One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

And just think what is being claimed. The electricians supposedly found The Diary of Jack the Ripper under the floorboards of an old, historic Victorian house. There are claims about a ring, a watch, and a biscuit tin all being lifted by Eddie and the gang. And yet, back in 1992 when this remarkable event supposedly happened, nobody said anything. No one had a twinge of guilt and told the owner, Paul Dodd. Nobody told the police. Nobody leaked the story to the newspapers---Jack the Ripper's diary has been found! Nobody notified their boss at Portus & Rhodes--not even anonymously. They all just kept their gobs shut. Not a peep. How likely does that seem to you? We are even told that some of these blokes took it to a Liverpool university to be verified and none of those people spread a rumor, either. How did this amazing secret stay quiet? Are people really that tight lipped in rainy Liverpool? There's no gossip in the land of Paul and Ringo?

I got something to say that might cause you pain...

Sorry, dear readers, I got carried away with the Beatles there for a minute.

[You can't do that - Ed]

For those of you whose minds have not been permanently closed by a little red book, could I suggest looking at this from another angle?

Would it not have been only natural for those in the know to have 'just kept their gobs shut' if an old book signed Jack the Ripper was taken from the old house in March 1992 and passed on to Mike Barrett? They were hardly likely to tell him where it came from or when. After that everything would have gone silent, and a reasonable assumption would be that Paul Dodd had not missed it. After all, he would never have known about the Victorian newspaper found by one of the sparks if nobody had said a word about it. It was arguably far less of a big deal to mention an old newspaper and ask Dodd if he was happy with "finders keepers". It was also a very smart way to test the waters if the newspaper was found with the old book. If Dodd had known nothing about the former, he obviously knew nothing about the latter either.

The weeks went by and the silence continued. For all the sparks knew, Mike could have been trying to interest a discreet private collector and negotiations might be ongoing. There was no need to grass anyone up, or to admit anything, unless the book could somehow be linked back to the house. But assuming nobody at that early stage knew that the supposed author was James Maybrick, because they had only seen or heard about the infamous signature at the end, they'd have no reason to think the book would be connected in anyone else's mind to the recent electrical work in Riversdale Road. Why would it - as long as those in the know remained "buttoned up"? Not a peep.

The point when Eddie Lyons might well have had cause to worry finally came three months later in June 1992, when Mike Barrett went again to London to secure a publishing deal for the diary. If Mike bragged about this to Eddie on his return, and told him how he had identified Jack the Ripper as James Maybrick from the early reference to Battlecrease, the link would be made back to the house and Eddie could then expect questions to be asked. He would have been relieved to hear that Mike had no intention of "splitting on a mate" and was determined to keep the focus on another Fountains Road resident: a deceased friend who could tell no tales.

With this in mind, Mike put forward his theory that the diary had originally come from the demolished Knowsley Buildings before ending up with Tony Devereux. He may not have guessed the truth until the following Spring, but having taken the bus to Riversdale Road and seen for himself that the old house was still standing [thank you, Sir Tom Jones] where Maybrick had died - even though he identified the wrong side as Battlecrease - he wouldn't want to give the current owner any ideas.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Ah yes, the famous document examiner who never actually examined the document. Which apparently isn’t required in the world of document examination.

Piecing together other people’s work and forming an opinion is apparently sufficient without ever doing one scientific test of your own on it.

Sounds scientifically sound to me. His opinion is exactly that - an opinion.

[caz]

Hi Mike,

I've been meaning to reply.

As Caz seems to already acknowledge, her version is indeed open to dispute.

Originally, Kellingsley did express reservations about how a solubility test could conclusively date a document, but this was in the context of asking for a new and non-destructive test to determine the diary’s chemical composition. Obviously, there have been significant scientific advances since the 1990s which would be far more conclusive than the earlier tests.

Kellingley, I believe is Phil's surname, but again, Palmer will correct me if it's Kellingsley.

At least Palmer admits that Phil did originally have reservations about a solubility test conducted in 1992 being able to 'conclusively date a document' as Palmer puts it. I'm not sure that differs in any material sense from how I worded it, but again, Palmer will correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm also not sure what 'far more' conclusive would look like. Isn't that a bit like qualifying something as 'more' unique? If the test result in 1992 had been conclusive, I have to wonder how significant scientific advances since then could make it more so. It was either conclusive or it wasn't.

But Caz is clearly not remembering the whole exchange.

Back on 8 March 2023, I gave Kellingsley the full description of the solvency test as described in Baxendale’s July 1992 report:

"In this, a small sample of ink is dissolved from the paper using a suitable extraction solvent (a mixture of pyridine and water in equal parts). The solution is then applied as a small spot to one end of a glass plate bearing a thin coating of very fine silica gel. After the solvent has evaporated the edge of the plate is immersed in an eluent (a mixture of botanol, ethanol and water 4:I:II). This travels slowly up the silica gel layer by capillary action. As it does so, the components of the ink also migrate but at different rates, so that a separation is obtained...The ink was readily soluble in the extractant and only a small amount of insoluble black residue was left on the paper."

Further, in his conclusion Baxendale wrote that the ink was "freely soluble" and that this feature pointed to "an origin much later than 1889".

The key part of Kellingsley’s response on the same day (#353 of 'Maybrick diary' thread on JTR Forums) was:

“I would incline to think he's right.”

That certainly doesn’t quite sound like he is “disputing” Baxendale, as Caz remembers it. It sounds like he’s inclined to agree with him.

Okay, so Phil 'would incline to think' Baxendale was 'right' to conclude that this feature 'pointed to' an origin much later than 1889.

I have no problem with the wording here, but I also have no way of judging if the 1992 result can be considered 'conclusive', not quite conclusive, or how the result could be 'far more' conclusive if new tests were done today.

As to her claim that "Even Baxendale himself never hinted that it could have been written as recently as April 1992."

This doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

When speaking to Maurice Chittenden of the Sunday Times in 1993, Baxendale said that the diary “had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."

A quick check on a pocket calculator shows that 2-3 years prior to 1993 would certainly include April 1992, so Baxendale did indeed hint that it could have been written just prior to Mike and Anne bringing the diary to London.

Anyway, to each his or her own. I think I'll now play the waiting game and see if someone in Liverpool will eventually tell us the whole story.

Well, unless Baxendale did another test in 1993, with the same result, I'm not sure what he meant by telling Chittenden in 1993 that the diary 'had probably [only probably?] been written recently, in the past two or three years'. But even if he was counting back from 1993, we don't need a calculator to work out that two years would have taken it back to 1991, and three to 1990. If he was referring to his conclusion in 1992, two years would take it back to 1990 [when Mike claimed it was written] and three years back to 1989. I know Palmer will point out that 'in the past two or three years' would allow for it to have been written in the same year that he examined it, but then Baxendale should have clarified if he thought the writing was probably no more than two years old and possibly considerably less.

Mike knew early on about Baxendale's report, but I couldn't say how familiar he was with it, or whether it could have had any bearing on which year Mike himself claimed for the diary's creation. I have never quite believed the argument that he was out by two years, and thought Tony was alive throughout the process, due to his heavy drinking at the time. Isn't it more likely that he picked the year according to how plausible he thought it would sound in 1995?

[caz]

Hi Caz.

I do know from past expressions of gratitude how much you enjoy trips down Memory Lane, so I can't resist making one small comment after rereading the above link.

One of the more fascinating observations is Martin's commentary on the long, tortured explanations from Anne Graham as she tries to explain how she managed to hide the diary for months--or perhaps years?--behind the furniture on Goldie Street (all of this being long before the electrically charged date of 9 March 1992, of course) to keep it away from Barrett's prying eyes.


Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:37 pm

"Hi Peter,
The small detail was the room in which Anne claims to have hidden the diary for a period of months or years during which Mike could not find it. When she spotted that her answers to my questions included this contradiction of her story, she produced a very elaborate explanation that what had been Caroline's room at one time was a spare or guest room at another while Mike was redecorating. Mike confirmed the redecorating but (for once sounding a little reasonable) claimed that the furniture moving involved in that alone would have made Anne's successful concealment of the book from him impossible.
Anne's basic story hasn't changed SINCE SHE PUT IT FORWARD. But that was a long way down the line. Prior to that she certainly expected it to be understood that either Mike's story was true and all that was known, or that she knew nothing about it. It was a real shock to both Feldy and Shirley when Anne suddenly came out with her claim."


To which you added your own two cents:

Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 04:20 am

Er, so in other words, you are saying that it is Anne's word against Mike's, when it comes to what furniture was moved where, what rooms were used for what purpose, what decorating was being done when, and consequently, whether she would have been able to hide the diary where he never found it?


Ah, the old he said/she said.

And we know what's being implied here, don't we?

It is surely just a matter of Anne's word against the word of the hopeless liar Michael John Barrett, the king of all dishonesty. And since Barrett was such an extraordinary liar incapable of telling the truth, Anne's story can't be discounted, can it?

I'm not sure this observation still holds up, does it?

I'm not sure of its relevance today.

It may be too subtle a difference for the casual observer, but the question of whether or not Anne did hide the diary from Mike was never the same as knowing whether or not such a thing was possible in the circumstances as described differently by Anne and Mike. Palmer and I both have our individual reasons for having discounted Anne's story, which have nothing to do with circumstances that were only known to the Barrett family while living in Goldie Street. In my case, the reason had nothing to do with the 'electrically charged date' of 9th March 1992 either, which I only learned about later. I do hope Palmer would not try to imply otherwise, subtly or not, after I have repeatedly made this clear.

If, as you often tell us, you believe the diary came from under Dodds floorboards on 9 March 1992, doesn't this mean that these old conversations of Anne telling her shifting tales were a pack of lies, after all, and---heaven forbid!---it was none other than your old friend Michael John Barrett who was telling the truth when he said that Anne was full of it--just as Martin had discerned for himself?

Not this again! How many times does it need repeating that if we can't or won't adapt to new information as we get it, and do not have the mental capacity to change our mind, or the courage to admit when we were wrong and move on, we will be doomed to believing the first stories we ever believed in, from Father Christmas onwards? Mike would have known Anne was 'full of it' if he lied in the first place about Tony Devereux giving him the diary. And what's more, Anne would have known that Mike knew she was lying. It would have been a recipe for disaster if Mike could have proved it, by proving he had obtained the guard book from an auction sale. Anne's story could not have been better designed to provoke Mike into making good his fakery claims - if they had been true.

If such was the case, are you really on firm ground on the other thread when you apparently accept--without any corroboration whatsoever---Anne's account of how the typescript was created, when it's simply Mike's word against hers in that instance, too?

Yes, I feel the ground beneath my feet couldn't be any firmer, when it comes to questioning Mike's version of events, where he described how he read from a prepared typescript while Anne copied the words by hand into the guard book - but only because his own handwriting was too distinctive - with Caroline there to witness it. None of it rings any truer for me now than it did when I first learned what he had claimed about it in his January 1995 affidavit. No new information has since emerged to shake the concerns I had then. That doesn't mean I have to accept Anne's version of events as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Someone was responsible for the typescript, and Anne is the only one in Goldie Street who'd have been capable of producing the one recently released to casebook. As for the person holding the pen, I can't see how anyone could feel on remotely firm ground to think this was also Anne, based on the word of a serial liar and precious little else.

Perhaps if Caroline had been named Precious Little Else, and had seen it with her own eyes, I might have felt the ground shift a bit.

Shouldn't we apply the same principle to Anne as you and David Barrat apply to Mike Barrett--believe nothing without corroboration?

What corroboration is there?

No more or less than there is for Mike attending an auction sale on 31st March 1992, finding the guard book there and bullying Anne into doing the necessary so he could show off their speedily produced fake in London on 13th April.

If all Palmer can point to is Anne's little red book, it was Anne herself who demonstrated back in 1995 just how worried she was, about its ability to corroborate Mike's account of how the typescript came about, or to cast doubt on her own.

A clue: not worried at all.

[caz]

I think this little squabble has run its course, but I've just noticed something that Martin Fido once wrote about Anne's laughter.

"it has been my impression whenever I have spoken to Anne or listened to tapes of her being interviewed that she is lying, and describes herself well when she says she is a very manipulative person. I think she is particularly skilled at using a rush of girlish laughter to deflect and redirect embarrassing questions. "

So perhaps Anne's peals of laughter--if that indeed proves to be her reaction--might not quite mean what Caz believes they will mean.

That would certainly hold true if Anne only ever laughs when she is lying or being manipulative, or trying to deflect and redirect embarrassing questions. I don't know anyone with human characteristics who would fit that bill, but maybe Palmer does?

It's a handy scene to set in advance, I'll give Palmer that, just in case Anne is ever confronted and does laugh like a drain. It will be a sure sign that she hasn't just sat on a whoopee cushion or heard a hilarious joke about the diary, but is skilfully giggling her way out of her role in its creation, like a schoolgirl caught with the chalk used to write on the wall: Teacher is a right old rat bag.

[caz]

Paul Feldman did not name the electrician in his book--and he didn't accuse him of stealing, either. Feldman concluded it was just a bloke who wanted to 'help' a London film producer (Feldman, of course) with his provenance if it included a payday. Feldman didn't believe him. Nor, as I said, did he name him.

Eddie Lyons was positively identified from what Feldman wrote about him in his book. Feldman also made it perfectly plain that the man was offering to make a confession if the money was right, which instantly made him suspect that he was being played and there was nothing for Eddie to confess - apart from his willingness to lie to a total stranger over the phone for the promise of financial gain.

Palmer can water this down as much as he likes, to suggest that Eddie was just like any other chap receiving a cold call, who would jump at the chance to support a film producer's provenance if there was money in it. But the irony is delicious, when we consider Feldman's promise a year later to make Anne Graham a millionaire if she would similarly 'help' with his provenance. He had ditched the electricians as lying, grasping con artists to a man. But this woman had no trouble at all getting round him, when it was what he wanted to hear. It's a tale as old as time.

As far as I know, it was you, following on the heels of Robert Smith's book, who named Eddie by name on this forum and changed Feldman's explanation into an accusation of theft, with the obvious implication that Mike and eventually Anne marketed stolen goods and lied about it.

I 'named Eddie by name' did I? As if his name hadn't already been 'named' back in 1993, by the people who were there with him in 1992 and in a position to know? They were the ones accusing Eddie of more than a 'helpful' attempt to defraud a film producer with a provenance he knew to be false.

I don't care if you contact Eddie Lyons or not. I don't even care if you refuse to confront Anne about your suspicions.

Then Palmer won't be disappointed either way.

I have communicated with a few people behind the scenes--but I don't feel the need to discuss it with you, especially considering your attitude and that I've been recently described by one of the diary's chief advocates as the recipient of a 'bargain lobotomy.'

If I'm that dimwitted, why do you even care what I think or do?

What 'attitude' would that be? Challenging Palmer to support his own creation theories?

He also confuses me with someone who does care what he thinks or does. The challenge was to anyone who wants to argue publicly for Anne's handwriting being in the diary. I didn't single Palmer out, but if the cap fits...

Palmer has no need to discuss his 'behind the scenes' communications with me or anyone else on these boards, unless or until he wants to post a theory or argument based on what his sources have given him, in which case he will no doubt make that information available to all before he does so, as he has so often demanded of others.

Much as I would often like to put words in someone else's mouth, I don't actually possess that power, so why Palmer is asking this last question about how 'dimwitted' I think he is, when it can only be addressed to whoever coined the unfortunate description, I really have no idea. It's the kind of personal insult that would be against all the rules of a decent playground like wot I frequent, but would seem eminently suited to a certain bargain basement boxing ring where the gloves were off from the start and everyone knew what they could expect.

[caz]

I'm not calling you out for accusing Eddie Lyons, the Murphys, and Anne Graham--the peddler of stolen goods.

I'm calling you out for the sanctimoniousness of constantly demanding that others confront Anne, when you won't confront her (or Eddie) yourself.

How does Palmer imagine I could have demanded that anyone confront their prime suspect, if the will is not there?

Eddie has already been confronted by others on the record, on more than one occasion, and has taken every opportunity to defend himself against all the allegations made by others away from these boards.

It's Anne who has not been confronted by anyone who has posted their suspicions that her handwriting is in the diary.

But it's always the so-called diary 'supporters' who are accused of keeping the story alive!

Palmer can't have it both ways. Nobody is obliged to confront Anne, despite his claim that 'only' she has all the answers. But he can hardly then complain about the story being kept alive when the Barrett hoax believers are equally responsible for not turning off its life support.

[caz]

This is why the diary supporters are so desperate to claim that this Martin-Wright chap is an 'independent witness,' as he is being described, even though he was just a bloke repeating a third-hand rumor he heard and hadn't actually witnessed anything. They need Martin-Wright to try and date this rumor to a time before Feldman quizzed the electricians, but all he evidently has is a hazy memory of hearing the rumor at some not very specific date in the past. And he's the only one who claims to have heard it. Again, if Jack the Ripper's diary has been found in Liverpool, and one person heard about it, wouldn't a hundred have heard about it?

Caz and her crew need to convince the public that these rumors were already afloat and thus weren't the product of Feldman's clumsy interviewing techniques.

That's how I see it.

Obviously, in a real criminal or civil case, Martin-Wright would not be a witness. He wouldn't ever be allowed to take the stand. All he can offer is third-hand hearsay.

Where do I start? How desperate must Palmer be, that he has to put this much spin on everything to get rid of facts that are evidently inconvenient?

Firstly, Keith and I are not diary 'supporters', any more than we are Barrett supporters. Furthermore, 'this Martin-Wright chap' initially related the circumstances in which he had first heard of Jack the Ripper's diary - via Dodgson and Davies - without his account being prompted, influenced or contaminated by Feldman. Inconvenient but true: three witnesses telling the same basic story, at different times and to different people. If only 'this Martin-Wright chap' had been the only one to hear about it, Palmer may have had the ghost of an argument that hearsay evidence can safely be disregarded as false. But Dodgson and Davies were not ghosts. Nor was Brian Rawes, another 'chap' who had no contact with Feldman, but related his own conversation with Eddie Lyons on 17th July 1992, connected with an "important" find in Paul Dodd's house. I wouldn't imagine Paul Dodd's account was prompted, influenced or contaminated by Feldman either, when he related how Arthur Rigby had turned up at his home to distance himself from the diary, while identifying Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling as being in the know. This was when Shirley's book had yet to be published, so Arthur would have been worrying and grassing on his former workmates for nothing if Jack the Ripper's diary had already been talked about or seen in London before the three of them were sent to work in Dodd's house.

A word about hearsay evidence here...

This is not a real criminal or civil case, so I'm not sure why Palmer made the comparison. If he wants to mentally redact all hearsay evidence from the history books, newspapers and message boards, that's up to him, but there will be precious left for him to interpret, discuss or debate.

A true story can attract hearsay evidence as easily as a false one. Both will inevitably be added to or changed by others in the retelling, so it's not an indicator that the whole story must be false. If Palmer thinks that rings and biscuit tins are a useful way to tell the difference, I suggest he applies the rule even more robustly to someone whose original story of how he faked the diary was added to and changed in his own retelling, almost as often as he changed his socks, and then changed by others in recent years, in search of a theory that might actually conform to the laws of physics.

A word about the laws of physics...

The laws of physics are always there, waiting to break any false story. A true one will be left unmolested. The laws of physics should eventually have caught up with, and caught out, anyone caught up in trading a false rumour that the diary was found during a rewire and passed on in an Anfield pub. As with a cold case, where a partial DNA profile may eventually point to an original suspect, previously eliminated for lack of evidence apart from hearsay and rumour, the laws of physics sat quietly in the background, while the Battlecrease rumours swirled wildly about. They should have been broken by the laws of physics when it was eventually established who had worked where and when, in relation to what was happening with the diary. If Arthur, Eddie and Jim had not worked together at the house at all, or had only done so on an earlier or later occasion in 1992, that would have done it. But on the precise date of the first recorded mention of Mike's diary, our three Scouser sparks had worked together in the house for the first and only time, before Eddie returned to his home in Fountains Road, on the street where Tony Devereux had lived until the previous summer.

This is what Palmer is really battling against. It's not the diary 'supporter' or the Barrett 'sceptic', who can easily be disregarded as being in a tiny minority. It's not hearsay evidence, which he can redact mentally to leave himself with a clean slate, so he can concentrate on weaponising the one piece of evidence he is left with: a tiny 1891 diary. Anne was not remotely afraid of it herself, so there's no reason on earth for anyone else to fear it.

[caz]

The damning thing about the Eddie Lyons theory is that there is zero indication that these wild rumors about finding Jack the Ripper's Diary--the criminal discovery of the century!---were ever in circulation before Paul Feldman started calling people on the telephone many months later. Feldman seems to be the 'original sin' behind the whole saga.

Feldman only 'seems' to be the originator? And I thought Palmer was so sure about it.

Feldman died without ever knowing that the original connection, coincidental or otherwise, between the work in Battlecrease House and Mike's Battlecrease diary, was forged on one day in March 1992, when Eddie was engaged in the former and Mike phoned London about the latter.

Nothing to do with Feldman, and nothing that anyone on the planet could have guessed was already down on record a whole year before he arrived in Liverpool asking questions. Nobody seeking to invent a link out of fresh air in 1993 could have imagined what Keith Skinner eventually found in 2004, relating to the events of 9th March 1992. Nobody could have made up a coincidence on that scale, to make the rumours work, but nobody needed to, because real life had provided it for them without their knowledge. If it was a coincidence, it was one that not only passed everyone by, but could not have been better designed by the fates to fit snugly with the future accounts from various witnesses.

And just think what is being claimed. The electricians supposedly found The Diary of Jack the Ripper under the floorboards of an old, historic Victorian house. There are claims about a ring, a watch, and a biscuit tin all being lifted by Eddie and the gang. And yet, back in 1992 when this remarkable event supposedly happened, nobody said anything. No one had a twinge of guilt and told the owner, Paul Dodd. Nobody told the police. Nobody leaked the story to the newspapers---Jack the Ripper's diary has been found! Nobody notified their boss at Portus & Rhodes--not even anonymously. They all just kept their gobs shut. Not a peep. How likely does that seem to you? We are even told that some of these blokes took it to a Liverpool university to be verified and none of those people spread a rumor, either. How did this amazing secret stay quiet? Are people really that tight lipped in rainy Liverpool? There's no gossip in the land of Paul and Ringo?

It's a similar argument if there was a literary hoax conspiracy involving Mike, Anne, Caroline, Tony and Billy. It seemingly went unmentioned by anyone to anyone, from the moment the idea would have been raised until 13th April 1992 when Doreen first saw the diary. Apart from Mike making his various conflicting and unproven claims from June 1994, when the bottom had fallen out of his world, nobody ever recalled selling any of the raw materials mentioned by him or speculated about by others. No former class mates of Caroline's recalled any playground whispers. No friend or family member recalled Tony chuckling over Mike's ambitious plans to write a best seller based on Jack the Ripper or the Maybricks. Nobody at the British Legion recalled Billy complaining that Mike had "borrowed" £50 from him in 1992, which he never expected to see again. No gossip in the land of Paperback Writer about Mike and his fake diary before or after March 1992?

Everyone in Liverpool who knew the Barretts or the Grahams or the Devereux family should have had something to say if they could see Mike or Anne being up to their elbows in faking that diary. Mike was the only one and he had plenty to say about it. In contrast, the various people who knew Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling in 1992 have never stopped having things to say about the alleged find in Dodd's house. Mike was the exception in that case. For once in his life he was the one keeping quiet and hoping everyone else would stop talking.

To be continued...

[caz]

You're afraid to call Anne, but aren't afraid to make up imaginary responses on her behalf?

I think this a good reason as any to terminate this ridiculous conversation.

So who continued it? I've just popped back to see, and it appears that Palmer has been giving himself reasons to carry on, largely talking to himself.

[Tab]

Kenneth Rendell's new memoir, Safeguarding History, reviewed in today's Washington Post.

Safeguarding History, by Kenneth Rendell book review - The Washington Post

Is the full report Kenneth Rendell wrote in 1993 available anywhere?

[rjpalmer]

Kenneth Rendell's new memoir, Safeguarding History, reviewed in today's Washington Post.

Safeguarding History, by Kenneth Rendell book review - The Washington Post

[rjpalmer]

Hi Mike,

A sound post here, if I may say so, although IIRC [and Palmer will correct me if I'm wrong] a former professional document examiner, Phil Kellingley, has disputed that Baxendale's solubility test result in 1992 proves that the ink had only recently been applied to the paper. Even Baxendale himself never hinted that it could have been written as recently as April 1992

Hi Mike,

I've been meaning to reply.

As Caz seems to already acknowledge, her version is indeed open to dispute.

Originally, Kellingsley did express reservations about how a solubility test could conclusively date a document, but this was in the context of asking for a new and non-destructive test to determine the diary’s chemical composition. Obviously, there have been significant scientific advances since the 1990s which would be far more conclusive than the earlier tests.

But Caz is clearly not remembering the whole exchange.

Back on 8 March 2023, I gave Kellingsley the full description of the solvency test as described in Baxendale’s July 1992 report:

"In this, a small sample of ink is dissolved from the paper using a suitable extraction solvent (a mixture of pyridine and water in equal parts). The solution is then applied as a small spot to one end of a glass plate bearing a thin coating of very fine silica gel. After the solvent has evaporated the edge of the plate is immersed in an eluent (a mixture of botanol, ethanol and water 4:I:II). This travels slowly up the silica gel layer by capillary action. As it does so, the components of the ink also migrate but at different rates, so that a separation is obtained...The ink was readily soluble in the extractant and only a small amount of insoluble black residue was left on the paper."

Further, in his conclusion Baxendale wrote that the ink was "freely soluble" and that this feature pointed to "an origin much later than 1889".

The key part of Kellingsley’s response on the same day (#353 of 'Maybrick diary' thread on JTR Forums) was:

“I would incline to think he's right.”

That certainly doesn’t quite sound like he is “disputing” Baxendale, as Caz remembers it. It sounds like he’s inclined to agree with him.

As to her claim that "Even Baxendale himself never hinted that it could have been written as recently as April 1992."

This doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

When speaking to Maurice Chittenden of the Sunday Times in 1993, Baxendale said that the diary “had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."

A quick check on a pocket calculator shows that 2-3 years prior to 1993 would certainly include April 1992, so Baxendale did indeed hint that it could have been written just prior to Mike and Anne bringing the diary to London.

Anyway, to each his or her own. I think I'll now play the waiting game and see if someone in Liverpool will eventually tell us the whole story.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz.

I do know from past expressions of gratitude how much you enjoy trips down Memory Lane, so I can't resist making one small comment after rereading the above link.

One of the more fascinating observations is Martin's commentary on the long, tortured explanations from Anne Graham as she tries to explain how she managed to hide the diary for months--or perhaps years?--behind the furniture on Goldie Street (all of this being long before the electrically charged date of 9 March 1992, of course) to keep it away from Barrett's prying eyes.


Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:37 pm

"Hi Peter,
The small detail was the room in which Anne claims to have hidden the diary for a period of months or years during which Mike could not find it. When she spotted that her answers to my questions included this contradiction of her story, she produced a very elaborate explanation that what had been Caroline's room at one time was a spare or guest room at another while Mike was redecorating. Mike confirmed the redecorating but (for once sounding a little reasonable) claimed that the furniture moving involved in that alone would have made Anne's successful concealment of the book from him impossible.
Anne's basic story hasn't changed SINCE SHE PUT IT FORWARD. But that was a long way down the line. Prior to that she certainly expected it to be understood that either Mike's story was true and all that was known, or that she knew nothing about it. It was a real shock to both Feldy and Shirley when Anne suddenly came out with her claim."


To which you added your own two cents:

Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 04:20 am

Er, so in other words, you are saying that it is Anne's word against Mike's, when it comes to what furniture was moved where, what rooms were used for what purpose, what decorating was being done when, and consequently, whether she would have been able to hide the diary where he never found it?


Ah, the old he said/she said.

And we know what's being implied here, don't we?

It is surely just a matter of Anne's word against the word of the hopeless liar Michael John Barrett, the king of all dishonesty. And since Barrett was such an extraordinary liar incapable of telling the truth, Anne's story can't be discounted, can it?

I'm not sure this observation still holds up, does it?

If, as you often tell us, you believe the diary came from under Dodds floorboards on 9 March 1992, doesn't this mean that these old conversations of Anne telling her shifting tales were a pack of lies, after all, and---heaven forbid!---it was none other than your old friend Michael John Barrett who was telling the truth when he said that Anne was full of it--just as Martin had discerned for himself?

If such was the case, are you really on firm ground on the other thread when you apparently accept--without any corroboration whatsoever---Anne's account of how the typescript was created, when it's simply Mike's word against hers in that instance, too?


Afterall, if we can't believe Anne about the furniture being shifted around, why should we believe her account of Mike reading from the diary while she types up the typescript? (And if I recall, isn't there a version where Anne only sometimes worked from Mike's dictation?)

Shouldn't we apply the same principle to Anne as you and David Barrat apply to Mike Barrett--believe nothing without corroboration?

What corroboration is there?

I'd love to hear your current thoughts on this example of Barrett's honesty in the face of Anne's extraordinary lies--as you must now believe them to have been--and if this presents any cautionary tale about not believing Anne's version of the typescript, either.

Thanks.

[rjpalmer]

That should read 2002, not 2022, of course.