One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I never said Anne was motivated by greed, I said she was motivated by control.

Yes, you did suggest that she needed to gain 'control' (a rather vague motive and a non-answer--leaving unanswered why she needed control, particular when she could have simply let Barrett hang himself out to dry) but you also framed it reference to a long and mysterious meeting at the Moat House Hotel with Feldman, who stood to make millions off a film deal. If you weren't suggesting she was pandering to Feldman's financial benefit, then I stand corrected, and even agree with you.

But how could Feldman have 'coerced' her into lying? Does a person who is 'coerced' gain control? As I see it, she was the one leading Feldman down the rose path--telling him what he wanted to hear--not the other way round.

Carefully considered, her original motive seems to have been to get Feldman off the backs of her in-laws, who was bothering them with wild theories of Barrett being related to Maybrick. He was harassing them by both phone and by letter.

It was at this point that one of them, Mike's sister, called Anne on the phone, despite Anne having been split-up from Barrett for months, and despite Anne publicly telling Harold Brough that she knew nothing about the diary's origins.

Which I find fascinating.

Why did Mike's sister fully expect that Anne could somehow remedy the situation? Why did she complain to Anne and not to Mike? What could Anne have done, if Anne did not know the truth?

Do you think it's possible that Mike's sister might have had more insight into what Mike was capable of doing, and what Mike was capable of putting Anne through, then a group of Ripperologists who didn't really know either of them?

So, you see, Jay, I think Anne was motivated by guilt. Guilt that her ex-husband's hoax had led to her in-laws being harangued by a madcap and pushy Ripperologist named Feldman.

So, in effect, the control she hoped to gain was to put the burden for the hoax onto her own shoulders, so Feldman would leave the Barretts alone, and the public could "believe what they wanted to believe"---because they would anyway.

[Iconoclast]

Enjoy your weekend.

Oh, I will, RJ. I will ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68644056

[erobitha]

I never said Anne was motivated by greed, I said she was motivated by control.

[rjpalmer]

Given what I have just said above, clearly I believe that Anne Graham told a convenient lie to achieve a multifaceted strategic goal. I don't think for a moment she was lying to avoid being arrested for fraud. I think she knew that the scrapbook had appeared out of thin air in March 1992 and that she knew it was hookey. Telling a lie to remove her unstable husband from the case was clever, well thought-out, and highly effective.

Good Lord, Ike, do you not have one ounce of self-respect?

What happened to telling the simple truth? This is your idea of 'clever' and 'highly thought out' and 'effective' behavior?

To lie repeatedly over a period of years to everyone around her, including Carol Emmas, Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison, and Paul Feldman, leading them on a wild goose chase?

And you're condoning this and even praising it and characterizing it as a 'white lie'?

And then in the next breath you insult and slander those no longer alive to defend themselves, including Melvin Harris and Nick Warren, whose only fault to was correctly identify the Maybrick Diary as an obvious and embarrassing hoax?

And that's the key word, isn't it? Embarrassing.

As I see it, the only valuable contribution you have made in your latest screed is to correctly discern that Anne Graham was embarrassed.

I agree completely.

She clearly was embarrassed by the whole fiasco which is why she physically raced from the room when confronted by an intelligent and honest and thoroughly respectable diary critic, Martin Fido, refusing even to shake his hand.

Where you got it completely wrong, however, is believing that she was embarrassed because Barrett was lying. She was embarrassed because there was more than a pinch of truth to what Barrett was saying, and she was particularly embarrassed that she got caught-up in his hoax.

That's the beginning and the end of it, Ike.

I don't fault her for that. 'You have no idea,' Anne told the authors of Inside Story, 'what it was like inside that house.'

Indeed. As I see it, the intellectual error that the diary team made from day one, and which you are still making, is wrongly concluding that Anne Graham wouldn't have helped Barrett perpetrate a hoax.

There's only two ways this will ultimate shake out. Either she helped Barrett to keep peace in the house from his drunken rages, hoping the whole thing would blow-over once he brought the scrapbook to London (and she basically admitted this at one point--she thought Doreen would 'send Mike packing') or she helped Barrett in the hope that he would go down in smoke and she'd finally be rid of him. Which is basically what happened.

The weakness in your approach, Ike, is that you really have no aptitude for discerning or understanding the human element in this drama. You think you do, but you don't. Even your colleague Jay Hartley is wide of the mark in concluding that she was motivate by nothing more than petty, mercenary greed--though I notice you don't take him to task for it.

You respond with invective. It's improved a bit because you don't want to get banned but it's right there, sticking its foot in the door, at every turn.

Interesting lecture, Ike. Between you and I, which of us has been repeatedly suspended or banned---and under multiple use names--at both at this site and at Howard Brown's old site for appalling behavior?

But you're correct, I don't wish to behave in such a way as to risk my privileges, so I'll just leave you to go at it.

Being called a wind-up artist by a person who argues for the Maybrick Diary's authenticity is as good a place to end as any.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks for proving my point, Ike.
Of course that was her motive.
All you are saying is the same thing that the 'recent hoax' theorists have been saying for years. Graham made up the 'in the family' malarky in order to undercut Barrett's confession. And she did so because she knew what Barrett was saying was partially or wholly true and that she would be legitimately implicated in the fake.

My comments do not prove your point, RJ (and the evidence for your confusion on what is right and what is wrong is not long in coming in this post so hang about, everyone).

My position is that that's the only credible explanation.

And that is because you have a version of the story you are keen to sell to us all. Credibility should not be confused with evidence because one man's credibility is another man's obfuscation. With your 'only credible' case, you lead many to conclude that you must be right (more on that later) when - in fact - they just don't know enough about the case to see your cherry-picking shenanigans in full flow (more on cherry-picking later, too).

Here's our options. Let's not be arrogant enough to tell our dear readers which one carries (or ones carry) the greater level of credibility. Let us allow them the right to make up their own minds, shall we (we wouldn't want to come across as insincere in any way, I don't think, so we should present what is known and let everyone decide what is credible):

1) Mike Barrett was telling the truth when he confessed to creating the text of the Maybrick scrapbook. I note that you note that his solicitor immediately retracted his confession (not his place to do so, by the way, but that's beside the point) and you cherry-pick this in your post to argue that this shows the insincerity of Anne's subsequent claim that it came form her family. I find this cherry-picking insincere because one minute it is cited as evidence against Anne's story and in the next it will be refused to anyone claiming that Mike Barrett's original 'confession' should not be taken seriously because it was immediately retracted by his solicitor. This, I note, you do a great deal, RJ. Always looking to take an incident and position it in whatever light you need to support your argument. I leave it to our dear readers to decide how credible this makes your insight and whether therefore they should ascribe any value to it.

2) Mike Barrett was lying when he 'confessed'. He genuinely had received the scrapbook from Tony Devereux and therefore Barrett was not party to its creation on any level.

3) Mike Barrett was lying when he 'confessed' and Anne Graham knew this because she had first seen the Maybrick scrapbook fully intact on March 9, 1992 (or within a few days of March 9) having suddenly appeared in Mike's hands and therefore she had not seen any evidence that he had been creating a text for it nor writing his 50% into it, and obviously knew that she herself had not written even 1% into it.

4) Mike Barrett was lying when he 'confessed' because Anne Graham knew that the scrapbook had been in her family for at least 25 years or so and that her father had informed her that its provenance in the family went back to at least 1943.

5) The Maybrick scrapbook is the genuine record of Jack the Ripper's crimes and he was James Maybrick.

Now, Anne may or may not know if 5) is true, but she may very well have known that 1), 3), or 4) were true. So she doesn't know for certain what contribution Mike made to the creation of the Maybrick scrapbook unless 4) is true.

If 4) is true, then Anne Graham told the truth and we are done with Mike Barrett at last.

If 4) is untrue, then Anne Graham told a lie.

Why would she tell the truth? Well, one very credible reason is to prevent Mike Barrett bringing further embarrassment to her family and also to protect the potential authenticity of an historical document.

Why would she tell the untruth? Well, one very credible reason is to prevent Mike Barrett bringing further embarrassment to her family and also to protect the potential authenticity of an historical document.

I don't know which of the above scenarios is the true one. All I can say is that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the 'double event' of March 9, 1992, and that therefore there are strong grounds for arguing that the Maybrick scrapbook is a genuine historical document.

To this, you say:

Oh dear.

To which, I say, "Oh stop it".

A woman is so embarrassed by her husband's bogus story (a story that was immediately retracted via his lawyer--I might add) that her response was to make up an entirely bogus story of her own? This is your theory?

Given what I have just said above, clearly I believe that Anne Graham told a convenient lie to achieve a multifaceted strategic goal. I don't think for a moment she was lying to avoid being arrested for fraud. I think she knew that the scrapbook had appeared out of thin air in March 1992 and that she knew it was hookey. Telling a lie to remove her unstable husband from the case was clever, well thought-out, and highly effective. Barrett's goose was cooked, though the oven remained on for far far too long thanks to gullible, greedy fools (Ace Detective) and malicious vipers (Harris, Warren, etc.).

I'm sorry again for being so candid, Ike, but such suggestions are so poorly formulated that it is difficult to know whether you are attempting to be a witness for the defense or a witness for the prosecution. If Anne was 'concerned that a potentially genuine historical document' was being damaged, what worse course of action could she have taken than to invent yet another bogus story and to repeatedly misdirect the very people who were investigating the diary's alleged authenticity? Up to and including Paul Feldman who, we are told, became emotionally close to her?

I haven't excluded the possibility that Anne Graham was actually telling the truth. I can't rule that out in the way you are happy to rule it out. If she had told a lie, it was no more than a white lie and I totally understand why she refuses to engage in discussion about that lie. I applaud her for valiantly attempting to shut up her idiotic husband.

If you ever come up with a legitimate explanation for her remarkable behavior, I would dearly love to hear it.

I could (and have) done so countless times over the years, RJ, but you don't respond with argument. You respond with invective. It's improved a bit because you don't want to get banned but it's right there, sticking its foot in the door, at every turn.

Sometimes you are just a wind-up merchant. Do I have evidence to back that up? Let's see:

Enjoy your weekend. I see that your beloved Sunderland has defeated Cardiff City, so I imagine you'll be uncorking the vino tonight. I do hope I have that right.

You are either inadvertently very wrong (so our dear readers can be clear you aren't always right) or deliberately very wrong (so our dear readers can see that actually you display the behaviours of a provocateur).

And you attempt to school me on the subject of credibility, sincerity, and basic logic?

[erobitha]

So Feldy was making a movie and made the moves on Anne and Mike got back at them by claiming he forged the Diary.

Anne didn’t have to know it was stolen and Feldy therefore had no rights to it or a movie. Just Mike’s bogus forgery claim was enough to kill the movie, and enough for her to make the bogus family provenance claim to try to save her lover Feldy’s project.

That makes sense.

Mike believed Feldman turned Anne and Caroline against him. There was no love lost between these two men from what I understand.

Mike used his forgery claim to try and negotiate with Anne, to get her to talk to him. As far I’m aware, Anne stayed resolute.

My guess is Mike was more annoyed that Feldman pulled a fast one on him that his ego could not handle it. So he convinced himself to pursue the forgery claim and the rest is history. Mike could not admit where he actually got it from as he would lose his right to it and may face criminal charges.

At least this way he feels he gets to have the last word.

That he did. This is the mess he left behind.

[Lombro2]

So Feldy was making a movie and made the moves on Anne and Mike got back at them by claiming he forged the Diary.

Anne didn’t have to know it was stolen and Feldy therefore had no rights to it or a movie. Just Mike’s bogus forgery claim was enough to kill the movie, and enough for her to make the bogus family provenance claim to try to save her lover Feldy’s project.

That makes sense.

[erobitha]

So again, why did she make up that lie because it was a forgery, and not because it was stolen and her ex was saying it was a forgery?

It's actually unlikely she ever knew it was stolen. She knew she couldn't trust Mike and may have had her own suspicions over the Tony D provenance, but there is no evidence at all to suggest she knew it was stolen. You say that it's because it was a forgery, and she knew it. No evidence at all to suggest that is the case.

We know she gazumped Mike with her story. That is a historical fact. We do not know if Feldman coerced her into coming up with this story or whether she invented it herself. There is no proof of either point being true. I side with the belief that she was coerced into a very long private discussion with Feldman, for which there were no recordings or notes taken. I believe this discussion lasted around 4-6 hours.

I think this is when the plan was concocted. I have no proof. It's my own pet theory. But Feldman was set to benefit from a film. That seems like a good motive to me. Again, I stress that I have no evidence for this assumption.

A plan was hatched to undermine Mike whilst giving Anne all the control. That can be taken in many ways, and there are various routes of how that comes to be. However, Feldman seemed intent on finding any links he could to Anne. Some nonsensical lost brother of Billy angle, the Florence was born to a Hartlepool Blacksmith angle and the angle that Granny Formby got it fenced from Alice Yapp. Feldman, to me, was doing all he could to stay in the game. It plays a big part in my belief that he was the driving force.

Now Anne played along and to me, lied either way. She either lied to cover up a forgery she knew that the diary was (a pretty audacious lie), or she lied about the provenance of it being in her family (the lie that really only hurt Mike at the time). There is no evidence at all of the Graham family provenance, other than Billy Graham's corroboration not long before he died.

Billy was no fan of Mike it must be said.

Just my tuppence worth.

One big reason why Anne might be refusing to engage with anyone on this subject is because she knows she has been caught in a lie one way or another. She has ignored it for 30 years and lived her life. She will probably take the truth to the grave with her, just like Mike did.

[Lombro2]

So again, why did she make up that lie because it was a forgery, and not because it was stolen and her ex was saying it was a forgery?

[rjpalmer]

On what grounds do you conclude that Anne Graham's objective was not simply to cut Barrett out of the authorship of the scrapbook's contents?

Thanks for proving my point, Ike.

Of course that was her motive.

All you are saying is the same thing that the 'recent hoax' theorists have been saying for years. Graham made up the 'in the family' malarky in order to undercut Barrett's confession. And she did so because she knew what Barrett was saying was partially or wholly true and that she would be legitimately implicated in the fake.

My position is that that's the only credible explanation.

I believe that that was exactly what she was intending to do, and I believe that that was because she was embarrassed by his antics (which she knew to be maliciously untrue) and was concerned that a potenitially genuine historical document was being damaged as a result of her errant husband's vindictive behaviour.

Oh dear.

A woman is so embarrassed by her husband's bogus story (a story that was immediately retracted via his lawyer--I might add) that her response was to make up an entirely bogus story of her own?

This is your theory?

I'm sorry again for being so candid, Ike, but such suggestions are so poorly formulated that it is difficult to know whether you are attempting to be a witness for the defense or a witness for the prosecution.

If Anne was 'concerned that a potentially genuine historical document' was being damaged, what worse course of action could she have taken than to invent yet another bogus story and to repeatedly misdirect the very people who were investigating the diary's alleged authenticity? Up to and including Paul Feldman who, we are told, became emotionally close to her?

That is not how sincere and trustworthy people behave in the real world, Ike. If I recall, at one point Anne even wrote to Barrett something along the lines of "If you want to destroy the diary get on with it." That doesn't sound like the taunt of a woman who was concerned in the way you claim she was concerned.

No, Ike; you are clearly projecting your own 'concern' for this 'potentially genuine document' onto Anne. Her own explanation is that she wasn't particularly interested in the document as a young woman, had even intended to burn it, had voiced nothing but contempt for 'Ripperologists' who wanted to know the truth (according to an old post by Keith Skinner), and had studiously avoided the question of authenticity, which she left in the 'capable hands of others.' So, your suggestion falls at the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth hurdles.

If you ever come up with a legitimate explanation for her remarkable behavior, I would dearly love to hear it.

Enjoy your weekend. I see that your beloved Sunderland has defeated Cardiff City, so I imagine you'll be uncorking the vino tonight.

I do hope I have that right.

[Iconoclast]

To use your own phrase: Let that sink in.

Irony alert? (It's your phrase, RJ).

As I see it, it is your Achilles heel…or one of them.

My Achilles heel is caring sufficiently about the truth that I am willing to defend the possible and the plausible where Maybrick is concerned until neither in my opinion are left.

It seems obvious to me that you and Caz spend your time plucking the low hanging fruit of Barrett’s lies and antics because you have no explanation for Anne’s.

Well, I think we all know that it really doesn't take much stretching to reach them, but to suggest that some of them are easier to grasp than others is to imply that some of them were subtler and more believable than others. For that, you would have to have a limited knowledge of what Barrett claimed over the long years. (Who mentioned the vast majority of people who read and post on this site?)

Had the diary come from Dodd’s house, or if all she knew is that Barrett brought it home from the pub long after Tony Devereux’s death, she would have eventually alerted Feldman to this most relevant of facts.

I imagine that there is a fancy Latin term for this sort of non sequitur. Oh, there you go - it's non sequitur! 'Knowing' what someone 'would have' done on the limited basis off what one oneself would do is little grounds for a compelling syllogism, my dear old friend. But I'll humour you: on what grounds do you conclude that Anne Graham would have spilled the beans to Feldman, Emmas, or indeed anyone else (especially if - as we both believe - she was lying in the first place)?

She would have told Carol Emmas , too. She was “free and clear”of Barrett and had been refusing her royalty cheques. She could have simply told the truth, and no copper on earth would have gone after her for the mere misfortune of having been married to Barrett.

On what grounds do you conclude that Anne Graham's objective was not simply to cut Barrett out of the authorship of the scrapbook's contents? I believe that that was exactly what she was intending to do, and I believe that that was because she was embarrassed by his antics (which she knew to be maliciously untrue) and was concerned that a potentially genuine historical document was being damaged as a result of her errant husband's vindictive behaviour.

The idea that she invented the Formby/Yapp claptrap to protect her estranged and abusive ex husband from the wrath of an Eddy Lyons’ confession is nonsense of epic proportions. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Goodness, I don't ever recall claiming it! I must be losing it ...

Her behavior after Barrett began spilling the beans is like a flashing, blinding neon sign that you nonetheless cannot see and don’t wish to see. You don’t even begin to have an explanation for it.

Can I refer you to my response above ("On what grounds do you conclude ..."), please, as I put it to you that it answers the very thing you imagine is unanswerable?

I hope you’ll excuse my candor.

Honestly, RJ, it's a great deal better than your vitriol, and - let's face it - you haven't been so circumspect with that in the past. You're in danger of appearing to be positively mellowing these days, me old china.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Morning, Ike.

Over the years there have been a number of brief visitors to this thread who having strut and fret their hour on the stage were then heard no more. Neither involved nor influenced by the partisan warfare, their opinions often interested me.

One such soul posted near the beginning of this marathon thread. I forget her name and can merely paraphrase.

”Mike obviously had mental problems, but Anne was just a liar.”

To use your own phrase: Let that sink in.

As I see it, it is your Achilles heel…or one of them.

It seems obvious to me that you and Caz spend your time plucking the low hanging fruit of Barrett’s lies and antics because you have no explanation for Anne’s.

Had the diary come from Dodd’s house, or if all she knew is that Barrett brought it home from the pub long after Tony Devereux’s death, she would have eventually alerted Feldman to this most relevant of facts. She would have told Carol Emmas , too. She was “free and clear”of Barrett and had been refusing her royalty cheques. She could have simply told the truth, and no copper on earth would have gone after her for the mere misfortune of having been married to Barrett.

The idea that she invented the Formby/Yapp claptrap to protect her estranged and abusive ex husband from the wrath of an Eddy Lyons’ confession is nonsense of epic proportions. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Her behavior after Barrett began spilling the beans is like a flashing, blinding neon sign that you nonetheless cannot see and don’t wish to see. You don’t even begin to have an explanation for it.

That’s how I see it.

I hope you’ll excuse my candor.

Regards.

[Iconoclast]

At some point I will need to take the Dark Lord's advice (on his blogsite) and re-acquaint myself with his thread here on the subject of Anne's handwriting 'similarities' to the scrapbook.

I'm expecting, when I do so, to be blown away by the clear and obvious evidence that office worker Anne Graham (as Anne Barrett) was the mysterious scribe. I wonder - though - just how very blown away I will be (or not)? I'm all a-quiver in anticipation of finding that the unequivocal evidence that Anne Graham's hand was the originator of our debate was there all along and I just didn't see it.

Oh, just by the way and as an aside and all that, Mike Barrett informed Ace Detective that the handwriting was "fifty-fifty" between him and Anne (Ace Detective had spotted that Mike had wandered aimlessly into another lie and was challenging him about it when he - Mike - suddenly shifted gear and changed the story to fit his impetuous and ill-thought-out tale)* so I guess the bits that don't look like Anne's writing must have looked like Mike's (seems VERY unlikely, mind!) despite the relatively high level of consistency of the writing throughout the scrapbook?

Or is this claim just one of those which don't work for Orsam's Eleven-Day Evangelism and can therefore be ignored - filed away with the voluminous rest of Mike's endless lies?

Makes you wonder why we should place as much trust in Mike's 'honesty' and 'felicity' on that one glorious day of commitment to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (January 5, 1995) which we have to do if Orsam's theory is to continue its admittedly very laboured breathing?

* November 6, 1994, IIRC.

[rjpalmer]

And I hate to disappoint, but my memory of Sue Iremonger doesn't come into it. Palmer will no doubt choose to reject the combined testimonies of all those who were more closely involved than anyone else here, which is entirely up to him.

But Caz, what are your readers supposed to believe?

You told us twice--over a period of a decade--that Sue Iremonger made no comment about Anne's handwriting, and at one point you told us she was not "commissioned" to make any such comparison.

We are now told rather late in the day by Keith that he had heard second-hand that such a comparison had been made, which leaves me scratching my head as to why he did not mention this to Paul Begg (or to Peter Birchwood) back in June 2000, when he wrote that "God knows, this analysis (ie., of Anne's handwriting) should have been done."

Why should have been done, if it had been done?

Could the explanation for this apparent contradiction be that Sue Iremonger made no formal analysis, having not been commissioned to do so, and may have merely made an informal or off-hand remark to Shirley and Doreen based on limited (and an entirely unknown) exemplar--perhaps nothing more than Anne's signature on the contract?

Surely you don't think any of that could be convincing or conclusive?

Indeed, if this was conclusive, I find it strange that you are now reduced to summoning the opinion of Melvin Harris, who was not a professional handwriting expert, and whose opinion about Gerard Kane's handwriting you do not agree with, as having some evidentiary value about whether Mike and Anne hoaxed the diary. That's rather desperate, isn't it, if a formal report by an expert had been made?

I don't believe your theories about the diary, but if it is any consolation, I no longer believe Melvin's old theory either, and haven't for years.

So why you are trying to argue Melvin's corner is anyone's guess, but it is certainly a wonder to behold.

[caz]

Hi Caz.

I was fascinated to read that Sue Iremonger had been specifically asked to compare Anne's handwriting to the Diarist's---so much so that I consulted my book shelf, but could find no mention of this important fact in Shirley Harrison's books, in Paul Feldman's book, in Robert Smith's book, or in your own book, Inside Story. Perhaps I missed it. Could you point me in the right direction?

Keith has given me some helpful clarification. Sue's evaluation was related to him independently by Shirley, Sally, Doreen and Feldy. They told Keith that Sue checked the diary handwriting against Mike and Anne's and confirmed that - in Keith's words - 'neither of them had written it in her professional opinion'.

I quite understand that I shall probably get shot again as the messenger, so I have my bullet proof vest on. I don't want to miss out on my hot cross buns.

I hate to ask, but are you quite sure that your memory of Sue Iremonger is what it should be?

And I hate to disappoint, but my memory of Sue Iremonger doesn't come into it. Palmer will no doubt choose to reject the combined testimonies of all those who were more closely involved than anyone else here, which is entirely up to him. But he might just want to bear in mind that Melvin Harris once posted his belief that Mike and Anne were the 'handlers and placers' of someone else's handiwork.