One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

I hope everyone reading along had a very merry Christmas, and that 2024 will bring much happiness to all.

Love,

The Switchblade
X

[Iconoclast]

Not entirely my own work. According to my correspondent who sent me this, Maybrick was snapped outside the Ten Bells by Fred Abberline before the two of them went on the piss together in 1888.

Sounds plausible enough to me.

Merry Christmas, dear readers!

[caz]

If her account was independently corroborated by others (Eddie Lyons, for instance) I wouldn't have much of a choice, would I?

I don't know. Who knows the secret of the way other people's minds work? I think we all know of people who have been able to convince themselves of all sorts, without worrying if the evidence - old or new - isn't playing ball. Some still claim Brexit was a great idea, as more and more evidence to the contrary emerges; Boris Johnson never lies; Covid 19 and climate change are both modern hoaxes. Perhaps Anne knows the whole story there too.

But the scenario you are pushing doesn't even begin to explain Anne Graham's bizarre behavior after Barrett began confessing to Brough. She took Shirley, Paul Feldman, Carol Emmas, a radio audience, and a television audience, among others, on a marvelous ride for years...and for what? She had already told Brough that Mike had brought the diary home from the pub and that's all she knew, and according to what we are told, she was refusing her royalty cheques. It wouldn't have mattered one iota if the man in the pub was Tony or Eddie--she had filed for divorce from Barrett the day after he squealed and she certainly had no use for him, nor sympathy. Her behavior is one reason, among others, that the floorboard provenance makes utterly no sense on a human level. Someday, if Keith and I are ever again on cordial terms, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why he thinks she behaved this way if the floorboard provenance was true, because he knew her better than most, with the possible exception of Feldman or Emmas. Why would she have acted that way?

I don't know. As Palmer has already implied, only Anne knows the answers and only Anne could explain why she told Feldman what she did in July 1994. Palmer has never believed her story, and I was agnostic about it until after Inside Story was published, when I no longer believed the diary was ever in her family [and it had nothing to do with the electricians, in case anyone was thinking of suggesting it]. As for Keith, he'd also be speculating, and any one of us could be totally wrong, so it's an exercise in futility. All I would say is that, on a human level, Anne must have felt reasonably confident that nobody - not Mike or Eddie; not O&L or P&R or the Bluecoat Art Shop; not the Devereux daughters; not Bonesy of the Yard - would be able or willing to demolish her story with any actual proof. The physical diary had survived with no successful prior ownership claims. If anyone had any personal knowledge of where the guard book had been before Mike arrived home with it, they weren't talking or couldn't prove it anyway. From Anne's point of view, it might just as well have been in her family for years, all the while nobody could prove the old book had been somewhere else.

Your claim that these are "individual recollections" doesn't cut much mustard with me.

And I'm meant to be surprised? Or worried? It is a simple statement of fact that Palmer was assuming that Anne knows 'the whole story' and is the only one alive today who does. Palmer can believe the Battlecrease witnesses are fairies at the bottom of my garden if that would cut the mustard for him. It wouldn't make it true, but then he had no trouble believing that an embittered and vengeful recently divorced serial liar was being truthful about his ex wife in his January 1995 affidavit. On a human level, I can't personally get my head round that one, but only Palmer knows how he managed it.

As I see it, they are a group recollection of rumors that had been kicked into motion by Feldman's injudicious phone calls about what the electricians would have understood to be an accusation of theft. As such, is there really any wonder the rumor mill kicked into motion? And we have no idea what Feldman asked these people because no transcripts or tapes were taken.

And as Palmer sees it, black may as well be white. There is not, and never was, a 'group' recollection, but I'm not surprised he sees it that way, considering how Barrett sceptics, diary agnostics and one or two Maybrick believers routinely get lumped together under the same 'diary defender' umbrella.

Perhaps Palmer could explain to his readers how the likes of Tim Martin-Wright, Brian Rawes and Paul Dodd became part of this 'group' recollection, supposedly influenced only by Feldman's enquiries and phone calls from April 1993, and every one of them chasing the money they thought Feldman was good for. Or has Palmer forgotten that it was seeing Shirley's book that alerted Tim Martin-Wright to the realisation that this diary of Jack the Ripper, which emerged in Liverpool, had once been offered to him before it was learned that it had been sold in an Anfield pub? Tim's recollections were Feldman-free. By the time Feldman knew of Tim's existence, as a result of his recollections, Feldman was already moving on to his next big idea. Similarly, Feldman had no contact with Brian Rawes, and knew nothing about the independent accounts Brian and Paul Dodd would later give, related to Arthur, Eddie and Jim.

I hardly need to remind you that Shirley Harrison was always eager to interview people before Feldman got to them because she was fully aware that he hopelessly muddied the waters, planting ideas in people's heads. There is a post by her in the archives to this effect. In one instance, she wanted to get to the Australian Steve Powell before Feldman did, because she knew he would make a mess of it. That doesn't bode well for Feldman's interrogation of the P & R crew.

It certainly doesn't bode well for the man's ability to get to the truth - period. Feldman was a menace and nobody directly involved would argue otherwise. The very fact that he gave up on Eddie and co, due to his own lousy 'interrogation' technique, then metaphorically jumped into bed with Anne instead, should not be giving Palmer any confidence that Feldman was right to move on in the first place. In brief, Eddie would have got off on a technicality anyway, because Feldman broke all the rules.

But anyway, I am suspending all debate on the Maybrick hoax. These back & forth squabbles have become beyond tiresome, repetitive, and contentious and are going nowhere. I may post some strictly objective data in the future, but it won't be in response to any ongoing discussions, nor will I refer to other posters' theories.

Probably for the best.

[rjpalmer]

I wonder why Palmer claims that 'only' Anne Graham knows 'the whole story'. She knows that Mike arrived home one day with the guard book, and she also knows if he did not get it from Tony Devereux in 1991. If she did decide to talk, but only said that Mike came home with the diary one day in March 1992 and never gave her a straight answer about where he got it, would Palmer give her the benefit of the doubt?

If her account was independently corroborated by others (Eddie Lyons, for instance) I wouldn't have much of a choice, would I?

But the scenario you are pushing doesn't even begin to explain Anne Graham's bizarre behavior after Barrett began confessing to Brough. She took Shirley, Paul Feldman, Carol Emmas, a radio audience, and a television audience, among others, on a marvelous ride for years...and for what? She had already told Brough that Mike had brought the diary home from the pub and that's all she knew, and according to what we are told, she was refusing her royalty cheques. It wouldn't have mattered one iota if the man in the pub was Tony or Eddie--she had filed for divorce from Barrett the day after he squealed and she certainly had no use for him, nor sympathy. Her behavior is one reason, among others, that the floorboard provenance makes utterly no sense on a human level. Someday, if Keith and I are ever again on cordial terms, I'd certainly be interested in hearing why he thinks she behaved this way if the floorboard provenance was true, because he knew her better than most, with the possible exception of Feldman or Emmas. Why would she have acted that way?

Palmer knows there are witnesses, some of whom are still with us, who have claimed to have clear individual recollections, indicating how Mike ended up with Jack the Ripper's diary. Presumably they don't count because Palmer decided a very long time ago, based on incomplete information, that the truth lies with the lying Barretts and nobody else can supply it.

I don't know any of that, actually.

Your claim that these are "individual recollections" doesn't cut much mustard with me. As I see it, they are a group recollection of rumors that had been kicked into motion by Feldman's injudicious phone calls about what the electricians would have understood to be an accusation of theft. As such, is there really any wonder the rumor mill kicked into motion? And we have no idea what Feldman asked these people because no transcripts or tapes were taken.

I hardly need to remind you that Shirley Harrison was always eager to interview people before Feldman got to them because she was fully aware that he hopelessly muddied the waters, planting ideas in people's heads. There is a post by her in the archives to this effect. In one instance, she wanted to get to the Australian Steve Powell before Feldman did, because she knew he would make a mess of it. That doesn't bode well for Feldman's interrogation of the P & R crew.

But anyway, I am suspending all debate on the Maybrick hoax. These back & forth squabbles have become beyond tiresome, repetitive, and contentious and are going nowhere. I may post some strictly objective data in the future, but it won't be in response to any ongoing discussions, nor will I refer to other posters' theories.

Season's Greetings.

RP

[caz]

There's only one person who can give the whole story and she's not talking and hasn't talked for twenty years. Most key players are dead, and the rest are entering their geriatric years and probably don't need the stress.

I'm suggest we suspend the "debate" and take up bird watching.

I wonder why Palmer claims that 'only' Anne Graham knows 'the whole story'. She knows that Mike arrived home one day with the guard book, and she also knows if he did not get it from Tony Devereux in 1991. If she did decide to talk, but only said that Mike came home with the diary one day in March 1992 and never gave her a straight answer about where he got it, would Palmer give her the benefit of the doubt?

Palmer knows there are witnesses, some of whom are still with us, who have claimed to have clear individual recollections, indicating how Mike ended up with Jack the Ripper's diary. Presumably they don't count because Palmer decided a very long time ago, based on incomplete information, that the truth lies with the lying Barretts and nobody else can supply it.

When my Dad was called up for jury service many decades ago, my brothers and I ribbed him and said he may as well send the judge a note with 'guilty' written on it, based purely on his view that if the defendant had been innocent of the crime they wouldn't be standing in the dock.

[jmenges]

Can I ask nicely that any further discussion of the tapes and transcript be temporarily suspended.
It’s not an order, only an ask.

JM

[Kattrup]

If, as Keith suggests, my 'entrenched views' are playing a role in the typescript not being uploaded, I am more than happy to have my account immediately suspended so you, Tab, Yabs, and other independently thinking people can have access to it. There's no reason for my presence to prevent a free exchange of information.

That oughtn’t be necessary and I ‘m sure it won’t be. Besides, it was the disclosure of the tapes that your reasonable and well-argued views prevented, not the typescript.

At any rate, I find your participation more valuable to ripperology than the typescript would be.

[jmenges]

Let’s just all take a deep breath please.
No one is going anywhere.

JM

[rjpalmer]

Seeing as Keith Skinner has no problem with the transcript being put up for everyone's viewing pleasure, perhaps one of the privileged possessing a copy could do so?

If, as Keith suggests, my 'entrenched views' are playing a role in the typescript not being uploaded, I am more than happy to have my account immediately suspended so you, Tab, Yabs, and other independently thinking people can have access to it. There's no reason for my presence to prevent a free exchange of information.

[rjpalmer]

I don't particularly see a difference between Mel refusing to show his cards, while claiming he was holding them, and what is occurring now.

After reading your post, I was digging through the old archives and had a bit of a chuckle when I saw a 2001 post by Peter Birchwood, who had requested to see the full transcripts/tapes of the interviews with Anne's father, Billy Graham.



One statement sounded particularly familiar:


"I see no reason why they should not be scrutinised by a completely independent person much in the same way as was suggested by Shirley Harrison when she was talking about Melvin Harris' information. I will wait with interest for Shirley, Keith or another to tell me that it's not the same thing at all."

[Kattrup]

No appreciable time involved in simply uploading the digital files somewhere. Could be done in the time it has taken you to respond to these posts. No one asks for any other type of evidence to be "cleaned up" before being posted, especially when it's the publics first time seeing/hearing it. If anything having evidence in it's original state is preferable isn't it?

It certainly does not seem like it would take a long time, but even something as simple as a copy of the transcript takes a while.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/10499-acquiring-a-victorian-diary?p=612358#post612358

I have no problem with the transcript being put up for anyone who is interested in seeing it David – annotations and all. If I had the technical nous I’d put it up this evening immediately after Chelsea go through to the sixth round.

As it is, I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for a few weeks until after I have met with James, (who I hope will scan it on my behalf) and offloaded some more tapes and material on to him – including the original red/maroon/ burgundy/ Victorian diary – a black & white photograph of which can be seen between pp. 152-153 in Inside Story.

That was posted on February 17th, 2018. More than five years ago.

Seeing as Keith Skinner has no problem with the transcript being put up for everyone's viewing pleasure, perhaps one of the privileged possessing a copy could do so?

[Tab]

The people involved may have better things to do with their precious time, perhaps, than trying to get all the tapes cleaned up and out there, just for a handful of listeners to shrug or sneer and ask what all the fuss was about - forgetting that all the 'fuss' was about not doing it.

No appreciable time involved in simply uploading the digital files somewhere. Could be done in the time it has taken you to respond to these posts. No one asks for any other type of evidence to be "cleaned up" before being posted, especially when it's the publics first time seeing/hearing it. If anything having evidence in it's original state is preferable isn't it?

[Iconoclast]

The most obvious challenge that one faces when addressing the nightmarish intervention of Michael Barrett into the Maybrick scrapbook's emergence into the light of day is that - in disagreeing with the actual contribution it made (as opposed to the limited impact and relevance it should have had) - one has to rationalise why so many people seem so hell bent on pushing an argument which has zero explanatory power when defined by the degree of evidence to support it.

We know that the argument for Barrett-as-Hoaxer only has explanatory power if you are willing to suspend all of the normal rules of scientific enquiry. Let me ask you, dear readers, does that include YOU? Are you willing to believe something because it suits an argument you have either formed yourself (e.g., the scrapbook is not what I would have expected so it must be dodgy) or have adopted from others (e.g., Lord Orsam's magical mystery tour into events in Liverpool for which the sole piece of supporting evidence other than an utterly discredited affidavit is that apparently there was an auction held at Outhwaite & Litherland between March 9 and Aprii 12, 1992)?

If you have been honest enough to put your hand in the air at this point, are you willing to go further and answer the question, What drives you to fall back on a convenient - but unsupported - theory when there is a wealth of evidence out there screaming 'Possibly Not Fake!' louder than The Sunday Times could ever shout 'Fake!'. I've always been fascinated by the human mind - how it projects what it wants to believe onto canvasses blank or otherwise, regardless of what might justify the picture thus emerging. Why do we do that?

We know that the argument for Barrett-as-Hoaxer only has explanatory power if you are willing to suspend all of the normal rules of scientific enquiry. Why do we do that and without any sense of personal recrimination?

I suspect that it is because, when confronted with something which breaks a long-held paradigm, it is a natural human instinct to 'rationalise' it away even if there is no rationale to properly do so. If we sense a door is slightly open and it suits us to go through it, some will gently prise it wider and slip quietly in and some will simply kick it in, but pretty much all of us will justify what we have done on the basis that the door was not locked so the right of entry had therefore been established.

Next time you go through that door, dear readers, gie yersel a shak (as they say so wonderfully in Aberdeen) and ask yourself, "Why do I believe that the ground has been laid for me to adopt this view?" and see if you can enumerate the evidence which supports your view and then be honest with yourself and wonder, have I been duped by my own human urge to see this a certain way?

Given that there is not a scrap of proper evidence to support the notion that oh-thank-God-for-that-it-was-Barrett-and-Barrett-all-along, why would anyone subscribe to that belief?

Exactly how deeply unscientific are we willing to go to explain away the pesky Maybrick scrapbook? Are there even deeper wells of illogic and fancy yet to be sampled? And - now that all of the wells we know of have dried up - when do we turn away and say, "That whole episode was not healthy for us"?

[Admin]

I can guarantee you the next person who says "I'm going to incur the wrath of Admin for posting this" and then goes ahead and posts it anyway, apparently either attempting to thumb their nose at what they think are the rules or be defiant cause they're just such brave widdle boys, ARE going to incur the wrath of Admin. If you think what you are posting is against the rules, why the **** are you posting it?

Pure obnoxiousness? Or an attempt to break the rules and let everyone know how brave you are? Do let us know the intent.

You asked for the attention of Admin, welcome to it.

[Iconoclast]

Afternoon Ike,

Do you suppose the Tories will succeed in sending the first asylum seeker to a peaceful future in Rwanda, before an auction theorist succeeds in posting the first piece of evidence in 28 years for where Mike obtained the guard book?

At least the Tories try to bat away all their critics by asking, weakly, what Labour's plan is, but all we ever get from an auction theorist are weak attempts to make the pesky Battlecrease evidence vanish in a puff of smoke. The mirrors are optional.

I'm never quite sure if there is a consensus on how multiple, independent witnesses came up with their broadly consistent accounts of how Jack the Ripper's diary was found in Dodd's house during a rewire and sold in an Anfield pub, which continue to be supported by fully documented circumstantial evidence, and not broken by any of it. If these people were/are suffering from 'false memory syndrome'; or lying in the vain hope of gaining something - beyond a reputation for telling lies; or even simply mistaken, we should not have expected their accounts to have had the ghost of a chance against the known facts. So what is going on here?

By stark contrast, not a single soul to my knowledge, alive or dead - aside from our very own liar and fantasist, Mike Barrett - ever claimed to have had the least inside knowledge of the diary's less than immaculate conception by Tony, Mike and Anne, right up to and including its final journey with donkey and compass to its birth in a lowly Goldie Street stable. It was a silent night - as were all the nights and days leading up to this miracle of creation. How Mike managed to keep his trap shut about it before 9th March 1992 is just another minor miracle for others to explain.

If I'd got wind of it, I'd have wanted to strangle it at birth. We are asked to consider the theory that Anne would have done it if left to her own devices, but was bullied by Mike against her will to go through all the labour pains and then feed the bloody thing on mother's ink while their firstborn watched the telly. Belatedly screwing her courage to the sticking place, Lady Mac - er - Anne did try to burn it to death, in a last-minute "Screw you, Mike" gesture, but then she meekly gave up and let him take her demon brainchild to London, thinking that if anyone there did smell a large, barely weaned rodent, it wasn't her problem and they would merely send its father packing.

By the way, I'm not actually expecting to see answers or explanations posted on these boards. I would like to think the above will give the readers some private food for thought, and they will look again at how they are making sense of it all in their own minds, away from all the noise here.

Other questions the readers might like to consider quietly, away from the boards, include why Mike is so worried in the very early days, and needs reassurances from Doreen and Shirley that his identity will not be revealed in the course of local enquiries being made in relation to the diary he claims Tony Devereux gave him.

Equally, why is Mike fishing so hard for information from Colin Rhodes in 1993 about his electricians and the work done in Battlecrease, if he used a guard book he found in an O&L auction sale in 1992 to fake the diary?

Supposing that Mike, Tony and Anne really were behind the diary's creation, and that nobody else knew about it before 13th April 1992, how do you, dear reader, reconcile all this with Mike's early fears of losing his anonymity, and his later repeated attempts to get information out of Rhodesy?

Would you be better able to reconcile Mike's actions, supposing instead that his chief worry in 1992 and 1993 was being caught out with a book that didn't belong to him?

No answers on a postcard; just put on your thinking cap and have yourself a merry little thinking session. The mince pies are optional.

Love,

Caz
X

Probably going to incur the wrath of Admin for a reply based upon mere superlatives, but that was an outstanding post, Caz, whether you believe Barrett did it or not. First class.