One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Yabs]

I was just reading through the transcript of the diary...


“Michael is well, he writes a merry tune, in my heart I cannot blame him for doing so, I regret I shall not see him this Christmas”


It seems to contradict this passage from the trial...

“No evidence was given as to when Michael Maybrick had had any opportimities of seeing his brother and forming an opinion about his state of health except that he had been at Battlecrease at Christmas, and, for some unexplained reason, had on that occasion recommended this exceptionally healthy man to come up to London to see his own doctor, Dr. Fuller”


If this has been discussed before can someone point me in the right direction please.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

No, I suggest you read the post again Al. A man wasn't carrying a bag. Also, the little matter of the time gap between Stride's assault by that naughty BS man, and spoilsport Demshutz's entry into the drama needs to be addressed.

Hi Observer,

I often find the problem with text is that my generally light and humorous approach to things can sometimes get lost in translation.
I was implying that those two things are anything but given, Stride / Diemschutz in particular having serious detractors ( there's a Canadian guy called Michael has a theory on that, you might have heard of him?)

I'll have to stick to using my three dot system to end posts that are maybe a bit tongue in cheek...

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

I often find the problem with text is that my generally light and humorous approach to things can sometimes get lost in translation.
I was implying that those two things are anything but given, Stride / Diemschutz in particular having serious detractors ( there's a Canadian guy called Michael has a theory on that, you might have heard of him?)

I'll have to stick to using my three dot system to end posts that are maybe a bit tongue in cheek...

No problem Al. By the way your sentiment wasn't lost on me, I almost said so at the time,but it was getting late, plus the liquid cosh was taking effect.Also, Nurse Ratchet had her eye on me. Ikey mate is two beds up from me, he never returned from his day release, I think he's done a runner. Last time they caught him sitting atop the brilliant Society's Pillar, chanting "Stokoe is our king", he was really out of it. They had to tice him down with a 1969 inter city's Fairs Cup final programme, it's such a rarity you see for Magpie fans, a programme from a winning final. Thing is, they got their own back on him, they stuck him in a red and white straight jacket

stay safe

[rjpalmer]

I was just reading through the transcript of the diary...


“Michael is well, he writes a merry tune, in my heart I cannot blame him for doing so, I regret I shall not see him this Christmas”


It seems to contradict this passage from the trial...

“No evidence was given as to when Michael Maybrick had had any opportimities of seeing his brother and forming an opinion about his state of health except that he had been at Battlecrease at Christmas, and, for some unexplained reason, had on that occasion recommended this exceptionally healthy man to come up to London to see his own doctor, Dr. Fuller”

Thanks, Yabs. Nice observation.

And, of course, the passage you cite also directly contradicts the hoaxer’s claim that Maybrick visited Thomas in Manchester that Christmas.

"Christmas is approaching and Thomas has invited me to visit him."

And (a few passages later)

"Thomas was in fine health. The children enjoyed Christmas."

Yet here we have Maybrick in Aigburth at Christmas, with brother Michael.

So yes, another problem in paradise. And for those who haven’t waded through Society's Pillar, Ike argues, with considerable sophistry, that Maybrick was indeed in Manchester at Christmas, thus proving the diary’s historical accuracy. (No actual evidence is given, of course).

It will be interesting to see if this leads to a cry of “uncle,' but I doubt it. The ability to accept two dozen contradictions before breakfast has always been a requirement of Diary belief.

[Yabs]

Thanks, Yabs. Nice observation.

And, of course, the passage you cite also directly contradicts the hoaxer’s claim that Maybrick visited Thomas in Manchester that Christmas.

"Christmas is approaching and Thomas has invited me to visit him."

And (a few passages later)

"Thomas was in fine health. The children enjoyed Christmas."

Yet here we have Maybrick in Aigburth at Christmas, with brother Michael.

So yes, another problem in paradise. And for those who haven’t waded through Society's Pillar, Ike argues, with considerable sophistry, that Maybrick was indeed in Manchester at Christmas, thus proving the diary’s historical accuracy. (No actual evidence is given, of course).

It will be interesting to see if this leads to a cry of “uncle,' but I doubt it. The ability to accept two dozen contradictions before breakfast has always been a requirement of Diary belief.

Hi RJ

Thank you for the reply,
I didn’t notice the part about Thomas I must admit, but if we consider that the diary has James receiving contact from Thomas with regards to an invitation to spend Christmas together, and claiming that he did so, it doesn’t sit well with this quote from the trial....


“James Maybrick had four brothers—Michael, Edwin, Thomas, and William. Thomas Maybrick lives in Manchester, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, had not visited his brother James for some years, and really had very little communication with him. He was, however, present at Battlecrease on the day of James Maybrick’s death and it is somewhat remarkable that, having been present at
the time of death, he was not called as a witness”


Also, I should probably read Ickes S.P if somebody, anybody, even the man himself could furnish me with a link, I would be grateful.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi RJ

Thank you for the reply,
I didn’t notice the part about Thomas I must admit, but if we consider that the diary has James receiving contact from Thomas with regards to an invitation to spend Christmas together, and claiming that he did so, it doesn’t sit well with this quote from the trial....


“James Maybrick had four brothers—Michael, Edwin, Thomas, and William. Thomas Maybrick lives in Manchester, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, had not visited his brother James for some years, and really had very little communication with him. He was, however, present at Battlecrease on the day of James Maybrick’s death and it is somewhat remarkable that, having been present at
the time of death, he was not called as a witness”


Also, I should probably read Ickes S.P if somebody, anybody, even the man himself could furnish me with a link, I would be grateful.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iee8x2flrkkfqar/AADDi9EJ5qhnIpBfJM1mLdGna?dl=0

Here you go, one link to the brilliant Societies Pillar.

[Yabs]

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/iee8x2flrkkfqar/AADDi9EJ5qhnIpBfJM1mLdGna?dl=0

Here you go, one link to the brilliant Societies Pillar.

Thank you Al

[caz]

Hi Ike.

“I do remember my sister asking my dad whether she could borrow a book that was on his table. It was called Murder, Mayhem, & Mystery, by Richard Whittington-Egan. My father told my sister, “OK, but let me have it back on the weekend; it belongs to Bongo.” That was Tony’s nickname for Mike.

"This was the very book that Barrett said had led him to deduce that the diary had been written by James Maybrick. (That book, with Mike’s name in it, was eventually handed over to Scotland Yard)."

--Feldman, p. 139.

It sounds to me like it’s been established, Ike.

And that places Mike’s ‘Maybrick’ book (which he had already described to Feldman/Harrison) safely in the hands of Tony Devereux sometime before August 1991 ( the month Tony died).

Which is at least 7 months prior to 9 March 1992—the day Barrett supposedly first learned of Maybrick and his dodgy diary.

Seems like there's yet another problem in paradise, mate. But, water off a duck's back, eh? When one has grown accustomed to ignoring 'debilitating' data, what is one more bit to ignore?

All of which would be fine, RJ, if there was just the one copy of TALES OF LIVERPOOL [the prominent title on the cover of this popular little book] in the whole of Liverpool in 1991, and it was the one which Tony's daughter handed to Bonesy, which had Bongo's name in it - according to Feldman. How he got this idea I don't know, but Bonesy himself found nothing to suggest Mike Barrett had ever had his paws on it.

Come to think about it, assuming it was Bongo's copy, and Tony's daughter remembered her dad wanting it back 'on the weekend', so it could be returned to its rightful owner, she held onto it for another two years and remembered she still had it when Bonesy of the Yard came a-calling. Probably just as well that it didn't have Mike's name in it, or anything else to identify it as Bongo's property.

So what have we still got left in terms of circumstantial evidence to bury the Barretts?

Orsam's awesome auction on March 31st 1992, for which there is not a shred of evidence - yet - that an album full of WWI photos was in the sale, or was sold to a Mr Williams for £50.

Mike's Sphere volume 2, which is not one of the volumes he claimed to have had since 1989. There is no evidence - yet - that there was another volume 2 which had ever been in his possession. You have suggested he could have lost or destroyed this piece of evidence, presumably before he realised he could have used it to support his forgery claim.

The tiny 1891 diary, which Mike would not have ordered to accommodate Maybrick's fake memoirs unless he was a total moron.

And now a copy of TALES OF LIVERPOOL which had no distinguishing marks to make it evidence of anything at all. Totally happy to accept Tony's daughter's recollection as accurate, but there is nothing to show whether Mike had even read this particular copy before Tony's daughter saw it and asked to borrow it. And I do wonder why Tony would have casually let his daughter borrow a book which he and Bongo had used to create the Maybrick diary, with Bongo's wife and father-in-law as their fellow conspirators.

But I'm happy to leave the psychology and the conspiracy theories to you and Barrett - sorry, Barrat.

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

All of which would be fine, RJ, if there was just the one copy of TALES OF LIVERPOOL [the prominent title on the cover of this popular little book] in the whole of Liverpool in 1991, and it was the one which Tony's daughter handed to Bonesy, which had Bongo's name in it - according to Feldman. How he got this idea I don't know, but Bonesy himself found nothing to suggest Mike Barrett had ever had his paws on it.

Don't you worry about that Caz - the Diary naysayers will simply decide that Feldman is worth trusting on this occasion, just like they have at other times when his findings suit them, despite constantly trying to discredit the man and his methods the rest of the time...

[caz]

A hoaxer might have been a tad more thorough when it came to accuracy, but of course I've always been of the opinion that the Diary of Jack The Scouser was originally intended to be a novel.

Hello Observer,

I have had that thought as well. Ever since the trial of Florence Maybrick any author (or potential author) worth his salt must have realized that this scenario was the Holy Grail of Irony and Cosmic Justice. Imagine history's most notorious killer and butcher of women is himself killed by a woman! That is a plot and a novel just begging to be written.

c.d.

Absolutely, c.d.

I couldn't agree more.

And why would such a novel - written in personal diary form - have needed to give the butcher of the tale a decent grasp of spelling and grammar, or perfect attention to detail regarding his butchery, or indeed a perfect imitation of the real James Maybrick's handwriting?

If I were planning the spoof diary of Jimmy Savile [I'm not, so don't anyone scream at me], I wouldn't feel the slightest compulsion to adhere to whatever standard of education the scumbag had [I'd dumb it down if I knew], or to research the precise details of his foul activities, or to try and copy his handwriting style.

The diary of JS is naturally not something that would - should - ever be published, but I would suggest the diary of JM - had it been written not too long after the events portrayed - would have been given the same big thumbs down, regardless of whether the author was a gifted professional novelist or a rank amateur.

As a funny little gesture, if I had written JS's spoof diary and it was too hot - or too rubbish - for any publisher to handle, and I wanted to remain anonymous [and believe me, I would], I might just have planted it somewhere he was known to haunt.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Actually, Roger, I do remember reading that now, so fair play, Tony D had what he claimed was Mike Barrett's copy of Tales of Liverpool and - of course - I'll accept that it was his copy.

But here's the rub. There is no evidence that Mike ever read Tales of Liverpool and - even if he had - as you note it was before Tony died in Aug 1991. It could have been many months before or it could have been years before (if he ever read it properly at all). So many months later (after Tony's death), Barrett gets his hands on the scrapbook and at some point after that he claims he put Battlecrease House together with Maybrick to work out who the author of the scrapbook was by discovering 'Battlecrease House' in Tales of Liverpool. Well, here's another rub: I've just flicked through my copy and I can only find four references to Battlecrease House - three on the first two pages of the story of James' death, and a final mention in the final paragraph. So that's just four mentions of a house name many months, probably a year, possibly many years after Barrett may have read the book (or may not). I think we can make allowances for his not having immediately put two and two together when he first read the scrapbook in March 1992, don't you?

Absolutely no problem whatsoever in my version of paradise, and no need for any water off a duck's back. What you are hanging your argument on is a Liverpool scally having read Tales of Liverpool and - even if he had - that he would remember the most irrelevant of details which only occurs four times in the book a full year or so later.

Personally, I have no problem dealing with 'debilitating' data. Could you let me have some to deal with, though, before you go making these unsubstantiated claims?

Cheers,

Ike

Afternoon Ike,

Another point to note is that Battlecrease does not feature until chapter 11 of the book, 'Motif in Fly-papers'. There are 13 chapters in total, so there is no way of knowing if Mike would have got as far as chapter 11, assuming he had read any of it by 1991 and had begun with chapter 1, 'When Spring-Heeled Jack Visited Everton'. Or might he have jumped to 'Motif in Fly-papers' looking for inspiration? Chapter 12, 'How Death Came to Florence Maybrick' might appear like the next tale in the series, unconnected to the last, to anyone not already familiar with the case.

But if, in March/April 1992, Mike was desperate to identify the author of the diary he had just obtained, after telling Doreen he'd had it for nearly a year, and he saw TALES OF LIVERPOOL again in Smiths, he'd have devoured it then, chapter by chapter, until he found what he was looking for. There is nothing on record to suggest he knew the diary author was meant to be James Maybrick when he first made contact with Doreen.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Can, can you clarify, does Deverauxs' daughters version of the Liverpool book come solely from Feldman?

Reason I ask is he's already an (apparently depending on belief) liar, as regards to the Graham family provenance, so this quote needs a hearty dose of salt, but if occurs elsewhere, I think RJ's point is fair.

Al.

[caz]

Micheal Barratt could certainly spin a yarn, he always wanted to be a writer, owned a word processor, had material published albeit in a small way, owned several editions of those pesky Sphere books, ordered and bought a Victorian diary, at no small expense, well you get the picture. It's Barratt all the way for me.

It's a neat tale you tell, Observer, and it does appear to tick the right boxes, if you already believed that Mike was not only capable of creating the diary himself, but that he actually did so and produced a believable and detailed account of how he managed it.

Imagine, for argument's sake, this same Michael Barrett, spinner of yarns, wannabe novelist, proud owner of a word processor, bought when he was hoping to take advantage of Maggie Thatcher's Enterprise Allowance Scheme, being shown the diary, signed Jack the Ripper, and instantly realising its potential to make him a best-selling author - if he can get his hands on it for a reasonable amount of cash.

Take the story forward from that point, and imagine the same Michael Barrett, his best-seller in the pipeline, seeing the newspaper headlines that his precious diary is a fake. He now feels like an idiot who was sold a pup. Not long afterwards, his wife and daughter walk out and his humiliation is complete and irreversible. One way to show the world he was not the kind of fool to be taken for such a ride is to say that he knew all along it was a fake, because he faked it - and it still became a best-seller, so balls to the lot of you. Mike did not want to go down in history as the man who was conned into believing he had Jack the Ripper's diary, so he had to be the one who was conning everyone else.

Whichever version of the story you prefer, the psychology comes with it, despite what RJ and Barrett - sorry, Barrat - would have us believe. Circumstantial evidence will never be enough without it.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Really, Caz? This is your answer?

(No, it’s not just Feldman, Mr. Owl)

The same basic account is also given by Shirley Harrison...and…wait for it...by Skinner, Morris, and Linder! Refer to their book, especially page 256. Nowhere do they voice a single utterance of doubt that Barrett owned this book and was familiar with it. Indeed, they spend considerable effort placing his copy in the hands of Devereux’s daughter in the summer of 1991, when she was pregnant. They even inform us that Nancy Steele’s views have changed, and she now (at the time of the writing) accepts that Barrett got the diary from her father, through Anne Graham.

All of which is given to lend support to Anne Graham’s version of events.

Now put your thinking cap on. Recall: Barrett mentioned his ownership of this book months BEFORE anyone knew it was now in the possession of Devereux’s daughter, Janet. He mentioned it even before its existence was particularly relevant.

And we know that Barrett did not actually have access to his copy of this book between August 1991 and 1993, when he was discussing the diary with Harrison & Feldman, etc. He was going by memory. And yet, Mike was familiar enough with its contents to ACCURATELY state that it contained a reference to the name “Battlecrease.” Which it does. (Which is not true of every account of the Maybrick case).

Months later, Janet—without being prompted---produces the book, gives it to Scotland Yard, and confirms that her father had received the copy from Barrett sometime around June or July 1991.

By all appearances, Mike had been discussing the Diary with Devereux long before Dodd had any work done on his house. Q.E.D.

P.S. It is my opinion that Barrett mentioned Tales of Liverpool because he hadn't used it as a source for the Maybrick hoax. It would have been fairly worthless for his purposes, as it doesn't give much detail of Maybrick's day-to-day life. When Mike went into "confession" mode, he mentions Bernard Ryan's books as his main source, and a careful study of that book does indeed confirm that it contains everything needed to produce the 'Maybrick' material in the diary, with the exception of the 1889 Grand National time having been fast.

[rjpalmer]

Correction to the above: that should have read ""Bernard Ryan's book" not books.

Have a good weekend.