Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    ... a lot would have depended or not as to whether Barrett had made a witness statement in the first instance when he was first interviewed, which if he did would have had a declaration which he would have had to have signed that the statement he made was true and that he would have faced prosecution if he had made a false statement.
    In the early 1990s, Trevor, would that witness statement (if Mike had made one) have been computerised or just on paper?

    And - if it was on paper - do you think it would still exist?
    Iconoclast
    Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
    Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      Here's what Simon wrote back on October 25th:

      "Hi Yabs,

      It happened at a City Darts 'Jack the Ripper Seminar' in 1989. I was probably talking to just Martin Fido and Keith Skinner (Paul Begg, living in Leeds at the time, made only occasional visits to London) about turning a black and white photograph into colour. I had seen this demonstrated on TV and thought it might be an idea to experiment with the Kelly photograph. During this, or a subsequent conversation, I pointed out the initials on the wall, reasoning in true Grand Guignol style that Kelly had finger-painted the murderer's initials on the partition wall beside her bed.

      "Depending on which printed copy (Rumbelow, Farson, Begg, Knight etc.) of the Kelly photograph is examined, the initials appear more or less indistinct, and I thought the best exposure was in the Sphere paperback edition of Dan Farson's book.

      My discovery was pounced upon with enthusiasm, but try as we may none of us could decipher the initials, let alone fit them to a suspect. And there, as far as I am concerned, the matter was dropped.

      Four years later, in Shirley Harrison's book, this became—

      "In 1976 Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" reproduced the picture with enough clarity to show that there appeared to be some initials on the wall partition behind Mary Kelly's bed, although they were not pointed out until 1988. The crime researcher Simon Wood mentioned them to Paul Begg."

      Now you know the story of the initials on the wall."

      Martin's memory appears to have been slightly different from Simon's because years later he made a post on this site, and seems to have remembered two specific initials being mentioned (but apparently not "FM"), but Martin didn't reveal what the initials were in case that Simon wanted to eventually publish them.

      Cheers.
      RJ,
      Thanks. As said, I haven't followed this thread and didn't know this had been posted by Simon. I thought he'd communicated it privately. As Simon says, I infrequently visited London from Leeds, where I was living at the time. What threw me was your mention of this discussion about the letters being at a Cloak and Dagger Club meeting in 1989. The C&D didn't exist then. I see that Simon was in fact talking about a short-lived slide presentation Martin and Keith did at the City Darts after Martin did a truncate walk. It was memorable for the occasion when the projector failed. Martin still took his position before the screen with his pointer and gave his talk; "Mary Nichols was found dead here in Bucks Row...," said Martin, pointing to the screen with his pointer, "...if you could see it."

      Anyway, it appears that Simon discussed seeing some initials on the photo, but they weren't the "FM" we're now all familiar with. And it appears from his post to these boards that when in discussion with Shirly Harrison about the "initials" remark in the "diary", Martin mentioned his discussion with Simon. But no mention was made of the initials at that time? Do I take it that nobody had seen the"FM" then either? Who first saw the "FM"? Not that it matters. I can't say I remember any discussion with Simon about letters on the wall, so Shirley may be right, or shemay be wrong. I'm surprised that Martin pounced on this with enthusiasm as he normally hated anything like that (as did I) and would listen politely, be as encouraging as he felt able, and move on to other subjects. In fact, I'm surprised he even remembered the conversation, so it isn't remarkable that he might have a different recollection of the details. Mind you, when he did remember things he was very often frighteningly accurate. That could be very frustrating for everybody.

      Paul

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

        In the early 1990s, Trevor, would that witness statement (if Mike had made one) have been computerised or just on paper?

        And - if it was on paper - do you think it would still exist?
        I would imagined it would have been a paper statement if of course he ever made a written one ?

        It should have been retained in the file

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

          No; I believe it was the master handler of a hoax created by A. N. Other.

          Yes, this was indeed a master stroke by Barrett, though I suspect that he may have needed the hint from Smith on how to proceed, but perhaps it was an arrangement they developed together. I don't know; I wasn't there.
          If anyone is interested, much of the mechanics of this were outlined in Inside Story (pp28-20).

          Cheers,

          Ike
          Iconoclast
          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

            And you believe that this was a master hoaxer, RJ???
            Ike, I'm stuck at my desk for a bit longer, so can I ask a question or three in return? I was willing to answer yours. (I loved your use of three questions marks, by the way! It really does suggest incredulity)

            Why do you think Mike agreed to this bizarre arrangement?

            Does the above comment indicate that you simply dismiss Barrett as a complete moron, and thus there is no meaning to be gleaned from Barrett transferring the diary to Smith for a one-pound note beyond ignorance?

            Even though Mike's own wife was apparently angry about the proposed deal, and that Mike was already out at least 50 pounds due to his purchase of the maroon diary and his payment (cough, cough) to Eddie Lyons?

            It's just a matter of stupidity plain and simple, by a former scrap metal dealer--a profession known for 'wheeling and dealing'?

            If, as we are told, this transaction was to 'protect' the diary (apparently from Mike selling it while drunk, though there is no indication that he planned to do this) couldn't the diary have been equally protected by Smith giving Barrett a reasonable price, such as a thousand pounds or five thousand pounds? Couldn't it have been protected by Smith taking the diary in some sort of trust, with the contract stipulating that Mike would retain ownership but couldn't sell the diary without the agreement of his wife or solicitor? (You might remind me of the contract, as I don't currently have my copy of Ripper Diary)

            Yes, the 'mechanics' of the transaction are discussed in some measure, but this doesn't really resolve the mystery does it? What did Mike and Anne discuss when they went off to squabble among themselves? Do you see nothing strange at all? It's just a matter of stupidity on Barrett's part and nothing more?

            I'm interested in your thoughts. Curiosity killed the cat, but a lack of curiosity also kills.

            RP
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 11-27-2021, 07:03 PM.

            Comment



            • Good Morning RJ,

              Why do you think Mike agreed to this bizarre arrangement?
              I can only believe what I have read: in the early days Mike had genuine concerns that he would impetuously lose control of the diary by selling it to an outside influence and that he did not consider Robert Smith to be one such an 'outside influence'. It has always struck me as very strange indeed that the Barretts signed-away the jewel (after all, they already had plausible deniability due to the Tony D provenance so they weren't any less liable to criminal prosecution by signing-away the diary) but Smith must have put forward a highly-compelling case for Mike to overrule Anne's concerns and go ahead and sign it away and persuade Anne to do the same.

              Does the above comment indicate that you simply dismiss Barrett as a complete moron, and thus there is no meaning to be gleaned from Barrett transferring the diary to Smith for a one-pound note beyond ignorance?
              I can only think (because I wasn't there and clearly don't know) that Mike was genuinely impetuous and knew it and often succumbed to it. I don't think he was 'a complete moron' though some of his actions became increasingly childlike - for example, promising to provide evidence of the hoax to Alan Gray and to the C&D Club but never delivering on his own hype. Perhaps Robert Smith represented an avuncular safety net for Mike and that he therefore was willing to trust him even when - deep down - he knew he didn't know him well enough to form that view?

              Even though Mike's own wife was apparently angry about the proposed deal, and that Mike was already out at least 50 pounds due to his purchase of the maroon diary and his payment (cough, cough) to Eddie Lyons?
              The household was out by at least £25 but it was Anne's bank account which bore the brunt of the cost of the maroon diary which Mike really should have declined as soon as he knew it was not fit for purpose (and possibly indeed no longer had its original purpose) - signs of his reckless impetuosity? It is likely that child allowance or a weekly shopping 'pot' paid for the scrapbook (if that's how it happened).

              Overall, I get no sense from Mike's actions that he was properly money-conscious. He said he wrote the diary in order to pay the mortgage but I'm unaware that the Barretts were in that level of pecuniary difficulty. The house was sold on June 7, 1996, for just £20,000 (and then again on August 30, 2000 for £21,5000) so their mortgage must have been in the region of around £200 per month tops, I would have thought (before she was Mrs Iconoclast, Mrs Iconoclast's £25,000 mortgage in 1991-93 was less than £200 pm, I'm sure - a mere £150 tugs at my memory strings but I can't be certain). Anne appears to have earned around £700-£800 per month after tax and they would have received child allowance (possibly then called 'child benefit') for Caroline, and there is to my knowledge no evidence of defaulting on their commitments so I take this as another example of Mike saying what the Hell he fancied saying without any reference to reality, and very possibly from a place of complete financial ignorance. Before you say it, if Mike had 'financial ignorance', I guess this could be a reason for him thinking that he needed to write the diary in order to pay the mortgage.

              It's just a matter of stupidity plain and simple, by a former scrap metal dealer--a profession known for 'wheeling and dealing'?
              I don't think we have any record of Mike's contribution as a 'scrap-metal dealer' (was he an owner, or an employee?) nor indeed how long he served in that wheeler-dealing game. I imagine the sort of wheeler-dealing you are talking about consisted of haggling over price for the scrap? For all I know, that haggling was right there at the margins of profit - maybe £10 here or £50 there (that's plural, by the way, everyone) on a deal worth £100 or £200 but even then it would not explain away the sacrifice of such a diamond for the price of a handful of paste so I can't really answer your question.

              If, as we are told, this transaction was to 'protect' the diary (apparently from Mike selling it while drunk, though there is no indication that he planned to do this) couldn't the diary have been equally protected by Smith giving Barrett a reasonable price, such as a thousand pounds or five thousand pounds? Couldn't it have been protected by Smith taking the diary in some sort of trust, with the contract stipulating that Mike would retain ownership but couldn't sell the diary without the agreement of his wife or solicitor? (You might remind me of the contract, as I don't currently have my copy of Ripper Diary).
              I don't think the contract has ever been published, has it, RJ? I could be wrong - I read far too much to ever remember it all. There was definitely precedence. I love the story (Inside Story, p39) about Feldman going up to Liverpool in February 1993 (witnessed by Paul Begg and Martin Howells) with a suitcase full of £5,000 and offering it to Mike in exchange for a half share in the diary. Apparently Mike was immediately up for it and it was Feldman himself who delayed the deal because he had concerns it would not stand up to legal scrutiny. I can just imagine Begg and Howells' faces as Feldman unclicked the suitcase and showed the contents to a mesmerised Mike. (Knowing Feldman, he probably had an extra few layers of newspapers underneath to make the cash look uber-compelling - I suspect Feldy would have made a brilliant scrap-metal dealer!)

              Yes, the 'mechanics' of the transaction are discussed in some measure, but this doesn't really resolve the mystery does it? What did Mike and Anne discuss when they went off to squabble among themselves? Do you see nothing strange at all? It's just a matter of stupidity on Barrett's part and nothing more?
              If I had to vote, I'd vote for 'impetuosity', RJ.

              Ike





              Iconoclast
              Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
              Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                Ike -- sometime read up on the 'Spanish Prisoner' scam.
                Yes, I see it has been made into a film back in 1997. I also see that it appears every single day in my Bulk Items email folder, the latest of which arrived just the other day and consisted of this tantalising offer:

                my dear

                I am Mrs freya amelia, a widow suffering from a long illness. I have some funds I inherited from my late husband, the sum of (US$ 18.5 Million) my Doctor told me recently that I have serious sickness which is a cancer problem. What disturbs me most is my stroke sickness.
                Having known my condition, I decided to donate this fund to a good person that will utilize it the way I am going to instruct herein. I need a very honest and God fearing person who can claim this money and use it for Charity works, for orphanages, widows and also build schools for less privileges that will be named after my late husband if possible and to promote the word of God and the effort that the house of God is maintained. I do not want a situation where this money will be used in an ungodly manner.That's why I'm taking this decision. I'm not afraid of death so I know where I'm going. I accept this decision because I do not have any child who will inherit this money after I die. Please I want your sincere and urgent answer to know if you will be able to execute this project, and I will give you more information on how the fund will be transferred to your bank account.


                Mrs freya amelia


                Mrs Freya Amelia is getting nothing out of me. I've run out of money responding to these requests and these people never seem to get around to paying me the big bucks. What am I doing wrong?

                One bloke who is definitely not getting any money out of me is Adrian Nurse who clearly thinks the Spanish Prisoner process works better if written in Spanish:

                ¡Hola amigo!
                Encantado de conectarme contigo. Tengo una transacción crucial que discutir contigo. Soy abogado, representante legal personal de uno de mis Clientes Tardíos, él perdió la vida en esta pandemia actual aquí en mi país (Canadá). Me estoy comunicando con usted en este asunto por el hecho de que tiene el mismo apellido que mi cliente fallecido. Necesito su ayuda para repatriar el fondo valorado en diecisiete millones setecientos cincuenta mil dólares estadounidenses (USD $ 17,750,000.00) que dejó mi cliente fallecido. Quiero que se presente como beneficiario del fondo no reclamado ya que mi cliente fallecido no me presentó ningún familiar mientras estaba vivo.
                Comuníquese conmigo lo antes posible para obtener más detalles.
                Atentamente,
                Barr.Adrian Nurse.

                Anyway, if Adrian Nurse wants to send me this translated into recognisable Geordie, my bank manager and I will consider his offer from our secure hospital ward.

                Ike
                Iconoclast
                Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                Comment


                • It might be worth noting, that if the arrangement that Mike Barrett had with Robert Smith was as described, then perhaps Mike thought he was being smart. As always in Bongo fashion, his wisdom was misplaced.

                  Mike might have had suspicions the diary was either stolen or forged and therefore if he sold the book itself for a large sum, and later it was proved to be fraud or nicked, he would be liable to a fraud or fencing stolen goods charge. This does not mean he KNEW is was faked or stolen, but merely suspected it. Royalties from a subsequent book that discusses the existence of the scrapbook might have seem less 'criminal' to Mike.

                  Him claiming to fake the diary was the only place his impetuousness could go. He could not claim it was stolen as that would have put him in the frame for a criminal charge for handling stolen goods. If he painted himself as the master forger and he sold "his work" for just a pound - what is the worse that could happen? The moment Robert Smith filed any form of complaint against Mike for deception / fraud would undoubtedly be seen as some kind of admission to what Mike was saying was true. I suspect Robert Smith may not have believed Mike and was more concerned with ensuring the diary was not lost to history because of one man's desire to burn down Rome as his life falls apart around him.

                  I stand by the fact I believe his purchase of the 1891 diary was to see how easy it would be to obtain a similar document as a starting point by Mike. He was curious. Turns out not it was not so easy.

                  Honestly, who knows what went on in Mike Barrett's head? Every time he thought he could get himself one step ahead he shot himself in the foot.
                  Last edited by erobitha; 11-28-2021, 10:32 AM.
                  Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                  JayHartley.com

                  Comment


                  • Well, Ike, I asked and you responded, so thanks for that.

                    I can’t say I’m particularly surprised that you’re willing to accept the “Mike was a completely inexplicable moron” explanation, and leave it at that. A bloke owns the genuine confessions of Jack the Ripper and is so terrified that he might sell them for $50,00 in an impetuous moment—God! The Horror!—that he instead gives them away for $1. Nope, nothing to see here, folks! Perfectly normal. And Smith, with all his knowledge of contracts, etc., couldn’t possibly come up with any alternative arrangement, either.

                    Okie doke. Thanks for setting the record straight. It makes sense now.

                    Comment


                    • My own belief is that the reason Barrett didn’t sell the diary to anyone for a nice paycheck is because it would have put him at risk of going back to prison for fraud, because he damn well knew it was a hoax because he was involved in creating it. But if he *gives* it to Smith, who has no incentive to file a complaint for fraud, that risk evaporates. So you’re half right, Ike. Smith wasn’t “protecting” the diary, he was protecting an impetuous Mike from a possible fraud charge. This is the only answer that makes sense to me, because there were 101 other arrangements that could have protected the diary, but there was only one way to protect Barrett. If either participant thought the diary was genuine, this transaction would have been completely bizarre—that’s my opinion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                        Well, Ike, I asked and you responded, so thanks for that.

                        I can’t say I’m particularly surprised that you’re willing to accept the “Mike was a completely inexplicable moron” explanation, and leave it at that. A bloke owns the genuine confessions of Jack the Ripper and is so terrified that he might sell them for $50,00 in an impetuous moment—God! The Horror!—that he instead gives them away for $1. Nope, nothing to see here, folks! Perfectly normal. And Smith, with all his knowledge of contracts, etc., couldn’t possibly come up with any alternative arrangement, either.
                        I think you're being a little bit naughty there, RJ. I definitely didn't sign up to the Mike as Inexplicable Moron theory. I think I signed-up to the impetuousness theory?

                        I also rather liked ero b's idea that perhaps Mike saw an opportunity to make money out of the sale of the story of the scrapbook whilst simultaneously distancing himself from possible accusations of handling stolen goods.

                        Okie doke. Thanks for setting the record straight. It makes sense now.
                        And, RJ, if you ask people questions and you don't like the answers, instead of being all sarky, maybe you should wonder if your questions weren't very good in the first place? Our dear readers deserve more than that from you and I [sic].

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast
                        Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                        Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          My own belief is that the reason Barrett didn’t sell the diary to anyone for a nice paycheck is because it would have put him at risk of going back to prison for fraud, because he damn well knew it was a hoax because he was involved in creating it. But if he *gives* it to Smith, who has no incentive to file a complaint for fraud, that risk evaporates. So you’re half right, Ike. Smith wasn’t “protecting” the diary, he was protecting an impetuous Mike from a possible fraud charge. This is the only answer that makes sense to me, because there were 101 other arrangements that could have protected the diary, but there was only one way to protect Barrett. If either participant thought the diary was genuine, this transaction would have been completely bizarre—that’s my opinion.
                          Well, as mentioned in my previous post, I think ero b takes your same argument, replaces 'hoax' with 'stolen', and makes exactly the same point.

                          This is the only answer that makes sense to me
                          Do you at least concede that your 'only' answer now has perfectly acceptable company?

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast
                          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                          Comment



                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            Why do you think Mike agreed to this bizarre arrangement?

                            ...

                            If, as we are told, this transaction was to 'protect' the diary (apparently from Mike selling it while drunk, though there is no indication that he planned to do this) couldn't the diary have been equally protected by Smith giving Barrett a reasonable price, such as a thousand pounds or five thousand pounds? Couldn't it have been protected by Smith taking the diary in some sort of trust, with the contract stipulating that Mike would retain ownership but couldn't sell the diary without the agreement of his wife or solicitor? (You might remind me of the contract, as I don't currently have my copy of Ripper Diary)

                            ...

                            RP
                            Hi RJ,

                            In answer to your questions, you could just turn to pp10-11 of Robert Smith's original hardback (not the linked paperback of a similar name) in which he explains much of what you asked me. Interestingly, he states that Mike approached him to resolve the issue of a mysterious £15,000 offer for the diary (which Smith immediately knew came from Paul Feldman) as he [Mike] was more concerned for the success of the publication of Harrison's initial book than he was about the money. Smith writes:

                            Barrett had developed a drink problem, and £15,000 would have kept him in booze for years [Ike - possibly just months given how much he did actually spend on booze during his worst days]. To his eternal credit, he came to me to save the situation. Barrett cared deeply about the diary's authenticity, which I witnessed over the years from 1992 until his death in Southport , on 29th January 2016, apart from a long blip from mid-1994 to around 2000, fuelled by booze and personal grief. At all other times, he believed fervently that the diary was genuine and written by James Maybrick.

                            Barrett was apparently adamant he wanted the diary signed-over to Smith Gryphon in this way and it was actually Anne who suddenly showed interest in the future of the document by insisting they speak with their solicitor who actually advised them not to sign the Agreement. Mike had exploded at this and walked out. Anne and Robert had then found him where Anne knew he would be - Rigby's pub nearby - and she and Mike had had a private debate at the end of which Mike had persuaded Anne to sign the Agreement.

                            It is Robert Smith's belief (p11) that Anne had known by then that the Tony Devereux provenance was a convenient lie by Mike and that she had assumed that Mike had received it as stolen goods (or even nicked it himself). By March 1993, her beliefs had crystallised further into the realisation that the diary might very well be authentic and therefore an extremely valuable document, hence her unexpected interference in the Agreement process as she didn't want to relinquish ownership of such a jewel.

                            Hope this helps.

                            Ike

                            Iconoclast
                            Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
                            Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              Barrett had developed a drink problem, and £15,000 would have kept him in booze for years. To his eternal credit, he came to me to save the situation. Barrett cared deeply about the diary's authenticity, which I witnessed over the years from 1992 until his death in Southport , on 29th January 2016, apart from a long blip from mid-1994 to around 2000, fuelled by booze and personal grief. At all other times, he believed fervently that the diary was genuine and written by James Maybrick.
                              How on earth does this make any sense?

                              Barrett 'cared deeply about the diary's authenticity' (except when he was calling it a fake, dear readers), and thus he sold it to Smith for £14,999 less than what Feldman had offered him.

                              How would Smith owning the diary instead of Feldman have made it more 'authentic'? It would only have remained authentic if Smith owned it? Am I reading that correctly? Is he implying that Feldman would have subjected it to further tests, thus perhaps disproving its authenticity?

                              Or is he suggesting that Mike, scared that placing alcohol next to his lips might make those lips loose, didn't want to be tempted by having £15,000?

                              If Mike was this terrified of having money in his pocket, and was so dedicated to the diary, why didn't he similarly sign over all his royalty rights to Smith, leaving him with utterly zero, because surely his royalties on a best seller also would have brought in revenue, no?

                              As explanations go, Ike, I can only say that I wish Smith would explain his explanation!

                              Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              I hope this helps
                              Alas, it doesn't, but I do appreciate your efforts.
                              Last edited by rjpalmer; 11-28-2021, 04:34 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                                Do you at least concede that your 'only' answer now has perfectly acceptable company?

                                Ike
                                No, Ike, sorry, but I don't. You'll be annoyed to hear it all again, but there is no evidence that Eddie Lyons sold anything to Mike Barrett, nor that he had worked at Dodd's house on the day in question. The modernity of the diary makes this baseless claim a non-starter. The way I look at it, the idea that something was found at Battlecrease was planted in the minds of the electricians by a series of questions posed by early diary researchers, and, as Feldman tells us, one of these electricians (he evidently meant Eddie Lyons) tried to profit off this bit of spontaneous company folklore by selling his story to Feldman. At the very least, he wanted to be in the video. But Feldman correctly realized what he was up to, and dismissed it all as worthless. I don't believe most of Feldman's theories, but I do believe this one.

                                Further, Anne Graham wasn't going to place herself in the crosshairs by weaving her infamous 'in the family for years' story to save her soon-to-be ex-husband, who she was bitterly fighting with, nor some electrician she didn't know from Adam; on the other hand, one can readily imagine that she might well have dreamed up a story to save herself from Barrett's secret threats.

                                Do not forget that she kept Mike's sworn affidavit from Keith's probing eyes for over two full years.

                                I thank you for the conversation, Ike; it doesn't seem we have much further to discuss at this point.

                                Season Greetings.

                                RP

                                P.S. (later) Does Ero's suggestion even make sense from a legal standpoint, Ike? If Barrett had bought stolen goods off of Eddie, he would still have committed a crime and his royalties would have gone to Dodd. He could have been prosecuted and Dodd himself could have complained and demanded prosecution. This is a different situation than Barrett giving away a hoax that he himself had created in a 'Spanish Prisoner'/Gold Brick scheme.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 11-28-2021, 05:10 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X