One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Mike notes do not mention Ryan's book, even though he secretly used it. So why on earth couldn't Shirley have asked him about Ryan at a later date??!?

She could. You speculate that she did; I speculate that she didn't - and I base this on all the evidence I have seen and heard, plus a good dollop of common sense. You base yours on wishful thinking and dancing round that evidence.

Are you implying that Harrison sussed to the fact that Barrett's notes were based on Ryan, but didn't challenge him about it?? And then Shirley went on to make misleading comments about those notes in her own books?? If that is what you are implying, it is absurd.

I've said what I've said. What you choose to infer from it is absurd. I'm saying the opposite. We know Shirley didn't 'challenge' Mike about the notes, but accepted they were honestly compiled and transferred since Tony's death. If Mike had 'secretly' used Ryan's book for some of the notes, evidence is needed that he did so because he had used it to fake the diary, and thought Shirley would be suspicious if he actually named his source. It's a ludicrous argument because it would have looked just as suspicious if Shirley had 'sussed' what he had done, and he denied all knowledge of the book, and there would have been absolutely no need to risk it in the first place.

That she would ask Barrett about his sources at a later date is entirely rational and reasonable. Indeed, according to Feldman's book, Feldy became suspicious about the notes sometime around 1994 because they seemed too 'literate' to have been Mike's work. That's why questions were being asked, and why Anne Graham was asked to clarify the genesis of the notes.

Absolutely. But questions like this were asked at intervals throughout the process of trying to understand the Barretts' relationship with the diary and how it had come into their lives. And very often during this process Mike volunteered information without being asked a specific question.

What still isn't explained is why Keith was specifically asking about Ryan's book in April 1994.

The reason that Barrett repeatedly denied knowing about this book is now obvious, but less obvious is why Skinner and Harrison had been so keen to ask him about it.

It is almost as if there was something behind the scenes that triggered these specific questions.

Where do you get these false assumptions from?

Keith wasn't 'specifically asking about Ryan's book' in April 1994. The whole line of his questioning was to clarify for himself how Mike had identified Battlecrease House in Riversdale Road in the early days of his research which, as far as Keith was concerned, began after Tony's death in August 1991. Mike said he must have seen a photograph of the house somewhere although he knew there wasn't one in ToL. Keith suggested various Maybrick books, but the only one Mike picked up on was Ryan while Keith was changing the cassette. So Keith then asked him just to recap on what he had been saying - not because Ryan had any significance for Keith at the time, but so he would have a full record of what they had discussed.

And again, in Goldie Street on 18th January 1995, it was Mike who brought up Ryan's book when Shirley asked a general question about sources, reminding her that she had been the one to tell him about it after the research had begun, just as he had told Keith the previous April. Mike told Shirley that when he read the book she had recommended, it "confirmed even more". Quick thinking on Mike's part, to have the diary coming first, and Ryan later confirming for him what was in it. But he was the one who brought up this specific book on both occasions, when he had no need if it then forced him to lie about its role in the story.

And nothing much wrong with Mike's memory either, in January 1995, when he had just dictated his affidavit to Alan Gray. He volunteered the same Ryan story on 18th that he had volunteered to Keith nine months previously, and was able to keep the details perfectly straight on each occasion.

There you have it, folks.

If any of you were under the mistaken impression that Caz was stating that Shirley had told Mike about Bernard Ryan’s book between April 1992 and July 1992, the fault is yours.

Caz was ‘clearly’ speculating.

Of course. Why would anyone have supposed I was doing anything else? It was all couched in the language of speculation, but if anyone was confused, I imagine the context - Mike having no awareness of the diary before 9th March 1992 - would probably have given the 'folks' a clue, if they were paying attention. They'd have 'sussed' it even if you missed it.

There is no evidence, nor even the remotest likelihood, that Mike attended an auction in late March 1992, and brought home the scrapbook for Anne to use for a Ryan-based fake. It's clearly speculation and it's totally without foundation.

[caz]

You'll have to excuse me for asking, but is this a 'fact' or just another example of where you are 'clearly speculating'?

Either way, your comment is evasive. First off, Feldman was there at the time--you weren't.

Christ on a bike, RJ. I've made it clear about a thousand times that everything I post relating to what happened before I became involved comes from Keith's documentation, and he was there. Was Feldman present when Scotland Yard took Janet's ToL? No, he wasn't. And it was Janet's book by October 1993, as possession is nine-tenths of the law, and she had never attempted to return it to "Bongo", and "Bongo" did not miss it, in all that time, from the day Janet saw it in her dad's house in January 1991 and asked to borrow it.

Keith was in touch with Bonesy following the publication of Inside Story in 2003, and was able to get further information that Feldman didn't and to clarify certain matters, including the condition of Janet's book in October 1993, and what she said on handing it over about when she had borrowed it. If you won't take my word for it, that Mike's name was not in Janet's book and there was nothing to suggest he had read it, that's fine. You can ask Keith. Or just ask a policeman.

More importantly, your comment is misleading. Even if Barrett's signature wasn't in the book (and I suspect Feldman wasn't making it up) there is still no reasonable doubt that it was Barrett's personal copy. It was in the possession of Devereux's daughter who had turned it over to the police, telling them without prompting that her father had identified it as Barrett's own copy. A second sister confirmed this. This makes it conclusive.

Yet, you seem to be trying to leave the impression there is some doubt about this book having been Bongo's.

Is that what you are implying?

It's what you want to infer. Feldman was obviously mistaken, and like you, he had no reason to doubt it was Mike's copy, although he never saw it. It suited his theorising to believe it could be identified as Mike's. He not only came to believe Anne had given the diary to Tony to give to Mike, in the spring/summer of 1991, but he was also working on a hunch that Tony had spilled the beans and told Mike after being pestered for answers. Mike couldn't grasp this line of questioning at Baker Street in July 1995, and ended up saying in his frustration that Tony couldn't have helped him with the diary because he was dead and didn't know it existed. He had misunderstood what Feldy was seeking to confirm and Feldy, still on a roll, simply didn't register the significance of what Mike had just told him and the moment was lost.

Once in a while, it would be nice if you could acknowledge when you have got something wrong, or leapt to a false assumption, or have misinterpreted what you have read, because it's what you wanted to infer from it, rather than what it was, or is. I find it astonishing that you would cling to Feldman as your source when you want his beliefs to be factually based, but maybe you see common ground on a subconscious level, because of his overwhelming confidence in his own hunches, and the evidence or lack of it be damned.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. Keith can comment if he wants, but I do wonder if during all of Feldman's genealogical work in 1994 someone noticed that Mike's reference to Benjamin Thurston in his research notes was suspicious and absurd.

Thurston was an American and graduated from Harvard sometime around 1795 and lived his life in Maine, USA. It is wildly unlikely that anyone working in the Liverpool Librarary in the 1990s could have traced Florie's family tree this far back--I doubt Liverpool would have had the relevant genealogical materials. Nor would any of this have been relevant to Mike's research of the diary.

Maybe it was noticed Benjamin Thurston was mentioned in Ryan? (Lord O mentions that the only other known source for this was Florie's book, but the same passage in Barrett's bogus notes mentions the 'Brittanic' which ISN'T in Florie's book, so his source must have been Ryan).

Was this why Mike was asked about Ryan in April 1994?

[rjpalmer]

Direct quote please. I don't recall making that claim. I don't recall saying anything about a contractual agreement to make or turn over any notes, and it was clearly my speculation, based on all the available evidence and a good dollop of common sense, that Shirley didn't ask Mike if he'd ever heard of Ryan's book after looking through a whole series of notes taken from that very book!

This is a very strange statement. It seems designed to muddy the waters.

Mike notes do not mention Ryan's book, even though he secretly used it. So why on earth couldn't Shirley have asked him about Ryan at a later date??!?

Are you implying that Harrison sussed to the fact that Barrett's notes were based on Ryan, but didn't challenge him about it?? And then Shirley went on to make misleading comments about those notes in her own books?? If that is what you are implying, it is absurd.

That she would ask Barrett about his sources at a later date is entirely rational and reasonable. Indeed, according to Feldman's book, Feldy became suspicious about the notes sometime around 1994 because they seemed too 'literate' to have been Mike's work. That's why questions were being asked, and why Anne Graham was asked to clarify the genesis of the notes.

What still isn't explained is why Keith was specifically asking about Ryan's book in April 1994.

It seems unlikely that Keith could have been worried that the nest of hoaxers had simply cribbed all the Maybrick information from Ryan (which really amounted to little more than clumsy namedropping) because as late as November 1998 Keith was still under the wrong impression that the Maybrick Diary contained “the inclusion of obscure information about Maybrick.” (His introduction to Anne Graham’s book).

This mistaken belief has now been corrected. Nearly all the 'obscure' information about Maybrick can be found in Nigel Moreland's "This Friendless Lady" and ALL of it can be found in Ryan--the same book Barrett had mysterious insight about at the 1999 Cloak and Dagger meeting.

(By contrast, Orsam has compiled a very useful list of 'obscure' information about Maybrick's real private life between 1888-1889 --the walking tour in Wales, the portrait, etc--and none of this is mentioned in the diary)

The reason that Barrett repeatedly denied knowing about this book is now obvious, but less obvious is why Skinner and Harrison had been so keen to ask him about it.

It is almost as if there was something behind the scenes that triggered these specific questions.


As for 'direct quotes'

Post #8097

[Barrett] had to have something to show for all those months of hard work, which he hadn't actually done because he didn't know the diary existed before March 9 1992, and didn't know Bernard Ryan's book from a bar of soap before Shirley mentioned it to him, at some point after April 13 1992. He couldn't then name Ryan as his source for the Maybrick research, or Shirley would have instantly rumbled that his notes had not been compiled over several months, but only after she herself had made him aware of Ryan's book.

And again in Post #8160

Taking the easy route, [Mike] uses Shirley's tip and takes his Maybrick info from Ryan's book, but then can't name it for obvious reasons: Shirley would know he has done next to no Maybrick research in all those months before she gave him a source to work with.

There you have it, folks.

If any of you were under the mistaken impression that Caz was stating that Shirley had told Mike about Bernard Ryan’s book between April 1992 and July 1992, the fault is yours.

Caz was ‘clearly’ speculating.

But I do thank Caz for belatedly admitting—when pressed—that there is not any evidence or even likelihood that Shirley had mentioned this book to Mike before he handed over his notes.

That leave us with Barrett having hidden his source. And Graham must have known the notes were bogus, too.

I think I've had enough 'gaslighting' for the week--so now I'm off.

[rjpalmer]

Feldman never saw the copy of ToL which Janet Devereux handed over to Scotland Yard in October 1993, so he must have been mistaken. It did not have Mike's name in it, nor any other distinguishing features.

You'll have to excuse me for asking, but is this a 'fact' or just another example of where you are 'clearly speculating'?

Either way, your comment is evasive. First off, Feldman was there at the time--you weren't.

More importantly, your comment is misleading. Even if Barrett's signature wasn't in the book (and I suspect Feldman wasn't making it up) there is still no reasonable doubt that it was Barrett's personal copy. It was in the possession of Devereux's daughter who had turned it over to the police, telling them without prompting that her father had identified it as Barrett's own copy. A second sister confirmed this. This makes it conclusive.

Yet, you seem to be trying to leave the impression there is some doubt about this book having been Bongo's.

Is that what you are implying?