25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[David Orsam]

Regarding the word processor, I think the question is more whether Dixons traded in second hand goods. I don't remember them doing it in any stores I visited in the 1980s but I suppose it's possible, if unlikely, that the Liverpool store did. Seeing the sale price on the invoice would certainly help. As the advert I posted earlier shows, £399 was the cost of a brand new 8256 in 1986.

Perhaps more interesting is that the date of the purchase on the invoice appears to clash with the explanation that was given to Keith Skinner in April 1994 whereby it seems to have been suggested, although not said explicitly, that the word processor was purchased in order for Mike to type his research notes at some point after August 1991.

This was certainly how Shirley Harrison understood the situation because, referring to the period when Mike claimed to acquired the Diary in 1991, she wrote in her 1993 book:

"Mike bought a word processor and launched himself into extensive research..."

Now, even if Shirley misunderstood, and this was also not what Mike was trying to say when he explained the background of the word processor to Keith, it still leaves an interesting question:

Why did the Barretts purchase a word processor in April 1986?

Clearly it wasn't for Mike, and he couldn't have touched it for six years because Anne had to show him how to use it when it came to typing up his notes in 1992, so, by a process of elimination, it must have been purchased for Anne's use.

Now, why did Anne want a word processor in 1986? Was she a budding writer back then? Full of creative ideas?

[caz]

I tend to be a forum lurker and this is totally off-topic but I had to post after you mentioned Beer caz. I live in Seaton, a few miles from Beer.
By the way I've enjoyed reading your posts for years, especially some in this thread.

Cheers Ozzy!

We have been to Seaton town hall [the Gateway?] a few times now to see The Mods - another great covers band. We are seeing them again on 30th September, the day after we get back from our hols in Wales.

We were in Exmouth last Sunday to see the same Beatles tribute band that we saw in Beer - The Fab Beatles. Glorious sunshine all day and a wonderful atmosphere.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi All,

On page 150 of Inside Story, we mention three articles that Mike wrote for Celebrity magazine [publishers D.C. Thomson] in 1988.

On page 172, we mention Anne's claim that she had to 'tidy up' the celebrity interviews he wrote, his interviewees including Bonnie Langford, Kenneth Williams, Stan Boardman and Jimmy Cricket, and also Mike's confirmation: "...all the interviews, great, but could I get the articles out properly? . . . so, Anne stepped in and I felt she was taking something away from me".

I haven't found any information on whether the word processor bought from Dixons in 1986 was used for these and - if so - whether both Mike and Anne used it or just Anne.

Having said that, I can only repeat [as it seems some people need frequent reminders] that because other claims made by both Barretts have proved contradictory and unreliable, any referred to on this thread should be treated with the appropriate amount of caution.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers Ozzy!

We have been to Seaton town hall [the Gateway?] a few times now to see The Mods - another great covers band. We are seeing them again on 30th September, the day after we get back from our hols in Wales.

We were in Exmouth last Sunday to see the same Beatles tribute band that we saw in Beer - The Fab Beatles. Glorious sunshine all day and a wonderful atmosphere.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz it's not fair! How come I don't have a fan?

[caz]

It occurs to me that I might have unwittingly disappointed Keith Skinner…but then again Keith is a Chelsea fan so is very used to disappointment and will, I am sure, get over it.... just like he will, by now, have got over the cup final defeat, charity shield defeat, defeat to Burnley etc. etc.

Another thing that occurs to me is that if Keith received the research notes on 12th April 1994, which had been typed by Mike from his handwritten notes, with spellings only corrected, in a tidying up process, by Anne (who, thus, neither typed nor re-typed nor collated them), how did Shirley Harrison's information and input get into them?

I note that Shirley Harrison says in her 2003 book:

"In 1992 Michael had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne from his researches."

Is Keith, I wonder, talking about the same set of notes that Shirley was given by Mike in 1992 or a different set which Shirley had created in the intervening two years?

Here is Keith's response, David:

'Am working from memory but I think the essence of my recollections are correct.

But first of all – please remind David about which London team is currently ahead in the league!

The answer to David's query - as I think described by Shirley – is that the notes were given to Shirley by Mike Barrett when she paid her first visit to Liverpool in the Summer of 1992, soon after being commissioned to write the book.

But prior to Shirley's trip there had been, as I understand it, constant telephone calls from an excited Mike wanting to help and involve himself in the research – and so Shirley gave him little research tasks to undertake. Shirley has noted Mike didn't seem to be very good at this and often became frustrated and upset at not being able to find answers. So Shirley's input into these notes may have been the research she was suggesting to Mike he could do in Liverpool. I do distinctly recall showing the notes to Anne at a later date (1995?) and she confirmed that she had tidied them up. Mike wasn't too good on the word processor apparently. Without reference to my files I can't quite recall what put me on to the existence of these notes in 1994 which were faxed through to me, (either from Shirley or Sally), a couple of days before I went to see Mike in Liverpool on April 14th 1994. There was just a slim chance that Mike had kept his original handwritten notes or notebooks but he hadn't – so that was the end of that line of enquiry.

I did question Mike very carefully about his research methodology as I was interested to learn how he had gone about trying to make sense of the diary, starting from a position of – presumably – knowing very little about Jack The Ripper and virtually nothing about the Maybrick Case. I remember trying to tease out from Mike anything which would give independent corroboration that he had been given the diary by Tony Devereux and was disappointed when he could not provide one fact which could be substantiated. He said he had researched it night and day to the point that he had become a Ripper expert. But I just didn't feel that with Mike, and his knowledge around the Maybrick Case seemed to me equally negligible. For someone who claimed he had devoted around 10 months to studying both cases it just didn't ring true.

But in the absence, (at that time), of any other explanation of how the diary had come into Mike's possession, then one had to run with the Tony Devereux provenance – no matter how unsatisfactory. Plus the Transferring all my notes since August 1991 does support Mike having the diary for a considerable period of time and investigating its content.

Two months after I had met Mike in Liverpool, Mike confessed (June 1994) to having faked the diary and then came Mike's five page affidavit of January 1995 where he outlined the mechanics of the hoax. Although Mike explains that the idea for creating the diary came from discussions between himself, Anne and his father in law, he doesn't say when the hoax was conceived or what gave him the idea that James Maybrick would be an ideal candidate for Jack The Ripper.'

Me again, David. I note you have yet to respond to the invitation to put Mike's notes up on the casebook if you give me an address I can send them to. I asked Keith if he'd be happy to take the notes to Liverpool if you decline my offer, in case anyone attending would be willing to scan them for the casebook and jtrforums.

Keith agreed and suggested that anyone willing to do this make contact with him at the Conference.

I'll pop a similar request up on the jtrforums.

In the meantime perhaps you would kindly let me know whether you plan to accept or decline this opportunity to help get some of your questions [in your own words] 'answered publicly, not for myself or my own personal interest, but in the interests of all researchers and people who are interested in the origins of the Diary'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thinking about it, I suppose that if I was in contact with Keith Skinner I could ask him some of the questions I have asked on this forum – if I was being so forward, and indeed rude, to put him on the spot in a private email – but I'm not in contact with Keith Skinner. In fact, I'm absolutely certain I have never once mentioned on this forum being in contact with Keith Skinner. Just like I have never mentioned on this forum being in private contact with ANYONE outside this forum. Not that it's anyone's business whether I am in contact with Keith Skinner or not. But I am not. So, as I'm not in contact with Keith Skinner, I haven't asked Keith Skinner about Mike's 'research' notes and, even if I was in contact with Keith Skinner, which I'm not, I probably wouldn't ask him any such questions because I don't want private information that I can't talk about (not that that is anyone else's business either); I want these questions answered publicly, not for myself or my own personal interest, but in the interests of all researchers and people who are interested in the origins of the Diary.

Well here's the thing, David. You were the one who implied you had been in private contact with someone, when you said you had reason to believe that Keith Skinner's position on the Battlecrease provenance had changed. If you recall, I had posted that it hadn't, but you thought you knew better. You said it was clearly only an assumption on my part because you had been given reason to believe otherwise. Keith obviously read your post and realised you were referring to private email correspondence between you, which is the reason he emailed you again to put you straight and emailed me to tell me he had done so. You knew all of this – as would anyone who had followed the relevant posts - so your self-righteous indignation here was misplaced and transparently so.

You suggested it would have been 'forward' and 'rude' to put Keith 'on the spot' in a private email, to ask – for example - about making Mike's notes available to all, yet you seemed to think there was nothing forward or rude about ranting into the ether about the 'incomprehensible' and 'disgraceful' failure to make them available. Some people would think that was a mighty strange and heavy-handed way to go about achieving your stated goal: 'I want these questions answered publicly, not for myself or my own personal interest, but in the interests of all researchers and people who are interested in the origins of the Diary'.

It's like history repeating itself. A few years ago, another poster would rant and rave about the watch reports being kept under wraps. When I asked this poster if he had actually approached Robert Smith privately to request their publication, he said no because Robert would no doubt have refused. I called the poster an 'arrogant little [something]' and got a justified ticking off from Admin for attacking him rather than the post, but Robert proved him wrong by handing over the reports, which can now be read by all visitors to this site.

Have a great weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Is anyone able to tell me how claims by Anne Barrett have been proved to be contradictory and unreliable?

And which claims have been so proved?

I wasn't aware of this amazing news.

[David Orsam]

Now there is one thing that should be a certain fact and that is that Mike purchased his word processor on 3 April 1986. At least one hopes it is a certain fact. Presumably Shirley Harrison has the original sales receipt, or invoice as it has been described. Does one have to rant and rave and beg and plead for an image of this single page document to be posted on this forum? Then we can, perhaps, work out for ourselves if Mike somehow managed to acquire a second hand PCW from Dixons on that date.

So what was the reason for the purchase? Oh, we don't know. What a shame. But the suggestion is, I think, that it was for Mike to be able to type up articles for a magazine.

Or was it for him to write them by hand and for Anne to type them?

Nobody seems to know.

Did Anne show Mike how to use the word processor in 1992 or was that a lie by Mike? If it was a lie, why did he lie? Why did he need to hide the fact that he could use the word processor?

Did he also deliberately mislead Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner in the early days into thinking it was only bought in 1991 to type up his research notes? If so, why? For what reason did he want to cover up the fact that he had owned a word processor for years?

It is certainly to be noted that the word processor features in Mike's story as to how the fake Diary was created. Thus, in his affidavit of 5 January 1995, he said:

"my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation"

But perhaps truth that his relationship with Anne was that she typed up all his notes for him, improving them when she did so?

Either way, it is obviously essential for Mike's 'research' notes to be made available to researchers.

[David Orsam]

If I'm understanding correctly, the suggestion is that Shirley believed that Mike's research notes incorporated some information that she had given to Mike in telephone conversations at some point after 13 April 1992 but before he gave her the notes in the Summer of 1982.

But that cannot possibly be the case.

Shirley is very clear about it.

In her response to Harris (1997), she said that Mike's 'research notes' were 'typed and collated for him by Anne, his then wife, while he was trying to make sense of the Diary, before he brought it to us.'

And then again in her 2003 book she says that the notes are 'a record of his forays to Liverpool Library before he brought the diary to London when he was desperately trying to make sense of it.'

We know that Mike brought the Diary to London on 13 April 1992, before he had said a word to Shirley Harrison on the telephone, so how could she have possibly made the above statements believing that the notes incorporated research based on her suggestions AFTER he had brought the Diary to London?

But if the impossible is somehow possible and the notes contain not only a record of Mike's research carried out at Shirley's request but also, presumably, information that Shirley had given him, Shirley should be able to identify what parts of the notes those are. Can she actually do this?

[David Orsam]

How amusing to learn that someone had to rant and rave before the 3 Maybrick watch reports were made publicly available! Seems like ranting and raving works just fine!! But of course that's not how the Diary Team would like it done. No! One has to ask politely and with due respect and reverence before any information which can easily be made available is made available.

The 3 watch reports comprise 21 pages in total yet obviously the 17 pages of Barrett's 'research' notes cannot be made available in the same way. For that to happen it involves a ludicrously complicated process of Private Message contact, some begging and grovelling, and mailing of hard copies in the post.

And remember that one must be sufficiently grateful to be given information. I seem to recall reading a few days ago that I didn't treat some information that was given to me with sufficient awe and reverence, or something like that. Frankly, I have no idea what information that was - I simply don't remember ever being given any - but in future I will, of course, tip my hat with gratitude at any crumbs that are dropped from the table.

[David Orsam]

As an exchange of posts from another thread has been seriously misrepresented in this thread I suppose I have to correct the record, however long and wearisome an exercise that may be.

I'm sure that very few people have the time or inclination to plough through old posts in the "Incontrovertible" thread but the relevant posts are #2042, #2050, #2053, #2057, #2065 and #2071 all between 9 November and 1 December 2016 (and also a later post, #2094, on 6 December) and I encourage anyone interested to read them in their entirety.

What happened is that it was said by another poster that Keith Skinner "finds" the Battlecrease provenance evidence compelling. In response, I asked this:

"Has Keith Skinner ever put anything in writing which states that he finds compelling the evidence (whatever that may be) that the diary has a Battlecrease provenance?

If not, what has he actually said that makes you think he finds that evidence compelling?"

The answer I was given was that Keith had spoken publicly about this in 2007. So nothing was said to explain why Keith, in November 2016, still found the evidence compelling.

In response I said:

"Well perhaps some people in the audience came away with the impression that he found the evidence for a Battlecrease provenance compelling but did he actually say that?

Even if he did say it in 2007, I am unconvinced that he still holds this view (and you did use the present tense when you said in #2042, "I completely understand why he finds the evidence so compelling.")"

It will be noted that it wasn't said by me that Keith Skinner did not hold the view, only that I was unconvinced about it.

A further response was made to me again referring to what Keith Skinner had said nine years earlier in 2007. Not a single word of explanation was provided as to why Keith Skinner still held the view that he was said to have held in 2007. In that same response, the point was also made that I was "more open to the possibility of Mike's various 'confession' statements reflecting the truth, or partial truth, without having seen a jot of evidence for it, than you are to Keith Skinner holding a very different position that is backed up to the hilt."

It was also said to me, quite outrageously:

"Demand evidence by all means before you take anything said about Keith's long and painstaking research seriously, but where are your demands to see evidence for any of Mike's claims? Your demands have been for evidence that he lied, which does suggest a predisposition to favour Mike's claims over Keith's. If I'm getting the wrong impression I'm sure you'll put me straight."

Not only was it an outrageous suggestion that I was favouring Mike's claims over Keith Skinner's but completely untrue and not warranted by anything I had said.

In response, I stated:

"The notion that Keith Skinner still holds to that opinion today is far from "backed up to the hilt". In fact, it's clearly no more than an assumption on your part."

The reason I said that it was "clearly" no more than an assumption was because in two posts, after I had asked for evidence that Keith Skinner still held the same view in 2016 as he did in 2007, none whatsoever had been presented.

I did not say it was a false assumption. Just an assumption.

And I was obviously correct in saying that the notion that Keith held that position today was not backed up to the hilt because the response to this post was that: "I didn't mean 'the notion' that Keith holds to that opinion today is 'backed up to the hilt'; I wrote that his position is backed up to the hilt."

I also said:

"It is quite wrong of you to link the fact that I am unconvinced that Keith Skinner holds this opinion today (for which I do happen to have a good reason for saying so, but which I am not prepared to elaborate on in this forum) with anything you happen to think I believe about Mike Barrett's affidavit."

Again, I said no more than I was "unconvinced", which was true, and also that I happened to have good reason for being unconvinced, which I did. I did not imply that I had any private contact with anyone.

For anyone to say that I had been told Keith Skinner's position hadn't changed and that, in response, I said I thought I knew better is simply not true. It was not expressly stated that Keith's position hadn't changed nor did I say I knew better. What was related to me was an account of Keith Skinner's position in 2007 and what I said (which was perfectly true), in the face of a false and outrageous accusation that I believed Mike's affidavit over Keith Skinner, was that I had good reason to be unconvinced that Keith Skinner still held to his 2007 view today.

Perhaps more importantly in respect of this thread, when I said in this thread that "I'm absolutely certain I have never once mentioned on this forum being in contact with Keith Skinner" that was absolutely correct. And indeed everything I said in #486 was absolutely true and did not need to be challenged and should not have been challenged.

[David Orsam]

If there is one thing that surprises me about Keith Skinner, aside from the obvious fact that he supports a team that no decent player seems to want to play for, it's that he hasn't told a certain person to "SHUT UP!".

Who I speak to in email or what they say to me is no-one's business and should remain entirely private but as my integrity has been questioned in this thread I really feel I have no option but to explain a few things which I would rather have left unsaid.

Keith Skinner originally contacted me in late 2015 in response to a non-Diary related article on my website, asking me a few questions, which I hope I answered to his satisfaction, and he then contacted me again after I posted about the Diary in the "Incontrovertible" thread back in August 2016.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why he contacted me at that time - although it was partly to give me a reference from his book - or why he was in the slightest bit interested in my views on the Diary, a subject about which he has immense knowledge and about which I had virtually none at the time (I've educated myself a little bit more now) but we had some very enjoyable, civilised and quite detailed email discussions about the Diary ranging over a period of about two months. In fact, it's probably no exaggeration to say that it was those discussions that piqued my interest in the Diary. It certainly prompted me to carry out research into the origins of the phrase "one off" which I mentioned to him at the time.

The only thing that wasn't so enjoyable about the conversations was that, after a dreadful start to the season, Chelsea suddenly started winning matches. How annoying!

Anyway, I don't believe I will be betraying any confidences to say that Keith never mentioned his belief in the Battlecrease provenance to me and, on the contrary, made a few comments about the origins of the Diary which actually led me to believe that he didn't think it came from Battlecrease. Now, I hasten to say that he obviously didn't intend to give me this impression and I clearly misunderstood what he was saying. But I've looked over our exchanges again and I feel that my understanding was perfectly reasonable although, of course, I'm sure it was not was he was intending to convey to me.

By November 2016, our exchanges had come to an end and, consequently, when it was said on the forum during that month that Keith believed in a Battlecrease provenance I genuinely wanted to know why. When the only answer that I was given was that he had said so in 2007, I was naturally unconvinced that he still held this view and said so, in the hope that it would prompt someone to tell me what the actual position was.

In the end, on 4 December 2016, Keith wrote to me to tell me that he did strongly hold to the position that it was his belief that the Diary came out of Battlecrease. But he also first said to me, and I hope that in the circumstances he won't mind me quoting a short extract from his email of 4 Dec:

"I took a quick look at the Message Boards and would like to correct one impression that I may have foolishly given you – and if so I do apologise."

That was, of course, the impression I had that he no longer believed in the Battlecrease provenance.

He also said to me on the same day:

"You’ve demonstrated complete and utter integrity throughout our exchanges David."

I should say that I did offer to Keith that if he wanted me to correct or clarify the position on his behalf on the forum I would be most happy to do so but he said he thought it was better to leave it. So I did.

A certain person, on 6 December, subsequently wrote in the Incontrovertible thread (having been emailed by Keith Skinner as to what he had written to me): "I trust we can now put this behind us and move on?", yet that person has not been able to leave it alone and has returned again and again to the subject, evidently for propaganda purposes, as if smearing me in an underhand way will somehow show that Diary really did come from under the floorboards of Battlecrease!

Now I really hope this puts a final end to this long running saga. I conclude by saying that Keith Skinner has struck me as a perfect gentleman, with whom I very much enjoyed having intelligent and constructive Diary discussions, and, if Chelsea start sliding back to their natural mid-table position, I might feel able to contact him again and discuss some of these issues directly (or he can contact me). But not until after 22 September because I don't want to undermine his confidence in the Battlecrease provenance before he's even expressed it in public!!!

[David Orsam]

One more thing from me for the moment. I certainly don't recall ranting and raving in this thread but when I said, quite properly, that it was incomprehensible and disgraceful from a researcher's point of view that the 'research' notes have not been made public I must have been 100% correct about that because the intention now, it seems, is for them to be made public.

Hey, it's only been 25 years since they were given by Mike to Shirley Harrison and 20 years since she made reference to them in an online article as being one of the key points against the idea that the Diary was a forgery. Naturally, one cannot expect anyone from the Diary Team to release information without being pressed to do so.

And there is loads more stuff that could be made available without me having to ask for it.

I was not, of course, referring to any individual person when I said the situation was disgraceful. I was referring to the situation in general. I know that a certain person would love to make it seem like I am criticising Keith Skinner but I didn't even have him in mind when I made that comment.

But anyway it's always nice for a 'campaign' (ha ha!) to succeed and I look forward to the 'research' notes being made available forthwith in a sensible way that doesn't involve me doing anything.

[pinkmoon]

Notes or no notes this diary is a fake I think a lot of people connected to it came to that conclusion very early on in the proceedings but went along with it purely to make a few quid.

[David Orsam]

I should, I suppose, just add that I haven't had any communication with Keith Skinner at all this year - not since 4th December in fact - and hence, not being in contact with Keith Skinner, I haven't asked him about seeing Mike's 'research' notes, as I've already said, not that I would have asked him about this in a private email because I don't want private information. It's a point for a public forum and the notes should be made public.