|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:37 am: | 
|
I'm sorry your both wrong.
Of course it depends on your interpretation of the word 'Sophisticated' You might call an Ant sophisticated from a point of veiw but its unlikely an ant wrote the Maybrick Diary.
So when I say a degree of sophistication I'm talking about the average man on the street which Mike Barrett certainly WAS.
Mike had no graphic's training, no history in writing, forging, or research. Yet he expected us to beleive that he created a hoax that we are all still arguing and debating. And although the diary contains considerable errors, as you have pointed out there is not one knock out blow that allows any of you to state: We can prove beyond any doubt that the Maybrick Diary was forged. You can still, after all this time, only state: it was probably forged etc etc.
Was this Diary ever ment to under go such close inspection by who ever forged it?
No, some time and thought went into its production. If any body would like to help me produce something similar to test the possibilty I'm most interested in talking with you (seriously). Perhaps the Diary of Druit or perhaps 'Dons' suggestion of another Black Dalia confession.
I think you'll find both the characterization and physical compilation much harder than you all beleive but I'm willing to be proved wrong.
Volunteers?
Jeff |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Jeff,
you're not half as sorry I'm wrong as me!
but seriously, i see your point i hear you
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Eastend boy me..born in the sound of Thames Televison..
But I'll repeat my question John, can I have a straight answer: Yes or No
Do you beleive Mike Barrett created the Maybrick Diary?
Jeff |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 580
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Jeff--Hi. You're views seem reasonable to me. While I have no problem with what you have written (with the help of Paul Begg), I do wonder about the following:
"In June 1994 he [Mike] hired a private detective named Alan Gray to help him prove he’d forged the diary
I've never really liked this 'spin.' It seems to suggest that Barrett had no real insight and thus needed someone to help 'manufacture' proof. Is it possible that this is an oversimplification? Please refer to Shirley's Blake edition; there you'll find reprinted a letter from Gray to Barrett. One can glean from this letter that Gray was attempting to secure a publisher in order to sell Barrett's confession. This puts things in an entirely different light. In other words, Barrett's genuine confesion could have been entirely contingent on finding a paying publisher.
Recall that Barrett's main (perhaps sole) source of income in 1994-95 was from the royalties from the Maybrick Diary. It would have been economic suicide to have given a full confession, without some hope of recompense. As I see it, Barrett in June 1994--rightly or wrongly-- was under the impression that Smith, Harrison, and Feldman had taken over the Diary. I realize Mr. Begg was there, and I in no way dispute the fact that Barrett might have wished to destroy Paul Feldman. But this actually helps me conclude that Mike's phone call to Brough was entirely impulsive--an attempt to reassert some power over the situation; ergo, in itself, it doesn't really tell us anything about where the Diary came from. Once Brough showed up, Barrett might have realized his folly and merely began to back-peddle. Considering the descriptions we are given of Mike's condition on the day in question (by Brough, Feldman, and Barrett's own lawyer), I hardly find anything startling in the fact that Barrett failed to say anything coherent about the Crashaw quote or anything else. The 'time-line' in this case, has to be seen in the context of the power struggle and Mike's own physical condition.
It seems to me that what Sir Robert is seeing as the "refinement" of Barrett's knowledge of the quote might be explained by Gray's own slow recognition of the Sphere book's importance, and his slow ability to glean any useful information from Barrett as the latter vacillated between his desire to retain royalties and his desire to discredit Feldman. For instance, Barrett wasn't willing to give Gray damning facts unless he came up with a paying publisher. I don't see anything in the 'time-line' or in Barrett's own actions that allow me to conclude that Barrett didn't know where the quote came from. I do, however, find Paul's explanation perceptive, in that Barrett himself might not have realized the damning nature of the Crashaw quote; but this, alas, doesn't let me know whether or not he pinched it and put it in the Diary--only that his knowledge of the damning obscurity of 17th Century metaphysical poetry was lacking. Harrison does record (in the tape dated Jan 18, 1995--Paul will know this) that Barrett did 'pinch' another quote for use in a letter to Harrison. This was from the heading of a chapter in Colin Dexter's "The Dead of Jericho." Doesn't prove anything, but it shows Barrett's behavior.
Frankly, I'm more interested in Mr. Begg's perception that Barrett didn't have the ability to write the Maybrick Diary on his own. I find this interesting and useful. However, let's keep in mind this insight needs to be considered in the light of a couple of facts. 1. It is fully documented that Barrett was pursuing a writing career 1986-1990. 2. Barrett hid his writing ambitions from the early researchers. 3. Audrey Johnson--who we have no reason to doubt-- describes Anne Graham being upset at work about her husband 'writing a book' sometime prior to 1992.
Please note: I'm not saying that Paul Begg is wrong in his insight. Not at all. Rather, is there another way to 'fit' it all together? Lately, I'm finding everything extremely helpful. Take care. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 11, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Jeff
Mike Barrett, his wife and Feldman. Are you suggesting Barretts daughter might have been involved?
I'm not suggesting anyone was involved, apart from Mike Barrett.
I don't think anyone has suggested Feldman was involved in producing the diary, have they?
At least one other person has been "fingered" as the author, but I don't see the point of repeating the suspicions without any proof. It's not too hard to find discussion about comparisons with his handwriting in the archives of these boards.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Jeff,
First of all, you write:
"Mike had no graphic's training, no history in writing, forging, or research." [my emph.]
But as RJ has just reminded you, this is not correct. Before you arrive at any opinions, you should learn all the facts. And that's especially true if you are going to express them in public.
Now then, you also ask me, yet again:
Do you beleive Mike Barrett created the Maybrick Diary?
Can I have a simple yes or no?
At least Paul gave me probably NO.
But I could swear I just wrote in a post above, this very morning, the following words:
"But Paul is right about one thing. There is not enough evidence to indict Mike for this hoax. The Sphere Guide could indeed have been seen and used by anyone with access to it in the house or among his associates, etc. So Anne and others are not beyond consideration, of course -- including people we might not even know about or have in our minds.
But the text repeatedly indicates a modern date of composition, and the line from the Sphere Guide links it in some way to the people who brought it forward.
The rest is just speculation at this point. But if it's speculation based on anything Mike has said or any stories Mike has told, then it is foolish from the very beginning."
So you see, I have answered your question concerning what I believe. I do not believe there is enough evidence yet to say who did or did not write the diary. (Except for one thing. We know is was not written by the real James Maybrick.)
The evidence necessary to name even a probable modern hoaxer has not yet been presented. And an old hoax theory cannot account for the textual evidence and does not even exist yet in any case.
By the way, are you just skipping parts of my posts when you read? Since I wrote clearly and explicitly that I did not believe one could indict Mike for this hoax, I though it was obvious that I was agreeing with Paul that it's impossible to say at this point that Mike wrote the diary. I even wrote "I agree with Paul..." to start the sentence. I also think it is impossible to say that he did not, or even that he probably did not. Paul has no real, material evidence for such a conclusion. Nor do I. Nor does anyone.
The textual evidence repeatedly indicates a modern date of composition. The diary is full of slip-ups and mistakes and the handwriting is wrong, both historically and in terms of its supposed author. There is no great level of sophistication or extraordinary knowledge about the history or the writing technique or the murders or Maybrick's life demonstrated anywhere in the book. In fact, every bit of info that is in the book can be found in a small number of readily available sources at the time of the centenary of the murders. And the hoaxer(s) even got some of that wrong. Its structure is melodramatic and artificial and amateurish at best and it begins with an obvious bit of opening scene exposition even though it pretends to be the middle of an entry in the middle of a private journal. It is clearly fiction.
Meanwhile, Mike was the only person able to identify the citation excerpted and cited in the diary and also the only person to locate the citation excerpted and cited in the Sphere Guide, and Mike gave Shirley the diary and Mike told us all about the Sphere Guide. And he told a miraculous tale about a mystical, odds-defying discovery in the middle of an article on a different author, in the middle of a book of prose not poetry, in a library he walked into carrying only five completely unidentified words, a tale which no one has been able to corroborate or reproduce for themselves and which flies in the face of a lifetime's experience with research and libraries and contradicts everyone else's library experience I can find, including professional librarians.
And Mike is a known and compulsive liar, so when he tells such a miraculous tale, it's even LESS likely to be true.
And that's what we know so far.
Sorry if that answer doesn't make you happy. But it's an honest and intellectually sound one at the moment.
The rest is just speculation based in part on impressions and in part on desires.
I'll stay clear of that, thanks,
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi RP
The reason I posted Pauls reply in full was because I didn't want to miss quote him, this place is a mine feild. But having Paul captive to fire questions at last week was very interesting. Especially as I'm trying to get my head around similar questions to yourself with reguard to Barrett.
Pauls insite into Mike as a person were very interesting.
I think I can answer your question about Alan Grey. Barrett had originally hired him to help with his divorce. There were few people Mike could trust at this time so he turned to the detective who had helped him a few months earlier. The exact imput Grey has; hard to be certain about. Clearly Barrett is not a total idiot but when Paul Begg say's he finds it hard to beleive he created the Maybrick Diary I think that this is worth taking on board.
Interestingly enough I asked Paul if he felt Mike Barretts wife had writen the Diary and he said she was 'more capable'. However I was under the impression that Paul didn't really think she or Mike created it.
Anyway I'm afraid working day is over. Look forward to everyones comments tomorrow.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Jenni
However, that said, it is possible (yes possible) that the events in the library happened as he said. Its equally possible of course that that is not how it happened.
I'm sorry, but if by "equally possible" you're implying "equally likely" or even "equally plausible", I have to disagree strongly.
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Been here, done this.
--John  |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Sorry John we cross posted.
So if I understand correctly your actually agreeing with Paul Beggs opinion that:
Mike Barrett Probably did not create the Maybrick Hoax.
Sorry if I'm trying to simplfy things but thats what us journo's do because the people we sell to want simple yes or no answers. I'm looking for the broad thrust of a story to help get my pitch right.
Many thanks Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
PS
Please note that Paul was talking to me off the record, I pressed him on his opinion about Mike Barrett, he did after all know him. I beleive he is well aware that there is little proof to substanciate these claims either way as you state John.
I'm just trying to get to teh bottom of the arguement, to which strangely enough there seems to be more concencus than I originally thought.
Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Uh, wait a minute.
You say to me:
"So if I understand correctly your actually agreeing with Paul Beggs opinion that:
Mike Barrett Probably did not create the Maybrick Hoax."
But I just wrote, for the second time:
"I do not believe there is enough evidence yet to say who did or did not write the diary. (Except for one thing. We know is was not written by the real James Maybrick.)
The evidence necessary to name even a probable modern hoaxer has not yet been presented."
And I even wrote that last sentence in bold face in the original, so you wouldn't skip it.
And I followed that by explaining why the old hoax theory is no help and then I actually wrote, regarding Mike hoaxing the diary:
"I also think it is impossible to say that he did not, or even that he probably did not. Paul has no real, material evidence for such a conclusion. Nor do I. Nor does anyone."
And I ended the piece, after a careful recounting of what we actually know for sure, with:
"The rest is just speculation based in part on impressions and in part on desires.
I'll stay clear of that, thanks,"
And then I signed it,
--John
PS: So then... No, I don't think you can reduce all of that to me agreeing with Paul that Mike probably did not (or did, for that matter) write the diary.
(Message edited by omlor on April 11, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 872
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Uh..doesn't "off the record" mean you cannot quote or attribute the received information in any form?
As in, I am going to tell you some stuff for your own personal edification but don't go saying I told you or quoting me? Hence the information being off- the- record?
Just wondering is all...
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 510
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Jeff,
it depends on your interpretation of the word ‘sophistication’.
Yes, that would seem to be part of the difficulty in reconciling this ongoing dispute. That said, I think you have too low an opinion of the capabilities of your fellow men. I know absolutely nothing about Mr. Barrett (save what I have gleaned here) so I can't comment on him specifically, but as an "average man on the street" as you call him I think you would be quite surprised what sort of intellectual achievements are possible by a determined layperson (far less simply a determined hoaxer).
Certainly, the hoaxer put in a certain amount of research and effort -- sophisticated if you will -- into the preparation of the hoax, but the execution of the hoax was somewhat less so, would you not say? Were I to do it, I would read all the contemporary news reports possible, winnow out what seemed fact (checking against a modern source to make sure they remained so) to use in writing my hoax and then throw in a couple new wrinkles that would be uncheckable. All that would have eliminated most of "red flags" in the text at any rate.
Anyway, define sophisticated however you like the proponderence of the evidence (all you need in a civil case) is that the Diary is a modern fake -- and in my opinion not a very good one for all the effort that went into it.
And attention everyone: my offer of a near-mint 1940s scrapbook for a possible Black Dahlia hoax confession is unconditionally and permanently withdrawn. I'll mutilate it and discard it as we already have enough problems in these worlds (Diary and real).
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
Ally your quite correct..If i'd perceived that Paul Begg had anything to hind or was unwilling for his point of veiw to be expressed then I certainly would not have copied his statement.
However i beleive that many people involved are wiery of the debate. So often things get bogged down in Samantics and putting things in my own (dyslexic)words might have made more confussion.
The Maybrick Diary is like a house of cards...remove one and the whole thing comes toppling down...but as long as we continue to find holes and cracks in individual bricks we argue in circles and it still stands...however discredited.
I have spoken with a number of people in private, largely because I was working on an idea for a TV programme. My veiw is that we need to raise enough money so that preliminary tests can be carried out by a group of sceintists to see if they beleive that tests can be carried out to date this particular document...and from conversations..I beleive that they beleive that they can. But its only worth undertaking tests that can actually give some sort of conclusion.
Why I might partly be playing a little devils advocate is that, I'm trying to get things simply and concisely in me head so I can construct a pitch..no other motive.
Whether Mike Barrett did or did not create the Maybrick diary is thus a very important linch pin. Would you put money into a programme about whether the Hitler Diaries were fake...no... because we already no the story...the Maybrick Diary however is still an open story waiting to be solved..a much more interesting prospect.
If the Maybrick Diary wasn't produced by Mike Barrett then it leaves two possibilities.
Firstly: It is a modern Hoax produced by persons unknown (I'm obviously interested in any potencial suspects) and I beleive a creation of some sophistication. i.e. more than one person involved in its creation, some research had to be carried out, some financial investment in time and money.
I am of course uncertain how difficult, but I was serious Don when I suggested undertaking something similar to document and analize what would be involved. It could be a very informative exercise.
The second possibility is...and yes i can here you all scream...that the Maybrick Diary is an older forgery of less sophistication. That some of your cracks were just coincidence.
I won't bother with the third which is to rediculous.
As for the average man on the street I've seen 'the Jerry Springer show' and David Attenboroughs 'Life on Earth' and for what its worth my money would be on the Ants constructing the Maybrick Diary...but hey what do I know.
Jeff
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi Jeff,
I do want to wish you the best of luck with your television plans. I hope they result in the diary itself getting into a state-of-art lab for thorough chemical analysis of the ink and a full range of other technological analyses. I also hope they result in other new information being learned about the book. Even as we understand that all the evidence we already have in the text points to it being a modern hoax, we realize that continuing to learn as much as possible about the artefact is crucial and that it's all anyone could ever want.
Best wishes,
--John
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
Cheers John
And many thanks for the contacts that you have given me. I know that proper testing and dating of the diary has always been your main concern.
Its the Barrett question that currently troubles me most of all. Although money is not the only reason to create such Hoax's it is the most commom. I just wondered whether anybody had ever thought of asking Mike to take a lie detector test. I could arrange this quite cheaply and it would clear his name and answer a few questions once and for all.
If he didn't hoax it, that proof would certainly help get a things moving.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask him?
Jeff
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
then i guess you have to disagree strongly!
Jenni
ps won't hold it against you!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
"The second possibility is...and yes i can here you all scream...that the Maybrick Diary is an older forgery of less sophistication. That some of your cracks were just coincidence. "
We would not all scream. There are a few of us here that are willing to consider the possibility it's an older hoax.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 512
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Jeff,
I am of course uncertain how difficult, but I was serious Don when I suggested undertaking something similar to document and analize what would be involved. It could be a very informative exercise.
If you have something in mind feel free to contact me privately.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
I realize that Sir Bob
But you must also see that this seems unlikely given Barretts confession and the whole way the hoax came to light.
I just dont know, perhaps I'm coming around to your way of thinking...but getting Mike Barrett to take a 'lie detector test' would give me more confidence in raising the money to do the testing.
Caz, I know you read these posts..Do you think Mike Barrett would take a 'test' to clear his name???
Jeff |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
"But you must also see that this seems unlikely given Barretts confession and the whole way the hoax came to light."
Unfortunately, Barrett's confession is so full of holes that I think it is a mistake to give it much weight. I sure as heck wouldn't want to build the modern hoax theory around him.
"I just dont know, perhaps I'm coming around to your way of thinking...but getting Mike Barrett to take a 'lie detector test' would give me more confidence in raising the money to do the testing. "
I think it was RJ who said that Barrett may not know when he is telling the truth and when he is not. I tend to agree with that line of thinking.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Jenni
then i guess you have to disagree strongly!
Ugh!
You really think it's just as likely that Barrett identified the quotation by chance in Liverpool Library, as that he identified it because he knew where it came from in the first place?
Surely not!
Chris
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
"Lately, I'm finding everything extremely helpful."
IMHO, RJ , it's because we're talking WITH each other, not AT each other. Jeff is raising some good issues. It's also nice to see Paul Begg's opinions.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Sir Robert--unfortunately, even Paul Begg, it might be remembered, has stated his belief that the diary is a modern fake. If it is, then the chance is all but utterly nil that Graham or Barrett doesn't know where it came from; the position that it is 'unlikely' that they 'wrote it' becomes ever-so slightly evasive.
Thought for the day. When an 'average bloke' or 'blokette' has an old document or family heirloom, they talk about it. They show it to the local historical society. Their friends and family have known about it. But we never got that here. Anne's excuse for secrecy ---even from her own husband of many years--was that it 'was evil.' This is, frankly, melodramatic and convenient. The same spirit that makes people believe in Albert Johnson--his openness and his willingness to be accessible, is completely lacking in Graham and Barrett. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on April 12, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 874
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Hey RJ,
I was thinking something along the very same lines recently and just mulling over strange behavior (or atypical) all around.
Musing on various different aspects of the case. For instance it has always bothered me that no one has ever asked a certian proposed penman any questions, supposedly because he has been on the verge of death...for the last decade. Whether he is or isn't the penman...and I am firmly in the middle on it...I would like to have an actual statement from him on it.
I would also like to ask several questions to several people involved...but they for some reason don't want to debate the situation. I do realise that I am atypical, but seriously, if someone was questioning your character day in and day out, wouldn't you come in and tell your side? Just once at the very least? That's human nature. I would at least respect the people involved more if they opened themselves up to scrutiny. They can't try to make the $$ of the items but then claim "Oh I don't really care to discuss that in a public forum" and have any respect from me.
(Message edited by Ally on April 13, 2005)
|
Watching Brief
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 3:09 am: |
|
The most interesting thing about all this is that the diary apologist-in-chief has reappeared via a mouthpiece. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Putting aside the silliness about the "you're a crazy murderer and I can tell 'cause of your penmanship" nonsense, let me turn to Sir Robert and the delightful Quoteman! stuff.
Putting aside the silliness about the "it was not written in the 1880's" and I can tell because "of your penmanship" nonsense (the "documented history" of writing styles was mentioned earlier but I am having trouble finding it), I have got to ask a question related to the second bigegst puzzle of our time (aside from JTR):
If J.V.Omlor finds theese Diary threads so ridiculous, why on earth is he the one who seems to devote so much time to them?
Nobody seems to listen to his rather tedious repetition, so why bother?
Mr Poster |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Hi,
Since I brought up the point of this Barrett chap and his claims, I have a realatively simple question.All this drama about his statements happened 10 years ago. today is 09/04/05. Where does he stand now? What is his exact position now? Caroline : why dont you try and contact Barrett now and ask him where he stands right now on the whole matter. Whatever he sais today 09/04/05 , I am prepared to go along with that. If he maintains today that he wrote it , when he has nothing to gain by lying, I guess we have to accept it.
Than you - Dale the Snail |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Is there anywhere on this site or any other site that has the diary in its entirity? |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 3:07 am: |
|
Hello
Here are some links to professionals who can work with documents (at the bottom). In deference to those who mistrust "graphology" I have left those ones out even though they are practitioners (in the main) of an accepted science. But then again if you want to know if one or two people did the writing in the diary who would you ask to check (a graphologist if you hadnt guessed). Ive tried to filter out private individuals offering forensic/examination services.Regarding chemistry. There is no point bringing samples to the local university to be quickly tested by the resident chemist. Nor is there any point in bringing samples to some institute with an impressive name who may be good at what they do but are only going to do it the once (if you understand).
Is a logical step not to contact these people, present the problem and ask for their opinion? And it stime we stopped thinking colloquially and started thinking on an international level.
As with any problem of a scientific nature:
1. outline the problem in scientific terms, define what is wanted as a result
2. Organise a scientific consortium
3. the consortium decides the best way forward
4. the plan is implemented, data is obtained (money is paid!)
5. the results are analysed
6. consensus is obtained
Even if the consensus is that, for example, the document cannot be dated using scientific methods developed to date, then the discussion of the diary should be suspended for twenty or thirty years.
It would seem to me that instead of thrashing around we should think analytically.
So: flourescent marks are observed on the paper. The forum method is to discuss the marks, make pithy comments about each other, make insulting comments about each other, make lengthy posts clarifying what was said in earlier posts, make slightly agressive posts, ignore pithy post writers, ad infinitum.
The analytical approach would be: the marks would appear to be present, find out what makes such marks on paper in general, catalogue the marks (shining a light on the diary is not expensive), determine if there is a method that could identify the substances causing the marks. Bodily secretions often cause such marks. Are the stains due to oils from the writers hand? Dried spittle? What? Could Infrared microspectroscopy identify the substance or its components? Could it identify how far into the paper it has penetrated?
I was at a conference a while ago wher techniques were presented that allowed three dimensional chemical "maps" of microscopic particles to be made were presented. A particle was taken, analysed, and the result was a 3D colour representation of the chemcial make up of the particle. Apply that to the black particles found in the diary. Looking for.....arsenic.
Alternatively, swab a page of the diary with solvent, analyse it by the most sensitive method availabale for arsenic. If arsenic is found, is it reasonable to assume that the forger would apply amounts of arsenic to the paper that could never be detected by 1970's technology? If arsenic is found in or on the diary at levels that do not indicate direct contamination but rather exposure to an environment containing arsenic, does that not indicate something? (I wait with baited breath for the onslaught of pithy comments).
American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
http://www.asqde.org/
American Borad of Forensic Document examiners
http://www.abfde.org/
The National Association of Document Examiners
http://expertpages.com/org/nade.htm
Forensic Science Communications (Journal)
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/index.htm
American Academy of Forensic Sciences
http://www.aafs.org/
British Association of Paper Historians
http://www.baph.org.uk/
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PAPER HISTORIANS
http://www.paperhistory.org/
The Forensic Examiner (Journal)
http://www.acfei.com/forensic_examiner.php
Riley Welch & Associates Forensic Document Examinations
http://www.rileywelch.com/staf.html
National Forensic Science Technology Center USA
http://www.nfstc.org/
International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners (not online)
I also include a further reading list for those interested:
Document Analysis / Analytical Methods. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, J.A. Siegel (Ed.), Academic Press, Harcourt Publishers Ltd., 2000
Writing Media and Documents. Chapter 19. Handbook of Analytical Separations.Vol. 2 Forensic Science, M.J. Bogucz (Ed.), ELSEVIER, Amsterdam New York Oxford Shannon Singapore Tokyo, 2000
An Application of Chromatographic Methods for Dating Questioned Documents. Chromatography, O. Kaiser, R.E. Kaiser, H. Gunz, and W.Gunther (Eds.), InCOM, Duesseldorf, Germany, 1997
Mr Poster |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Hi Dale,
Unfortunately, with Mike it seems to depend on when you ask him, who asks, why he's being asked, and what he's being offered for replying. And I don't just mean money. In the past, the offer of a bottle or even the cash for a bottle has produced a tale or two.
I believe at the moment he is in "I didn't write it" mode. But that could change, of course, given the right circumstances.
Mr. Poster writes a post asking why I post here. So I guess I should include in my post here the question of why he feels compelled to write a post about my posting here. Especially since he cannot be bothered either to identify himself or to join our little community. In point of fact, I have already answered this question on another thread some time ago, where I explained exactly what it is about the psychology of Diary World and its denizens that I find so peculiarly fascinating. His post asking about me is a good example of that.
Then he offers us a fine list of resources and the following suggestion:
Is a logical step not to contact these people, present the problem and ask for their opinion? And it stime we stopped thinking colloquially and started thinking on an international level.
In response, I say, go for it. Of course, you'll have to reveal to them (and eventually the world, I suppose) who you are, and you'll have to arrange to make the reports and information that already exists available to the experts (as well, perhaps, as the material itself). But I think it's a fine and noble cause and I sincerely wish you the best with it.
Seriously.
Fresh out of pith,
--John |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
"If he maintains today that he wrote it , when he has nothing to gain by lying, I guess we have to accept it. "
It would be unwise to give Mike's 'testimony' any weight, irregardless of what he is saying in any particular month, whether it supports one position or another.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Well, at least that's something we certainly agree on. Unless there is corroborating testimony or material evidence, there is no reason at all by this point to ever believe anything Mike says about anything.
He's lied since the moment he first appeared with the diary. One wonders why.
--John |
Dale
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 12:35 am: |
|
Hello Sir Robert and John,
Thanks for your reply.Since I am relatively new to the case, and an outsider, I think I must try and convey exactly what I am thinking to you ,so you can see where I am coming from.I have read every post on this thread closely with great interest, and some of the other threads too now.This is how I view it from an outsider:
* This Barrett got the ball rolling with Maybrick as a suspect in 1992 with a diary he produced. Before then - as far as I know- James Maybrick was not considered at all as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. So the whole process started with Barrett. ( correct me if this is incorect).
* according now to what I have read , this Barrett seems to be completely full of crap( pardon my French). Yet he has given birth to the whole thing.
So look at it from where I am standing. What ever scientific analysis prooves about the state of this diary, which is inconclusive anyhow, it does not really matter. It was produced by someone who is full of it. So from an outsider's view, I think Maybrick as a suspect is a bit of a joke to me.Sorry to those have invested time in him, no offence intended.
Dale the Snail |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
John Omlor wrote:
So you see, I have answered your question concerning what I believe. I do not believe there is enough evidence yet to say who did or did not write the diary. (Except for one thing. We know is was not written by the real James Maybrick.)
WE don't KNOW it was not written by James Maybrick. Stop putting words in peoples mouths with such all encompassing statements. Who do you mean by WE?
I can't believe that, when put on the spot over the question of Mike Barrett being involved in penning the diary, for all your endless apparent convictions in the past about his involvement, you sit on the fence?
I for one am not bothered to admit that I believe the 'journal' to have been written by James Maybrick and I think you'll find it will never conclusively be proven a hoax old or new. |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
John Omlor wrote:
So you see, I have answered your question concerning what I believe. I do not believe there is enough evidence yet to say who did or did not write the diary. (Except for one thing. We know is was not written by the real James Maybrick.)
WE don't KNOW it was not written by James Maybrick. Stop putting words in peoples mouths with such all encompassing statements. Who do you mean by WE?
I can't believe that, when put on the spot over the question of Mike Barrett being involved in penning the diary, for all your endless apparent convictions in the past about his involvement, you sit on the fence?
I for one am not bothered to admit that I believe the 'journal' to have been written by James Maybrick and I think you'll find it will never conclusively be proven a hoax old or new. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Excuse me,
it is not written in his handwriting.
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Hee hee,
I love it when anonymous and unregistered posters post things twice. It makes them so much more, oh I don't know, noticeable.
To the person with no name:
There is no real evidence anywhere on the planet that has ever been discovered or put forward that links the real James Maybrick to this book or these crimes in any way whatsoever. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for saying Oscar Wilde was the Ripper as there is for saying the real James Maybrick was. Not only does the diary not have any verifiable provenance whatsoever, and not only is it full of errors, and not only was it brought forward by liars lying, but it's clearly and definitively in someone else's handwriting.
Still, I think it's noble that you believe, that you have your own personal faith. Whenever people criticize me for comparing some parts of Diary World to the flat-earth web pages and the aliens stole my sister crowd and the moonwalk was faked in a movie studio gang, I can take comfort in knowing that some of you wonderful people in the dark are still out there, unregistered and unnamed, and as your own post demonstrates, completely without real evidence, but out there nonetheless.
As for my words about the Barrett question -- there is no fence-sitting involved at all. I am saying positively and without equivocation what I know for certain to be true, that the evidence to indict Mike Barrett or anyone else for the production of this modern hoax has not yet been offered by anyone I have ever seen.
And so that's where WE are. With an obvious hoax full of textual indications of a modern date of composition, contradictory scientific findings, originally brought forward with lies, and still stuck with a lack of the necessary evidence to indict any specific hoaxers.
Glad to have this chat, mystery-dude or dudette,
--John
PS: I suppose it's too much to ask that you might have some super-secret real evidence which actually links the real James either to the book or to the killings in some way. Any chance you might? Any chance you'd share it? Hmmmm? |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Ally--Hi. Now and then (but rarely!) I stop and wonder about my own motivations. What the heck do the 'anti-diarists' really want? Bluntly, it seems to me we have a (somewhat) irrational desire to force the other side to give up and "cry uncle." But we can't force anyone to do this, and it couldn't really matter much that a group of people don't accept the modern forgery theory. So where to? 1) Ignore it, and let people have their own theories. No one seems to have any problem with ignoring the Lewis Carroll theory. 2) Hunker down for another 50 years of eternal vigilance and frequent recantations of the "anti" arguments. 3) Do the dirty work, and kill the thing by exposing the forger. This last option doesn't seems very likely. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
"What the heck do the 'anti-diarists' really want?"
R.J., as there are no 'pro-diarists' posting here on anything resembling a regular basis, your question is particularly apt. Personally, I think much of what goes on here in terms of repetitious posting and the disruption of threads has nothing to do with the Diary or the Watch. It could have as easily have been "Stride as a Victim" or "The Lusk Kidney". Because the Diary is so discredited as a legitimate document, Net Kook behavior is tolerated that would have been seen for what it is years ago.
" 3) Do the dirty work, and kill the thing by exposing the forger. This last option doesn't seems very likely."
Actually, I do think progress is being made, slowly and unsurely. Exposing the forger is difficult for those playing along at home, but I think discussing who DIDN'T hoax the Diary is a valuable topic for discussion.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Maybe the "pros" don't post here regularly, but as we've just seen they're still around...
And the thing's a hoax.
So who are the "Net Kooks," really?
Incidentally, there's been plenty of "repetitious posting and the disruption of threads" to go around in Diary World, from all sides, and it was in full and glorious swing back when I first started reading these boards years ago. The tenor of the discussions around here hasn't really changed that much in the past four or five years. In fact, in many ways, it's actually become somewhat calmer.
But thanks for the thoughts. I found them interesting indeed.
All the best,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on April 14, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 1:20 am: |
|
Sir Robert--Let me rephrase that. For 'anti-diarists' read 'modern hoax theorists.'
"I think discussing who DIDN'T hoax the Diary is a valuable topic."
Sorry, but I find it hard to agree. For six years now, I've been told of one certain person who didn't hoax the diary, and it hasn't prevented me from being suspicious as hell; by 'dirty work' I meant digging into records, seeking interviews, etc. But this simply can't be done. Private citizens don't need to cooperate, and there's no way to compel them to. As far as I can tell, it's either the long siege, or the deep chill. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to consider what might have been the composition of the group involved in a modern forgery.
Fistly there is the the idea man.The person who,because of his knowledge of both the Ripper and Maybrick affairs,can compose the wording of the diary,but because of his public profile cannot write or bring forward a finished article.
This person enlists the help of Devereux.His part is to organise the buying of the book,ink etc,and find someone to write the wording into the diary.Devereux enlists Barrett and an unknown(the writer).The writer and Barrett are not introduced to each other,and neither is made aware of the identity of the idea man.
The Diary is written,and passed to Barrett for the final stage,the presentation to the public.Before this can happen,Devereaux dies,and the diary is left in the possession of Barrett and spouse.Unsure what to do,and not knowing the identity of the other two participants,they decide finally to pursue the final course alone.
So Barrett may have told some truth of where the diary came from,but was out of his depth when acting alone,and became irrational when others started taking over.He had to say it was himself who had composed and written the diary,because he had no idea who had,but he did know it was a hoax.
The 'O costly intercourse' book I presume to have also been given to Barrett by Devereaux.Perhaps the hoax was intended as only a short term intention,and was to be revealed if and when a suitable number of highly respected personnel had been shown to have been taken a leave of.The unfortunate death of Devereaux caused things to go a little astray.
Perhaps this is not the answer,but idea's of what might have happened is something that is worth talking about. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
RJ,
why am i here isnt that one of the oldest questions around?
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jeff Leahy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Brilliant Harry
I do love a conspiracy theories...the only problem is...if you were a brilliant 'Hoaxing' master mind would you use Mike Barrett as a 'patsie'?
And where did a 3D reconstruction of the Kennedy assasination get us to? ...back to the lone gun man theory...
Mr Poster I have seen your idea's, made notes and nicked them...I'm afraid I have no shame...
Your ideas for putting together an investigating team were actually very similar to John Omlors.
You see you can all agree and get along.
John I had know idea you were a Quak. I'd better watch out for a psycho analisis*%$**. If you worked in the strange world of chemistry and alcheme like Mr Poster you'd know why he uses a sudonim....there an odd lot...but they might come in handy.
Catch you next week
Jeff |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
Don't worry, you're safe. I'm just an amateur.
My name, however, is real.
Have a good weekend,
--John |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 2:31 am: |
|
Hi
Especially since he cannot be bothered either to identify himself or to join our little community.
If I walked into a pub where the "denizens" (not my word, but indicative nonetheless)were engaged primarily in discussion of a topic the nature of which I assume the general public finds a little bizarre and where the level of sniping reaches the depths it does: I would not leave a business card.
Secondly, if you Google "John V. Omlor", the first hit (at least on my machine) is for the Casebook.
Hence the danger of the Internet. No offence, but I do not want the Casebook to be the first thing people see me associated with if they happen to Google me (and sometimes they do to get my phone number or whatever).
Admittedly, I could use a false name to hide myself.....Ooooooh wait a minute, thats what Ive done.
Secondly, and this has always concerned me about J.V.O., if my employers happened upon the Casebook and saw that I was posting (and if I was a memeber I would probably post more) they would rightly ask "Why has this man so much time available to be writing pages on this forum?".
Thirdly, of all the forums I am in, this one is the only one requiring paper forms and such like.
Greetings
mr Poster |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
What the Maybrick diary has done to Ripperology is to create a satellite icon.
Jack the Ripper interests us all as we have no idea who he is but he bridges the pathway to the darker side of all of us. However we now have a new idealistic mystery figure which grabs our mischevious attention.
 |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 15, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
1) Ignore it, and let people have their own theories. No one seems to have any problem with ignoring the Lewis Carroll theory. 2) Hunker down for another 50 years of eternal vigilance and frequent recantations of the "anti" arguments. 3) Do the dirty work, and kill the thing by exposing the forger. This last option doesn't seems very likely.
The fourth option is to do further research. As finding the hoaxer appears unlikely, unless they do a Cottingley Fairy type admission, the only option is to continue to try an get evidence that Maybrick just couldnt be the ripper (I didnt say author).
1. Records. All it takes is one dusty document showing he was somewhere else at the time of a murder. A receipt, a meeting minute, a report in a paper, anything. Of all the things that bothers me about that document, the writers went to significant trouble for something that could have been disproved so easily. Endless repetition of "Tin box empty" is hardly as damning as a newspaper society column sighting Maybrick at the opera on a relevant evening or a ticket showing he was on a boat or something. As the brother of a famous artiste, surely he must have been of interest to the Victorian paparazzi types?
2. The Florence trial. Maybe there are records or interviews that could shed further insight into the husband.
3. Is it true that before the 1970's, children would run past Battlecrease House shouting that this is the house where jack lived? Can that be confirmed by anyone (unlikely)?
4. Scientific analysis of the the document. One more time, if Maybricks house was so contaminated with arsenic (as it seems to have been) then if that document has no traces of arsenic (or strychnine) on it anywhere, it has to increase the liklihood that it was never next nor near Maybrick as everything else related to him seems to be covered in it. If there is arsenic on it, then it was either exposed to arsenic sometime in the past (have to analyse the probability of that) or the writer went to a lot of trouble/risk to buy arsenic (!) and "seed" the document. And testing for arsenic is relatively easy. NOt like looking for micrograms of organic chemicals with easily contaminated instrumentation. It may even be possible to do it without damaging the document (spectrometry ?).
The usual methods used to analyse other suspects and discount them (having been somewhere else, "psychological profiling" etc. etc. ) just do not seem to have been applied to Maybrick (at least not to my mind). Maybe thats a better way of proving he didnt do it. Using the document and trying to prove he didnt write it obviously is getting us nowhere fast.
I would really like to ask the "hoaxer" who they thought was Jack the Ripper as they have done a fine job in stitching up Maybrick (if they have) and must have some real insight into the type of person who would do the Ripper crimes.
Being neither pro nor anti anything, its not the views of either camp that are problematic: rather the incessant bleating with no sign of any proactivity at all. If some of the effort expended on finding the birth records of all M.J Kelly's in Limerick was expended on pinpointing Maybrick at a location where he could not possibly have been had he been the Ripper then this entire thing could possibly be laid to rest.
Revelling in anonymity
Mr Poster |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
