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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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?
    Happy New Year, Herlock!

    I can't speak for Caz, who accepts the possibility that the scrapbook could be a hoax (and seems to favour it from what I can tell), but I can certainly speak for me (who doesn't): Mike Barrett believed to his dying day that the scrapbook was authentic so there was never any thought in his mind (even when he'd pretty much lost it) that "the diary was forged by someone else". He knew the scrapbook was stolen, or he was almost certain it was. It could therefore have been a hoax, but everything he said other than when he claimed he had hoaxed it shows that he was certain it was not a hoax.

    That said, I'm not really addressing your question which is actually a very good one despite your concerns to the contrary: Barrett claimed that he had forged the diary when he had no need to - as you note, it would have been far less demanding had he simply said someone else gave it to him ready-hoaxed. So why did he claim it for himself? Two answers spring to mind:

    1) He just didn't think about his claim deeply enough to think about handing the hoax to someone else (which strongly suggests to me that the possibility that it was a hoax never really entered his head); or
    2) He was a short-sighted, irrational egotist and fantasist who had run out of glory and attention and wife and child and wanted some or all of it back again, however briefly it might have been for so claiming the hoax for himself was just gut instinct of the most pathetic kind.

    You pays your money and you makes your choice. I've paid my money many times over now and I've chosen Option 2 every time.

    Cheers,

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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      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

      Hi MrB,

      Happy New Year to you too, by the way!

      As I understand it, Orsam and The Acolytes all sing the same song: that Mike Barrett hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook using Ryan as his source material for the Maybrick angle. Orsam is attempting to show that Mike's research notes were faked using Ryan as the sole source for what went into the scrapbook and he illustrates this by showing that Mike's research notes - which frequently cite the Liverpool Echo for his source - were made up to look like Ryan wasn't his source. This is all intended to show that Mike intended to show that his research was valid and did no research other than Ryan.

      Unfortunately for Orsam, Mike using Ryan and citing the Liverpool Echo does not simply have to imply he was building support for his hoax in August 1991 because it also suggests that he was building a back story to August 1991 in August 1992 in order to cover for the fact that he had received stolen property in March 1992 (and he couldn't come out and cite Ryan over and over again because Shirley would remember that he hadn't heard of Ryan until she had mentioned it to him).

      I should probably proof-read this many times over to avoid error, but I have to go. Hope it makes some semblance of sense!

      Cheers,

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

        Happy New Year, Herlock!

        I can't speak for Caz, who accepts the possibility that the scrapbook could be a hoax (and seems to favour it from what I can tell), but I can certainly speak for me (who doesn't): Mike Barrett believed to his dying day that the scrapbook was authentic so there was never any thought in his mind (even when he'd pretty much lost it) that "the diary was forged by someone else". He knew the scrapbook was stolen, or he was almost certain it was. It could therefore have been a hoax, but everything he said other than when he claimed he had hoaxed it shows that he was certain it was not a hoax.

        That said, I'm not really addressing your question which is actually a very good one despite your concerns to the contrary: Barrett claimed that he had forged the diary when he had no need to - as you note, it would have been far less demanding had he simply said someone else gave it to him ready-hoaxed. So why did he claim it for himself? Two answers spring to mind:

        1) He just didn't think about his claim deeply enough to think about handing the hoax to someone else (which strongly suggests to me that the possibility that it was a hoax never really entered his head); or
        2) He was a short-sighted, irrational egotist and fantasist who had run out of glory and attention and wife and child and wanted some or all of it back again, however briefly it might have been for so claiming the hoax for himself was just gut instinct of the most pathetic kind.

        You pays your money and you makes your choice. I've paid my money many times over now and I've chosen Option 2 every time.

        Cheers,

        Ike
        Cheers Ike,

        Happy New Year to you too.
        Regards

        Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

          Hi MrB,

          Happy New Year to you too, by the way!

          As I understand it, Orsam and The Acolytes all sing the same song: that Mike Barrett hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook using Ryan as his source material for the Maybrick angle. Orsam is attempting to show that Mike's research notes were faked using Ryan as the sole source for what went into the scrapbook and he illustrates this by showing that Mike's research notes - which frequently cite the Liverpool Echo for his source - were made up to look like Ryan wasn't his source. This is all intended to show that Mike intended to show that his research was valid and did no research other than Ryan.

          Unfortunately for Orsam, Mike using Ryan and citing the Liverpool Echo does not simply have to imply he was building support for his hoax in August 1991 because it also suggests that he was building a back story to August 1991 in August 1992 in order to cover for the fact that he had received stolen property in March 1992 (and he couldn't come out and cite Ryan over and over again because Shirley would remember that he hadn't heard of Ryan until she had mentioned it to him).

          I should probably proof-read this many times over to avoid error, but I have to go. Hope it makes some semblance of sense!

          Cheers,

          Ike
          And a happy new year to you too, sir!

          What you say makes perfect sense to me. What doesn’t is the idea that MB’s reliance on Ryan somehow proves he wrote the thing. Contrary to what RJ says, there is a perfectly rational alternative to that: MB for whatever reason wanting to pretend he’d put more effort into producing his notes than he actually did.

          Another damp squib from his Lordship, it would seem.

          This should earn me a good few paragraphs in his next rant.


          Gary

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            I can picture him now, sitting in the library in the early summer of 1992...
            That's the problem, Caz. You can 'picture' all sorts of things--including Mike spending an entire week in the same library in order to find a Crashaw quote that he couldn't have known for certain even existed within the walls of that library--without bothering to provide evidence for any of it beyond Mike's own demonstratable lies.

            One of the main points of Orsam's article, as I read it, is that Barrett was too lazy to go down to the Liverpool Library and create a credible set of notes--he just faked it using Ryan's book.

            So why the need to 'picture' Mike physically in the library? Maybe to leave the impression that Mike couldn't possibly have owned a copy of the book he is so obviously quoting? A simple phone call could have told Mike the library had probate records, while Mike's old friend Tony Devereux had worked for The Echo, strangely enough, and could have told him where he could find old copies.

            After all, Mike owned a copy of Tales of Liverpool--also mentioned in the same research notes--and Feldman remembered seeing Wilson & Odell's book on the bookshelf in Goldie Street. We know about Mike's ownership of Tales of Liverpool because Scotland Yard's fraud squad later recovered it from the relatives of Tony Devereux, showing Mike and Tony had this book before August 1991--months before Dodd had any electrical work done at Battlecrease.

            But maybe Gary has a highly credible explanation for that one, too?

            But I already know your answer, Caz---you conveniently 'picture' Barrett never having read Tales of Liverpool-- and also 'picture' Mike accidently finding a second copy of the book sometime before July/August 1992.

            Certainly such 'pictures' are best left to the imagination!

            Originally posted by caz View Post
            ...scribbling down notes from Ryan's book to impress Shirley with knowledge he would then claim to have acquired unaided from the Liverpool Echo...
            Ah, I see. Why hadn't I thought of this?

            Funny thing is, Mike had no problem admitting again and again in his bogus research notes that he’s getting his ‘Whitechapel Murder’ information from two popular books on the case—even repeatedly listing specific page numbers from Colin Wilson and Robin Odell’s Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict and Paul Harrison’s Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved… As well as one bit of 'Maybrick' info from the aforementioned 'Tales of Liverpool.'

            …something that clearly left the early diary researchers with the impression that Mike was a rank amateur who was struggling to figure out the salient details…

            yet, when Mike comes to the ‘Maybrick’ material, our rank amateur suddenly vanishes in a puff of smoke, and Mike now feels the need to lie about cranking the handle on the microfilm readers down at the Central Liverpool Library and scouring through old probate records?

            Why is that? What is your explanation for Mike’s selective bravado about his research prowess?

            Paul Begg has always informed us that Mike seemed like a man who knew very little about either the Maybrick case or the Ripper murders—I think it was an act, personally, Mike later rattled off quite a lot about Stephen Knight, etc.---and don’t recall anyone giving the slightest hint that Mike wanted to be seen as a proud and boastful and talented researcher. He portrayed himself as a salt of the earth 'scrap metal dealer' who just wanted a greenhouse. Your suggestion doesn't pass the smell test.

            And here we see Mike very early on—almost immediately, it seems-- lying about not having a good working knowledge of the contents of Bernard Ryan’s The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.

            The same book that has now been proven--by three researchers working independently--is the only book that contains all the facts about Maybrick’s private life mentioned in the diary’s text.

            The only book. And Mike studiously avoids mentioning it.

            Meanwhile, in private, Mike would later admit to the detective Alan Gray that 'Poisoned Life' was indeed used as a source, showing again he was well aware of its contents.

            Sure is strange. But move along folks, there's nothing to see here!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              There are reasons why Mike didn't hand over his research notes until July/August 1992...
              Your use of ‘July slash August 1992’ suggests to me that you have no hard date or specific source for this, but instead are relying on later accounts given by Harrison & Montgomery when they tried to recall and recreate the exact chronology of events. Am I right or do you have specific information?

              Not that it particularly matters, but my understanding, based on Shirley's own account, is that in the early months, she kept a certain detachment from the Barretts, wanting to analyze the diary without what might be called "contamination.’ Mike did hand over these notes at some point, of course, but it seems to me that you don’t’ really know when Shirley quizzed Mike about Bernard Ryan. If I’m wrong, then you will have no trouble providing us with the date of this conversation. Why would Shirley quiz Mike on this specific detail when she hadn't yet received his research notes, and was only now beginning her own investigation?

              From my understanding, it wasn't until Mike's downward spiral two years later (1994) that Shirley was giving Mike small tasks to do, etc. This is how Harrison herself has described it. It was during one of these tasks that Mike Barret—of all people!—was the first to reveal that the ‘O Costly’ in the diary quote came from the 17th Century poet Richard Crashaw. This 'Bernard Ryan' conversation could have taken place in 1994 or 1995 for all I know; I can't offhand remember your source.

              And as Shirley has also admitted, she made the mistake of not keeping detailed notes about when certain events/conversations occurred, and so she was later left with no clear recollection of the exact chronology. This is why we see Keith Skinner scrambling in 1994-1998 and beyond (even now, it appears) to iron out all these finer details.

              So, to be blunt, Caz, I am currently under the impression that you are merely guessing --for obvious enough reasons--- that Barrett had already denied knowing anything about Ryan BEFORE he handed over these notes to Crew sometime around July/August 1992.

              And really, what difference would it make? Of course Mike denied knowing anything about Bernard Ryan—that’s the whole point!

              The book Mike used for his notes—but studiously avoids mentioning—is the one book that contains all the ‘Maybrickian’ personal facts found in the Diary. The ONLY book that does. I know, because I checked.

              But it is worse than that, isn't it?

              Keith Skinner's argument has always been that if Ryan could have found this information in the 1970s, our elusive 'old hoaxer' could have found it in the 1890s.

              I don't find this convincing, because the diary also doesn't mention any confirmable fact about Maybrick's personal life that ISN'T mentioned in Ryan's book.

              That is the killer. That is the fact that kicks the diary over the cliff.

              Imagine asking Gary Barnett and Lord Orsam to each write a 29-page typescript about the Ripper case. They are working independently without any contact, and they could use any resources at their disposal--old letters, newspaper archives, census reports, published books, etc etc.

              And image than when both are done, Lord Orsam and Gary Barnett's typescripts ONLY mentioned the same 50-70 confirmable facts. In no single instance does one typescript mention a fact that isn't mentioned in the other.

              Would any sane person not smell a skunk?

              Yet we know that there are facts about Maybrick that neither the diary nor Bernard Ryan mentions. Neighbors up the street. Other business people Maybrick knew. The fact that Maybrick sat for his portrait in October 1888. The fact that Maybrick went on a walking-tour in Wales in the spring of 1889.

              Why, if our old hoaxer was working from a different set of archives and different sources, does she at no time mention a single solitary confirmable fact about Maybrick's personal life that isn't in Ryan?

              I'll wait for your response. Maybe Gary can help, since he seems to think that I've simply drank Lord O's Kool-Aide.

              If one can't see the writing on the wall, one doesn't want to see the writing on the wall.
              Last edited by rjpalmer; 01-22-2022, 07:41 PM.

              Comment


              • I scanned through bits of Lord Orsam's essays (if that is the right term) and I just wanted to genuinely to admit to laughing out loud at one one reference to me.

                I wonder if can guess which one. I seem to pop-up in cameos. His main focus seems to be dissecting every syllable posted by Caz and Ike, for which I am only too grateful to not get main billing.

                In short, for all the reasons already explained, Orsam Day once again fails to deliver the fatal blow he believes he has delivered about eight times now.

                The debate rumbles on in 2022.
                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment


                • Apparently the fact that MB used ‘off Tithebarn Street’ in his notes is evidence that he based his notes on Ryan, which in turn is evidence he wrote the diary.

                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • If RJ agrees Lord O was really scraping the barrel with the ludicrous ‘off Tithebarn’ example, then he may not have sipped any of Lord O’s Kool Aid.

                    Comment




                    • ‘Example Number 4’ is ‘another very important one’ according to Lord O.

                      ‘This [Ryan] is the only source in which we find all the elements that Mike needed: 'senior partner', 'Brierley and Wood' (not Brierley, Wood & Co) and, crucially, 'cotton brokers'.’

                      Reading it you may get the impression that Brierley wasn’t a senior partner in a cotton brokers. But according to Reynolds (6/9/89 below) he was.

                      Other sources use Brierley and Wood instead of Brierley, Wood and Co - is that a big deal? You may notice, unless Lord O has made a typo, Ryan uses the spelling Brierley while both MB and Reynolds use ‘Brierly’.

                      Time and again the supposedly ultra thorough Lord O leaves out info that might cast doubt on his claims. Is he perhaps not as thorough as he’d have us believe? Or are his omissions deliberate?

                      The classic example of that is the equine one, two, three etc-off. Did he completely miss it, or did he decide not to trouble our little heads with it?





                      Attached Files
                      Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-22-2022, 11:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Gary.

                        In your eagerness to score a rather meaningless point off of your old friend Lord Orsam, instead of exploring the implications of his article, you seem to have strayed from the point.

                        What does the London newspaper Reynold’s have to do with Mike creating a set of bogus research notes that fail to mention the source that he is actually using?

                        Mike Barrett doesn’t mention Reynold's in his research notes, after all. He claims the source for the Brierley and Woods information came from The Liverpool Echo.

                        Mike's actual note:

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	Barrett's Notes Brierley.JPG Views:	0 Size:	7.7 KB ID:	779691

                        Rather than scoring points off one's adversary, I think we should concentrate on what we have actually learned. Had Mike actually mentioned Reynold’s you’d have Orsam against the ropes, otherwise you haven’t even grazed him.

                        Have you been able to find this same information in The Liverpool Echo as Mike claimed?

                        We already know, from the other examples, that Barrett is lying and is actually referencing Bernard Ryan, since the ‘Britannic’ is a provable error traceable to Ryan, and Ryan only, or do you have evidence that disproves this?

                        Note also that when Bernard Ryan comes to write about Brierley he states:

                        'His name was Alfred Brierley...He...was the wealthy senior partner of Brierley and Wood, cotton brokers...'

                        Brierley and Wood. Full stop. Just as Mike states in his research notes.

                        Your London source states, ‘Brierley and Wood and Co. and also throws in another detail that would have been valuable to a researcher: ‘of Old Hall-street.’

                        Minor point, some will say, but the phrasing is clearly different from what Mike wrote in his notes, which, along with the Britannic example, makes Ryan the obvious and compelling source.

                        As for Mike misspelling Brierley, I don’t think we can draw too many conclusions. Caz has been pointing out for years that Mike couldn’t spell, and further, Barrett's wife claimed that she typed up these notes, so it might not even represent his error but hers.

                        Which brings up a rather interesting point. Does this signal the death of Anne Graham's "in the family for years" provenance?

                        Recall that she claims to have given the diary to Tony Devereux sometime before August 1991. She also stated how Barrett spent months obsessing over the diary. Mike allegedly filled his living room with books and notes that she then typed up. And since Mike didn't call London a minimum of 9 MONTHS later, he had ample time to create notes.

                        But if the notes were actually thrown together at the last moment using Ryan's book, as Caz seems to admit, and do not represent someone digging through the archives of the Liverpool Echo for months, this means Anne must have been lying, no?

                        Or will Keith Skinner and Tom Mitchell and (presumably) Shirley Harrison still find a way to rehabilitate her story in light of these revelations?

                        A rhetorical question only at present.
                        Last edited by rjpalmer; 01-23-2022, 01:18 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          ‘Example Number 4’ is ‘another very important one’ according to Lord O.

                          ‘This [Ryan] is the only source in which we find all the elements that Mike needed: 'senior partner', 'Brierley and Wood' (not Brierley, Wood & Co) and, crucially, 'cotton brokers'.’

                          Reading it you may get the impression that Brierley wasn’t a senior partner in a cotton brokers. But according to Reynolds (6/9/89 below) he was.

                          Other sources use Brierley and Wood instead of Brierley, Wood and Co - is that a big deal? You may notice, unless Lord O has made a typo, Ryan uses the spelling Brierley while both MB and Reynolds use ‘Brierly’.

                          Time and again the supposedly ultra thorough Lord O leaves out info that might cast doubt on his claims. Is he perhaps not as thorough as he’d have us believe? Or are his omissions deliberate?

                          The classic example of that is the equine one, two, three etc-off. Did he completely miss it, or did he decide not to trouble our little heads with it?




                          i really wish you would give up this nonsense gary. its a dead horse. your a smart guy and a great researcher but this continual diary defending is un becoming of you. give it up. its a disgusting black eye on ripperology and your above this. i say this because i respect you alot.
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-23-2022, 02:45 AM.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Gents,

                            Let’s get one thing straight, I’m no more ‘diary defending than I am following a Lechmerian ‘party line’. The diary itself doesn’t interest me one bit. What I do find fascinating is the psychology of Orsamism.

                            When was the last time either of you criticised or even questioned anything the Spandex Bully uttered? I don’t see you holding back when you have issues with others.

                            Is that because you think he never makes mistakes and you approve of his personal attacks on anyone who dares voice an opinion that is contrary to his?

                            Tell us what you really think about the significance of MB’s use of ‘off Tithebarn Street’. And of how his Lordship sneers and snarls at anyone who has the temerity not to doff their cap to him.

                            I won’t hold my breath.

                            Gary



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              i really wish you would give up this nonsense gary. its a dead horse. your a smart guy and a great researcher but this continual diary defending is un becoming of you. give it up. its a disgusting black eye on ripperology and your above this. i say this because i respect you alot.
                              Thanks for your very kind words, Abby. I’m not sure they’re deserved, but thank you anyway.

                              I will take your advice and leave the ‘diary defending’ to those who actually know something about the subject.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Hi Gary.

                                In your eagerness to score a rather meaningless point off of your old friend Lord Orsam, instead of exploring the implications of his article, you seem to have strayed from the point.

                                What does the London newspaper Reynold’s have to do with Mike creating a set of bogus research notes that fail to mention the source that he is actually using?

                                Mike Barrett doesn’t mention Reynold's in his research notes, after all. He claims the source for the Brierley and Woods information came from The Liverpool Echo.

                                Mike's actual note:

                                Click image for larger version Name:	Barrett's Notes Brierley.JPG Views:	0 Size:	7.7 KB ID:	779691

                                Rather than scoring points off one's adversary, I think we should concentrate on what we have actually learned. Had Mike actually mentioned Reynold’s you’d have Orsam against the ropes, otherwise you haven’t even grazed him.

                                Have you been able to find this same information in The Liverpool Echo as Mike claimed?

                                We already know, from the other examples, that Barrett is lying and is actually referencing Bernard Ryan, since the ‘Britannic’ is a provable error traceable to Ryan, and Ryan only, or do you have evidence that disproves this?

                                Note also that when Bernard Ryan comes to write about Brierley he states:

                                'His name was Alfred Brierley...He...was the wealthy senior partner of Brierley and Wood, cotton brokers...'

                                Brierley and Wood. Full stop. Just as Mike states in his research notes.

                                Your London source states, ‘Brierley and Wood and Co. and also throws in another detail that would have been valuable to a researcher: ‘of Old Hall-street.’

                                Minor point, some will say, but the phrasing is clearly different from what Mike wrote in his notes, which, along with the Britannic example, makes Ryan the obvious and compelling source.

                                As for Mike misspelling Brierley, I don’t think we can draw too many conclusions. Caz has been pointing out for years that Mike couldn’t spell, and further, Barrett's wife claimed that she typed up these notes, so it might not even represent his error but hers.

                                Which brings up a rather interesting point. Does this signal the death of Anne Graham's "in the family for years" provenance?

                                Recall that she claims to have given the diary to Tony Devereux sometime before August 1991. She also stated how Barrett spent months obsessing over the diary. Mike allegedly filled his living room with books and notes that she then typed up. And since Mike didn't call London a minimum of 9 MONTHS later, he had ample time to create notes.

                                But if the notes were actually thrown together at the last moment using Ryan's book, as Caz seems to admit, and do not represent someone digging through the archives of the Liverpool Echo for months, this means Anne must have been lying, no?

                                Or will Keith Skinner and Tom Mitchell and (presumably) Shirley Harrison still find a way to rehabilitate her story in light of these revelations?

                                A rhetorical question only at present.
                                I bow to your superior knowledge of the subject, RJ.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X