One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Understood. Do you have a ‘hard’ or specific date for when the watch was placed in the Murphys’ shop window? I’ve never seen it stated as anything other than ‘1992,’ and there are 67 days in 1992 that precede March 9th.

To continue with our statistical analysis, given that Johnson bought the watch in July, that would mean that there is a 1 in 3 chance that its appearance in the store window preceded March 9th, and the odds are is actually worse than that (from your perspective) considering that Johnson stated that he hesitated for a considerable time before making the plunge.

Of course, all of this is entirely irrelevant if we accept the Murphys’ account of owning the watch for years, but I am a new convert to Ike’s methodology of analyzing what we theorize is true, rather than what is actually in evidence. Goblins dancing on the head of a pin, and all that.

It seems to me that if you can narrow the date down, Ike could favor us with another one of his unimpeachable forays into probability theory.

best wishes.

If you know the final day something could be true and you subtract ... (oh, see my reply to Scott above) ...

The rule never changes, by the way. It really is Statistics 101.

[Iconoclast]

They even put off telling her when a grandparent died, until they had no choice.

I guess the child wouldn't have believed that the vet was looking after granny? Worth a punt, I would have thought (kid sounds a bit gullible, to be honest) ...

[caz]

Hi Caz.

I am not confusing Keith with Shirley. I am just saying that due to a misunderstanding or a lack of communication or a misreading of Mike's sworn affidavit, the wrong dates were checked, and thus Mike's story of visiting Outhwaite & Litherland has not been disproven, because it was never checked properly.

This assumes there were ever any 'right' dates, which would have given you the auction you crave, on 31st March 1992.

To have properly investigated Mike's claims...

...might not have given you the answer you crave. Alan Gray was still trying to investigate Mike's O&L claims properly in the April, three months after he had typed up the affidavit of Jan 5th. Mike's changes of story made it only slightly less of an uphill task for Gray to find the right date than if the right date didn't exist. If you explained why Mike didn't show Gray the wretched auction ticket he claimed to still have four years later, in 1999, which would have given O&L half a chance of tracing the purchase for Gray before their records were pulped, I either missed it or haven't reached that post yet. IIRC, the excuse for one night in April 1999 was to blame Keith for letting it slip that two ex coppers were in Mike's audience, spooking him into not producing that ticket. What's the excuse for the entire period covering Gray's association with Mike, if the ticket existed and would have assisted them both with dating the right auction on the right date?

Keith's own notes (uploaded to this site) show that he and Shirley jointly quested Mike on Wednesday 19 January 1995--less than two weeks after Mike's signed affidavit of January 5th.

Whether they had a physical copy of Mike's affidavit I cannot say...

Oh come on, RJ, you can say, and they didn't, because I posted the timeline entries showing that the first time either of them had sight of a copy of this particular affidavit was two years later, in January 1997. Any suggestion that I doctored those entries would be water off a duck's back to me, but I'm not having it implied that Shirley and Keith may have doctored their own documentation.

..., but it is clear that they questioned Mike about his allegations because Mike's trip to Outwaite & Litherland was mentioned in the notes.

Wednesday 18^th January 1995
Extracts from a recorded conversation between MB and KS, SH, Sally Evemy and an independent witness:
MB admits making false statement to Brough to "get back at Anne" for not speaking to him or letting him see Caroline from January to May 1994.
Says he knows diary is genuine.
Says he made up stuff about forging diary and watch just to "kick up the ****".
He is bitter about his efforts to work out diary author’s identity "night in, night out", hour after hour, while Anne was upstairs.
MB confirms the "bloody great big blazing argument" with Anne over getting diary published, not understanding why she was so against it if it was genuine, as he believed it to be, after all his efforts night after night.
MB bemoans his debts etc. SH asks what happened to all his diary money. He says he "pissed it up against the wall" because Anne wasn't with him.
MB says he wants to prove diary a forgery to "get back at Anne", but is frustrated that he can't do so. Again expresses anger towards PF for various threats, phone-calls and pressure.
KS asks MB about Alan Gray. Says he found him through Yellow Pages, wanting a private detective to find Anne. Says Gray got caught up in diary story. MB gave Gray list of ripperologists, including Melvin Harris.
MB says he made up story about Outhwaite & Litherland while drunk, but is still prepared to "kick up the ****" and swear diary is forgery until he can see Anne.
Sees it as his only way to achieve this.
Talks about his kidney problems, low self-esteem, role-reversal with Anne working, all pre-diary.

Mike was drunk as a skunk when he told Harold Brough in June 1994 that he had written the diary himself and got the scrapbook from O&L. That's what they'd have assumed he was talking about when he said he "made up the story" while drunk, since they would know nothing for another two years that the album was supposedly full of WWI photos and came with a compass - details Mike introduced when swearing his affidavit of 5th January. Had they known this, Shirley would have been able to give that crucial information to O&L when she contacted them the same month. On that occasion she could only ask them to check for the sale of an old photo album, and was told that such items would have have been part of a job lot of miscellaneous items. Earlier, in her 1994 paperback, it would appear that she had got much the same information via Brough, because she reported that the auctioneers had said that 'no unremarkable empty album such as ours would have been sold singly. Yet Mike said that he had not bid for a job lot'. It seems fairly obvious to me that when Mike read that, along with various other slights about his lack of honesty, sobriety and ability to understand the 'fairly simple tasks' she had set him, he became determined to change the record, with one aspect being that if they wanted a job lot, then a job lot it would be. But he went and changed the record too far, by claiming in his affidavit that he had bid for a job lot, but then described an item which would have been sold singly. Aldridge Prior meets Major Misunderstanding.

The clues are all there, if you make a careful enough analysis of Mike's behaviour and what was going on in his life at the time.

I wonder if Alan Gray gave O&L the description of Mike's WWI photo album and compass, and what they told him? I'm not sure it would have been fit to print.

[Iconoclast]

IIRC, the excuse for one night in April 1999 was to blame Keith for letting it slip that two ex coppers were in Mike's audience, spooking him into not producing that ticket. What's the excuse for the entire period covering Gray's association with Mike, if the ticket existed and would have assisted them both with dating the right auction on the right date?

Such a good point, Caz!

Why would Mike have dicked Gray around by 'withholding' the auction ticket when he could have produced it at any point and confirmed (or at least strongly suggested) that he really was the Greatest Forger of All Time?

Surely he hadn't lost it until 1999 when he found it again? Or maybe lost it and then pretended he had it in 1999?

None of this seems to make any sense, does it, given that Mike attended that O&L auction on 31/03/92 - desperate for a Victorian document - and miraculously purchased one just in time to get Anne to transcribe his typed epic ahead of his crunch meeting on 13/04/92. You might have thought he'd have retained something which would have proved his claims?

The more I think about it, the more I think Mike Barrett may not have been telling the whole truth on occasions. Do you think it is possible that he was just making a lot of stuff up so that he remained at the centre of the debate (or, 'at the centre' as he perceived it)?

Perhaps the answer lies with those who carried his flame for so long?

Whenever I can't sleep, I lie in bed chuckling to myself over Alan Gray's statement on having met Mike in the street in 1998 where their exchange ended thus:

Gray: You are a liar and a cheat and if I had my way you'd be charged with conspiracy ...

Barrett: I give my name to history, what love can do to a gentleman born.

Gray: Don't ring me anymore or contact me. I am going now before I kick the **** out of you.

What a merry dance Bongo led our poor private dick. I wonder if Mike ever paid him anything???

[rjpalmer]

I'm pretty sure all this has been posted before, so I have no explanation for RJ's ducking, diving, distorting and denying, unless he just wishes it would all go away and can see no way of achieving it by fairer methods.

Asking for clarification about Eddie's specific job title is "ducking, diving, distorting and denying"???

Good Lord.

If asking a simple question qualifies as "evasion and distortion," I can' t wait to read your critique of Ike's woefully flawed statistical analysis, which is the height (or depth) of distortion and denial. But I rather suspect we won't hear a peep about it.

You did indeed post all of this before, Caz, (thanks) and as fascinating as everyone might find it, it doesn't actually answer the question I posed.

I am simply attempting to establish who Eddie Lyons is or was. While his specific position with Portus & Rhodes isn't particularly relevant to your theory, it might help me establish his identity.

Your blanket statement that he was a "qualified electrician" doesn't particularly inspire confidence. Electricians come in all flavors and levels. From my experience, outfits like Portus & Rhodes will largely employ licensed, journeymen electricians, who can legally work alone and without supervision. But they will also employ electrical apprentices (Scale 1 or Scale 2) for low-level work. This is an attractive option for small companies, because the pay scale is lower. The downside is that they can't work alone and without supervision. I don't know about the UK, but in the US they also will need at least one master electrician, who can 'sign off' on projects, making sure everything is up to code, etc.

But, as I say, none of this is particularly relevant to your provenance theory. I was simply trying to establish who the guy is that is being accusing of theft and fencing stolen goods.

I was told privately that Eddie soon afterwards worked for Jaguar in Liverpool. Jaguar's manufacturing undoubtedly employs many electricians, but it is in Solihull, which is 113 miles away, so, provided my information is correct, Eddie must have worked at a Jaguar dealership--which sells and services cars. Why would they have hired a licensed residential electrician? There are automotive electricians, of course, but this is a specialized job that has a different sets of skills than residential electricians. Which is why I was wondering if Eddie was either an apprentice, or some sort of low-level 'gopher.' It was hardly "ducking, diving, and distorting."

Again, I am not analyzing your provenance tale--Lord Orsam has already done a thorough job of that---I was just trying to confirm who Eddie Lyons is. I have already managed to eliminate two men named Edward Lyons living in Lancashire, but I have a couple of others to go. If you don't wish to cooperate, that's entirely understandable. I won't ask for your help.

R P

[rjpalmer]

I would actually put Bury, in terms of suspect status, above any man alive in 1888 who is not known to have killed or been violent towards any woman.

I'm always interested in reading how long-term students of the Whitechapel Murders case decide who is, and who is not, a good suspect in the murders.

The above analysis is interesting in that allows Bill Bury to be a better suspect than M. J. Druitt--but not a better suspect than James Maybrick.

Fascinating.

[erobitha]

I'm always interested in reading how long-term students of the Whitechapel Murders case decide who is, and who is not, a good suspect in the murders.

The above analysis is interesting in that allows Bill Bury to be a better suspect than M. J. Druitt--but not a better suspect than James Maybrick.

Fascinating.

Why would Druitt be a better candidate than Maybrick?

He had even less reason to be in Whitechapel
than Maybrick and he had no record of violence against women. Maybrick does. There is no smoking gun evidence for either men as being placed at any of the murder scenes. In fact with Druitt we have the opposite. Cricket matches are being awkward with that.

Is it because he has the misfortunate luck to commit suicide not long after MJK’s death and that he may well have been gay? It’s about as good evidence as McNaughten had.

[Scott Nelson]

Then you will know that statistical analysis does not require assumptions - and the fewer you have to make, the purer the predicted probability.

Yes, for numerical analyses. But the second you attempt to conduct imprecise historical analysis with, "what are the odds of this or that happening..." you're gonna get into trouble.

[erobitha]

…I was just trying to confirm who Eddie Lyons is. I have already managed to eliminate two men named Edward Lyons living in Lancashire, but I have a couple of others to go. If you don't wish to cooperate, that's entirely understandable. I won't ask for your help.

R P

I wish I could hear that phone call if it ever happens.

Please record it RJ if you get to speak with him and share the audio file. Very easy to do on iPhone these days.

My guess is you will get a very blunt response that may use language that could cause offence. Be prepared.

My guess is he has no interest in talking to anyone to do with this whole thing, and certainly not publicly or on any kind of record. I guess for good reason. He has no obligation to tell anybody anything and why would he? He has no vested interest at this point. He would rather carry on regardless with no hassle. He never wanted the attention in the first place.

Unless I have totally misjudged your charm skills, then I am totally open to being proven wrong and look forward to hearing that audio recording of your call.

[rjpalmer]

Why would Druitt be a better candidate than Maybrick?

He had even less reason to be in Whitechapel
than Maybrick and he had no record of violence against women. Maybrick does. There is no smoking gun evidence for either men as being placed at any of the murder scenes. In fact with Druitt we have the opposite. Cricket matches are being awkward with that.

Is it because he has the misfortunate luck to commit suicide not long after MJK’s death and that he may well have been gay? It’s about as good evidence as McNaughten had.

Who is McNaughten?

[erobitha]

Who is McNaughten?

Wow. Petulance over mis-spellings. I remember you giving me a for a "math" reference you made. So consider back.

For RJ's pedantry Melville Macnaghten.

[rjpalmer]

Wow. Petulance over mis-spellings.

Sorry, but I picked up that nasty habit from Caz. She once ripped out my throat for accidently misspelling Croydon, which, believe it or not, is a more grievous abomination than not accepting her explanation for why Mike Barrett went shopping for a blank Victorian diary. But only barely.

Is it really so difficult for students of the case to spell Macnaghten's name correctly? Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine.

As to your point; I don't think we really need to discuss the matter, especially since it is off-topic, but there are, of course, several schools of thought.

If you happen to think that a Scouser with no legitimate connection to the case is a better suspect than a man named by a Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, on the strength that he slapped his wife in 1889, then I can only politely disagree with your methodology. Was Ted Bundy known as an abuser before he was identified by the police?

And personally, I don't think Mac suspected Druitt of being a homosexual. Perhaps he did, but it is just an early interpretation that has become something of a tradition.

[erobitha]

Sorry, but I picked up that nasty habit from Caz. She once ripped out my throat for accidently misspelling Croydon, which, believe it or not, is a more grievous abomination than not accepting her explanation for why Mike Barrett went shopping for a blank Victorian diary. But only barely.

Is it really so difficult for students of the case to spell Macnaghten's name correctly? Yes, it is a pet peeve of mine.

As to your point; I don't think we really need to discuss the matter, especially since it is off-topic, but there are, of course, several schools of thought.

If you happen to think that a Scouser with no legitimate connection to the case is a better suspect than a man named by a Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, on the strength that he slapped his wife in 1889, then I can only politely disagree with your methodology. Was Ted Bundy known as an abuser before he was identified by the police?

And personally, I don't think Mac suspected Druitt of being a homosexual. Perhaps he did, but it is just an early interpretation that has become something of a tradition.

Well RJ these are probably debates for a different thread.

For what it's worth, I'm guessing Eddie still lives within walking distance of Maybrick's grave.

[rjpalmer]

Is it because he has the misfortunate luck to commit suicide not long after MJK’s death and that he may well have been gay?

By the way, Ero, though I know you meant no harm by it, shouldn't we acknowledge that there is a difference between "being gay" and being suspected of interfering with school boys, if that was indeed what Druitt was suspected of?

This isn't the American Bible Belt, so I don't think we need to imply that the two are interchangeable.

Enjoy your day,

RP

[erobitha]

By the way, Ero, though I know you meant no harm by it, shouldn't we acknowledge that there is a difference between "being gay" and being suspected of interfering with school boys, if that was indeed what Druitt was suspected of?

This isn't the American Bible Belt, so I don't think we need to imply that the two are interchangeable.

Enjoy your day,

RP

This evidence of interference is where exactly? I did also suggest "may well have been" and not defined as being definite. You seem much more forthright on your claim, so I can only assume the evidence is more compelling than my simple suggestion.

Once I have seen the evidence then perhaps I too will feel comfortable referring to him as an interferer of schoolboys. "Sexual insanity" was used often as a reference to homosexuality.