View Single Post
  #42  
Old 04-19-2018, 11:33 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

I can only assume that the extremely hostile reaction to this thread from one member of the forum is for three reasons. Firstly because I have posted a document that neither she nor Keith Skinner was able to locate, secondly because I have demonstrated an obvious error by that person when she said to me sourly that the invoice did not show as much as I may have been hoping for (and she never acknowledges or corrects such errors) and thirdly because this person once posted of the word processor:

'As I recall, it was purchased second hand with money given to Mike and Anne by Anne's father?'

These were Keith Skinner's words being posted but apparently to even suggest Keith might have got something wrong is like blasphemy where some people are concerned.

Now we know that Anne's father was prepared to bankroll Mike with a quite large sum of money in 1986 there would be nothing particularly unusual in him giving Mike another 50 in 1992 to acquire a photograph album.

We know from Mike's affidavit that he muddled up his dates. For example, he said in that affidavit that, "I had actually written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor, which I purchased in 1985" but we now know for sure that the purchase was in 1986. He also said, "I finally decided in November 1993 that enough was enough and I made it clear from that time on that the Diary of Jack the Ripper was a forgery," and "Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper" but he didn't make his forgery "confession" until June 1994 (firstly to Shirley Harrison on 21st June and then to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Daily Post three days later). He said that Tony Devereux died "late May early June 1990" when it was August 1991 . So there would be nothing odd about Mike making another error when he dated the acquisition of the guardbook. He was drinking very heavily at the time and clearly one has to make allowances when it comes to chronology, especially as he also makes clear in the affidavit that he acquired his red diary BEFORE the guardbook and we know for a fact that the red diary was acquired in March 1992.

As to the red diary, here is what the world's leading expert tells us about what Barrett said on the subject in his affidavit:

"I suggest he mentioned the red diary to Alan Gray, in the context of having given it to Anne recently, and Gray helped him "make something of it" in his January 1995 affidavit." (#1677, Acquiring a Victorian Diary)

So we are being told that Alan Gray is responsible for the contents of Mike's affidavit based on what Mike had told him. This is quite possible, in which case perhaps it was Gray who muddled up the dates, misunderstanding what Mike had told him and Mike did not read the affidavit properly before he signed it.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote