One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Yes, but his wife had the expense and was furious about it.

Can you clarify this please? Are you saying that his wife paid for both the advertisement and the purchase of the 1891 diary? Was she equally angry on both occasions?

Again, do you not accept that Anne, knowing her husband a trifle better than we did and being a sensible woman, would have made it her business to tweak the wording of the advert if she knew they were about to forge the diary together and were looking for something to put it in? Mike put a whole lot more effort into his various forgery claims, and to hell with the expense - his considerable royalties dried up as a direct result - so when it suited him he could certainly put in the effort and expense.

I don't accept any such thing. Hindsight excluded, there's nothing wrong with the wording of the advert as far as I can see. Guessing how difficult it must be to obtain a genuine Victorian diary within a 10 year date range with blank pages I doubt I would have written it any differently myself.

Photographs would have been just as dodgy if Mike feared he had a priceless stolen document on his hands.

What was it that put his fears to rest about him having a priceless stolen document on his hands then?

I mean, how would showing Doreen a different diary in his own handwriting have possibly alleviated any fears about him having a stolen document on his hands? And if your answer relates to the content of the diary, why would a typed transcript of the diary, or a transcript written in a modern exercise book, not have done the job just as well?

[David Orsam]

They might do as far as you are concerned, David.

What concerns me is that nobody - not you, not me, not Keith, not the late Melvin Harris - has ever had the full picture. Most of us at least recognise this much, but you appear to believe you have solved this human puzzle with an unknown quantity of pieces missing.

Clever old stick, aren't you?

Perhaps I am. But it seems that the solution has been staring us in the face the whole time.

I mean, come on Caz, even you must surely admit that there is something very suspicious about Mike Barrett's extensive efforts to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages only a short time before magically producing the "Diary of Jack the Ripper" in a Victorian guard book with over 60 pages removed from the front, showing forensic traces of photographs having been extracted from it. Yes? No?

[David Orsam]

Because you can take it or leave it but my public replies to your posts necessarily reflect the Battlecrease evidence. Oh and I won't be told by the likes of you what I may post about and what I may not.

The "likes" of me? I have no idea what that means.

I am the person to whom you said he could take or leave the Battlecrease evidence and replied that he would rather leave it. So if you continue to address posts to me about the Battlecrease evidence I think I not only have the right to object but also to state that I won't continue to discuss this topic with you if you do so.

At least I am not accusing anyone still alive of writing the diary.

Nor am I. If you mean by that comment that I am accusing Mike Barrett's wife of writing the diary I need to correct you. It was Mike Barrett who accused his wife of writing the diary.

[David Orsam]

And that scares the living daylights out of you?

Of course not. Why do you even ask that? What a very odd and random question.

Does it scare the living daylights out of you that people might think the diary is genuine then?

[David Orsam]

Not very wise if you are relying on Mike's words and actions. They may show you the diary is not genuine, but they can show me nothing. I reached the same conclusion without needing any help from Mike thanks.

Are you saying that I can't rely on Mike's actions in attempting to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992? As I previously asked you, but don't recall an answer, do you think this was all part of a grand plan to put future investigators onto the wrong scent? If not, then I surely can rely on it because it's actual evidence isn't it?

[Michael W Richards]

Only here could this diary scam still hold anyones attention.

[David Orsam]

That's an 'interesting' way of looking at things, David. x is not possible bearing in mind that you think y. Hmmm, what a wonderfully satisfying philosophy.

You misunderstand Caz. You asked me if anyone saw the writing in the Diary before Mike acquired it. Given that I think that Mike was involved in forging it, I must also think it's not possible for that to be true. What other answer did you expect me to give?

[David Orsam]

I don't need to do anything further, David. You have already admitted in no uncertain terms that your imagination won't stretch to any explanation for the purchase of the 1891 diary that doesn't involve Mike in 'the' diary's creation, which is tantamount to saying that no amount of jumping through your hoops will change that.

So this is an interesting philosophy you adopt. Because my imagination can't think of any innocent explanation for the purchase of the 1891 diary you think I won't accept one if it is provided.

Well that's not the case. But what I can't accept is that Mike wanted to write out some parts of the diary text in his handwriting into the back of a genuine Victorian diary, otherwise filled with genuine Victorian diary entries, in order to take to London to provide Doreen with a "taster" of what the real diary of Jack the Ripper (or parts of it) would look like. Because of course he would have assumed she could not imagine what a Victorian Diary of Jack the Ripper would look like without seeing his handwritten version of it first. I mean, the first thing he thinks of giving to the person he is trying to convince that he has the genuine diary of Jack the Ripper is his own modern version into an old diary. I seriously don't think so.

[David Orsam]

You have already decided on 'no point' (although I never suggested writing the whole thing out). Why do you keep prodding me for a second opinion which you neither want nor need?

So the above is a response to my question:

"What would have been the point of going to all the trouble and expense of writing it out in a genuine Victorian Diary when he could have just written it out in a modern exercise book or prepared a typed transcript?"

Confirming once again that you cannot tell me the point of him doing this.

[And I never suggested that you said he would write "the whole thing out"]

[David Orsam]

In March, or before March? When did Doreen first see this transcript? And in any case, what significance does this have if the transcript was typed on Doreen's request after Mike had spoken to her? Any evidence that it wasn't - apart from your reliance on Mike's eccentric relationship with the calendar?

As to the factual position, I find myself having to quote your book at you. After stating that Kenneth Rendell told Shirley Harrison that a word processor had been found with a transcript of the Diary on disc, your book states:

"Back in March 1992, when he [Barrett] was due to take the Diary to Doreen Montgomery, he claimed he had decided that it would be a good idea to type out a transcript of the Diary which would be easier to read. His own attempt at typing was so poor that it was eventually typed by Anne, a secretary by profession, while Barrett dictated."

I believe this account was subsequently confirmed by Anne Graham in person, so I assume that means you will not question it.

However, if you don't think that Barrett's account is true then it simply raises the question of why he or his wife had the text of the diary on their computer, and when exactly it was typed.

[David Orsam]

Indeed, unless you consider the impossible, that he thought the diary might be an extremely valuable stolen object?

I don't understand. We know that he did show the diary to Doreen. If he originally held such a fear, what alleviated it?

And further, if he did fear that the diary might be an extremely valuable stolen object and that Doreen would know this from seeing a photograph of it, how would he know it wasn't a stolen object simply by copying some or all of the text into a Victorian Diary as opposed to an exercise book and showing that to Doreen?

[David Orsam]

Ooh lovely, another string of question marks!!!

Not the whole text (as I keep repeating!!!), but just a few choice titbits to get a literary agent's mouth watering. If he could have done this using a book that looked similar in age to the guard book, it would have given her a better impression of what he had than if he showed her a modern exercise book.

No? Didn't think so.

I didn't say "the whole text". I just said copying out the text.

The answer you have given doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

Writing out passages copied from what is supposed to be Maybrick's Victorian handwriting in a large black Victorian Diary into the blank pages at the end of another Victorian Diary (of any size or colour) acquired at great effort and expense, which also has someone else's diary entries in, in Mike Barrett's modern handwriting in order to give Doreen "an impression of what he had" is a quite barmy and illogical notion - and you are far too intelligent not to know this yourself.

[David Orsam]

It might be irrelevant to you, old bean, but it is absolutely relevant to the subject of demonstrating truths or untruths among Mike's forgery claims.

I don’t disagree with that statement at all but the issue arising out of Barrett’s affidavit regarding the auction process is completely separate from the issue about the dating of the sale and purchase. If we are trying to establish whether a Victorian guard book was sold to anyone in March 1992 by O&L then it is irrelevant to that issue that Barrett might have misdescribed the auction process in his affidavit.

If you continue to conflate the two issues, as you are doing, you are only going to cause confusion (perhaps that is your intention?).

To clarify, O&L have said that they searched their files and archives around the alleged date of sale but were unable to find any description or lot number corresponding to the Victorian guard book. The only relevant question, therefore, is: did they search their files and archives for March/April 1992? It’s a simple question and you’ve admitted that you don’ t know the answer. Therefore, it must be at least possible that a Victorian guard book was sold to someone (including Barrett) on March 1992. And that conclusion is unaffected by whether Barrett completely misdescribed the auction process because that is a separate issue.

[David Orsam]

No, because I consider Whay's little word 'never' to be rather definitive when we 'stick with the dating'.

Whay’s "never" has nothing to do with the dating. Here is what Whay said:

"Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes."

If there is a reasonable explanation for why Barrett has not described the O&L sales process correctly in his affidavit then, consistent with Whay’s statement, the possibility exists that he purchased the Victorian guard book in March 1992, if the files and archives for March 1992 have not been searched.

That is a fair statement isn’t it? Do you agree with it?

[David Orsam]

Does it really matter if the alleged date of the alleged purchase was given by our seriously date-challenged Mike as 1987, 1992 or 1990, as he finally settled on, if the event itself was contradicted by Whay's 'never'?

Yes of course it matters because Whay explained that the O&L records have been searched in 1990 and there was no sale of a Victorian guard book in that period.

The possibility of a sale in 1992 is in no way contradicted by Whay’s "never" because he said "never" only about the way the sales process was conducted.