One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Just popping in to confirm that Mike's extraordinary DNA letter was typed, and I transcribed the extracts exactly as they appear on the page. How very dare anyone suggest I 'corrected' it, leaving those horrible apostrophe errors!

I don't know if there was a spellcheck function Mike could have used to tidy it up, or a new girlfriend who was around at the time to do the same. Mike did get through a few, and there are examples where one kindly helped Mike by writing for him when he was physically unable.

What is astonishing is what Mike thought all that guff was about, claiming he had worked his little socks off to obtain DNA evidence to prove Anne and Caroline were not related by blood back to Florie Maybrick. How could they be, if he and Anne knew damn well where the diary came from and who wrote it? He was appalled by Feldy's theory that the diary came down from Jack the Ripper through the Graham family, and the easiest way of disproving it and stopping Feldy in his tracks would have been to wave that bloody auction ticket under his nose. What was he keeping it warm for? If this was not the perfect use for it, I don't know what would have been.

Surely it's time for RJ to consider the horrible thought that Mike may have lied about having that ticket, just as he lied about having the DNA evidence, and just as he lied about receiving the diary in good faith in 1991, from a man who then conveniently snuffed it. RJ has the whole of 2022 to question his faith in Mike suddenly acquiring a conscience in June 1994 and making a true confession.

It's like expecting Boris to have shown remorse for lying and to have started telling the truth for once.

Caz
X

[caz]

You have the stage back, Ike. It's high time Mike Barrett left it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But before he takes his leave, I'll just take my red pen to that typed letter...

Tuesday 27th February 1996
Extracts with Mike’s own spelling and emphasis from a typed letter to Paul Feldman:
‘For just over a year, Iv’e been deliberately allowing people to believe what they
wish to believe of me.
WHY?
To buy time. In fact, I was almost sure that someone in your ‘camp’ found out
what I was up to. However, I need not have worried. It turn out not so...’

‘After a tremendous amount of research
I succeed in contacting one of Florence Chandler’s distant relative’s. The
person in question allowed me a sample of there hair. CAN YOU GUESS WHAT
NEXT? I had it DNA tested.
Are you being to catch on?
Well let me tell you! What a bloody job I had getting hold of a sample of
either Anne’s hair or Caroline’s. It took me bloody months. So much so I
almost gave up in the end. I say only this! After countless hours of standing
around in all sorts of weather. In my view ‘Hairdresser’s’ are OK!
MARVELLOUS THING, IS A WOMEN VANITY.
Well, once I had what I wanted, off I pop to get the samples compared.
GUESS BLOODY WHAT? WHICH I ALREADY KNEW, BUT HAD TO PROVE IT.
THEY DID NOT MATCH...’

[Iconoclast]

You have the stage back, Ike. It's high time Mike Barrett left it.

Love,

Caz
X

And it is with great pleasure that I return to the scene of my greatest theatrics - my pursuit of Jack through the Victorian scrapbook, free of Mike Barrett and impossibly incomplete fantasies around how he could have created such a gem in just eleven days.

But first, I have to wash the car!

Honestly!

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Well, it's been a very long debate over many years, and, of course, bitter at times, but I think we have now reached the end of the line.

As far as I am concerned, January 21, 2022, will be remembered as the day that any lingering doubts about Mike Barrett not knowing the truth about the origins of the Maybrick Hoax have withered and died.

Two new articles are now up at Lord Orsam's website.

The Secret Source of Michael John Barrett:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/thesecretsource.htm

The Curious Case of the White Star Line Steamer:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/whitestarlinecurious.htm

Those interested in the Maybrick Hoax should read these two articles carefully. The implications are obvious and undeniable.

Let me just add one brief comment of my own.

Those believing in the ‘Eddie Lyons’ Battlecrease provenance could argue that Barrett had a motive for creating bogus research notes (dated to before ‘August 1991’) in order to distance himself from the recent electrical work completed at Mr. Dodd’s house.

But what could have been Mike's motive for hiding the fact that he had consulted Bernard Ryan’s 1977 book (which he elsewhere denied even knowing about) unless he was fully aware that Ryan was the source for the diary’s text, and thus he needed to avoid mentioning it to Harrison and Montgomery, etc?

There is no other rational explanation.

Carefully considered, this is the final coffin nail. Who could have suspected that so much could depend on the name Britannic?

My congratulations to Orsam on some very clever research.

[erobitha]

Well, it's been a very long debate over many years, and, of course, bitter at times, but I think we have now reached the end of the line.

As far as I am concerned, January 21, 2022, will be remembered as the day that any lingering doubts about Mike Barrett not knowing the truth about the origins of the Maybrick Hoax have withered and died.

Two new articles are now up at Lord Orsam's website.

The Secret Source of Michael John Barrett:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/thesecretsource.htm

The Curious Case of the White Star Line Steamer:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/whitestarlinecurious.htm

Those interested in the Maybrick Hoax should read these two articles carefully. The implications are obvious and undeniable.

Let me just add one brief comment of my own.

Those believing in the ‘Eddie Lyons’ Battlecrease provenance could argue that Barrett had a motive for creating bogus research notes (dated to before ‘August 1991’) in order to distance himself from the recent electrical work completed at Mr. Dodd’s house.

But what could have been Mike's motive for hiding the fact that he had consulted Bernard Ryan’s 1977 book (which he elsewhere denied even knowing about) unless he was fully aware that Ryan was the source for the diary’s text, and thus he needed to avoid mentioning it to Harrison and Montgomery, etc?

There is no other rational explanation.

Carefully considered, this is the final coffin nail. Who could have suspected that so much could depend on the name Britannic?

My congratulations to Orsam on some very clever research.

Is there not any other way to view this information other than reading it on his website?

He seems to be the only person on the internet being charged by the width.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve heard someone else say this but I can’t see an issue with the format of the website. The letters are larger than on here. I can’t understand why anyone could have an issue reading it? I’m not saying that they couldn’t but just that it’s perfectly legible and we’ll set out on my iPad.

[erobitha]

I'd paste a screenshot but I would worry I'd get into some kind of trouble.

[Pcdunn]

My Samsung phone queries "Use Simplified View?" every time a Google website comes up. I usually skip the option, but it worked very well for Mike's article. I think the colored typeface on a dark background is the major objection, at least it is not very reader-friendly.

[Abby Normal]

Lord orsam does it again lol. poor diary defenders

[Iconoclast]

My Samsung phone queries "Use Simplified View?" every time a Google website comes up. I usually skip the option, but it worked very well for Mike's article. I think the colored typeface on a dark background is the major objection, at least it is not very reader-friendly.

It's 2022, Pat. We've had the internet for well over two decades. I don't know of any other site on the entire web where one has to make 'Zoom' magnification decisions or 'Use Simplified View' (never even heard of that one).

With great trepidation, I am about to attempt to slide down the drainpipes again to see what sludge has descended this time. I wonder if I'll come back here transformed, enlightened, and packing my spotted handkerchief for home at long last as RJ appears to confidently believe?

Ike

[caz]

Morning Ike,

I have a feeling poor RJ will have to put up with us a while longer. He's either been swallowing Orsam's Kool-Aid again, or they have both been swallowing Mike's, six years after his death.

It took me all of five minutes last night to check what must have taken Orsam quite a long time and effort to compile and write up, and for the bleedin' obvious to smack me round the chops.

I'll be brief.

There are reasons why Mike didn't hand over his research notes until July/August 1992, having made only vague references to his sources, and not dating the notes themselves. He wanted Shirley to believe he had been researching what was in the diary since the previous August, when Tony Devereux died and gave him a provenance he could stick with. He had to have something to show for all those months of hard work, which he hadn't actually done because he didn't know the diary existed before March 9 1992, and didn't know Bernard Ryan's book from a bar of soap before Shirley mentioned it to him, at some point after April 13 1992. He couldn't then name Ryan as his source for the Maybrick research, or Shirley would have instantly rumbled that his notes had not been compiled over several months, but only after she herself had made him aware of Ryan's book.

I can picture him now, sitting in the library in the early summer of 1992, scribbling down notes from Ryan's book to impress Shirley with knowledge he would then claim to have acquired unaided from the Liverpool Echo, before she even became involved.

But then, some of us can read Mike like a book.

Sorry, RJ. You've been had - again.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Orsam might have had himself an argument, if only 'Sir Jim' had mentioned in the diary that he had met Bunny on the Britannic.

Mike mentioning the good ship lollipop in his rushed research notes from mid 1992 doesn't cut the mustard.

[Iconoclast]

I'll be brief.

There are reasons why Mike didn't hand over his research notes until July/August 1992, having made only vague references to his sources, and not dating the notes themselves. He wanted Shirley to believe he had been researching what was in the diary since the previous August, when Tony Devereux died and gave him a provenance he could stick with. He had to have something to show for all those months of hard work, which he hadn't actually done because he didn't know the diary existed before March 9 1992, and didn't know Bernard Ryan's book from a bar of soap before Shirley mentioned it to him, at some point after April 13 1992. He couldn't then name Ryan as his source for the Maybrick research, or Shirley would have instantly rumbled that his notes had not been compiled over several months, but only after she herself had made him aware of Ryan's book.

Hi Caz,

You have quite beat me to it. Having sacrificed a precious one and a half hours of my life which I will never get back (something I fully expect to do again this afternoon when we kick off against Leeds for another predictable defeat), I was primed to say pretty much what you've said, though perhaps not as eloquently. My overwhelming sense of disappointment was palpable and reminiscent of the drama last year (or - Lord - was it 2020?) when Orsam was claiming that Maybrick referring to Florrie's godmother as her 'aunt' was the End of Days when it (rather predictably for such claims) patently wasn't. What Orsam's significant research showed was that Mike used Ryan when manufacturing his 'August 1991' notes in or around August 1992. If only I could get excited, even briefly! But I can't because I can see what you saw - that Mike's attempted subterfuge with the Liverpool Echo references was a means to deflect from his reliance on Ryan which was because 1) he used it extensively to hoax the scrapbook and he wanted to hide the fact because he knew it was hoaxed, or 2) he used it far less extensively to create his backdated research notes at Shirley Harrison's prompting and he wanted to hide the fact because he knew it was stolen.

What a truly underwhelming performance from the glitterati whose shiniest star is Lord Orsam of Chigwell, a man who made a vast fortune from drainpipes then poured his creative genius down them until he was drained (see what I did there?) of inspiration, insight, and balance.

RJ has departed these shores, convinced for probably the 365th time in the last year that the debate is over. He'll be missed, but - as I argued quite recently - it will be an opportunity for us all to refresh our minds as to exactly why the Maybrick scrapbook is very firmly the real deal.

Ike

[MrBarnett]

Caz/Ike,

As I read it I thought I must be missing something: why would the fact that MB had used Ryan’s book as his main source but claimed he had researched the case independently be proof of his having written the diary?

And why does RJ believe there is no other rational explanation?

I had to laugh when I read that only through reading Ryan could MB have come up with ‘off Tithebarn Street’. No Scouser would ever describe somewhere as being ‘off’ somewhere else would they. (Try Googling ‘off Tithebarn Street).

And what’s the big deal about Brierley being a senior partner in a sugar broking company? He was, wasn’t he? He’s certainly described as such in the press.

On the one hand I wish I knew more about this subject, on the other I’m glad I haven’t got sucked into it.

Gary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning Ike,

I have a feeling poor RJ will have to put up with us a while longer. He's either been swallowing Orsam's Kool-Aid again, or they have both been swallowing Mike's, six years after his death.

It took me all of five minutes last night to check what must have taken Orsam quite a long time and effort to compile and write up, and for the bleedin' obvious to smack me round the chops.

I'll be brief.

There are reasons why Mike didn't hand over his research notes until July/August 1992, having made only vague references to his sources, and not dating the notes themselves. He wanted Shirley to believe he had been researching what was in the diary since the previous August, when Tony Devereux died and gave him a provenance he could stick with. He had to have something to show for all those months of hard work, which he hadn't actually done because he didn't know the diary existed before March 9 1992, and didn't know Bernard Ryan's book from a bar of soap before Shirley mentioned it to him, at some point after April 13 1992. He couldn't then name Ryan as his source for the Maybrick research, or Shirley would have instantly rumbled that his notes had not been compiled over several months, but only after she herself had made him aware of Ryan's book.

I can picture him now, sitting in the library in the early summer of 1992, scribbling down notes from Ryan's book to impress Shirley with knowledge he would then claim to have acquired unaided from the Liverpool Echo, before she even became involved.

But then, some of us can read Mike like a book.

Sorry, RJ. You've been had - again.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Orsam might have had himself an argument, if only 'Sir Jim' had mentioned in the diary that he had met Bunny on the Britannic.

Mike mentioning the good ship lollipop in his rushed research notes from mid 1992 doesn't cut the mustard.

Hi Caz,

As I know almost nothing on all matters diary-related I tend to ask an occasional question knowing that it could be shown to be ‘the stupidest question ever’ but I’ll risk it.

When Barrett admitted to forging the diary why did he saddle (unintentional diary-related pun) himself with the enormous pain in the a**e of having to try and prove it (knowing that his wife wouldn’t be backing him up on this) If the diary was forged by someone else why didn’t he just say that he’d met some dodgy bloke in a local pub who told him that he’d got a forged JTR to sell? Or even that he’d bought it in good faith only to be informed by the same bloke later on that it was a forgery?