One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Hi Caz,

I think it may be necessary at this point for Keith to address the message boards in order to clarify this claim of yours, since you seem to be putting a highly questionable statement in Keith's mouth that doesn't appear to stand-up to scrutiny. Is it possible that at this late remove you still cannot fully grasp that Barrett's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995, where he states that Anne was the pen person, was not in circulation on July 20th, 1995?

How could Keith have "reminded" Barrett of his claim that Anne wrote the diary, if Mike had only made this claim at a police station in November 1994, as well as in his sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995--a document that Keith tells us he did not see until the beginning of 1997?

Who "reminded" Barrett of this claim, and how did they know of it?

Your statement above also flies in the face of your own book, Ripper Diary (pg. 202), which tells us that it was Barrett himself who informed those present that Anne wrote the diary, rather than that Mike had been 'reminded' of anything.

Unless Keith can clarify, the comedy gold appears to be all your own.

Just seeking clarification,

RP

Well I think I can start the helping-out part of the usual correcting your errors and misunderstandings here, RJ.

As I recall it, it has been posted here before that the conversation went some way along the following lines:

Mike: Get me a bottle of ink and I'll show you how I wrote the diary. Oh and get me a suitable pen as well.

Keith (Before he wastes a lot of time over this): Because you wrote the diary, yes?

Mike: No, Anne wrote the diary.

I imagine that the actualité is far more exquisite, but even just my possibly misremembered paraphrase is sufficient to stop Observer laughing over my brilliant Santa Hoax Hoax Hoax post and start rippling his laughing jugs once more from an even greater source.

You're all very welcome.

Ike

[Observer]

I imagine that the actualité is far more exquisite, but even just my possibly misremembered paraphrase is sufficient to stop Observer laughing over my brilliant Santa Hoax Hoax Hoax post and start rippling his laughing jugs once more from an even greater source.

You're all very welcome.

Ike

Oh you are a one Earl Edam. By the way it's not just the Santa hoax that has me in stiches, every time I tune in to the Maybrick threads I can't help myself, comedic genius.

By the way, I do hope you planned ahead(pun intended) and made sure that you had a good supply of tin foil, (how many hats do you get out of one roll by the way) with all those turkey dinners the old tin foil is in great danger of being sold out at this time of year.

Nanu Nanu.

[rjpalmer]

Well I think I can start the helping-out part of the usual correcting your errors and misunderstandings here, RJ.

Really Ike, do you have no self-respect?

How in the living blazes is any of this my error or misunderstanding?

I am fully aware of what Mike said.

It was Caz who wrote that Mike had been "reminded that his claim was that Anne wrote it."

As your excerpt shows, this is incorrect. Mike was the one who informed the assembled group.

And this is precisely what I allude to as having been reported on pg. 202 of Ripper Diary--as you well know.

So please don't try and shift Caz's misunderstandings and errors onto me, thank you very much.

The point of my post was not to embarrass Caz Brown, but to hit home the fact that even at this late remove it has not sunk into the consciousness of the Diary's chief defenders that Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit, despite claims to the contrary, had not been widely circulated in 1995. Barely anyone knew of it.

Which flies in the face that it was a false confession to 'derail' the diary project. Who writes a false confession and then doesn't broadcast it? Indeed, Barrett's first public appearance after signing this secret confession, was to deny that he was the author of the diary as told to Harold Brough in July 1994 (this was on Bob Azurdia's radio show in September 1995) which also flies in the face of the narrative we have been fed.

Lord Orsam convincingly argues that Barrett was under the false impression that a 70,000-pound windfall was about to land in his pocket if he retracted his public confession (ie. the one made to Brough in July 1994) and climbed once again onto the back of the golden goose. When the New Line Cinema deal fell through, once they realized the diary was a hoax, Barrett was back to confessing.

Really Ike, this is very low indeed.

[Iconoclast]

Oh you are a one Earl Edam. By the way it's not just the Santa hoax that has me in stiches, every time I tune in to the Maybrick threads I can't help myself, comedic genius.

By the way, I do hope you planned ahead(pun intended) and made sure that you had a good supply of tin foil, (how many hats do you get out of one roll by the way) with all those turkey dinners the old tin foil is in great danger of being sold out at this time of year.

Nanu Nanu.

You see, Observer, you're very nearly funny yourself!

Well done, keep it up, and you know who to turn to for inspiration if the old comedic well ever runs dry ...

[Observer]

Well done, keep it up, and you know who to turn to for inspiration if the old comedic well ever runs dry ...

Nurse Wretched?

[Iconoclast]

Really Ike, do you have no self-respect?

How in the living blazes is any of this my error or misunderstanding?

I am fully aware of what Mike said.

It was Caz who wrote that Mike had been "reminded that his claim was that Anne wrote it."

As your excerpt shows, this is incorrect. Mike was the one who informed the assembled group.

And this is precisely what I allude to as having been reported on pg. 202 of Ripper Diary--as you well know.

So please don't try and shift Caz's misunderstandings and errors onto me, thank you very much.

The point of my post was not to embarrass Caz Brown, but to hit home the fact that even at this late remove it has not sunk into the consciousness of the Diary's chief defenders that Mike Barrett's sworn affidavit, despite claims to the contrary, had not been widely circulated in 1995. Barely anyone knew of it.

Which flies in the face that it was a false confession to 'derail' the diary project. Who writes a false confession and then doesn't broadcast it? Indeed, Barrett's first public appearance after signing this secret confession, was to deny that he was the author of the diary as told to Harold Brough in July 1994 (this was on Bob Azurdia's radio show in September 1995) which also flies in the face of the narrative we have been fed.

Lord Orsam convincingly argues that Barrett was under the false impression that a 70,000-pound windfall was about to land in his pocket if he retracted his public confession (ie. the one made to Brough in July 1994) and climbed once again onto the back of the golden goose. When the New Line Cinema deal fell through, once they realized the diary was a hoax, Barrett was back to confessing.

Really Ike, this is very low indeed.

Goodness, RJ, I'm quite breathless.

I read your post and focused-in on what I thought was your central point - namely that claims had been made that Mike had been reminded by someone that he had claimed that Anne had written the diary and I hadn't deduced from your same post that you were aware that Mike had not been reminded of anything but had offered the information of his own volition. No more radical than that. If I realised you were arguing the toss about Caz saying Mike had been reminded of this, I wouldn't have bothered. Were you actually posting to say that she was incorrect to say that Mike had been 'reminded'? Honestly, RJ, what does it matter - does it materially change the point she was making?

Anyway, I thus offered my wee vignette which was purely intended to note that it was my understanding that it was Mike who had made the claim regarding Anne and - of course - had thereby created one of Ripperology's greatest ever comedy moments. If this was not as relevant as I had initially thought, you might have simply moved on from it rather than make so marked a protestation. So the issue was that Caz had said Keith had said, et cetera. If I'd fully grasped that that was your key driver - to illustrate that she had used a word in error - I'd have just left it and gone back to my long list of unofficial Newcastle United websites. Honestly, I suspect that Caz would not have given a **** about any possible embarrassment even had you in fact intended some. I suspect she's made of far sterner stuff than that.

You appear to be so incredibly vexed, though, by my comments that you were in error and full of festive misunderstanding which were all offered in tongue and cheek sandwiches, I assure you. Is it possible that you may have been a tad over-sensitive there, old boy? Absolutely no insult was intended and I'm extremely disappointed in you that you felt one was hurled. Indeed, are you 100% sure that you have never once used similar language to me (without the certainty of being justified in its use)?

I appreciate that they are not your comments, but - for perspective - have you never read Lord Orsam's endless tirade of attempted abuse against anyone who disagrees with his drainpiped discourses? Have you never noticed how semi-abusive he is to those he clearly considers so beneath him? And have I - amongst the many - ever once complained about his Major Misunderstanding jibes? Nope, I've smiled and got on with the God-on-my-side resistance to his evil empire of tightly-funnelled digital claims because - unlike football - Ripperology is simply not a matter of life and death.

Your Old Mucker,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Nurse Wretched?

I've been limbering-up for many years, lifting increasingly heavier kitchen utensils. I'm currently flexing with a kettle and a heavy saucepan. Eventually I will have the strength to escape from this place ...

[Observer]

I've been limbering-up for many years, lifting increasingly heavier kitchen utensils. I'm currently flexing with a kettle and a heavy saucepan. Eventually I will have the strength to escape from this place ...

Try the wooden spoon, interspersed with the fondue set

[rjpalmer]

I can't imagine why I would be 'vexed,' Ike -- I pointed out an apparent contradiction between Caz's current account and the one she gave in Ripper Diary and asked for clarification--and perhaps Keith still has a source for this new revelation--and you responded by repeating the exact point I just made, yet disingenuously implied I was making one of my 'usual' errors. Do give it a rest, Old Mucker. You were hardly being tongue-in-cheek.

Judging by the current poll, you have bigger problems than me. Fully 73.53% of the respondents think the diary is a modern fake and 88.24% of the respondents are willing to entertain the notion. Of those who think the diary is a modern fake, 88% of them believe at least one of the Barretts was behind it, despite a 25+ year campaign on these forums to ridicule that belief.

Happy Christmas, Ike, the War of Over; I can hear John and Yoko singing. I also hear the sound of a tolling bell, and I don't think it's a sleighbell.

Season's greetings.

[Iconoclast]

I can't imagine why I would be 'vexed,' Ike -- I pointed out an apparent contradiction between Caz's current account and the one she gave in Ripper Diary and asked for clarification--and perhaps Keith still has a source for this new revelation--and you responded by repeating the exact point I just made, yet disingenuously implied I was making one of my 'usual' errors. Do give it a rest, Old Mucker. You were hardly being tongue-in-cheek.

Judging by the current poll, you have bigger problems than me. Fully 73.53% of the respondents think the diary is a modern fake and 88.24% of the respondents are willing to entertain the notion. Of those who think the diary is a modern fake, 88% of them believe at least one of the Barretts was behind it, despite a 25+ year campaign on these forums to ridicule that belief.

Happy Christmas, Ike, the War of Over; I can hear John and Yoko singing. I also hear the sound of a tolling bell, and I don't think it's a sleighbell.

Season's greetings.

Ah yes, RJ, but how many hearts have throbbed within these walls as the tolling of the neighbouring bell announced to them how fast the sands of their life were ebbing and yet those hearts beat on for many many years thereafter?

I've never worried - in the whole of my life - about being the lone voice in anyone's wilderness. When I was a kid of about ten, my music teacher once went 'round every desk in the class asking if any kid sitting there did not understand what he had just told us about a piece of music. Every kid at every table kept their hand down. When he eventually got to my table and asked the question, I put my hand up straight away (I had no idea what the idiot had been telling us and I certainly wasn't scared of the consequences of telling him) at which he immediately went right back to the first desk and asked the question again. Every hand - without exception - went up at every desk.

True story, sort of like Sir Walter Scott's brilliant Heart of Midlothian from which I quoted above.

Ike

[Observer]

Shouldn't that be

"O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!"

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike -- This will be very boring to those not directly involved in this discussion, and I humbly suggest that we box no more until after Boxing Day, but let me just point out why this small quibble is of some importance.

In Caz's post to Kattrup, #7995, she challenged his claim that Mike had 'consistently' stated that Anne had written the diary.

As proof of this, she tells us that Mike literally had to be 'reminded' of his claim that Anne was the pen person at the 1995 meeting. But, as you now admit, this appears to be utterly wrong. It was Mike himself who once again stated that Anne was the penman. No one reminded him of this fact, unless Keith can supply new information.

Indeed, in looking over Orsam's well documented chronology, it appears that Kattrup was absolutely correct. Mike made statements about Anne 'writing the diary' in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 1999. Which certainly appears to be consistent.

See you on the other side.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I do admire your indefatigability.

Have a safe, warm Christmas and a great 2022.

Simon, Susan and Bert.

[rjpalmer]

Happy Christmas, Simon, to you and yours.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike -- This will be very boring to those not directly involved in this discussion, and I humbly suggest that we box no more until after Boxing Day, but let me just point out why this small quibble is of some importance.

In Caz's post to Kattrup, #7995, she challenged his claim that Mike had 'consistently' stated that Anne had written the diary.

As proof of this, she tells us that Mike literally had to be 'reminded' of his claim that Anne was the pen person at the 1995 meeting. But, as you now admit, this appears to be utterly wrong. It was Mike himself who once again stated that Anne was the penman. No one reminded him of this fact, unless Keith can supply new information.

Indeed, in looking over Orsam's well documented chronology, it appears that Kattrup was absolutely correct. Mike made statements about Anne 'writing the diary' in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 1999. Which certainly appears to be consistent.

See you on the other side.

It's just too late in the year to argue the toss here, and my head's a little too sensitive after an evening with our next-door neighbours The Palmers (honestly, you just couldn't make this stuff up) whose introduction by Mrs Iconoclast and me to the remarkable Jack Daniels Tennessee Fire is much the cause of this morning's partial distress. I don't think Mr Palmer is going to be getting-up very early this fine pre-Commercialmas morning, much like - it seems - our collectively-possessed Mr Palmer from over the pond (unless, of course, you are one of my dear readers who is already over it, how apt).

And - by collectively-possessed - I should stress that that is a statement of fraternal 'ownership' not a comment on the mental faculties of our most honourable schoolmaster - but, look, he has asked the class to admit who had failed to understand what he was going on about and I have to hold my hands up by holding my hand up, for it was at least I who had failed to follow the deeper argument of the chronologist Mr Kattnip and was far too quick to seize the opportunity to reflect on one of my very favourite sketches from the famous Barrett & Gray comedy series which has now sadly long-since come to an end (this sketch only featured Barrett, of course, but that's okay 'cos we all, for example, know that Paul McCartney wrote the vast majority of the dual-attributed Beathills classics - bloody Scousers at every turn! - certainly the best ones).

Re-runs are available, of course, and that wee gem never fails to make me laugh. I think it's not my favourite, though. I think my favourite is the one (which I have posted about a few times before so apologies for repeating myself) where Alan Gray, Private Detective (Unpaid) bumps into Michael Barrett, erstwhile author (Unsober) in a Liverpool street and their hilarious exchanges (featuring cameos from Ken Dodd and the Diddymen) ends with the spectacular dénouement:

Barrett: Ha ha ha, 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.

I swear that that one sweetens even the downest of days which is why I never have them.

RJ, you clearly were vexed, and it was with tongue-in-cheek when I referred to your erring and your misunderstanding. I now realise that you never were when referring to mine and that what I imagined was passing for banter were cruel non-Covid jabs to the heart of your sensitive soul which jabs fell short of mine for which I ever so 'umbly apologise (the 'other' Mr Palmer is a Cockney so this is wonderfully apposite).

Iconoclast: Hoax hoax hoax, I give my name to History, what Jack can do to a gentle man born.
Palmer: Don't post me anymore or contact me. I am going now before I kick the **** out of you.

The question is, which Mr Palmer said it?

I shall be wishing my dear readers a most merry of commercialmases at a time when I genuinely believe I won't then post again before it so you'll all just have to wait until tomorrow for that festive light-entertainment.

Ike
The Honourable Schoolboy