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

[caz]

Here's the thing. My only knowledge of Mike's purported research notes is what Shirley Harrison said about them in her 2003 book. And this is what she said (bold and underlining added):

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

If anyone now says they include a record of his forays to Liverpool Library after he brought the Diary to London it makes me wonder why the story is changing.

Is anyone now saying that? I merely observed that Shirley did not see that record until the July or August, so I'm not quite sure how she would have known when such forays began and ended, although I can see how she would have made the assumption they were in the months preceding the diary's arrival in London, given her belief in Mike's account of Devereux giving it to him back in the summer of 1991 and letting him get on with it. Clearly whatever Shirley contributed to Mike's notes came after April 13th, so they are not confined to a record of his own forays, or a record that was done and dusted by that date.

I can't see anywhere in the book where Shirley says that she provided some information and input into Mike's research notes but perhaps she wasn't telling the full story, I have no idea.

I'm telling that bit to you now, David, so you do have an idea. Perhaps Shirley didn't think it would be of any particular interest or relevance to anyone at the time, any more than including Mike's inside leg measurement or her own bra size.

If the notes needed to be 'tidied up' by Anne, does this show that the Barretts prepared other written work in this way, with Mike having a first crack and Anne tidying it up?

I don't know. A typed transcript of the diary itself was also prepared, but I thought Anne probably took on that task without Mike having a first crack at it. That would have been the more sensible option.

More than ever I question why the original notes were not produced. If they were hard to read then a transcript should have been prepared. If they were destroyed then that is destruction of original evidence pure and simple.

A transcript of the original notes was prepared! Blimey, how hard can this be? I don't know if any of Mike's original notes were kept by either Barrett, but I don't see why if they were scribbled on bits of scrap paper. Why would Mike or Anne think they needed to be preserved as evidence of anything, once the notes had been typed up? From their point of view Mike was simply researching this diary he had acquired and the typed up record of that research, along with Shirley's input, was to help with the preparations to publish their book.

Love,

Caz
X

[Henry Flower]

I'm telling that bit to you now, David, so you do have an idea. Perhaps Shirley didn't think it would be of any particular interest or relevance to anyone at the time, any more than including Mike's inside leg measurement or her own bra size.

Or Maybrick's star sign? She's never shied away from the uninteresting or the irrelevant as far as I remember

[David Orsam]

Somewhat disappointed to find that the great man failed to acknowledge his mistake or offer a simple apology. You might read into this a difficulty admitting to any possibility of error.

Come on David, man up and apologise.

There wasn’t anything in Kaz’s post for me to respond to because she ignored the substantive point in my post to focus on a minor and obvious slip that I made (in parentheses). It didn't need for me to post in reply to agree it was an error but I am very happy to apologise to her and all the members of the forum for this or any minor or typographical error or spelling mistake made by me either in the past or any time in the future.

As you might have seen, however, I was more focused on the important points such as what has happened to Mike Barrett’s research notes, when were they created, what did Anne do to "tidy" them up and how and why did Shirley Harrison manage to incorporate information into them, further focused on the fact that the Grand National information was not difficult to obtain contrary to the OP claim in the supposedly greatest thread ever that "The knowledge that the 1889 Grand National could well have been the fastest James Maybrick had ever seen" shows that the hoaxers went to "considerable effort".

[caz]

Actually, I don't know why I bother to add to David's knowledge.

He thinks he knows it all anyway and if I give him something new to consider, or try to resolve something he has queried, he throws it back in my face and wonders why 'the story is changing' or suggests that perhaps 'the full story' wasn't being told, for all the world as though something incriminating is being, or has been, deliberately suppressed, that would show the diary to have been the April 1992 Barrett production that he evidently still suspects it was.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Or Maybrick's star sign? She's never shied away from the uninteresting or the irrelevant as far as I remember

Fair point, Henry. We Aquarians don't find anything remotely interesting or relevant about the star signs of philandering cotton merchants.

But one person's idea of interesting and relevant is not going to the next person's, is it, if they don't share the same star sign.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

It has to be considered as somewhat alarming that Shirley Harrison was making categoric statements about the date of creation of Mike Barrett's research notes if she didn't actually know when they were created.

I completely fail to understand why she would have said they were created "before" Mike brought the Diary to London if they might have been created after he brought the Diary to London. Was she making it up that these notes were created before Mike came to London? Or was she repeating what she had been told by Mike and Anne? If so, were Mike and Anne lying to her?

And then we learn that she didn't tell "the full story" about these research notes because she omitted to mention that she provided information and input into them - and we only discover that she did so 14 years later!

Yet she relies on Mike's research notes as evidence of "demolition" of what she refers to as "the 'Great Forger' Theory" because they show, according to her, that they are "not the notes of a man who knows".

But are they even the notes of a man? With apparent input from both Anne and Shirley are they even Mike Barrett's notes?

And the puzzles continue. If there was a typed transcript produced of Mike's original research notes why didn't Shirley quote from that transcript in her 2003 book? Why quote from the version of these notes that had been "re-typed and 'tidied-up'"? It doesn't make any sense.

And note the word "re-typed". I assume this is deliberate. Which apparently means that there was a previously typed version of the notes. But what about the handwritten notes. Where are they? Were they typed up by Mike and then re-typed by Anne? And then tidied up by Anne? And then did Shirley put in her information and input?

What is needed is Mike's original handwritten notes made contemporaneously at the Liverpool Library. The idea that there would be no reason to keep them once typed up is utterly laughable. It's like saying no-one ever needed to see the original of the Diary now that it's all been typed up and published. And here we are with a book about to be published containing a new reproduction of it!

The point is that if Mike was involved in forging the Diary, these research notes are all fakes. How hard can it be for anyone to understand how important the original manuscript research notes are in that context?

[Kaz]

Actually, I don't know why I bother to add to David's knowledge.

He thinks he knows it all anyway and if I give him something new to consider, or try to resolve something he has queried, he throws it back in my face and wonders why 'the story is changing' or suggests that perhaps 'the full story' wasn't being told, for all the world as though something incriminating is being, or has been, deliberately suppressed, that would show the diary to have been the April 1992 Barrett production that he evidently still suspects it was.

Love,

Caz
X

I do wonder what he hopes to find in these 'notes'...


more of this maybe?

She was all over me and we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickley (sic) as she made love to me she threatened me and returned to her old self.

[David Orsam]

I do wonder what he hopes to find in these 'notes'...

Well the first thing is to see the entirety of these research notes. We are now being told that the diary came out of Battlecrease on 9 March 1992. Whatever anyone else says on these boards, it has been categorically represented that the notes "are a record of [Mike's] forays to Liverpool Library before he brought the Diary to London". Shirley must surely have had some firm basis upon which to make such a statement.

If correct, this means that they can only be a record of Mike's research between 9 March and 13 April 1992. So the notes are important to either corroborate or disprove that the research was done in such a short period.

We have been told absolutely nothing about the originals of Mike's research notes. I mean, were they dated by him? If so, we need to know the dates. What paper were they written on? Were they made in a single notebook? How many pages of them are there?

To suggest that these purported research notes are insignificant is not only daft but also goes against how Shirley herself represents them as prime evidence which demolishes the idea that the Diary was a forgery.

[caz]

There wasn’t anything in Kaz’s post for me to respond to because she ignored the substantive point in my post to focus on a minor and obvious slip that I made (in parentheses). It didn't need for me to post in reply to agree it was an error but I am very happy to apologise to her and all the members of the forum for this or any minor or typographical error or spelling mistake made by me either in the past or any time in the future.

But it wasn't just a minor slip, since you quoted Kaz for the sole intention of poking fun at what you wrongly thought was her mistake, when it was entirely your own for misquoting her. I think it's called "getting a taste of your own medicine". Or "there is a God after all".

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Now, for just answering back, I have become a "naysayer" back on the Mike Barrett "hoaxer bandwagon" who is "clambering on for real life" (and i think you might mean "dear life").

I wonder if anyone who has a brain (which they use) can see me poking fun at anyone in the above?

What I see is myself quite properly correcting what I thought was an error by the original poster.

It wasn't an error by the original poster it was an error by me because I had transcribed the quote incorrectly. A very minor error that I have never disputed and have even now apologised for!

I guess some people who try to make an issue out of such a minor slip have absolutely no class.

[Kaz]

What I see is myself quite properly correcting what I thought was an error by the original poster.

It wasn't an error by the original poster it was an error by me because I had transcribed the quote incorrectly. A very minor error that I have never disputed and have even now apologised for!

Apology accepted, David

Now apologise for calling me a 'she'.... KAZ is my nickname. I'm called Mark

[Darryl Kenyon]

Kaz - I do wonder what he hopes to find in these 'notes'...

That quite frankly is a ridiculous statement

The truth maybe ?

[Kaz]

Kaz - I do wonder what he hopes to find in these 'notes'...

That quite frankly is a ridiculous statement

The truth maybe ?

David doesn't want the truth..

If these notes would have helped why didn't Mike himself hand them in with his confession?

[David Orsam]

Apology accepted, David

Now apologise for calling me a 'she'.... KAZ is my nickname. I'm called Mark

No, that one is your own fault!

[Henry Flower]

David doesn't want the truth..

If these notes would have helped why didn't Mike himself hand them in with his confession?

But that's not the point. This is a disputed document with several conflicting accounts of its provenance. The idea that MB's research notes, their contents, and when they were compiled, are of little consequence, that is frankly crazy. I think David's approach is absolutely the right one.