One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Anyway, a question -- is there any indication that one or more of the electricians received any compensation for turning over the diary?

c.d.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'compensation'. Assuming the diary was stolen by one of the electricians, it wasn't 'turned over' to anyone. It was sold on to Bongo Barrett for a modest sum, after which he got a lucrative publishing deal and went on to co-author a book about it with Shirley Harrison, which became a best-seller. In the Spring of 1993, when the public knew next to nothing about it, and nobody suspected Mike of marketing a diary of his own creation, he missed a golden opportunity when the owner of Battlecrease himself said it could have been in his house without his knowledge, and was even willing to endorse it for a small percentage of the resulting spoils.

In effect, that would have been Paul Dodd's 'compensation' for turning the diary over to Mike and agreeing to make no further claim on it. If it was later exposed as a fake, it would be Paul Dodd's fake, unless he could prove it hadn't come from his house after all. But Mike wasn't having any of it. Instead he made a great big old song and dance about it, insisting it was never in the house and going round to Eddie's place to threaten him with solicitors if he said otherwise. Then came the charade of getting Eddie to talk to the diary's publisher in the Saddle, where he said he did find a book but threw it in a skip.

I'm not sure what Eddie imagined the difference was between stealing someone else's "old book" and chucking it away, but he clearly needed to wash his hands of the story circulating and growing that he had taken the diary back to Anfield and sold it to Mike in their local, which they were all sitting in at the time. Fellow sparky Brian Rawes clearly remembers Eddie telling him in the drive outside Battlecrease, back in July 1992 [which was just when Mike was about to get his publishing deal], that he - Eddie - had found something in the house, which he thought could be "important", and wasn't sure what to do about it. Brian was in a hurry to get off to another job - it was Friday afternoon - so he advised Eddie to mention it to the boss's son, who was working inside the house at the time. Needless to say, Brian's advice went unheeded.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Thanks for your response, Caz.

c.d.

[caz]

Hi Caz

Eddie Lyons did not know MB prior to MB producing the diary and he did not find the diary.

For someone who admitted only recently that they knew very little about the subject and had little interest in it, you now claim to be remarkably well informed. Awesomely well in fact. I don't know who you are getting your information from, but it's not humanly possible to know what you are claiming to know here, so someone is feeding you nonsense to post.

I don't know what you're trying to say, it makes no sense. No, it's not true that anyone, anywhere and at any time could have called someone and claimed to have the diary of JtR.

I don't know why you are struggling with this. The fact that someone committed the Whitechapel murders of 1888 means that, in theory, of course it's true that anyone, anywhere and at any time since could have claimed to have a diary written by the killer, whether they had one or not, and regardless of its true origins. I could have made such a claim, just as you or anyone else could have done. The fact that we never did, doesn't alter the fact that we could have done had we wished. I could claim right now to have the diary of Jimmy Savile. You could claim right now to have the autographed notebook of a member of Spandau Ballet. But I wouldn't advise it in either case, and I won't be rushing to fake mine.

Out of all the days, from the period of the murders onwards, in which anyone alive could in theory have claimed to have JtR's diary; out of all the places on the planet from which they could in theory have made such a claim; and out of all the men alive on the planet in 1888, who could in theory have been unlucky enough to be fingered in such a diary as the killer, we get one such claim. It need never have happened at all, but it did. And it came on Monday 9th March 1992, and was made by a man in Liverpool, whose diary would be fingering one, James Maybrick, as the Whitechapel Murderer. And on that very day, and only on that day, the floorboards were lifted in, of all places, the bedroom of the house where James Maybrick had happened to live until his death in May 1889. And the man who insists he was there that day used the same pub as the man claiming that day to have JM's diary.

Now if you see those two events colliding by pure chance, there's not much I can do to help you.

What I asked was: is there any real reason to think it did not happen?

That Mike bought the photo album from O&L on 31st March 1992, for his wife to turn into the Maybrick diary over 11 days in early April?

Yes, there is every reason for me to think it didn't. But you are free to think whatever you like, or at least whatever you have been led to think by others.

Barrett claimed ten days already from his Liverpool Daily Post interview, didn't he?

Which interview on which date, Kattrup? Could you go back to your source and ask for further details please. If you mean the 11 day miracle, that was supposedly performed by Anne, who IIRC wasn't accused by Mike of any involvement until January 1995.

Did your source offer any thoughts on the old glue Alec Voller found on top of the ink at one point in the diary, when he examined it in late 1995? Was this Anne's idea, to add a subtle touch of je ne sais quoi that was so subtle it might easily have gone completely unnoticed by anyone? Mike must not have seen her doing it, or he'd have crowed from the rooftops.

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

For someone who admitted only recently that they knew very little about the subject and had little interest in it, you now claim to be remarkably well informed. Awesomely well in fact. I don't know who you are getting your information from, but it's not humanly possible to know what you are claiming to know here, so someone is feeding you nonsense to post.



I don't know why you are struggling with this. The fact that someone committed the Whitechapel murders of 1888 means that, in theory, of course it's true that anyone, anywhere and at any time since could have claimed to have a diary written by the killer, whether they had one or not, and regardless of its true origins. I could have made such a claim, just as you or anyone else could have done. The fact that we never did, doesn't alter the fact that we could have done had we wished. I could claim right now to have the diary of Jimmy Savile. You could claim right now to have the autographed notebook of a member of Spandau Ballet. But I wouldn't advise it in either case, and I won't be rushing to fake mine.

Out of all the days, from the period of the murders onwards, in which anyone alive could in theory have claimed to have JtR's diary; out of all the places on the planet from which they could in theory have made such a claim; and out of all the men alive on the planet in 1888, who could in theory have been unlucky enough to be fingered in such a diary as the killer, we get one such claim. It need never have happened at all, but it did. And it came on Monday 9th March 1992, and was made by a man in Liverpool, whose diary would be fingering one, James Maybrick, as the Whitechapel Murderer. And on that very day, and only on that day, the floorboards were lifted in, of all places, the bedroom of the house where James Maybrick had happened to live until his death in May 1889. And the man who insists he was there that day used the same pub as the man claiming that day to have JM's diary.

Now if you see those two events colliding by pure chance, there's not much I can do to help you.



That Mike bought the photo album from O&L on 31st March 1992, for his wife to turn into the Maybrick diary over 11 days in early April?

Yes, there is every reason for me to think it didn't. But you are free to think whatever you like, or at least whatever you have been led to think by others.



Which interview on which date, Kattrup? Could you go back to your source and ask for further details please. If you mean the 11 day miracle, that was supposedly performed by Anne, who IIRC wasn't accused by Mike of any involvement until January 1995.

Did your source offer any thoughts on the old glue Alec Voller found on top of the ink at one point in the diary, when he examined it in late 1995? Was this Anne's idea, to add a subtle touch of je ne sais quoi that was so subtle it might easily have gone completely unnoticed by anyone? Mike must not have seen her doing it, or he'd have crowed from the rooftops.

Love,

Caz
X

Fantastic post Caz - I really do enjoy your insights into this fascinating saga. If one honestly weighs up everything you've just posted there and still believes that Barrett(s) forged the Diary, then one must have some kind of agenda.

[caz]

It's not really a discussion, since there's so much misinformation being spread around, facts being made up and refusal to accept the most commonplace arguments.

Hang on, Kattrup, who exactly are you accusing of spreading misinformation and making up facts? That's a rather serious accusation, so you really ought to substantiate it or retract it, regardless of whether you are accusing members of the "Bongo forged it" crew, whose arguments are based on a liar's claims and fresh air, or accusing those of us who refuse to simply accept such arguments, when they are seriously undermined by actual witness testimony which can be supported by fully documented facts.

Mind you, your claim to know little about the subject makes it hard to see how you are qualified to judge what is misinformation and what isn't, or who is spreading it. So if you can't name names you may as well be accusing the cat.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

I quite agree, Mr O. Caz not only has an encycopaedic knowledge of the case as well as an incredible memory, she also has a well-honed knack of putting in their place the foot-soldiers in the army of knee-jerk nay-sayers that have marched around these boards for years. And doubtless will continue to do so for years to come.

And I also appreciate Caz's response to my recent post concerning (a) Paul Feldman and (b) my geriatric memory.

Graham

[Trevor Marriott]

Fantastic post Caz - I really do enjoy your insights into this fascinating saga. If one honestly weighs up everything you've just posted there and still believes that Barrett(s) forged the Diary, then one must have some kind of agenda.

I don't have a horse in this race but the way the first affidavit was compiled, and the details set out in that affidavit suggests to me that there was more than an element of truth contained within that document. The answer to proving or disproving what is written is for all the salient points mentioned to be investigated, and then and only then will people be able to judge where the truth lies.

Because if the affidavit is not the truth true then some person or persons went to a great deal of trouble to formulate that with all that detail, in the knowledge that it would later be carefully scrutinized as has been the case.

There is also the discrepancies in the diary with the known facts which have been highlighted in the diary which should not be there if the diary was genuinely written by the killer. and the killer being Maybrick.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Fantastic post Caz - I really do enjoy your insights into this fascinating saga. If one honestly weighs up everything you've just posted there and still believes that Barrett(s) forged the Diary, then one must have some kind of agenda.

Thank you, Steven.

I don't really see any agenda here, apart from a very natural psychological inability to ever admit, no matter how much evidence to the contrary might emerge, that one was taken in by Bongo Barrett's unsupported and unsupportable forgery claims. In nearly any other situation, it would be regarded as admirable to change one's mind, but in this case it seems the humiliation of doing so and admitting it would be worse than ploughing on regardless.

That has to be the explanation, because it would hardly be the end of anyone's world if they had to let go of the Barretts. It wouldn't make the diary old, or real, or anything they don't want it to be. Mike could still have ended up with a mid to late 20th century fake created by a prankster who sensibly intended to remain anonymous.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't have a horse in this race but the way the first affidavit was compiled, and the details set out in that affidavit suggests to me that there was more than an element of truth contained within that document. The answer to proving or disproving what is written is for all the salient points mentioned to be investigated, and then and only then will people be able to judge where the truth lies.

Because if the affidavit is not the truth true then some person or persons went to a great deal of trouble to formulate that with all that detail, in the knowledge that it would later be carefully scrutinized as has been the case.

There is also the discrepancies in the diary with the known facts which have been highlighted in the diary which should not be there if the diary was genuinely written by the killer. and the killer being Maybrick.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A nice post, Trev!

I absolutely agree that the answer to proving or disproving what Mike dictated to Alan Gray is to investigate all the salient points to see what adds up and what doesn't, and what can be supported and what can't, and then and only then will people be able to judge if they can rely on Mike's word or not.

After 25 years, how many of the details in that affidavit, which directly relate to a forgery scheme, have been supported by the facts? Not one, now the little red 1891 diary has been disqualified, on the grounds that Martin Earl only ordered it for Mike after giving him a detailed description and getting confirmation that it met with his requirements.

Any discrepancies in the diary itself wouldn't of course be evidence that Mike Barrett put them there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Fantastic post Caz - I really do enjoy your insights into this fascinating saga. If one honestly weighs up everything you've just posted there and still believes that Barrett(s) forged the Diary, then one must have some kind of agenda.

Hi Steve,

No, no agenda at all. I can only speak for myself, but believing the Barretts were behind the hoax is based entirely on what little facts are known. But, much like everything else in the case, I'd never claim 100% certainty. More so, I like to discuss the subject with those who have other opinions, like the many aspects of the case as a whole. It's not about "us Vs them", and that's what's undoubtedly hampered the diary discourse. I may not believe the diary was written by Maybrick, or that it came from his house, but I'll argue the toss with anyone purely out if a shared interest in the case. We can deny the Maybrick diary all we want, but we can't deny the phenomenon of the Maybrick diary, and to me, that's what I debate. And many times I've flexed my thinking to accommodate pro Maybrick and pro Battlecrease theories. We don't always have to agree, we just have to understand and respect where others come from.

All the best,

[Trevor Marriott]

Any discrepancies in the diary itself wouldn't of course be evidence that Mike Barrett put them there.

Love,

Caz X

But it might be a good indication when all those facts are analyzed which do point to the fact that he did !

Stay safe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Last one, I think


Easy, I've read your posts for a long time and the only consistent argument your posts show through years and years is that Barrett could not have forged the diary. Other arguments change and your posts consistently show you'll entertain any other possibility except for that one.


This is an internet forum for discussion, there will always be people who know more or less about certain topics. I'm always open to widening my knowledge if presented with reasonable arguments. Not sure what you think I should be widen my knowledge about? How about you widen yours by looking into other scam cases, perhaps it might make you reconsider your own narrow view of Barrett's capabilities.


I would have expected him to say the truth, if he was not involved in anything (which there is no reason to think). You apparently believe he is a liar and would lie even if he were not involved in anything!

This is quite symptomatic of the way your posts might give people the impression that you're deliberately spreading misinformation. As you very well know, having studied the case for decades, the meeting was set up at the behest of Robert Smith. Did you forget that?

Again with the if-then whys. Have you considered that perhaps Eddie found a book and put it in a skip, which is, perhaps if one wades through all the various rumours, the most that can be half-reasonably claimed about what was found in Battlecrease - and so it had nothing to do with the diary? And so there's no basis for considering hypothetical and completely baseless scenarios.

I don't know that he did, but you're right, old houses have usually had work done on them and it so happens that the owner of the house stated categorically that it had been redone (in 1977 I believe) and if anything had been there, he would have found it then.


Listen Caz, I'm not terribly interested in keeping this "discussion" going, and I don't have the time or the stamina to answer every one of yours or Iconoclast's false claims. Like this recent idea that Barrett's photo album was highly collectible and worth a lot. I'm sure Mr. Litherland was sincere and helpful, but in the last few days you're suddenly accepting Barrett's extremely vague description of the photo album and ascertaining that it would never have been sold like that etc.
Pretty weak, in fact nonexisting, argument, but a good example of how new facts are made up, similarly to the idea that MB would have been given a thorough and complete description of the red diary before buying it etc.

I'm glad that David Barrat has a true interest in the diary case, and actually reads and researches it, though. If you're really interested in solving the case of the diary (which has already been solved), you should read more of his posts.

I think I just read several of them right here, Kattrup.

Contrary to what you evidently think, I was not born yesterday.

For someone who isn't terribly interested in keeping the kettle boiling, and hasn't the time or the stamina to substantiate any of your accusations about me making 'false' claims, you are letting off an awful lot of steam on someone's behalf.

No more. I'd sooner have raging toothache than go over any of Lord O's old posts, and reading new ones by a Lord O impersonator with none of the charm is becoming intolerable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This is quite symptomatic of the way your posts might give people the impression that you're deliberately spreading misinformation. As you very well know, having studied the case for decades, the meeting was set up at the behest of Robert Smith. Did you forget that?

I can't let this one go. Where did I say it wasn't set up at Robert's behest? Mike agreed to ask Eddie to come to the Saddle and speak to Robert, and Eddie agreed to do so. Not complicated, is it?

If you have any further questions, I suggest you go and ask your lord and master. He has an answer for everything.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

I think I just read several of them right here, Kattrup.

Contrary to what you evidently think, I was not born yesterday.

For someone who isn't terribly interested in keeping the kettle boiling, and hasn't the time or the stamina to substantiate any of your accusations about me making 'false' claims, you are letting off an awful lot of steam on someone's behalf.

I'm not sure what you mean?

No more. I'd sooner have raging toothache than go over any of Lord O's old posts, and reading new ones by a Lord O impersonator with none of the charm is becoming intolerable.

Okay, that's fine. Have a nice weekend.

[Kattrup]

I can't let this one go. Where did I say it wasn't set up at Robert's behest? Mike agreed to ask Eddie to come to the Saddle and speak to Robert, and Eddie agreed to do so. Not complicated, is it?

Well, it's complicated when you ask "If he didn't know Mike, what was he doing in the Saddle in June 1993, being introduced by Mike to Robert Smith?" in reply to my statement that Lyons stated he did not know MB. So you ask a question implying that in fact, Lyons did know MB, because he was together with him in the Saddle and Robert Smith happened by and met them. When you full well know that Lyons was there because Smith had arranged for him to be there. I mean, do you see how it might give off the impression that you're deliberately obfuscating?

If you have any further questions, I suggest you go and ask your lord and master. He has an answer for everything.

Thanks for your suggestion. David Barrat (I assume you're referring to him) actually doesn't have an answer for life, the universe and everything. But he does have more answers than you.

I do have a question, not specifically for you but for anyone: has the contract (I'm assuming there was one) regarding the sale of the diary from MB to Robert Smith ever been made public?

(Incidentally, the interview I mentioned from 1994 giving a ten day-period for the diary wasn't from the Liverpool Daily Post, I misremembered, it was apparently from the Sunday Times, July 3rd 1994.)