Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[James_J]

Last reponse tonight David - the evening is ticking along and there are other things which need doing.

Yes it's of value but it's a different point. That shows that Eddie never mentioned JTR in July. But by October I'm suggesting that Brian knew what the investigation was all about and about the claims that a diary had been found in Battlecrease by one of the electricians (specifically by Eddie). That's the possible contamination. (He doesn't have needed to know it was JTR's diary)

Possible - but nothing more than speculation at this point.

Sure but if he did tell the police it was a diary then that must trouble you, no?

Not really to be honest. The fundamental premise of his account does not change. I will reiterate - I have no reason to believe that Brian is confused or making up fictious stories about his colleague. Brian has proved to be a reliable witness and I think it is wholly unsatisfactory to dismiss his account on the basis that he occasionally varied between the terms; "something" "book" or "diary". The fundamental questions are (and should be) - did Lyons admit to finding anything beneath the floorboards? If so, what was it that he found? When did he find it?"

It's a novel way of working out the truth I'll grant you but I don't think one can simply count the number of times Brian said "book" and then count the number of times he said "something" and then conclude that the most commonly used word is the one that was actually said! For the simple fact is that Brian should NEVER have been using the word "something". The very fact he has used it (on more than one occasion, it seems) strongly suggests to me that this is most likely to have been the word used and his later memory, learning that a diary or book was supposed to have been discovered has influenced and corrupted his memory. Hey, it happens. Memory can easily be affected in this way.

I think you're being a tad facetious here David. I would like to think that an intelligent and reasonable individual such as yourself would be able to discern that this was not my suggested method of "working out the truth". You asked me to address Brian's slight change in terminologies - and I have done so. I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you regard these changes as suspect. I do not - and out of the two of us, only one has ever spoken with Brian directly.

The fact of the matter is that Brian probably now has no actual memory of what was said that day.

No fact here - just pure speculation.

Aha! So now we have something new and a reason why I asked to see the entire transcript of the Lyons interview. Here we have Lyons saying that he might have had a conversation with Brian about books and Brian has misremembered what was said!!

Again - just more speculation. You have no evidential support whatsoever for your bold assertion that "Brian has misremembered what was said". Who are you to say that Eddie is not misremembering what was said?


[QUOTE=David Orsam;439732]As an explanation of why Lyons might have started talking about his discovery it's not a very good one. For according to Smith, who taped his 1997 interview with Brian, what Brian said was this:

"Rawes asked Lyons to guide him as he reversed back down the drive. When he reached the entrance gate to the property and was about to drive off, Lyons came up to the drivers window and said to Rawes: "I found something under the floorboards...."

That account (which seems to match what Brian told you) doesn't match up with there having been any kind of conversation prior to the revelation which is said to come totally out of the blue just before Brian was about to drive away in the firm's van.

So wouldn't that seem to imply that Eddie isin the wrong? Or else deliberatley obmitting certain parts of the conversation? You can't have it both ways David - on one hand, you jump for joy as "Brian was clearly misremembering what was said" and on the other, you declare that Lyon's explanation for their conversation "isn't a very good one".

And, James, please note that here we have another claim by Brian that Eddie only told him that "something" had been found. And this was back in 1997. Which rather trumps your more recent interviews in which he mentioned a "book" does it not?

Again - we come back to the use of "something". You can point these out until you are blue in the face - but it does not answer the fundamental questions, which we should be asking about this account:

• Did Lyons admit to finding anything beneath the floorboards? Whether that be a "book" "diary" or "something". If not - why has Brian fabricated this?
  
• What was it that Lyons found? According to Brian it was a book (I'm maintaining my position on this). According to TMW & Alan Dodgson it was a leather bound diary written by Jack the Ripper.
  
• When did he find it?" The implication from Brian is that whatever he had found, it was discovered and removed prior to their conversation in July 1992.

It's not as stark a choice as this. You are not allowing for confused memories. Why could a discovery of a Victorian newspaper not be important? Last week I posted a news story about a discovery of a Victorian newspaper in Buckingham Palace. It was important enough to be mentioned in the papers.

That's a fair point David - but one must wonder what became of this Victorian newspaper, if it was important enough for Eddie to discuss it's discovery and signficance to a colleague? Why would Eddie deny its discovery - even when Scotland Yard came knocking, and denied finding even a "scrap of paper"?

But of course this all rests on whether Eddie really did say it was important or whether this is something else that Brian has added to the story, having convinced himself in his own mind that it was an important revelation.

Bingo.

You say that little did Brian know what was going on in London. Indeed. And he had no reason to know or to be told ANYTHING about the diary did he? So why did Eddie tell him? It doesn't make sense and because it doesn't make sense there is seriously good reason to think it didn't happen.

If Eddie was anxious that something he had discovered was recieving significant interest (both professional and fincancial) and that the document had a somewhat questionable route from floorboard to publisher - he may well have sought some advice from a colleague. I think it is perfectly reasonable explanation.

None of that's going to help me James. I'm not a lie detector machine. What is of far more assistance, and far more revealing, are the things we have been talking about in this thread.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree David.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur in my view. Eddie has been accommodating (you don't say whether he has been open or not) yet you don't believe his denials. So the fact that someone is being "accommodating", like Brian, doesn't seem to help us establish the truth.

That's fair enough David. It's pointless for us to debate the question of first-hand interviewing further - as our approaches to research and investigation seem so different.


That's it for abit. I'll continue to post on behalf of Keith and chime in when I've got something useful to add.

Until then - I will get on with the process.

Best wishes, James.

[James_J]

Just passing this on from KS:


TO R.J.PALMER

Roger. I’m sure this will have already been picked up but in my post #775 to you, I’ve erroneously put the year 1992 instead of 1991 when providing you with the information about Tony Devereux’s daughter visiting him and Devereux’s subsequent death.

My apologies.

Best Wishes, KS

[Phil Carter]

To Keith Skinner

I must explain my own words again..as you have with deft subtlety changed them. Sorry.

When referring to Stewart Evans' public comments, he stated that whilst in Feldman's office he heard and or saw (could be either or both) enough to convince him that this Diary was a modern hoax. He further referred in his comments to his own notes that have never been publically released.

He further explained that he did not wish to speak further on the issue due to the respect he had for friendS...plural Keith..friends..not a friend.
I understood this and under the circumstances called it a noble jesture. My judgement.

You have assumed..from your earlier posts that you yourself MUST be one of those he meant. I SPECIFICALLY said that neither did I know of whom SPE was referring to and neither did I ask. So..if you keep referring to this..please make sure that you are assuming something that I cannot confirm nor deny..simply because I do not know. You have yet to recognise this important point.
Because I mention this comment..somehow SPE is now guilty of something...apparently.
I'm sorry..but anyone who is being fair here will see that this situation cannot possibly be easy for anyone to live with.. given the reasoning behind the continued non disclosure given.
Thats how I see it. Whomever the gentleman is referring to.

To Caroline

Oh yes..I get it alright. Somebody..a pro Diarist deluxe pushes the biscuit tin story..with no details..in time for a new book and a conference. Oh..I get it alright. No need to take it up with him(again) either. I tried that pre conference and got sideswiped. Deflection. It told me all I had to know. The biscuit tin story was a ruse being used to help promote the 25th anniversary. Now people can conclude what they wish. Im not going to accept that any eminent pro diarist peddles hoax stories just to keep to keep the overall story going. Because..in my, and other people's opinion..that is what has happened.
So no. He had the opportunity to explain. And failed. I don't chase lost causes.
Keith Skinner has inferred.. (I await confirmation) that this blasted tin is, infact, a hoax story. If it isnt..then I fully expect all eleven or twelve answers to my questions.my bet is that it won't happen.

You said 'if only' when I hoped this nonsense is put to bed once and for all. Well..this part..the tin..should be. And it will tell you something about the attitude of some pro diarists.

Now. Forgive me for not answering further. My health is not good and it may be a while before Im able to write again. It took me nearly 45 mins to read up to this point...and an hour to tap this answer on my old Samsung S3 phone. Hence..Im knackered!.

Now. .time for a sleep.


Phil

[James_J]

From Keith :-

Hi Keith - can I ask, just out of interest, were you present the first time Billy Graham was interviewed in relation to the Diary? And either way, given your shift in thinking post-2004, do you now believe that Billy was primed for that interview by Anne?

Cheers, Steven

TO STEVEN OWL



Steven. Thank you for your questions. I’m just catching up with today’s postings and responding to those where I can give a direct answer – with the caveat my memory may not be quite correct – but confident I do have the reference material to access for accuracy, which I will do. I know that we were very careful to document the sequence of events in Inside Story as 1994 was such a pivotal and extraordinary year in the history of the diary.


This is just the essence of what I recall...

I was not present when Paul (Feldman) met and talked with Billy Graham for the first time but I believe Paul did tape his conversation – and I am sure I have that tape. I was present with Paul on the second occasion though and I recorded our interview.


You ask whether I believe if Anne primed her father. I don’t know Steven. Certainly at the time the notion never crossed my mind because I had no reason to disbelieve Anne’s story which had taken everyone by surprise. I remember being both stunned and thrilled because it opened up a whole new line of research into the diary’s origins If Billy’s family could be shown to be historically linked to Florence Maybrick, then we could have a strong provenance. For me it still would not prove James Maybrick wrote the diary or whether he was Jack The Ripper. I didn’t really care one way or the other – and still don’t. I simply wanted to know where the diary came from and then we might be in with a chance of beginning to square up to Paul Begg’s three unanswered questions which have hovered around for the past quarter of a century. “Who wrote it? When was it written? Why was it written?” By the time of Paul Feldman’s first contact with Billy Graham (July 1994), Anne had separated from Mike and Mike had publicly confessed to creating the diary. If I’m right, I believe Mike’s solicitor denied this on Mike’s behalf. As soon as Mike learned the diary had been in Anne’s family all along he began a campaign to prove it hadn’t. The sworn affidavits followed in 1995. I know that Mike was driven by fury because Anne’s story, to Mike, meant that his daughter, Caroline, was connected to Florence Maybrick – which meant Caroline would be tainted with the stigma of an historical association with the wife of Jack The Ripper. Ultimately, I never did find any genealogical link to connect Billy’s family to Florence Maybrick and no independent evidence to corroborate the story of the diary ever being in the Graham family. Mike Barrett hated Paul Feldman. Blamed him for everything that had gone wrong in his life since the day Paul became involved with the project. The collapse of his marriage to Anne. Taking his daughter away from him. Hounding him day and night to confirm his (Paul’s) theory that he (Mike) and Anne had been given new identities by the Goverment. Paul Begg has frequently stated, privately and publicly, that Barrett would have done anything to have destroyed Feldman. Mike conclusively proving the diary to be a modern hoax which he created would have done just that.



I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question satisfactorily Steven – but I think I’m going to bed!



One thing I will say before signing off...James (Johnston) and I are in the process of transferring all of my interviews, plus taped telephone conversations, to computer with the aim of making them accessible on Casebook to anyone that may be interested in listening to them. It will be a lengthy process, especially as the intention is to prepare an accompanying transcript.

All Good Wishes, Keith

[harry]

Thanks for the clarification of the legality of an affidavit.Anyone have a copy of the ones Barret made?

[David Orsam]

Not really to be honest. The fundamental premise of his account does not change.

Surely the fundamental premise of his account is that Eddie Lyons found the diary. If all he is saying is that Eddie found something then, sure, the premise of a discovery doesn't change but I can't see how that is the fundamental premise.

Yes it would leave us wondering what Eddie did find (in July 1992?) but as it was only "something" it might not have been the diary at all.

I will reiterate - I have no reason to believe that Brian is confused or making up fictious stories about his colleague.

I will reiterate in response that I have given you a perfectly good reason to believe that Brian is confused. And until you've checked the police statement I suggest that you shouldn't be taking such a firm position about this.

Brian has proved to be a reliable witness

No he hasn't. He's given three different accounts of what he was told.

Please don't tell me you base his reliability on the fact that he has been able to date his story. That doesn't show he is reliable as to what he remembers being said.

and I think it is wholly unsatisfactory to dismiss his account on the basis that he occasionally varied between the terms; "something" "book" or "diary".

Sorry but this is absolutely crucial because it goes to the heart of what he was told. If he was told it was a "book" he should never have said "diary" because that virtually proves that he was influenced by other factors. And if he was told it was a book he should never have said "something" because that's totally different. It surely goes to his reliability as a witness too. We need to know exactly what Eddie said to him but it's all got blurred.

The fundamental questions are (and should be) - did Lyons admit to finding anything beneath the floorboards? If so, what was it that he found? When did he find it?"

Absolutely but those are questions not answers.

I think you're being a tad facetious here David.

I deny the charge! You were basing your conclusion on the fact that Brian said "book" to you more times than he said "something". I can't agree with that thinking.

You asked me to address Brian's slight change in terminologies - and I have done so.

No, I didn't ask you to address Brian's "slight" change in terminologies because they are not slight. They are crucial. Fundamental to the story.

I think where we fundamentally disagree is that you regard these changes as suspect. I do not - and out of the two of us, only one has ever spoken with Brian directly.

Yes, that might be the problem because it seems that your having spoken to Brian directly is blinding you to the possibility that he is confused. You know the guy so it's more difficult for you to be critical, that's human nature. I've never met him so I can be more detached and analytical about what he is saying.

No fact here - just pure speculation.

Hardly "pure" speculation. The chances of Brian being able to remember, 25 years later, what someone said to him one day in July 1992 - something he wasn't asked to recall until over a year later - are minimal to non-existent. And as he appears to have given three different accounts, I wouldn't say I'm speculating.

Again - just more speculation. You have no evidential support whatsoever for your bold assertion that "Brian has misremembered what was said". Who are you to say that Eddie is not misremembering what was said?

Well he must have done. Unless Eddie mentioned finding a "book", a "diary" AND "something" he's misremembered hasn't he? And if Eddie did mention all three then he's still misremembered because that's never what he says.

So wouldn't that seem to imply that Eddie isin the wrong? Or else deliberatley obmitting certain parts of the conversation? You can't have it both ways David - on one hand, you jump for joy as "Brian was clearly misremembering what was said" and on the other, you declare that Lyon's explanation for their conversation "isn't a very good one".

No, I don't think you've quite grasped the point. Eddie was trying to account for why Brian thinks he told him about a discovery that day. He was speculating rather then remembering. It really doesn't matter whether it was good speculation or not. I wasn't commenting on that. I was saying that the idea that his mention of a diary emerged from him talking to Brian about books doesn't match up with Brian's recollection that only one thing was said as he was about to drive away. Eddie could be right if for some reason he came up to the car and started talking about books (which Brian now remembers as him mentioning a discovery). Although why he would have done that is unclear.

Again - we come back to the use of "something". You can point these out until you are blue in the face - but it does not answer the fundamental questions, which we should be asking about this account:
[LIST][*] Did Lyons admit to finding anything beneath the floorboards? Whether that be a "book" "diary" or "something". If not - why has Brian fabricated this?

You keep talking about fabrication as if it's the only possibility yet I've been banging on (as you know) about Brian having been confused when he thought back in 1993 to a conversation he had had over a year earlier.

[*]What was it that Lyons found? According to Brian it was a book (I'm maintaining my position on this).

I find it odd that you have a "position". We can all read what Brian said. You haven't yet checked the police statement so I don't know how you can say it was a book not a diary but equally I have no idea how you can say it was a book and not "something".

[*]According to TMW & Alan Dodgson it was a leather bound diary written by Jack the Ripper.

But when I raised the point about Dodgson earlier not having mentioned Jack the Ripper in his account you replied:

"This is an important question and does chime with some of my thinking. It as an area we are in the process of researching. The inference from both TMW and Dodgson is that the document was a diary written by Jack the Ripper."

Well can you tell me how Dodgson inferred that it was a diary written by Jack the Ripper?

When did he find it?" The implication from Brian is that whatever he had found, it was discovered and removed prior to their conversation in July 1992.

You'll have to help me with this one because you record him as having told the police that he got the impression that Eddie had "recently" found it, whatever it was.

That's a fair point David - but one must wonder what became of this Victorian newspaper, if it was important enough for Eddie to discuss it's discovery and signficance to a colleague? Why would Eddie deny its discovery - even when Scotland Yard came knocking, and denied finding even a "scrap of paper"?

Depends if it was the one mentioned to Colin Rhodes. What became of THAT?

And if it wasn't he could have sold it without permission of the owner of the house so was reluctant to admit to anything.

If Eddie was anxious that something he had discovered was recieving significant interest (both professional and fincancial) and that the document had a somewhat questionable route from floorboard to publisher - he may well have sought some advice from a colleague.

But that's not what Eddie was doing according to Brian's account. He didn't ask him a single question. So how can what he was doing be interpreted as seeking advice?

And in any case wouldn't the advice have needed to be very specific, relating to what was going on in London, where legal agreements had already been signed? A statement by Eddie that he had found something important doesn't get anywhere near to the advanced legal situation that had by then developed in London in relation to the diary. What was Brian Rawes possibly going to be able to tell Eddie about that?

I think it is perfectly reasonable explanation.

For the reasons given above, I can't agree with that.

Until then - I will get on with the process.

Good luck with it. Do report back.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks for the clarification of the legality of an affidavit.Anyone have a copy of the ones Barret made?

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/james_maybrick/mb-con.html

[John G]

Hi John, I've been over (and over) this point on the Incontrovertible thread.

It does make sense if Mike had drafted out the whole text of the diary (say on his word processor) but didn't have very much money and didn't want to go to the expense of actually buying the ink and the pen(s) and the journal etc. if no-one was going to be interested in what he produced. So I'm suggesting that he first got an indication from Doreen that she would be interested. Then he could go ahead and spend some cash. All he needed to do was just transcribe the diary from the pre-written draft. Sure he needed to find a real Victorian diary first, which is exactly why he contacted Martin Earl. Perhaps he was an optimist who didn't think it would be difficult. But he did eventually get one and, like I say, it explains perfectly why he didn't rush down to London shortly after 9th March with the diary.

Hallo David,

I think there are problems with this explanation. For instance, if he had serious concerns about anyone being interested then why go to the trouble of carrying out a considerable amount of research, and producing a draft on his word processor, in the first place?

Moreover, you speculate that he didn't have much money. However, he invested in a word processor in the mid 1980s, which would have been an expensive purchase at the time, at least relative to today, and at least part of the motivation for the investment could have been an intention to forge a diary. In contrast, I would have thought the cost of buying a pen, ink, and a second-hand Victorian diary would have been a relatively modest sum.

[John G]

Hi John, I've been over (and over) this point on the Incontrovertible thread.

It does make sense if Mike had drafted out the whole text of the diary (say on his word processor) but didn't have very much money and didn't want to go to the expense of actually buying the ink and the pen(s) and the journal etc. if no-one was going to be interested in what he produced. So I'm suggesting that he first got an indication from Doreen that she would be interested. Then he could go ahead and spend some cash. All he needed to do was just transcribe the diary from the pre-written draft. Sure he needed to find a real Victorian diary first, which is exactly why he contacted Martin Earl. Perhaps he was an optimist who didn't think it would be difficult. But he did eventually get one and, like I say, it explains perfectly why he didn't rush down to London shortly after 9th March with the diary.

Hullo David,

Something else has just occurred to me. Surely Doreen isn't likely to have revealed whether she would be interested or not until she's had the opportunity to view the document. I mean, I can't imagine the scenario went like this: random bloke phones literary agent claiming to have discovered Jack the Ripper's Diary. Literary agent responds: "Wow random bloke, that's incredible. How much do you want!"

[StevenOwl]

From Keith :-


I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question satisfactorily Steven – but I think I’m going to bed!

Many thanks Keith, that was, in fact, more information than I was expecting! Like you, I believed Anne's story when I first heard it, or at the very least felt it was more likely than Mike Barrett having forged the Diary. I still feel it's more likely than Mike or Anne forging it (or being the front for a 'nest of forgers'), but that's nothing more than my own gut feeling. I look forward to all your interviews and transcripts being made public at some point.

[Trevor Marriott]

From Keith :-




TO STEVEN OWL



Steven. Thank you for your questions. I’m just catching up with today’s postings and responding to those where I can give a direct answer – with the caveat my memory may not be quite correct – but confident I do have the reference material to access for accuracy, which I will do. I know that we were very careful to document the sequence of events in Inside Story as 1994 was such a pivotal and extraordinary year in the history of the diary.


This is just the essence of what I recall...

I was not present when Paul (Feldman) met and talked with Billy Graham for the first time but I believe Paul did tape his conversation – and I am sure I have that tape. I was present with Paul on the second occasion though and I recorded our interview.


You ask whether I believe if Anne primed her father. I don’t know Steven. Certainly at the time the notion never crossed my mind because I had no reason to disbelieve Anne’s story which had taken everyone by surprise. I remember being both stunned and thrilled because it opened up a whole new line of research into the diary’s origins If Billy’s family could be shown to be historically linked to Florence Maybrick, then we could have a strong provenance. For me it still would not prove James Maybrick wrote the diary or whether he was Jack The Ripper. I didn’t really care one way or the other – and still don’t. I simply wanted to know where the diary came from and then we might be in with a chance of beginning to square up to Paul Begg’s three unanswered questions which have hovered around for the past quarter of a century. “Who wrote it? When was it written? Why was it written?” By the time of Paul Feldman’s first contact with Billy Graham (July 1994), Anne had separated from Mike and Mike had publicly confessed to creating the diary. If I’m right, I believe Mike’s solicitor denied this on Mike’s behalf. As soon as Mike learned the diary had been in Anne’s family all along he began a campaign to prove it hadn’t. The sworn affidavits followed in 1995. I know that Mike was driven by fury because Anne’s story, to Mike, meant that his daughter, Caroline, was connected to Florence Maybrick – which meant Caroline would be tainted with the stigma of an historical association with the wife of Jack The Ripper. Ultimately, I never did find any genealogical link to connect Billy’s family to Florence Maybrick and no independent evidence to corroborate the story of the diary ever being in the Graham family. Mike Barrett hated Paul Feldman. Blamed him for everything that had gone wrong in his life since the day Paul became involved with the project. The collapse of his marriage to Anne. Taking his daughter away from him. Hounding him day and night to confirm his (Paul’s) theory that he (Mike) and Anne had been given new identities by the Goverment. Paul Begg has frequently stated, privately and publicly, that Barrett would have done anything to have destroyed Feldman. Mike conclusively proving the diary to be a modern hoax which he created would have done just that.



I’m not sure if I’ve answered your question satisfactorily Steven – but I think I’m going to bed!



One thing I will say before signing off...James (Johnston) and I are in the process of transferring all of my interviews, plus taped telephone conversations, to computer with the aim of making them accessible on Casebook to anyone that may be interested in listening to them. It will be a lengthy process, especially as the intention is to prepare an accompanying transcript.

All Good Wishes, Keith

Hi Keith
There is one part in your reply which needs clarity and I quote

"Anne had separated from Mike and Mike had publicly confessed to creating the diary. If I’m right, I believe Mike’s solicitor denied this on Mike’s behalf"

Did that refer to Mike denying his wife had left him, or denying he wrote the diary?

If the latter, is there any proof of this statement made by the solicitor, or is it another example of hearsay?

There is also the issue of confidentiality between solicitor and client, which can effectively only be broken if the client gives permission so if that was said did Mike give that permission?

Staying with the solicitor I am sure you are aware that in 2002 the same solicitor was struck off for misuse of clients accounts, So a cloud must hang over his direct involvement with Barrett in all of this.

As to the two affidavits signed by Mike, contained in them is a vast amount of detail in my opinion, far to much for anyone to know, or make up if they had not physically carried out all what was stated in those that he carried out in the forging of the diary.

If Mike had wanted to try to distance himself from all the royalty issues and advance payments he could have simply issued a shorter statement and no need for him to go to the lengths he went to in those lengthy affidavits.

Of course we are not privy to the police interviews but the "relevant" questions which I would have expected to have been put to him would have been, and of course we do not know where in the chain of those interviewed first or last he figured.

Those questions

Did you write the diary?

If his answer was in line with his account the next series of questions should have been

When did you write the diary?
Was anyone else involved with you in writing the diary ?

Why did you write the diary? (An important question with regards to intent)

and the most important questions

What was your intention when you wrote the diary?

What did you intend to do with it after you had written it?

What did you do with it after it was written?

Who did you first contact?

What did you tell them about the diary?

Did you tell them you had written it?

I could go on but as you know the police investigation revolved around fraud so in trying to prove he was a party to this the term "Intent" and "Dishonesty" would be integral parts of what the police would have to prove

I am sure the police interviewed those who were subsequently involved thereafter as to what their intentions were and what they would admit to being told, and what they knew in attempt to prove or disprove any of their actions were dishonest and fraudulent.

Clearly the CPS felt that there was not enough evidence for them to have been able to realistically secure a conviction against anyone ! The main reason could have been due to the main complaint The Sunday Times not wishing to pursue the complaint, and the other parties who had initially been duped taking the same line. Coupled with perhaps some of the protagonists being less than liberal with the truth in their interviews.

I think the saying "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" is quite apt in all of this.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

So now we're supposed to believe that Anne's fear in June 1994 when Mike went public with his forgery claim is that Mike would claim that Anne collaborated with him in forging the diary!!!

Direct quote please, David. I'm pretty sure I suggested that Mike's claim in June 1994, to have written the diary himself, would naturally have made people suspect Anne must have been - at least - a silent witness to what he was allegedly doing in Goldie Street.

But then, of course, Anne knew Mike better than anyone else. Indeed, she was the one who "tidied up" his articles for Celebrity magazine and "tidied up" his so-called "research notes". Perhaps she knew full well that she had also "tidied up" the diary and her role in that tidying up was inevitably going to be made public.

And perhaps she knew nothing of the sort. Perhaps all she knew was that Mike, in his cups and in a right old state about losing his wife and daughter, would say anything but his prayers.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I believe Mike Barrett was capable of producing the Diary. Come on, we're not talking about the finest literature that's ever been produced using the English language. I'd put it somewhere between The Beano, and The Dandy. Apologies to Beano, and Dandy fans

Hi Observer,

I'd put the diary on a par with, or perhaps slightly above the capabilities of the average message board poster, in terms of sentence construction, grammar, spelling and punctuation. Take a look around you.

I'd put everything I've seen of Mike's written work significantly below both, on all counts.

But then the real James Maybrick only had a moderate education, leaving school relatively early to work as a shipping clerk. So perhaps the author was aiming to reflect this, if not dumbing down to portray clever "Sir Jim" as a bore of very little brain and even less talent.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz: You ask a reasonable question. Am I suggesting this is Barrett's donkey photo from the L & O album? I decline to answer, but here's a bit more and you can decide for yourself.

The photograph was taken at the 'Horses Rest,' Broadgreen Street, Liverpool, on January 16, 1937. This was acreage owned and operated by the R.S.P.C.A. [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]. The grounds included a 'Pets Cemetery' where, among the tombstones, the rescued donkeys roamed and grazed.

The headstone reads:

In Loving Memory of CHUBBY, The Dear and Affectionate Little Friend of
H & M Pennell. Died November 24, 1927. "In Hope."

The actual grave appears quite small. A cat or a small dog, perhaps.

Feel free to look around, but to save time, you might accept my word that photographs of graves with donkeys standing next to them are as rare as hair on codfish.

I've found exactly one. Had it been taken in Mexico City, Paris, Palm Springs, or Hanoi, I wouldn't have blinked.

Why not, rj? You wouldn't have thought it distinctly odd that Mike was able to describe, in 1995, what you found recently to be a one-off instance [if you'll pardon the bad language] of such an image on our wonderful worldwide web?

It was taken in Liverpool. I blinked.

I can well imagine.

This from the Hull Daily Mail, 4 Feb 1937:

"Officials of the R.S.P.C.A. are busy digging up coffins in the famous Pets' Cemetery, at Broad Green, Liverpool, for transfer to Halewood, Lancs., the ground at Broad Green [Broadgreen Road] having been acquired for building purposes. Up to now the bodies of 140 pets, including dogs, cats, canaries, parrots, and monkeys, have been removed."

Notice the photo dates to Jan 16th; the graveyard is in the process of being moved on Feb 4; a connection to the photo shoot?

A copy (?) of the photograph turns up --in all places--the Austrian Achives. Whether this is the original, a postcard, etc., I do not know. One citation lists it as a 'news photo.'

From a Liverpool newspaper? Again, I don't know. All I know is that Barrett's claim of this most idioscyncatic image: 'a grave with a donkey standing next to it' is now considerably more credible, since, in the 1920s and 1930s, there really was a graveyard in Central Liverpool where the donkeys roamed, grazed--and stood--next to the headstones. I'm assuming it would be going too far to suggest that the L & O album was originally the property of Mr. H. Pennell, owner of "Chubby?"

Cheers, RP.

P.S. It sounds like the next go-around could be "The Trial of the Maybrick Diary: A Civil Case" Graham v Dodd v Smith v Dodd v Graham v Lyons v the Estate of Pennell v Graham v Smith. All five plaintiffs claiming ownership. Graham awarded £1 and damages.

As fascinating as all this is, rj, the only person linking a photo of a donkey and grave with a photo album allegedly acquired at auction from Outhwaite & Litherland was Mike, the compulsive liar, who was determined to destroy Feldman at the time, yet failed to produce the donkey dirt to do it.

In the grand tradition of liars, who weave as much truth as possible into their tall tales, to make them sound more credible, and taking your well researched evidence of a Liverpool connection into careful consideration, Mike would have needed a lot of luck to invent such a rare old image on the hoof as it were, entirely from his own imagination. Therefore I submit that you may have it right and wrong in equal measure, and that Mike probably did have in his possession such a photo of Liverpudlian origin, or remembered seeing one, perhaps in his local library or family member's photo collection, and used it like a carrot, to tease people into buying the rest of his ripping yarn. He'd no doubt have heard all the speculation about his diary having once been home to early 20th century photos, so milking that speculation with the aid of an actual snap he could bring to mind would not have been that hard.

Unless Mike's photo ever materialises, we won't know if an ass other than "Sir Jim" could ever have dumped its load in his diary and been 'tidied up' in preparation for the donkey work.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'm just interested to know the truth, that's all. As far as I can see there's no proof that Barrett forged the Diary, just as there's no proof that Maybrick wrote it (either as a fantasy or as JtR). I'm just waiting for that one piece of evidence that finally puts it to bed, and in the meantime I'm not nailing my colours to any particular mast.

Careful, Steven, or you'll be labelled another crackpot.

Sometimes it seems like people here are channeling 'Archangel' Michael and he is so chuffed with all the attention that he tells them exactly what they want to hear.

Love,

Caz
X