One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[GUT]

If you are referring to Mike's denial in an interview on 18 January 1995, he gave a reason for this denial in his subsequent affidavit on 26 January 1995 (in which he retracted this denial). For what it is worth, he said:

"On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all called at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and started a tape recording off and my very words at the begining (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET ****ED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser'. I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaboarate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary., much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do.

I was also afraid that if Anne and I get arrested for fraud what would happen to our daughter. I did not know who the Independent Advisor was and I felt a serious threat to me either through the Law or if I did'nt (sic) conform personal injury maybe. My wife has for the past 12 months kept my daughter away from me and used her to threaten me and blackmail me that I will not see her again if I don't co-operate.

...

I know its old hat and I am sick of trying to convince people about it but the truth is I wrote the Diary of Jack the Ripper and my wife Anne Barrett transcribed it onto the old photograph Album."

You need look no further than who was with him at the time of the denial.

Sorry, missed David's far more detailed reply before posting mine.

[Pcdunn]

Many thanks to both Dave and Gut for their replies. I shall go back to observing now.

[caz]

I don't disagree and it can explain why he told some people at certain times that he didn't forge the diary.

Some people at certain times, David? You mean everyone from March 1992 to June 1994, then at various intervals between 1995 and 1999, then reverting to his original 'got it from Tony' story for much of the remainder of his life?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You may be but I’m certainly not. For that could only be possible if I wanted to arrive at a particular conclusion, which I don’t. I’m totally new to the diary debate, have considered various options and have read your book but, in view of the evidence, I have ultimately concluded that Barrett must have been involved in forging the diary.

And you don't think I was totally new to it once? That I never wanted to arrive at a particular conclusion? That I haven't considered every option under the sun over the years? One of the first things I did (before I was even on the internet) was to read the diary through several times, from the perspective of Mike, Anne, Maybrick or A.N. Other having authored it. There is no way I could have concluded, at any time, or after sifting through all the available evidence and meeting many of the personalities involved, that the Barretts or Maybrick created the thing, let alone that Mike 'must' have had a hand in it.

If I ever catch up with your speedy ability to see the light, and see it for myself, only then will I become a Barrett believer.

Love,

Scepticaz
X

[caz]

Right, and if that's the case, he must have known he didn't get it from O&L so you are saying that he was telling a deliberate falsehood in his affidavit when he said he bought it from O&L in January 1990. It was, in other words, a statement known by him to be untrue and made in order to deceive. It's not a delusion or an error. It's a downright lie, according to you.

According to what I personally believe, yes. The man either knew he had been lying through his teeth since March 9th 1992 and couldn't stop or, as Ike suggested, he had a different version of the truth in his head every time he told the story and just couldn't help himself. That is what I believe, David. I am not 'saying' it is so, nor am I claiming to have demonstrated when he was lying and when he may not have been.

According to what you personally believe, no. Mike was telling the truth in his affidavit because he was involved in the diary's creation. And that's fine. Your faith must be a comfort to you.

The only evidence we have (until that which dare not speak its name emerges) is that Mike did not get the guard book in the manner he described.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I know he told lots of lies but perhaps he told the truth in his affidavit.

Only 'perhaps' now, David? That's the most promising concession I think I have seen you make. I call that an achievement, and I don't care if it was all your own work and I had no part in it.

Previously I thought the affidavit had to contain the truth as far as you were concerned, bearing in mind your belief that Mike can only have obtained the 1891 diary with forgery in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Telling us that everything Barrett said in his affidavit is "potentially untrue" gets us nowhere for it could also be said that everything in his affidavit is potentially true, once we adjust the chronology of course.

Until you can demonstrate any untruths in Barretts affidavit over and above the errors I have already addressed you are not achieving anything by simply demonstrating errors that I have already said are there.

Fine - we got there in the end. My original observation that Mike's affidavit was not reliable and contained demonstrable untruths (which, as I demonstrated via that link, could be down to false ideas/beliefs as per the first definition, or deliberate deception as per the second - 'untruth' covers either) seems to have got lost in the mists of time, but I don't recall addressing that post to you, nor posting it in the knowledge that you had 'already addressed' Mike's untruths - as in false ideas/beliefs - and I was therefore just repeating an observation of your own.

Shall we put it down to great minds thinking alike or fools never differing?

Your call.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I am perplexed by this answer. Are you saying that Anne asked Mike if he had stolen the Diary (even though she knew perfectly that he had not) in order to give him a chance to deny this allegation in front of Begg, Fido and Feldman in case one or all of them might have suspected that Mike had stolen it?

No, I wasn't saying that, David. I have no idea what Anne knew or didn't know concerning how Mike came by the diary. There has never been any suggestion that she followed Mike down to Tony's house and watched through the curtains to witness the diary changing hands.

What do you think of the alternative explanation that she was trying to give Begg, Fido and Feldman the false impression that she did not know how Mike had obtained the Diary?

Well it clearly would have been a deliberately false impression if she presumed that Tony had given it to Mike at her own request, on a "no questions asked" basis. But what she claimed in 1994 demonstrated clearly enough that her own story could change when it suited her. That's not exactly a shock revelation is it?

But again, there is no suggestion that she followed Mike to O&L and watched as he acquired the guard book, in which case she could not have known for certain how the thing got into his hands. What she would have known, almost certainly, is when Mike arrived home with it, and whether or not it contained 'the' diary by then. If it did (which is what I personally believe), then all the rest would have been presumption or suspicion on her part, wouldn't it?

And that's all we have been left with concerning what Anne really knew about the diary's origins - presumption and suspicion.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I rather think that "everyone" assumed that the Diary must have been finished before Mike's call to Doreen earlier in March.

But you have been assuming that Mike didn't even have the guard book by then, which relies on him not giving a recognisable description of it to Doreen when saying it was in his possession.

Further, I suspect that you and others have placed undue reliance on the statements by the director of O&L by which you felt able to conclude that Mike could not possibly have acquired the Diary at any time from O&L. Given that it would appear that the records of O&L have not been searched for March 1992 this could be considered a mistake.

Not undue reliance, David, just more reliance on Whay's knowledge and recognition of his own sales procedures than on Mike's totally unsupported and erroneous description. Since I am satisfied that the thing came out of 'that place', I am not satisfied with any arguments - strained or unstrained - for it coming out of O&L.

What I have never seen anyone do until now is adjust the chronology in Mike's affidavit with the acquisition of the 1891 diary in mind and give serious consideration to whether the diary could have been forged in an 11 day period after 26 March 1992 but before 13 April. Now, perhaps you will tell me that it was all given very deep consideration as soon as the details emerged about the 1891 diary acquisition but, if so, could you direct me to where I find anything said about this in writing, including your book?

I know for a fact that Keith Skinner gave all Mike's claims - dodgy chronology and all - very deep consideration, before, during and after Anne helped him trace the 1891 diary acquisition to late March 1992. But if you have read Ripper Diary you will know that we made little if any attempt to analyse what may have been going on in the heads of the various diary and watch personalities, or to suggest guilt or innocence, or to draw any personal conclusions from the then available evidence, because our purpose was to tell the story of the first ten years (1992-2002), as it unfolded, using only documented sources of what was said or done.

In fact, in 'Inside Story' (p.237), the idea is dismissed in a sentence on the basis that this would have left Mike "barely two weeks" to have acquired the guard book and completed the forgery. But as far as I am concerned this was plenty of time.

It still would have left him "barely two weeks". It was up to the reader to work out for themselves if they considered this was "plenty of time" or not. If you managed it, what's your problem?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why black? - Because you told me he wanted to write out extracts from the diary in a "similar" book. But if you tell me that the colour did not matter and the book was not going to be similar then why not write these extracts out into a modern exercise book of any colour? Why did it need to be old, let alone Victorian?

Why not Victorian? Because there is nothing on or about the guard book that says it was Victorian...

Apart from on the last page, which is 'Dated this third day of May 1889', you mean. Don't forget I am arguing from the perspective of Mike already having the thing in front of him when calling Doreen on March 9th. We don't know how much he knew about it at that point. Our opinions differ by quite a lot on that score.

And don't forget that Barrett wasn't asking for a "Victorian" diary, he was asking for one from the specific period of 1880-1890. Why?

Don't worry, I won't forget. I have previously observed that he may have based that period on the date at the end of the diary, before trying to work out who Jack the Ripper - 'Sir Jim' - was meant to be, let alone if he died the same month, or even the same year, as the final entry, or when the first entry was supposedly written.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hold on Caz. Where has this suddenly come from? I thought you told me that Mike wanted something "similar" to what he already had in his possession in order to write out a "taster" for Doreen to show her instead of transporting the actual diary down to London. This is the first I'm hearing from you of him wanting to "better judge what he had been given".

Hold on David. I have never pretended to be able to 'tell' you, or anyone else, precisely what Mike was hoping for or why, when he received that 2" x 3" diary for 1891. I know you have convinced yourself he could only have had the one reason for placing that order, and I also know why I am not so convinced. But I can't claim to know what was in Mike's head at the time. I readily admit I am speculating on the possible reasons (and number of reasons, from one upwards) for Mike's advert.

But it's not all about you, David, and what you are 'hearing' for the first time has no doubt been suggested on previous occasions since 1998 too numerous to mention. I realise you are new to all this, and I have been trying to take this into account, but instead of admitting this was the first time you had heard something, it might be a better use of your time (not to mention mine) to educate yourself on what other readers have already heard over the years before you arrived.

That being said, opinion and speculation should always be revisited, tested and modified if necessary, as we learn more and continue to think things over, so I make no apology for any adjustments, additions or subtractions I have made to my own thinking since 1998.

Are you now saying that he both wanted to see what an 1880 (or 1891) diary looked like AND separately wanted a diary with blank pages for him to write out the taster for Doreen?

No, because I don't know what he wanted the thing for. I can only keep speculating in the absence of any proof that he wanted or needed it for the only purpose you can come up with for him. Ever heard of trying to kill two birds with one stone? Who knows if he had more than one thing in mind after speaking with Doreen?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But the advert was perfectly sufficient for Mike's purpose of flushing out a suitable diary Caz.

Clearly not, David, since it flushed out one that was a mere 3" x 2". Did Mike not even have the sense to ask for one that was at least, say, 6" x 6"? The minimum of 20 pages was neither here nor there if he never considered the page size.

No doubt if there had been multiple offers of diaries arising from the ad, Barrett could have selected the most helpful one in terms of size, content and whatever else for his purpose, but, in the end, nothing suitable from the 1880-1890 period seems to have arisen and he had to take one from outside his preferred date range on the basis that beggars can't be choosers.

Could he not have returned it - unpaid for - because he had specified 1880-1890 and they sent him one for 1891? What's the point of specifying anything if you have to put up with something else because 'beggars can't be choosers'?

It's hardly rocket science.

Nor is asking for the pages to be large enough for the purpose.

Having already spoken to Doreen, he is under time pressure in March 1992. The clock is ticking. He has to take whatever he can get, surely?

So why did he speak to Doreen and put himself under any time pressure? Your suggestion that he only thought to find out if there would be any interest in his diary at the eleventh hour, then had to keep his fingers crossed that he would find something suitable to write it in while the clock was ticking, doesn't sound remotely plausible to me. He couldn't just 'take whatever he could get', could he, or he would have tried erasing the 1891 and cramming a pared down draft into the tiny blank pages. That's not rocket science either. There was every chance he wouldn't have found anything until the pressure was gone and Doreen's clock was only right twice a day.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The thing that you are, I think, forgetting is that the diary and the ink cost money whereas Mike Barrett in March 1992 had very little money.

Did Doreen pay for his return rail fare to London? Would Mike have been hoping so when he called her?

Once Doreen told him to come to London and bring the Diary with him it suddenly became worth buying the materials to physically create it.

Are you saying Mike had to find a suitable pen and a suitable ink as well as a suitable book between March 10th and April 12th?

My counter argument is to ask why didn't Mike Barrett come to London immediately on 11 or 12 March once he received Doreen's letter confirming that she wanted to meet him? It wasn't until a month later that he made the trip. Just enough time to obtain the Diary and transcribe the text.

Unless he and Anne were in York for part of that time, which I seem to recall is what Anne claimed. I wonder when the Easter hols were that year. Also, it would depend on Doreen's own diary and when the appointment could be made for him.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Some people at certain times, David? You mean everyone from March 1992 to June 1994, then at various intervals between 1995 and 1999, then reverting to his original 'got it from Tony' story for much of the remainder of his life?

Yes, he said different things to different people at different times. So my approach has not been to rely on what he has said at any one time but to consider which, if any, of his stories is consistent with the attempt to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages. My conclusion is that the only story consistent with this action is the one in which the Maybrick Diary had not yet been created at the time of the acquisition.

[David Orsam]

One of the first things I did (before I was even on the internet) was to read the diary through several times, from the perspective of Mike, Anne, Maybrick or A.N. Other having authored it. There is no way I could have concluded, at any time, or after sifting through all the available evidence and meeting many of the personalities involved, that the Barretts or Maybrick created the thing, let alone that Mike 'must' have had a hand in it.

I must say Caz, without pretending to fully understand your approach here, it seems to be not only a mysterious approach but a strange and dangerous one too. It assumes (or seems to assume) that you are able to get inside the head of Mike Barrett and see things from his 'perspective'. As far as I am concerned, it leaves you potentially open to making a huge error, which, of course, I think you have made, as a result of misunderstanding or underestimating the man.

On the basis that the Diary was not written by Maybrick (about which you and I agree) then someone must have done it and, for me, Mike Barrett is as good a candidate as anyone. At least, I don't know why he is not. You may remember that at the outset of this discussion (back on 19 October 2016 in #2040) I asked you to tell me why you thought Mike was incapable of forging the Diary (with the assistance of his wife) and I didn't receive a satisfactory answer.

In fact, your response, a month later, on 19 November 2016 was: "You would really need to have had personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick, to get a proper insight into what they may, or may not, have been willing to do, or capable of doing, in respect of the damned diary". Replying to this post (in #2048), I asked:

"What are you suggesting my personal experience of what made Anne and Mike tick (if I had any) would have told me?

Would it be that they were incapable of forging the diary due to a lack of writing ability? Or would it be that they were too honest? Or some other reason?"

I don't recall ever receiving an answer to these questions at all, nor can I find one now upon searching.

But please do go though ahead and set out your detailed conclusions from your reading of the Maybrick Diary as to why you were unable to conclude (in your strange way of putting it) that the Barretts created it.

For myself, as I have said many times, my belief that Mike 'must' have been involved in creating the Diary in March/April 1992 comes from his attempts to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages for which I am unable to think of an explanation other than it was needed to create the forged Diary.