One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

You ignore the point I have made more than once that Mike said it took him 11 days to produce the Diary. He could have said two months or six months but he happened to give a time frame that fits perfectly into the period 28 March to 13 April.

Okay, let's explore this further with the help of Mike's affidavit of Jan 5th 1995.

He claims it was at the start of 1990 that he and Anne 'finally' decided to go ahead with writing the diary. 'In fact', he goes on, 'Anne purchased' a red leather backed diary for £25, through 'a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name...'. When it arrived Mike decided 'it was of no use, it was very small'. He said Anne was now in possession of it and had asked him for it on a recent visit to her home. He goes on: 'At about the same time as all this was being discussed', Anne's father gave him £50 towards expenses which could be used for the 'appropriate paper' should Mike find it. He goes on: 'I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland'.

Mike seems to put all the diary action back to 1990. 'During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

So bearing in mind Mike had also told his private investigator, Alan Gray, that he had purchased the large black guard book back in 1987, a massive five years before his actual purchase of the useless little red diary, in March 1992, we can readily see there was something very wrong indeed with Mike's timing, when trying to recall what was happening and how long it all took twixt cup (the initial planning stage) and lip (taking the finished diary to London).

He claimed in the same affidavit that once he and Anne started to write the diary it took 11 days 'in all'. If that is correct he must have remembered that detail, so why did he remember nothing about this happening after, and as a direct result of phoning Doreen; finding out she was indeed interested in such a diary; trying to obtain a suitable book and being sent the useless little red one; acquiring the more suitable large black guard book and finally knuckling down to the task of filling it, in time to show Doreen?

If we are generous and allow that he genuinely thought this had all taken place in 1990, including his March 1992 calls and April 1992 visit to Doreen, either side of his purchase of the two books, we need to reconcile this with the following part of his affadavit:

'During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

We know Tony was alive for the whole of 1990, so Mike could have been thinking of 1991, as he actually died in the August of that year. But how does that work if Mike had no trouble recalling that Tony had fallen ill and died before the guard book was acquired and before he and Anne were finally able to transfer the 'completed' draft into it?

Mike is effectively saying throughout that affidavit, as bold as brass, that he knows he has been telling lie after lie after lie after lie up to this day in January 1995, whenever he has talked to anyone about the diary and from day one (whether that was in 1987, 1990, 1991 or 1992).

So was he suddenly able to focus enough to tell the truth on this one occasion, despite being hopelessly confused and lucid by turns over the timing and sequence of major events, or was he seriously deluded throughout?

The difference between us, David, is that I don't believe Mike ever told the truth about what he knew or didn't know and took "the God's honest truth and what have you" (another familiar expression of his) to his grave, while you presumably accept he was a dirty rotten liar and deliberate deceiver at all times except when he was preparing that affidavit.

Finally, how do you suppose Keith Skinner was able to learn the actual purchase date in 1992 of the little red diary, together with the order, sale and payment details, and to acquire the diary itself? Mike had given such vague and limited details that Anne could simply have denied all knowledge as she did about everything else and destroyed the diary itself. But no. Mike's alleged partner in crime handed the red diary over to Keith along with all the information he needed to trace an order which you are convinced incriminates her and her husband because the only 'sensible' explanation is that they were hoping to use it to forge 'the' diary.

Not so 'sensible' after all, was she?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

They didn’t "announce" anything Caz. Barrett did no more than enquire (using a false name by the way) if Doreen would be interested in Jack the Ripper's Diary.

Where did you get this from, David? Did Doreen tell you? Did Mike's ghost come to you in a dream and you believed him? Or were you listening in on their conversation in March 1992?

How do you know Mike didn't even go as far as to announce: "I've got Jack the Ripper's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?"

A more pertinent question is why, having been told that there was indeed interest in Jack the Ripper's diary, it took him a month to produce it. I mean, what was he doing? Writing the bleedin' thing?

Or typing a transcript of it at Doreen's request? Or trying to find out more about the bleedin' thing - for starters who this 'Sir Jim' was - so he could impress Doreen with his ripper/Maybrick knowledge?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

You are having me on, David. If Mike was that out of touch with reality in 1992 that he didn't know if a diary by Jack the Ripper might be of interest to anyone in publishing, what was he doing drafting the thing in the first place before finding out the answer to that rather crucial question?

It's one thing believing that Jack the Ripper's diary will be of interest, it's quite another having actual confirmation from a person who is potentially able and willing to provide some hard cash for it. You are suggesting that Mike should have forked out in excess of £75 (which would have been a lot of money to him) on a whim and a prayer. I am suggesting that he made sure he had someone to give the diary to before he spent a penny. I think that my suggestion is perfectly reasonable and indeed more realistic as to how someone with little or no money actually behaves.

[David Orsam]

No point spending a single day researching the bloody thing or preparing a draft either, surely?

Yes there is, because you've spent no cash in doing so. Time is a currency that Barrett had plenty of.

[David Orsam]

You are beginning to sound like Mike. His patter must be rubbing off on you. When he was asked in 1999 at the old Cloak & Dagger Club what he had put in the ink to make it look and behave like a Victorian one he replied, quick as a flash: "Sugar. Simple!"

Why do I sound like Mike? When have I ever said that sugar will make ink "look and behave" like a Victorian one?

Whatever Mike thought, he didn't need to put anything in the ink to "make it look and behave like a Victorian one" for the simple reason that the ink in the Diary did not look and behave like a Victorian one. I've provided a list of experts who all said that the ink looked new, not Victorian, and we have the solubility test whereby Dr Baxendale expressly excluded the ink as being Victorian.

As I keep requesting, can we stick to what Mike said in his affidavit? I know that Mike was a liar – he was likely to say anything to anyone at any time - but the question is whether he was lying in his affidavit.

[David Orsam]

Okay, let's explore this further with the help of Mike's affidavit of Jan 5th 1995.

But you didn't explore it.

You correctly quoted me as saying this:

"You ignore the point I have made more than once that Mike said it took him 11 days to produce the Diary. He could have said two months or six months but he happened to give a time frame that fits perfectly into the period 28 March to 13 April."

But, once again, you completely ignored the simple point that is being made in these two sentences.

Your response was a long ramble, going over ground that has already been covered by me in some detail in this thread.

What you failed to do was respond to the point that Mike could have said it took him two months or six months to produce the Diary but he happened to give it a time frame of 11 days that fits perfectly into the period 28 March to 13 April.

[David Orsam]

He claims it was at the start of 1990 that he and Anne 'finally' decided to go ahead with writing the diary. 'In fact', he goes on, 'Anne purchased' a red leather backed diary for £25, through 'a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name...'. When it arrived Mike decided 'it was of no use, it was very small'. He said Anne was now in possession of it and had asked him for it on a recent visit to her home. He goes on: 'At about the same time as all this was being discussed', Anne's father gave him £50 towards expenses which could be used for the 'appropriate paper' should Mike find it. He goes on: 'I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland'.

Mike seems to put all the diary action back to 1990. 'During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

So bearing in mind Mike had also told his private investigator, Alan Gray, that he had purchased the large black guard book back in 1987, a massive five years before his actual purchase of the useless little red diary, in March 1992, we can readily see there was something very wrong indeed with Mike's timing, when trying to recall what was happening and how long it all took twixt cup (the initial planning stage) and lip (taking the finished diary to London).

He claimed in the same affidavit that once he and Anne started to write the diary it took 11 days 'in all'. If that is correct he must have remembered that detail, so why did he remember nothing about this happening after, and as a direct result of phoning Doreen; finding out she was indeed interested in such a diary; trying to obtain a suitable book and being sent the useless little red one; acquiring the more suitable large black guard book and finally knuckling down to the task of filling it, in time to show Doreen?

If we are generous and allow that he genuinely thought this had all taken place in 1990, including his March 1992 calls and April 1992 visit to Doreen, either side of his purchase of the two books, we need to reconcile this with the following part of his affadavit:

'During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

We know Tony was alive for the whole of 1990, so Mike could have been thinking of 1991, as he actually died in the August of that year. But how does that work if Mike had no trouble recalling that Tony had fallen ill and died before the guard book was acquired and before he and Anne were finally able to transfer the 'completed' draft into it?

Mike is effectively saying throughout that affidavit, as bold as brass, that he knows he has been telling lie after lie after lie after lie up to this day in January 1995, whenever he has talked to anyone about the diary and from day one (whether that was in 1987, 1990, 1991 or 1992).

So was he suddenly able to focus enough to tell the truth on this one occasion, despite being hopelessly confused and lucid by turns over the timing and sequence of major events, or was he seriously deluded throughout?

This post is a bit of a waste of time considering that I've already answered all the points made. Do I really have to go through it all again?

In short, I'm saying that in January 1995 Mike Barrett was totally confused about the dates things had happened. While you don’t seem to think this is possible, it can happen: especially to someone whose mind has been sozzled with alcohol and whose health was suffering. Do I need to spend time explaining how the mind can play tricks on the memory of even normal people but here was an alcoholic in poor health who probably didn't even have a good memory to begin with. For such a person anything is possible, especially when recalling a complicated chronology of events. As I've already said, in one's memory, weeks can seem like years and vice versa. You might not like that but it's totally possible.

I'm saying that he happened to recall that it took 11 days to transcribe the diary but in his mind he had forgotten exactly when this occurred. Your continued reference to Mike saying that he bought the diary and did the forgery in January 1990 is pointless bearing in mind that he also says in his affidavit that he bought the 1891 diary before the scrapbook and we know the 1891 diary was acquired in March 1992.

I've already said that to the extent that Mike links the creation of the diary with the death of Tony it must have been in respect of the drafting of the diary not the transcribing of it.

And yes, of course Mike knows that he has been telling lies all the time prior to his affidavit. I just want to focus on what he said in his affidavit. For that reason I don't care what he said to Alan Gray or to anyone else.

[David Orsam]

The difference between us, David, is that I don't believe Mike ever told the truth about what he knew or didn't know and took "the God's honest truth and what have you" (another familiar expression of his) to his grave, while you presumably accept he was a dirty rotten liar and deliberate deceiver at all times except when he was preparing that affidavit.

Just because someone is a proven liar it doesn't mean that everything they say is a lie.

But you know Caz, you don't actually even have to accept that Barrett was telling the truth in his affidavit (or at least the whole truth). What you have to do though is explain why, in March 1992, he tried to obtain a Victorian Diary from the specific 1880-1890 period which contained blank pages.

In amongst all the smoke and mirrors I am suggesting there here at last is a genuine clue to help us solve the perplexing mystery of the Maybrick diary.

[David Orsam]

Finally, how do you suppose Keith Skinner was able to learn the actual purchase date in 1992 of the little red diary, together with the order, sale and payment details, and to acquire the diary itself? Mike had given such vague and limited details that Anne could simply have denied all knowledge as she did about everything else and destroyed the diary itself. But no. Mike's alleged partner in crime handed the red diary over to Keith along with all the information he needed to trace an order which you are convinced incriminates her and her husband because the only 'sensible' explanation is that they were hoping to use it to forge 'the' diary.

Not so 'sensible' after all, was she?

The point you are missing here is that the purchase of the 1891 diary was not in itself incriminating and could be explained away by saying that Mike wanted to see what a Victorian diary looked like (which, of course, it was Anne said). What was incriminating was the advertisement in which the request was for a diary with blank pages. As far as I can see, knowledge of the existence of this advertisement did not emerge until some years later. So, on the basis that Mike's affidavit is true, there was no reason for Anne not to confess to the purchase. Had she tried to deny it but then evidence emerged of that purchase, that would have been foolish.

And, of course, Keith Skinner might have tracked down the bookfinding company to whom Anne paid the cheque. So not lying about the purchase was probably the sensible thing to do.

[David Orsam]

Where did you get this from, David? Did Doreen tell you? Did Mike's ghost come to you in a dream and you believed him? Or were you listening in on their conversation in March 1992?

No, I relied on the account of the conversation in 'Inside Story'.

[David Orsam]

How do you know Mike didn't even go as far as to announce: "I've got Jack the Ripper's diary, would you be interested in seeing it?" X

Yes, that's the statement I was relying on. But this wasn't an announcement.

My Concise Oxford dictionary tells me that the meaning of the word "announce" is to "make publicly known".

Here is the OED definition: "1. To make known as an official messenger; to deliver news; to make public or official intimation of, to proclaim (something of the nature of news)."

You asked: "why the indecent haste to announce you have Jack the Ripper's diary before you even have something to write it in?"

But Mike wasn't announcing anything. He was simply enquiring of Doreen if she would be interested in Jack the Ripper's diary, like I said.

Of course this was based on him informing her that he had the Diary and of course she would need to see it but the purpose of the initial conversation was no more than to find out if she was interested.

[David Orsam]

Or typing a transcript of it at Doreen's request?

Is there any evidence that Doreen asked for a transcript of the Diary prior to seeing it?

And if she did, why did Mike make such an effort to acquire a Victorian diary in which to hand write extracts from the Diary for Doreen when he knew he was going to hand over to her a transcript of it?

[David Orsam]

Or trying to find out more about the bleedin' thing - for starters who this 'Sir Jim' was - so he could impress Doreen with his ripper/Maybrick knowledge?

But isn't Anne's story that Mike had possessed the diary for about a year before he contacted Doreen? And that during this time he "started to investigate it"?

[caz]

It's amazing how criminals often slip up in their criminal schemes, Caz. In this case, assuming Mike's affidavit is true, I suspect the slip up was Mike's, with Anne realising what a daft thing it was for him to do to have left a paper trail (using her money). By that time, though, it was too late, the diary was ordered.

Nice thought, David, but Mike's affidavit doesn't include enough details about the order and purchase of the little red diary (and implies it was obtained in early 1990) for anyone to have confirmed the thing's existence, never mind find the paper trail. It was only found with Anne's full co-operation and assistance, which would make it entirely her slip up, and a rather astonishing one, if she was knowingly involved in a criminal scheme with her husband.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well Caz, the report isn't available to me to read so I have to rely on secondary sources as to its content. According to the Maybrick A to Z by Christopher Jones, "he [Baxendale] said that he had found a synthetic dye called nigrosine in the ink and that as that had only been in use since the 1940s, the Diary must have been written since 1945".

That's why I asked you if the conclusion only applied to the discovery of nigrosine in the ink.

But if you think that when Baxendale said "The exact time of origin cannot be established, but I consider it likely that it has originated since 1945" he was including his findings as to solubility then fine.

I don't need to 'think' David. It is there in perfectly plain English, in Baxendale's own words. His conclusion was based on the ink being freely soluble but the year he plumped for - [since] 1945 - relates directly to his wildly mistaken belief about the earliest use of nigrosine (which was never confirmed present in any case, while he missed the iron which was present). Once again, why allow for the ink being possibly as old as 45 years when he tested its solubility in 1992, if he was confident that the result demonstrated it was in fact no older than two or three years?

Can you honestly not see the lack of confidence he was demonstrating about this?

So the million dollar question is: Do you accept Baxendale's finding (based, in part, you say on solubility) that the Diary originated after 1945?

I neither accept nor reject it, David. I have no way of knowing, because even the best 'experts' on the planet don't always get everything right, and we know that this one was wrong about the history of nigrosine, failed to find any of the iron in the ink and chose to hedge his bets on when it could have met paper by more than four decades [1946-1992].

Naturally, if you do accept his 'since 1945' conclusion, it allows - if nothing else is taken into consideration - for Mike to have been involved in a 1992 production, but it falls way short of proving anything of the sort.

Love,

Caz
X