One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

. But if you think I misrepresented Robert Smith in a public post, concerning his earliest observations about the ink, when he could have corrected me privately but didn't, that's your problem. Do your own dirty work and contact Robert yourself if you have any genuine interest in hearing it again from the horse's mouth.

I'm not suggesting that you are misrepresenting Robert Smith, Caz. Quite the contrary. I'm confident that Smith probably did tell you he noticed the bronzing very early on--I remember quite well you passing along this suggestive nugget some years ago.

Something about heat lamps caught my eye recently. If you aren't willing to confirm this, I can't imagine why, but I will seek elsewhere.

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Iconoclast]

What are you attempting to do, Ike?

You're confounding the books that Mike mentioned in his 'research notes' with what he may have used to create the document or alluded to privately.

If you want to merely list the books that Mike consulted for research, strike out Fido--he doesn't mention him anywhere.

You're making a muddle of it.

Absolutely not, RJ. I am collating all those books that Mike is supposed to have referenced (whether he claimed to have referenced them or others have claimed he had to have).

Thus, Fido is right in there because it has been said that it was the back cover containing the Punch cartoon that inspired Barrett to include the reference in his hoax (which he pompously claimed in his 05/01/1995 affidavit was by P.W. Wenn when it was not; just another example of Mike's reckless relationship with the truth).

If he didn't get his inspiration from Fido, where do you imagine he got it from? Wherever that is, I'll add it to my list.

Ike

[Yabs]

Hi Yabs,

The second murder in Manchester was the Christmas visit to Thomas.

Cheers,

Ike

My mistake if that’s the case, I’ll check later.
I had it down in memory as at least three visits.
but even two doesn’t fit with the paragraph quoted

[Iconoclast]

My mistake if that’s the case, I’ll check later.
I had it down in memory as at least three visits.
but even two doesn’t fit with the paragraph quoted

Just to save you the effort (all contiguous entries):

I am tired, very tired. I yearn for peace, but I know in my heart I will go on. I will be in Manchester within a few days. I believe I will feel a great deal better when I have repeated on my last performance. I wonder if I can improve on my fiendish deeds. Will wait and see, no doubt I will think of something. The day is drawing to a close, Lowry was in fine spirits. I am pleased. I regret, as with my Jewish friends I have shown my wrath. This coming Christmas I will make amends.

The bitch, the whore is not satisfied with one whore master, she now has eyes on another. I could not cut like my last, visions of her flooded back as I struck. I tried to quash all thoughts of love. I left her for dead, that I know. It did not amuse me. There was thrill. I have showered my fury on the bitch. I struck and struck. I do not know how I stopped. I have left her penniless, I have no regrets. The whore will suffer unlike she has ever suffered. May God have mercy on her for I shall not, so help me.

Thomas was in fine health. The children enjoyed Christmas. I did not.

And what MacDougall wrote was:

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.

It's not quite as damning as you may have first thought?

Cheers,

Ike

PS The visit wasn't with the children - that was just the next line referencing that the children enjoyed Christmas 1888 (presumably at Battlecrease with mum and dad).

[caz]

Paul
You are wrong I have based my opinion on the affadavit and have clearly stated that I believe it to be the real deal. Caz clearly disagrees with my opinion as do others who belive the diary to be the authentic, which she is quite entitled to do so, all I have done is to ask her to provide evidence from the book which will show that the affadavit is not the real deal. I have thrown down the gauntlet to all the others who belive it to be false but to date no one has been able to provide that information. I dont see what reading the book will achieve.

A simple answer would have been to refer to Anne Grahams radio interview where she denies being involved, but having listened to that interview I wonder why Anne Graham was not signed up as a storyteller for Jackanory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What do you mean by the 'real deal' Trev?

We never claimed in the book that any of Mike's affidavits were true or false, but as they were contradictory it would be clear to anyone who could read that at least one must have been false. Everyone has been free to look at the evidence and decide for themselves which of Mike's claims, if any, concerning the diary's origins can be fully supported by independent evidence.

Reading the book might at least give you some idea of what it did and did not contain, and what it set out to achieve - which was basically to inform the reader, using material from the documented records. All you have achieved by not doing so is to admit your ignorance on these matters, because you have evidently been misled into thinking it contains things it doesn't, and was never intended to contain.

If you had the simple answer, why do you keep asking me and others to provide it?

In case you hadn't noticed, I don't accept Anne's 'in the family' story as a credible explanation any more than you do. The difference between us is that this doesn't prove she or Mike had anything to do with creating the diary. A suspicion that it was nicked could have produced the exact same cover story.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Meanwhile, time has moved on. We now know things now that weren't available to you in the early 1990s. And some of them are quite damning to Barrett. If you want examples, I’m happy to supply them.

Well Paul may or may not ask to see what you've got but I damn well think you should show the rest of us, RJ!

Ike

[caz]

Hi Baron--

She gives an 'evil' diary that she has kept hidden since her teenage years to a man she barely knows so he can pass it on to her own iLLiteRAte husband so he can write a fictional story about it before later helping her ILiteRAte husband type up research notes about it when they instead decide to take it to a literary agency for publication.

What is there not to believe?

What is there not to believe?

Well for a start, that Anne ever claimed to have kept the diary hidden since her teenage years.

Why invent a lie that Anne never told, when you must have dozens of true lies up your wizard's sleeve?

If you are going to use her story against her [we've all done it, so don't hold back], you could at least present it as she did, and trash what she said, and not what you just made up. Her father supposedly gave her the diary, which she had seen back in the 60s, when he was downsizing some 20 years later. She said she then kept it hidden until 1991. I'm not defending her right to lie, but I will defend to the death her right not to be lied about. Two wrongs and all that.

As far as the evidence indicates, it was very much Mike's decision to take the diary to a literary agency, while Anne didn't appear to have much say in the matter. But you just can't miss any opportunity to add your spin, so you can present it as a fact that both Barretts made that decision together. Anyone might think you have no faith in the evidence to stand on its own, without injecting details that are not there on the record. Just admit whenever you are speculating and you wouldn't get such a hard time.

There is also no evidence that Anne knew Mike was phoning Doreen on 9th March 1992. She may only have found out later, if and when she read the letters addressed to Mike, which began arriving in the post - probably while she was out at work if delivered on weekdays.

[caz]

Anne may or may not have made an affidavit, Keith, but according to Paul Feldman she was sitting beside Mike when he signed those early ones. Is your information different?




page 222-223, Feldman

That is just risible, RJ. 'When Anne was with him' is so clearly just a reference by Feldy to before she left the marital home that you seem to have finally lost the plot completely!

This demonstrates to anyone who didn't already know that you are hard-wired to make 2 plus 2 equal 5, by hook or by crook.

I think even Mike would begin to feel sorry for Anne, if he could see you now, putting the boot in more firmly than he ever did.

[caz]

According to Caz Brown she was refusing her royalty checks.

Are you suggesting Caz is wrong, and Anne was actually out to make money off the diary, and her hesitancy to take her royalty checks was just an act?

No, Anne's reluctance to accept diary money in the early days was not according to 'Caz', but according to letters written to Anne by Doreen Montgomery. When Anne left Mike in January 1994 and became a single parent, Doreen was more easily able to persuade Anne into taking an equal share for her daughter's sake. How evil was that??

But you know this, because it's all been posted before, so you are bordering on calling me a liar, to imply that I wasn't taking the information directly from Doreen's correspondence.

How desperate must you be, RJ? Or do you no longer believe that your poxy little 1891 diary was all you needed to close the case against the Barretts?

[caz]

My apologies, Harry. I was wrong to do so. My point wasn't aimed at you, per se, but rather at Paul. He seemed to have been swayed by Caz Brown's suggestion that the age of the diary remains an open question until the penman is identified, though this was apparently a misunderstanding. It strikes me as a very high bar of evidence indeed, compared to the circumstantial evidence that is generally accepted when debating the occupations of the victims of the East End murderers. I just found it somewhat inconsistent and thought it would get the point across. I'll leave you out of it in the future.

The status of the diary remains an open question unless the penman can be identified, RJ. Forget its likely age for just a moment and concentrate on what is at stake if you are wrong about the Barretts having had a hand in its creation.

Until you have a penman, you have no established motive for its creation, beyond your entrenched belief that it was done to fleece the book buying public.

If the handwriting was ever matched with someone who, for example, was dead by March 1992, that wouldn't necessarily make it an 'old' hoax, but it would change most of your preconceptions about how and when Mike obtained the diary. Why does the truth not matter enough to you, to want to know who was or was not involved?

[rjpalmer]

That is just risible, RJ. 'When Anne was with him' is so clearly just a reference by Feldy to before she left the marital home that you seem to have finally lost the plot completely!

This demonstrates to anyone who didn't already know that you are hard-wired to make 2 plus 2 equal 5, by hook or by crook.

I think even Mike would begin to feel sorry for Anne, if he could see you now, putting the boot in more firmly than he ever did.

There are times when I am convinced that you must be posting from Broadmoor, Caz.

I was referring, of course--as was Feldman---to the early affidavits that Barrett signed claiming the Diary came from Devereux, etc.

The context makes this obvious: but in the future I will spell it out if you have difficulty keeping up.

What did you think, I was referring to Mike's confessional affidavit of January 1995 that Anne kept from Keith for two years? Are you that daft?


The point is, Anne sat right next to Mike and let him sign sworn affidavits to what she knew were lies (it couldn't have come from Devereux, dear, if as you say, it didn't show up until months after Devereux's death from Fat Eddie, now could it? Nor could it have come from Devereux if they penned it together. EITHER WAY, it was a lie)

And she said not a peep as she sat next to Mike as he (and I believe she) signed the publishing contract.

Nor did anyone hear a peep of protest when she typed up Mike's research notes for Crew.

Nor even a peep to Keith when Mike sent Anne the 5 January 1995 affidavit.

And let's talk about Anne and Feldman in a marathon meeting at the Moat house where she concocted a tale that you do not believe.

Yet, it was dirty Bongo Barrett that was twisting her arm the whole step of the way.

I don't believe you.

RP

[caz]

There are times when I am convinced that you must be posting from Broadmoor, Caz.

I was referring, of course--as was Feldman---to the early affidavits that Barrett signed claiming the Diary came from Devereux, etc.

The context makes this obvious: but in the future I will spell it out if you have difficulty keeping up.

What did you think, I was referring to Mike's confessional affidavit of January 1995 that Anne kept from Keith for two years? Are you that daft?


The point is, Anne sat right next to Mike and let him sign sworn affidavits to what she knew were lies (it couldn't have come from Devereux, dear, if as you say, it didn't show up until months after Devereux's death from Fat Eddie, now could it? Nor could it have come from Devereux if they penned it together. EITHER WAY, it was a lie)

And she said not a peep as she sat next to Mike as he (and I believe she) signed the publishing contract.

Nor did anyone hear a peep of protest when she typed up Mike's research notes for Crew.

Nor even a peep to Keith when Mike sent Anne the 5 January 1995 affidavit.

And let's talk about Anne and Feldman in a marathon meeting at the Moat house where she concocted a tale that you do not believe.

Yet, it was dirty Bongo Barrett that was twisting her arm the whole step of the way.

I don't believe you.

RP

What?? Where is your evidence that Anne was sitting right next to Mike as he made the April 1993 affidavit?

Feldy was obviously differentiating between the contracts and affidavits Mike was signing in the early days, before their separation in January 1994, and the affidavits he made in January 1995, after she had been gone for a year.

IIRC the publishing agreement was sent by Doreen to the Barretts for Anne to add her signature, which Mike later claimed to have forged. That was before Feldy knew anything about it. As for the affidavit from April 1993, I'm not sure how Feldy would have known if Anne went along for the ride, even if that is what he was claiming, which I don't accept for a second.

There is no evidence that Anne knew about that affidavit at the time, or when she may have got to hear about it. She was working, so Mike could have told her stuff on a 'need to know' basis.

We also have no evidence, apart from what Mike told his solicitor, that he delivered the January 5th 1995 affidavit to Anne. If he did, there is no evidence that she didn't throw it away unopened, as one of the many letters he was bombarding her with.

[Iconoclast]

There are times when I am convinced that you must be posting from Broadmoor, Caz.

I was referring, of course--as was Feldman---to the early affidavits that Barrett signed claiming the Diary came from Devereux, etc.

The context makes this obvious: but in the future I will spell it out if you have difficulty keeping up.

RJ,

The issue - and you know it - was that you were using the Feldman clipping to argue that Anne was physically with Mike when he signed his April 26, 1993, affidavit.

Caz pointed-out that you had misunderstood this passage and she corrected you by explaining that it meant that Anne was still co-habiting with Mike on April 26, 1993. You then attempted a dodge having realised the unintended ambiguity in Feldman's statement which you had blindly fallen for and that dodge was frankly beneath you.

Enough of the denials. Own it, mate.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

What?? Where is your evidence that Anne was sitting right next to Mike as he made the April 1993 affidavit?.

Well, Feldman said she was 'with' him, if you want to quibble and suggest she was sitting in the corner, I guess I can't prove otherwise. Couples usually sit next to each other when the affidavits and contracts are signed.

My evidence, such as it is, is Feldman. I am attempting to understand his reasoning.

Feldman wrote that Anne was with Mike when he signed "the contracts and affidavits". It would certainly have been a strange thing to write had she been up on the roof or in the parking lot.

And that's the word he uses: affidavits. They were still together in April 1993 when Barrett signed the affidavit in question. If he's not referring to the April 1993 affidavit, what affidavit is he referring to?

I'm assuming Feldman had reason to write this, so I turn the tables. Do you have evidence that Feldman was wrong and Anne wasn't there? Or that she was sitting in the parking lot and Feldman was writing nonsense?

It doesn't mean that much to me, I'll drop it if you like.

Meanwhile....

No, Anne's reluctance to accept diary money in the early days was not according to 'Caz', but according to letters written to Anne by Doreen Montgomery.

Let's not get in an uproar and force the management to intervene. I never suggested you didn't have a legitimate source. You're so eager to give me a 'right good bollocking' that you take offense at the slightest phrase.

The point I was making referred to Ero's claim that Anne was motivated to tell her tall tales in order to keep the diary 'afloat.' In my innocence and naivete, I actually thought you might have appreciated the question I posed to Ero, since you have made it a point in the past of saying she wasn't interested in the royalty checks.

If, as you say--or rather, as Doreen proved (?)--Anne did not want her royalty checks, then his 'afloat' claim would require explanation, no?

Yet the best that Ero could offer me is the entirely vague and non-committal: 'motives came in many ways.'

I was seeing what his answer might have been, but if you don't care to hear it, by all means, go back to bollocking me instead.

What also requires explanation--and I speak on behalf of Feldman who posed the same question--is why she would place the burden on her own shoulders if all she knew is that Mike brought it home one day. It was Barrett that confessed (to Brough) and he did not implicate Anne. The best strategy, seeing that she was refusing her checks, would be to simply keep her head down and deny that she had anything to do with Mike's alleged 'theft.'

She did nothing of the sort. Not by a long shot.

I think if I had faked that diary with Mike, and knew he could prove it one way or another, the last thing I'd have done was to claim "I seen it in the 60s".

Had I said this, you would have accused me of stretching the truth; I won't do the same.

The chronology is somewhat different, though I know what you meant.

To be technical, Anne's "I seen it in the 60s" statement came BEFORE Mike showed 'proof' that he had inside knowledge, by way of the affidavit we are discussing.

His original confession in the summer to Brough was still rather vague, and he was whisked away to rehab while his lawyer denied everything. No need for a ticket to Australia just yet.

Nonethless, she soon went on to concoct the "I seen it in the 60s" statement.

It was only afterwards--near the beginning of 1995---that she knew Barrett was willing to play hard-ball, when he showed her the 5 January affidavit.

Being concise on these points might be worthwhile, but I still think it is all a diversion and the veracity of Barrett's confession is all that matters; these forays into psychology just lead to shouting matches.

That's all from me for a good long spell unless Keith wishes to respond. It's getting ugly once again.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Until then, it's Back in The Saddle again, which has a nice circular symbolism to it.