One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

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.

Here's a little junior level comprehension lesson I prepared to explain for RJ's benefit why the word 'reminded' is entirely appropriate for the circumstances described, regardless of anyone else's awareness, prior to 20th July 1995, that Mike had claimed the handwriting in the diary was Anne's:

Caz bumps into RJ in a convenience store [yes, bear with me on this one], picking up his copy of Pedants’ Chronicle and taking it over to the till.

Caz, joining him at the till: "Ah, thanks very much, RJ. You've just reminded me to pick up the latest Viz for Mister Brown."

RJ: "Well that's where you are utterly wrong, Caz. How could I have 'reminded' you of something while being entirely unaware of it myself?"

Spotty Mr Logic lookalike operating the till: "Er, excuse me for interrupting you both, but a complete stranger 'reminded' me only this morning that I need to pick up a sliced loaf at the end of my shift."

RJ: "Then you're just as bad as Caz. How could a stranger possibly have known that?

Mr Logic: "He didn't need to know. He merely happened to mention on social media that he had toast for breakfast, and I was thus 'reminded' by his riveting bit of news - as indeed I would have been just now, had you told Caz to 'use your loaf'."

[caz]

I would remind you that blackmail and 'leverage'--if I am correct in my assumption about the 'whys' of Mike's affidavit--is generally ineffective if what the blackmailer is saying is false...

...I am confident you are familiar with the salient facts of the Lambeth Poisonings case, and that the victims of Cream's intended extortion invariably and immediately contacted the police, obviously having no fear of exposure due to the simple fact that they knew Cream's accusations were poppycock.

It does not bother you in the least that Anne Graham never similarly alerted you--nor the police-- to this supposedly false threat coming from Barrett in January 1995? Why is that?

I know this was addressed to Keith, but it does not bother me in the least that Anne never alerted the police or anyone else to Mike's affidavit of January 5th 1995.

It is clear from the scolding letter from Mike's solicitor that Anne Graham had received the affidavit in early January 1995...

No, it is not clear at all. If Anne received and read it, but 'alerted' nobody about the fact, she didn't alert Mike's solicitor, did she? So it must have been Mike who informed him what he'd done and earned himself the scolding. That does not tell us if Mike ever actually went to Anne's home to deliver a copy, and it certainly doesn't tell us if she opened and read it, instead of chucking it in the bin with all the other unsolicited and unwelcome missives she was getting from him.

...and it is also clear that she alluded to blackmail in a letter penned to Barrett around this same time. Despite Caz Brown's attempt to dismiss Barrett's blackmail attempt as ludicrous, her own feelings are utterly irrelevant, and she obviously misses the point. Thomas Neill Cream's extortion attempts were similarly ludicrous but that didn't prevent him from making them! It is Anne Graham herself that refers to blackmail--not Caz Brown.

That doesn't even make sense as an argument. You observed that while Cream's accusations were 'poppycock' and his extortion attempts 'ludicrous', that didn't prevent him from making them. So why could Mike Barrett's accusations not similarly have been 'poppycock' and 'ludicrous'? I have still not heard a reasonable explanation for him volunteering a true confession in the circumstances. How would that have helped him see his wife and child again? What do you imagine was the nature of the blackmail Anne alluded to? Was Mike demanding money from her with menaces? Or was it the emotional blackmail she was being subjected to, in letter after letter from him, threatening to tell the world they had faked the diary together unless she agreed to talk to him and let him see Caroline? Like Cream's victims, Anne would have had 'no fear of exposure' if the simple fact was that she knew Mike was talking out of his bottom. Attempted extortion would send most intended victims to the police, but this would have been a case of a man sending empty written threats to the wife who had left him. Why would she have alerted the police to what would essentially have been a private domestic matter, unless the letters contained actual threats, for example of physical violence?

In the long run, Mike achieved nothing because Anne was not intimidated by any of his claims regarding the diary, and there was nothing she could do if he did tell the whole world, because there would always be people only too ready and willing to believe him.

[caz]

Thanks, Ike, but at the risk of being blunt, Keith is just rather mechanically repeating facts that we have already established and for which there is no disagreement. We know the date of the meeting and we know that Barrett didn't produce his affidavit at that meeting and we know that Keith wasn't aware of the affidavit until 1997.

Did Keith also acknowledge in his email that Barrett didn't need to be 'reminded' at this meeting that he had previously accused his wife of writing the diary?

Either way, I think that's enough. I am going to move forward under the assumption that Caz left a false impression, perhaps inadvertently, and that Barrett consistently reported that his wife 'wrote' the diary over a period of many years and never needed to be 'reminded' of this claim.

All the best,

RP

Surreal.

Mike asked for writing materials to demonstrate how he had written the diary. Anne wasn't present at any time during this day-long recorded session of back and forth and back again.

Mike then said it was in Anne's handwriting.

Why on earth does it matter what actually 'reminded' him of this in between those two contradictory positions?

All you needed to know was that he was reminded, after asking for writing materials, that he wasn't claiming it was his handwriting, but Anne's.

And that's what you were told.

You have no funny bones if you can't see the comedy.

[rjpalmer]

How would that have helped him see his wife and child again? What do you imagine was the nature of the blackmail Anne alluded to? Was Mike demanding money from her with menaces? Or was it the emotional blackmail she was being subjected to, in letter after letter from him, threatening to tell the world they had faked the diary together unless she agreed to talk to him and let him see Caroline?

I'll let you answer your own question, Caz, from your post dated 23-9-2020

When Mike was desperate to talk to Anne and to see his daughter, and Anne was having none of it, do you think the diary would have been uppermost in her mind? Could Mike not have been using it as a bargaining tool, to try and get what he wanted more than anything else in the world? To have his family back and get some peace of mind?

As Lord Orsam notes in 'Lord Orsam Talks, No. 12" you used the exact wording Lord O used --'bargaining tool'-- when he suggested that Mike's private affidavit was being used in a futile effort to blackmail Anne into seeing him.

Now, a year-and-a-half later, you act as if your own suggestion is ridiculous. Simply substitute 'diary' for 'affidavit,' for it all amounts to the same thing.

As for Dr. Cream, do you really think the people he attempted to blackmail would have rushed to the police if they REALLY HAD murdered Ellen Donworth, etc? The point is, knowing that the threats were bogus, they alerted those who could help them.

Anne? Not so much. At least not where KS was concerned.

Do I have to explain to you how blackmail works?

Have a happy and healthy New Year.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Please note that I used the word 'private' in describing Barrett's 5 Jan 1995 affidavit. This was deliberate.

Both Shirley Harrison and the authors of Ripper Diary have left us with the impression that the affidavit was 'soon' made public, and/or 'widely' distributed.

But was it? What evidence is there for this? Keith Skinner, perhaps the diary's most tireless researcher at the time, states he didn't see it until Jan 1997. How can it have been 'soon' distributed, yet he was unaware of it for two years?

If KS wants to explore the 'motive' for Mike making this affidavit, shouldn't he first determine whether it was for private or public consumption?

[caz]

Can't see your problem here, RJ.

Whether or not Mike's claims were true, he almost certainly was attempting to use the diary as some kind of bargaining tool to get Anne to talk to him.

Perhaps he hoped she would be so worried about what other people think, and that they might actually believe a claim that they had faked the diary together, that she would agree to talk to him just to try and talk him out of making such a claim public.

Too simple for you?

[caz]

Thanks for the quick response, Keith. I must soon be heading out for a few days, so I'll be brief.

No, that's not my suggestion; for all I know Robert Smith really did meet Eddie Lyons in 1993. I just wondered if you have considered the possibility that it wasn't Eddie, since I find it rather strange that Eddie would deny going to the Saddle, unless he simply doesn't remember an insignificant event in his life?

I mean, what would be the point of lying about it? The person who showed up at that meeting denied finding the diary, didn't he? And Eddie denies it now and has done so in four different interviews, hasn't he? So what could Eddie Lyons possibly hope to gain from lying about a meeting where he denied what he is still denying? I don't think most people would find that a bizarre thing to wonder about.

If it wasn't a scam by Barrett--and I am merely bouncing around an idea--couldn't there be some other innocent explanation? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that Mr. Smith was the only fish-out-water in a working-class pub in Liverpool on a Saturday night, so I wouldn't necessarily dismiss out of hand that one or two Scousers might be willing to play a trick on a London publisher who thinks he has the Diary of Jack the Ripper. I admit I could be wrong, but Feldman himself seems to have concluded that the whole electrician story was some attempt at a scam, and, though I think Paul Feldman was a poor historian, I think his business instinct were very likely to have been sound.

For all I know, Lyons simply doesn't recall an insignificant meeting that took place 28 years ago and this is indeed the same Eddie Lyons.

All the best.

Happy New Year to one and all.

I would be inclined to turn the argument round and ask RJ why he thinks Mike Barrett went ahead with Robert Smith's request to arrange a meeting with Eddie Lyons.

I think the least said the better about RJ's speculation that it wasn't Eddie who spoke to Robert in the Saddle that night, but someone Mike persuaded to stand in for him. But for the purpose of this post, it doesn't really matter who was playing Eddie: himself or A.N.Other [perhaps the same sucker who agreed to pen the diary, if the handwriting wasn't Anne's].

Why was Mike prepared to admit to Robert, merely by agreeing to arrange the meeting, that he knew who Eddie Lyons was; knew how to contact Eddie Lyons; knew Eddie Lyons used the Saddle and lived close by; knew Eddie Lyons was an electrician who had worked in Battlecrease; knew he could persuade Eddie Lyons to say his piece in the pub to a complete stranger; and knew Eddie Lyons wouldn't come out with anything that would compromise his own insistence that he got the diary in 1991 from his mate Tony?

What was the advantage to Mike, to put on this little charade for Robert's benefit, when he could simply have denied knowing any of the electricians, or wanting anything to do with them, following their false rumours implying Paul Dodd was the diary's rightful owner?

As for Feldman's business instincts being sound, while Smith was this naive fish out of water, who could have had the wool pulled over his eyes by a pair of lying Scousers, I would just remind RJ that it was Feldman who ruined himself financially over the diary, while Smith wasn't fooled for a second by the cover story he was being fed in the Saddle. The claim to have found a book while working in Paul Dodd's house, but not stealing it, or passing it on to anyone else, but throwing it into a skip, did not come across as credible and would have been entirely unnecessary - like the skip itself - if the rumours were totally false and did not need to be quashed.

Feldman was so convinced that Mike was telling the truth about getting the diary from Tony in 1991, that it was game over for him when he learned that none of the electricians associated with the rumours had actually set foot in Battlecrease before March 1992. He concluded that they were all lying while Mike, and by association Anne, knew the simple truth - that the diary was safely in Goldie Street before Tony died.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Have I listened to it? Of course.

Mike told you the source of this reasoning: Anna Koren.

KS: Let’s go to the wicked witch. She is the person.
MB: Let’s go to the proof, let’s go to the heart of the story.
KS That’s her. Without any redemption. The woman without any redemption, the diary is in her handwriting, is it?
MB: Oh the way - it’s in her handwriting - Anna Koren-
KS Bring her in later.
MB No, I want to bring her in now. Anna Koren... The person who wrote this diary, according to Anna Koren, the world’s [greatest] handwriting expert and what have you, has got a multiple, and I mean multiple, because I’m quoting,-
KS A multiple personality.
MB Thank you.
KS That’s Anne?
MB: That’s Anne.

* * *
[Later--an unidentified member of the audience returns to the subject; I'll call the audience member XY]

XY: Just a small point. You’ve said that your wife actually -
MB: Ex-wife.
XY: Ex-wife, beg your pardon, actually wrote the diary and because she has psychological problems, this came through on the actual writing, this fed through into the writing?
MB: No, I didn’t say that. Anna Koren said that.
XY: Oh I beg your pardon. Well it was said, it was said, it was said by somebody.
MB: It wasn’t said by me.
XY: No.

It seems to be clear enough, Keith. There seems to be a disconnect between you and Barrett.

Mike is denying that this is his opinion--it was Anna Koren's opinion--and you don't actually present any evidence that the diary isn't in Anne Graham's handwriting, only your opinion that the sample she gave you doesn't resemble the diarist's handwriting. Others note that the sample she supplied to you looks different from the samples of Anne's handwriting obtained by David B.

I don't think this exchange has any bearing on the identity of the actual pen person, whomever it may be. It doesn't interest me.

The rest of the argument I will leave between you and David Barrat.

I am late now and must run.

RP

P.S. To very quickly clarify why this exchange doesn't interest me, Keith. I think you were quite right to tell Mike Barrett not to bring Anna Koren into the conversation--he should have discussed the alleged differences in AG's handwriting without resorting to psychology. Unfortunately, he didn't do so, and we have no opportunity to quiz Barrett further on this point. It would have been interesting for Barrett to have given a straight answer. Unfortunately, you also challenged Mike about the 'wicked witch,' and as this was a sore point with Barrett, instead of giving a coherent response, he used the opportunity to use Ann Koren's analysis to publicly ridicule his ex-wife and imply she was crazy. Thus, no good whatsoever came from this exchange, and it is still a bitter and needless controversy, but ultimately it tells us nothing whatsoever about the identity of the penman or penwoman. I think it is a waste of time.

Mike's publicly made observations about Anna Koren in April 1999 are not all he had to say on the matter, as one of his many handwritten letters shows. The following verbatim extract is from a letter he wrote to Doreen Montgomery three years earlier in July 1996:

'But you got to Remeber Anne is a pathology lier Anner Koren proved that in the handwriting. 97 Drifrent personlitys is what she said.'

It really does pay to be reminded [that dirty word again] that there is much more material in existence than what is readily available on this site, and what Mike may have said on one occasion has to be weighed with what he has said or written on others.

I'll leave others to interpret Mike's words to Doreen.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

This should help, Kattrup.

Here's the appropriate section from page 202 of Inside Story. If you can find any indication that Feldman "reminding Mike" of anything, you have better eyesight than I do. Note the first section in bold--I'll come back to it in a moment.


"Initially Barrett announces to Feldman, Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, who are also present, that he has come to prove how he forged the Diary. Furthermore, there is an envelope in Richard Bark-Jones's office, which can only be opened on Barrett's instructions, which will prove this. He has bought a bottle of the same Diamine ink he used and now he needs a nib to show how he wrote the Diary. He solemnly swears on a Bible that he and Anne forged the Diary together and that Anne told him she has both Paul Feldman and Keith Skinner 'by the balls'. Paul Feldman then agrees to go and get a nib and blotting paper for Barrett to prove how he wrote the Diary. Barrett says Anne's story is wrong; she wrote the Diary. Why then, Feldman enquires, does Barrett want a pen, if he did not write the Diary. Barrett evades the question, saying he created the Diary on the word processor and Anne wrote it. The demonstration is called off."

Please note that Feldman's account, given in The Final Chapter, page 218, is materially different that the summarization we are given by Keith and Caz.

Feldman writes: Mike came to his office "to prove that he and Anne forged the diary together" and that "I asked him to re-create the handwriting of the diary".

Keith and Caz's summary states that Mike 'has come to prove how he forged the Diary." They say nothing about Anne, and they imply that it was Barrett's suggestion to conduct this bizarre, pointless exercise, whereas Feldman states that he was the one who asked.



Ground zero:

PHF: Which one actually wrote it? Whose handwriting is it - yours or Anne's?

MB: Anne's.

PHF: Oh, it's Anne's writing? Why do you want a fountain pen here?


Despite being told that Mike and Anne had forged the diary together (and, according to Keith's new revelation, despite being told by Mike in a series of phone calls that Anne was the penman) Feldman makes the bizarre suggestion that Barrett show how he wrote it. Mike plays along momentarily, and then Feldman pops the question: Whose handwriting is it? Yours or Anne's?

Mike responds: Anne's.

To me, Feldman's question is a question. Perhaps a confused question. Perhaps a question designed to trick Barrett. If so, it didn't work.

If I understand Keith, Feldman's question was not a question--it was a reminder.

We clearly disagree in how this event should be interpreted, but I think it is time to move on.

If any good has come out of this argument, it is Keith's revelation that Mike continued to state Anne was the penman in a series of unrecorded phone calls to Feldman. Along with Mike's Nov 1993 statement at the police station, and his uncirculated affidavit of 5 January 1995, and Mike's confirmation of this allegation during the above meeting, it shows that Mike held to this version of events for many years, and indeed repeated it many times between 1993-1999.

That's the end of the matter as far as I am concerned, and I don't intend to discuss it further.

May I suggest that the reason why RJ disagrees with how 'this event' should be interpreted is that he needs to be reminded that he has read only a tiny snippet from the lengthy session recorded on that date, 20th July 1995, and therefore has no real idea of the context, or how many twists and turns there were in Mike's claims about the diary's origins.

I defy anyone who was present in Baker Street that day to have predicted what Mike was planning to claim about the diary when he first arrived; what he was going to come out with next, at various moments during the session; or whether he would have decided by the end of it which version of the story he was going to settle on.

And when I say 'anyone', I include Mike himself, who - whichever way RJ cuts it - was indeed 'reminded' that asking for writing materials was beyond pointless if he wanted to claim it was Anne's handwriting.

If RJ was seriously arguing that a question, remark or casual observation, cannot act as a reminder to the person in need of one, then it was indeed time to move from this pointless, but momentarily amusing interlude.

[caz]

There are no doubt many casual visitors to the diary threads, who only have a passing interest in the story as it has unfolded since 1992, and therefore very limited knowledge of the fine details. They may well believe the more strident and forceful commentators, who not only profess to be sure of their ground, but outnumber the more cautious and less convinced among us.

Many seem to think it has already been shown that the diary was written by one or both Barretts, and it's easy to see how they arrived at this belief and will not now question it against any new information as it emerges. I would hope there are still people out there who are not happy to be handed their beliefs on a plate by others, but will consider the information for themselves, without simply accepting someone's else's subjective interpretation of it.

RJ is happy that the Barretts faked the diary, and the recent opinion poll is with him, so he could afford to be a bit more magnanimous, and not try to discredit me and Keith Skinner at any and every opportunity, when nothing is materially affected by the issue he raises. Is it for the sin of not being able to share his opinion of the bigger picture, or is something else going on? If we are, in his eyes, the equivalent of flat-earthers, why does he feel compelled to nit-pick his way through every line, hoping eventually to score a very palpable hit? It would be better manners to leave us to our delusions and not try to make a big old fuss over mere details – which he has a habit of misinterpreting anyway. And this from a position of knowing he doesn't have the full story, but thinking he can fill in the gaps without it.

The diary is what it is, and strength of opinion alone won't make it into something else. Trying to control matters that we personally have no control over is a bad investment of our nervous energy. I don't personally give two hoots about being proved right or wrong, but it will have to be by the entirety of the evidence, and not by the way selected bits of it are presented and argued by others, in their desire to be right at any cost.

I'm hoping to do a housekeeping post soon, to help readers make up their own mind, from primary source material, precisely how Mike Barrett was 'reminded' of his claim that Anne physically wrote the diary, and just how 'consistently' he claimed this from June 1994, just six months since his wife and daughter had walked out.

Bear in mind that the word 'consistently' was used by Kattrup, and backed up by RJ, presumably because they believe that if a liar appears to tell one story more 'consistently' than another, then it's likely to be true. But readers should be made aware that the argument for consistency is based on a limited supply of material, much of it fed selectively to Alan Gray by Mike during the period when he was motivated to claim that he and his estranged wife had faked the diary together. This material was passed on to Melvin Harris, and eventually appears to have found its way to David Barrat.

It's not entirely their fault that there is a wealth of material yet to be published, including recorded conversations and lengthy sessions with Mike, and copious amounts of private, typed and handwritten correspondence, which he sent to various recipients after Anne left him, when he could no longer ask her to 'tidy' anything up for him. The recurring theme in that correspondence, which may be of little interest to RJ, is Mike's unhappiness, anger and frustration at the refusal by Anne and Caroline to let an abusive drunk back into their lives, and his continuing impotence to do anything about it. Trying to use the diary, to persuade Anne to talk to him, was doomed from the start, much like their marriage when the scrapbook entered their lives by whatever means. If Mike thought that a threat to tell everyone how they had faked the diary together might scare Anne into seeing him, events show that he was very much mistaken. Was it an empty threat, made in the forlorn hope that Anne cared what the world thought? Or was it a real threat, that could have done real damage if he had decided to produce the auction ticket for the scrapbook? Was Anne trusting her instincts that when push came to shove, Mike would bottle it? Or could he have done his worst because it was all bollocks?

It becomes the fault of the Barrett believers, when they know they only have part of the wider picture, but think they can safely ignore the fact that all this other material exists, showing what Mike was or was not saying about the diary, and then use a word like 'consistently', based on little more than one particularly vindictive side of the story, as told by the rejected husband and father.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

There are no doubt many casual visitors to the diary threads, who only have a passing interest in the story as it has unfolded since 1992, and therefore very limited knowledge of the fine details. They may well believe the more strident and forceful commentators, who not only profess to be sure of their ground, but outnumber the more cautious and less convinced among us.

...

Love,

Caz
X

Outstanding post, Caz, regardless of which of the three sides of the fence our dear readers sit on ...

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

We know there's lots more material out there, Caroline. Information that you, Keith and Ike are privy to and maybe be sitting on for whatever reason. I hope it will be revealed soon. And your preferred Diary suspect too.

[caz]

Outstanding post, Caz, regardless of which of the three sides of the fence our dear readers sit on ...

Ike

Cheers, Ike.

Mister B and I are trying to give the booze a miss on weekdays in January, so I'm glad I haven't come back to a thorough ear-bashing that might have weakened my resolve.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We know there's lots more material out there, Caroline. Information that you, Keith and Ike are privy to and maybe be sitting on for whatever reason. I hope it will be revealed soon. And your preferred Diary suspect too.

Hi Scotty,

There are many of us with access to vast volumes of material. In fact, we got lumps of it round the back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bie7d1k2mf8

We are not 'sitting on it' because there are any identifiable smoking guns to prove the Barretts had inside knowledge of the diary's origins. If we ever find one, I like to think we would share our considerable relief with everyone, before moving on to less controversial subjects - such as whether or not famous tennis players should quit bellyaching and protect those around them by getting jabbed against a deadly virus.

We are also not 'sitting on it' just for fun, to bait certain posters, who make mistake after mistake because their first mistake was to think they could safely ignore any material they hadn't personally seen or heard.

One of the main problems would be the sheer impracticality of making everything available, and one of the other main problems has always been the criticism received whenever any previously unpublished information is released. Instead of this being appreciated, as it can be a time-consuming and complex exercise, too often it turns out to have been an entirely thankless task, when those who shouted loudest for it proceeded to ignore it, or find fault with it, before making fresh demands.

I personally have no 'preferred' suspect for the person who wrote the diary, but I continue to speculate about its authorship. My current thinking is that they most likely intended to remain anonymous and succeeded, having no reason to think the handwriting would be recognised, or might one day be positively identified, as their own. Plenty of ordinary people have had an abiding interest in both of these real life murder mysteries, going right back from March 1992 to May 1889, so virtually anyone could have come up with the idea at some point for a fictional treatment that would 'solve' both by combining them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

I'm hoping to do a housekeeping post soon, to help readers make up their own mind, from primary source material, precisely how Mike Barrett was 'reminded' of his claim that Anne physically wrote the diary, and just how 'consistently' he claimed this from June 1994, just six months since his wife and daughter had walked out.

Thank you, Caroline. I'm looking forward to this.