow unethical or immoral?
Constantly claiming to know something, if you don't go on to tell us what you know and how you know it, is pointless and less than convincing as a supposedly intellectual argument, coming from one who sets himself up as the be all and end all in ethical and moral commentators.
Finally, you wrote:
You can believe that or not, you can believe your own experience or not, but in the the end, if you believe Mike, you're just a sucker.
And I refuse to be one.
Then don't be a sucker, John. Refuse to swallow whole Mike's claim to have owned the Sphere book before his library announcement. Refuse to be taken in by his claims to have been involved with hoaxing the diary. Refuse to be conned by his claims to know whose writing is in it.
I'm still only trying to work out for myself what's possible and what isn't. I'm not making any claims, nor am I accepting any of Mike's as the God-given truth - but you are. You have to.
So sneer as much as you like, but who's the sucker who is forced to believe Mike's claims in order to support his own?
Love,
Caz
X
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
My my, such a lot of writing.
So little actually new or meaningful.
First, I wasn't "shooting" anyone. I don't care who chose and still chooses to invoke the pompous faux-mystery rhetoric of secret investigation proceedings, it's still silly and sad. But it is par for the course among certain paranoid circles in Diary World. We know that from past experience. And, in case anyone has forgotten, Caroline has indeed claimed to be directly involved herself in this super duper top secret little mystery project.
Second, until Caroline tells us how many pages each of those books had and how many lines were on each of those pages and how many words were on each of those lines, her goofy and woefully unscientific attempt to downplay the odds against Mike's miraculous tale about discovering just those five words can be quickly and easily dismissed as bad reasoning (or simple desire, one is never sure around here).
I'm in the business of researching things like poetry in literature sections of libraries, and I know first hand the odds against what Mike claims to have done. Add to that the staggeringly consistent unreliability of the source and I think it's pretty clear that we're talking about a lie here.
Does anyone seriously believe this guy about this miracle?
If so, I feel sorry for you.
Third, once again, as I predicted, Caroline tries using her "tea leaves" method of reading to try ad get me to accuse someone in particular of creating these hoaxes.
Once again, she will fail. The material evidence does not exist to make a responsible, explicit allegation. So I won't.
I know she wishes I would -- it would give her something else to argue about with me. But that's too bad. I'm not going to accuse anyone of having created these hoaxes when I don't know whether or not they did and when the evidence does not exist that would allow me conclude that they did. Sorry. Caroline will have to play that particular game with someone else.
Although I'm sure she'll give it another shot and once again try getting me to write what she wants me to write -- because it's obviously driving her a bit nuts.
For the record, my only claims about the Crashaw line are:
1. Mike is lying when he describes identifying the five words for the very first time by just finding them excerpted like they are in the diary in a different book in the library.
2. The real James Maybrick did not write them in the diary.
If Caroline wants to advance an argument that seeks to refute either of these two claims, she can feel free. But I am not claiming here anything other than those two specific things. Her magical tea leave reading production of "implications" and "inferences" and all the rest can be blissfully ignored as in no way representing what I have actually written or am actually claiming.
(By the way, I know everyone knew that already, but I thought I'd say it yet again for the record, since at least one of us here simply refuses to read.)
Finally, if she truly does not understand why allowing the scientists full access to both of these artefacts for thorough and proper testing using the latest technologies is the moral and ethical thing to do in terms of history, in terms of the truth, and in terms of a complete and responsible investigation, then all hope for a rational discussion with her about this question is simply lost. I should think that such a point would be self-evident, even to most crass and self-interested and ego-driven among us.
It's simply the right thing to do. Decent and fair minded people genuinely interested in learning as much as possible about both artefacts know that.
And yes, if such access is never granted and such tests are never arranged and conducted, everyone here can feel free to draw their own conclusions from that, as well.
Also, it occurs to me that the fact that I even have to argue such a point concerning what is the responsible and ethical choice in this situation is one of the best indicators of precisely what is wrong with Diary World and with so many of those involved in its operations.
It is, in many ways, tragic.
--John
PS: I believe Mike about NOTHING. In case anyone was wondering after reading yet another of Caroline's habitual mischaracterizations of my long-standing positions.
(Message edited by omlor on December 22, 2004) |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 117
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:15 pm: | |
Okay, good people - I'm well and truly confused...
I can see Mike Barrett finding the book of quotes in question in a Liverpudlian library. And I can see him helping his wife (at the time) to compose the dratted Diary. Call me naieve, if you will. I guess that's what I am.
Just tell me if I'm way off here...
Bestest,
Lyn
(When are those tests gonna be done that prove this thing to be a modern hoax??) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1461
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:16 pm: | |
Hi John,
not really I could say the same thing again and again and so could you and guess what? We'd never agree, but at least in diary world we like everyone always!(or so i heard)
Listen carefully once more for the record! The odds of winning the lottery are 14 million to one, the odds of getting hit by lightening are something like 250 000 to one. But i could leave my house tommorrow and neither or both happen (ok techincally as i never buy a ticket I can't ever win the lottery!) But then we already had this conversation once - didn't we. oh yes we did. oh no we didn't, it's behind you!!
At least I guess I am not a sucker!!!!!
One thing i do know is though, even if what you say about Mike is true that doesn't make the fact (yes fact) that he could (yes could) have gone into the library and found the quote by pure chance needing 0 skill. I put it to you John, where was the quote obtained from orginally??(originally someone found it and put it in the diary, and it doesnt make any actual point in there either its totally random I would add).
Caroline,
Perhaps what John said there was unfair (hell I don't know) but let us be honest about one thing. everytime you mention Keith Skinner's name and act like we are bad mouthing him, we have done nothing of the sort. keith never posts on these boards. if we have unitnetionally offended him I am sorry, but if he is that bothered surely he would tell us to our faces? And that didn't answer my question. But feel free to totally ignore me in order to continue arguing with John O.!
Perhaps Keith is bothered and would like to email me so i can take any of that i just qwrote above back, you know my address Caz, feeel free to pass it on.
Lyn,
the Crawshaw line was not in abook of qoutes! BUT in case anyone was wondering Mike could have found it in the ibrary, just thought I'd mention that.
Bye now friends!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 927
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
Jenni,
We're repeating ourselves, no doubt because there is nothing else to do at the moment and because all of the discussion around here is always trivial and repetitive anyway, so why should this one be any different? At least it passes the time.
You yourself tell me that:
"The odds of winning the lottery are 14 million to one, the odds of getting hit by lightening are something like 250 000 to one."
And the odds that tomorrow you will eat something are considerably better than the odds of either of those events happening, aren't they?
Do you see the difference? This is precisely what Chris and I were saying about it being considerably less possible for something to happen if the odds are stacked against it.
Add to that the fact that the guy telling you that this certain amazing and incredible thing took place also happens to be a known, habitual liar and...
Well, surely you can see the obvious, common sense conclusion.
It did not happen.
Thanks for that fine demonstration point.
With gratitude,
--John
PS: You say, as usual, "in case anyone was wondering Mike could have found it in the library." And I say, as usual, "yes, in exactly the same way that aliens could have built the pyramids and the earth could be flat." Some people consider all of those things possible. But you know what?
They didn't, it's not, and he didn't.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:17 pm: | |
John,
We are indeed repeating ourselves.
yes John I see the difference. I have never not seen the difference.
Do you accept that all three things could happen. All that is different is the odds of it happening? They are all possible? Admit it!!!!
Not considerably less possible but rather statistically less probable. No??
Do you assume Mike Barrett and the forger knew each other?
no not in the same way the earth is flat, science proves the earth is not flat science does not prove that Mike is lying.
no not in the same way that space aliens could have built the pyramids. Archeology and science show that Eygtians built the pyramids without the aid of space aliens. there is no evidence that Mike did not go into the library as he claims. Or wait is there?
remembering why this conversation stopped once...
Jenni
John,
We are indeed repeating ourselves.
yes John I see the difference. I have never not seen the difference.
Do you accept that all three things could happen. All that is different is the odds of it happening? They are all possible? Admit it!!!!
Not considerably less possible but rather statistically less probable. No??
Do you assume Mike Barrett and the forger knew each other?
no not in the same way the earth is flat, science proves the earth is not flat science does not prove that Mike is lying.
no not in the same way that space aliens could have built the pyramids. Archeology and science show that Eygtians built the pyramids without the aid of space aliens. there is no evidence that Mike did not go into the library as he claims. Or wait is there?
remembering why this conversation stopped once...
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:21 pm: | |
I put it to you John, where was the quote obtained from orginally??(originally someone found it and put it in the diary. )
That person, in case you were wondring was probably in all likelhood not James Maybrick!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 928
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:51 pm: | |
Jenni,
Once again, you are just saying the same thing.
Now you offer me a distinction between "considerably less possible" and "statistically less probable."
The difference in possibilities between you eating something tomorrow and you getting hit by lightning or winning the lottery is both considerable and statistical.
If I say, "what is the possibility that you and I will both win the lottery tomorrow?" and then say "what is the possibility that you and I will both eat tomorrow?" I am going to get two very different answers, aren't I? The answer to the second question would be "there's a good possibility that such a thing will happen." I trust that would not be the answer to the first question.
Why is that difference such a problem?
Does this discussion have a point?
Mike lied. Common sense tells you Mike lied. My own long experience in libraries tells me Mike lied. Mike's own history tells you Mike lied.
Mike's miracle is "possible" in exactly the same way that aliens being responsible for the pyramids is possible. They are both vaguely "possible" according to some interpretations of the facts, but neither one happened.
Your final question to me in your second post is a VERY good one. You should keep asking it. I have asked it over and over because I don't know the answer.
I do know two things though. Mike lied, the miracle didn't happen that way and the real James Maybrick did not write this line into that book.
Oh, and aliens didn't build the pyramids.
And it doesn't matter whether you think any of these things are "possible" or not. Common sense and the odds tell you that none of them happened.
Is there any reason to repeat this all again? If so, write back and there's a very good possibility that I'll respond in exactly the same way.
Otherwise, have a fine evening,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on December 22, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Jenni
ps where is the thread we already had this conversation cut and paste would be so much easier!!
I did post it above, as I thought it would be nicer if people who had forgotten the previous arguments (as Mrs Morris seems to have done) could go back and refresh their memories, rather than everyone going through the whole thing again.
Here it is again:
../4922/9427.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 123
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:13 pm: | |
Okay.. just who wrote this bloody diary??
I'd really like to know!
Bestest,
Lyn |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 929
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
Thanks Chris,
Clearly there is no real point to this. I was just bored.
By the way, in case anyone has not caught on yet, the argument between Jenni and myself is simply a language usage problem and not a difficulty of any real or meaningful sort.
I am claiming that in common usage I and others often say that something is very possible or that there is a good possibility that something happened and that other things are not very possible or that there is almost no possibility that they happened.
Jenni is basically arguing that there cannot be these distinctions -- that something is either strictly possible or impossible and that anything else is actually a question not of possibility but only of probability.
We're both right, of course. And the language as it is commonly used allows for both interpretations.
But the real heart of the matter -- the question of whether Mike was lying about the Miracle of the Liverpool Library -- is not changed one little bit by this difference.
Common sense still tells us Mike was lying. So does my own experience.
Still, it was fun playing the game this afternoon.
--John
PS: Lyn -- someone other than James Maybrick and someone other than Jack the Ripper. Everything beyond that is speculation.
(Message edited by omlor on December 22, 2004) |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:19 pm: | |
So... Mike Barrett and his wife, Ann Graham wrote it!
Yes???
Bestest,
Lyn |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 930
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Lyn,
I could tell you exactly what'll be coming tomorrow here. But I'll wait and let you read it when it arrives, so you too can have the experience.
-- John (who already knows precisely what'll be written to him, too) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi John,
i don't know why is this difference such a problem? It's not a problem - its a difference!
Yes this disscusion does have a point. Apart from being a good diversion from what I am actually supposed to be doing (dissertation now passed 2k words!), highly entertaining and enjoyable, fun, fun, fun, and utterly charming, I'll email you!
For gawds sake enough with the space aliens its nothing like it, prove there were space aliens -there were books in them library!
But we don't want to give you that! (Chris Tarrant!) -
Ok scenerio number one the line got in there because James Maybrick put it there, so this is something we agree didn't happen, right?
Ok scenerio number two the forger/hoaxer (whoever they were) put the line into the diary knowing the source was Crawshaw after reading it in a library book they happened to have, now this one I am sure you will agree is all too likely! (in this instance Mike's story about the library could hold true if he wasn't the hoaxer).
Er... scenerio number three by luck Mike Barrett had a book with this quote in. He found the quote and put it in the diary (him or someone who lives in his house). Due to some pure luck he was then able to asertain this extremely rare book was in the library and make up his miracle story (I am guessing this is the one you would go for?)
And of course...the hoaxer (could be Mike) went to the library and found the quote in the book by looking and decided it would look good in the diary is a posiblity and in this posibilty we have to accept that they found the quote by chance against the 'impossibly high odds'.
I am sure i missed something !!
Chris,
I know me and John are just having fun!
Lyn,
yep I'd like to know that too!!
John,
something a little unexpected is called for since you last comment, so here goes!!
The duck quaked it's way to the library window and was struck by the lovely poetry a librarian happened to be saying. In hearing this line the duck thought, as it was a cunning little blight, ah ha! that will fit 'not very well at all but never mind' into my diary i am forging, heeheheheheheeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!! The duck (which was hyperactive, just like H from the popular nineties band 'Steps') decided to run home (it didn't want to draw attention to itself by flying) and jot that little line of poetry into his diary. The duck couldn't believe his luck when no one seemed to spot his plagarism but was then foiled by Mike!!
Quack, quack, quack,
You know it makes sense. Find that duck!!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:28 am: | |
Jenni,
Your last scenario makes about as much sense and is about as likely as any story Mike told about this silly library miracle.
You say, "prove there were space aliens -there were books in the library!"
I say, "prove aliens built the pyramids -- prove Mike wasn't lying." Yes, there are pyramids in Egypt and books in the library. But aliens didn't build them and Mike wasn't telling the truth. Experience tells us both of these things.
There are, by the way, several other possibilities you did not mention. But none of that matters.
Crack researcher Mike Barrett did not carry only five unidentified words into the library and just find them conveniently excerpted exactly like they are in the diary. I know you and I disagree about whether something can be more or less possible. But that didn't happen. Mike lied. As usual.
Is there any point in continuing with this? In the end, it really is just about language use you know. You don't believe it happened the way Mike said either, do you?
Watching the time pass and circles spin,
--John
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Ok, so maybe (no i don't concede) Mike is lying what does this tell us?
like i have to ask...but still i am having so much fun
Did Mike own a duck?
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
maureen giles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
Hi everyone, its been interesting reading all your views and comments. I for one do NOT believe that MB had the intelligence or knowledge to forge such a masterpiece but that could be said for anyone. This diary was clearly written by a person who was actually thinking and feeling these thoughts (and perhaps carrying out them out). The person responsible for the diary is either
a) A person (or persons)who has extensively researched into the ripper killings;
Had access to police records (even those that have been long destroyed or not disclosed);
Knew all about Maybricks life and death and decided this is the MAN and wrote an incredible story........this list could go on and on
or
b)Jack the Ripper
I know what I would choose.
Have a happy christmas and an even better new year
cheers |
John Allen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:46 am: | |
Has anyone got the idea that there is an underlying reason for the pro-diary propagandists to keep the Maybrick rubbish going?
Watch this space because I think a great new Maybrick project is pending and what's the betting that some of our old pro-diary friends are involved!
If it still makes cash - keep it alive. You know it makes sense. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
