One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Spoiler alert: This post probably rambles on a bit and achieves nothing ...

Does anyone ever ask themselves why Mike’s research notes are headed ‘Transferring all my notes since August 1991’?

The Diary of Jack the Ripper: Beyond Reasonable Doubt (Feldman Video)

8 mins 45 secs

Mike Barrett: "I started doing me [sic] research and the more research I done [sic] the more I seemed to be getting nearer the truth [presumably 'authenticity']. However, having said that, Tony ended up dying in Walton Hospital with a massive heart attack so I'm left with a diary that I'm not sure is a 100% genuine".

Tony Devereux died (IIRC) on August 8, 1991, so that means that – according to his videoed tale - Mike received and researched the scrapbook before August 8, 1991. I guess that could have been July 1991 but I’ve always taken it to mean more like June 1991 or even earlier. I’ve never therefore quite understood why Mike asked Anne to use the heading ‘Transferring all my notes since August 1991’ when she agreed to type up his notes.

Is this an irrelevant point, is it just a simple oversight on Mike’s part, or does it speak in any way to the truth of the matter? Mike may well have been doing loads of research in 1991 with a view to creating a hoax or he may have got the diary from Tony as described and his research was genuine (albeit pretty much solely from Ryan, it would appear), or else he could have been doing research via Ryan after he brought the scrapbook to London as part of his collaboration commitment with Shirley Harrison and that it was these notes which he had to backdate to 1991 in order to support his Tony Devereux provenance – not necessarily because he hoaxed the scrapbook in those magical eleven days in April 1992 but perhaps because he had acquired it from Eddie Lyons and pretty much knew for certain that he was handling stolen property.

Pretty much all of these scenarios still exist even if Mike used Ryan for his desultory research so Orsam’s uncovering of Ryan as Mike’s source does little more than point us to Mike’s half-hearted and rather lazy attempt to understand what he was creating or had recently acquired.

For me, the evidence which has emerged since the first Harrison book was published (October 1993) points inexorably to Mike acquiring the scrapbook from Eddie Lyons in March 1992. This version of events is overwhelmingly the one which fits more of the facts than any other. I suspect that time will show this to be the truth of the matter.

Mike Barrett leaning on Ryan’s Poisoned Life is a particularly unhelpful sideshow in my opinion though its clarification does shine a light for us onto Mike’s underlying commitment to the project he stated the day he contacted Rupert Crew. The only times he raised his game appeared to be when he was challenged in some way (for example, Crashaw), and even then it was entirely fleeting.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
why are caz keith skinner and paul begg always on the side of those who beleive the diary is authentic? dont they all admit its a hoax? should they not be arguing against the gullible beleivers? all very odd. but i think everyone knows the reason why.

Hi Abby,

You posed the above questions some time ago but I think I am right in saying that you did not answer my question to you, below:

That said, Abby, perhaps you should clarify for us all examples of where Caz, Keith, and Paul are "always on the side of those who believe the diary is authentic"; where they have stated that the diary is a hoax; and why they ought to be proactively arguing against the views of "the gullible believers" - and armed with those we could more properly assess whether they are demonstrating routine bias or whether you have assumed it because they potentially take a more balanced view of the arguments which crop up on here?

Now some considerable time has passed since these exchanges so it's easy to lose sight of the argument so - to clarify - as I understand it, you were claiming that Caz, Keith Skinner, and Paul Begg are always on the side of 'diary defenders' and that - by implication - you "think everyone knows the reason why" which I understood to mean that you believe that all three of them believe the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic but they somehow lack the moral backbone to come out and admit it. Is that about right (it's certainly what it reads like)?

You are clearly still reading these posts so I'd be grateful if you could pick this one up and answer it, please. The post I have quoted from was #6913 though your original posts came a bit earlier than that - it shouldn't be hard to find if you delve into those earlier pages.

PS To be absolutely clear, I'm seeking clarity around what you were claiming - I'm not blindly defending Caz, Keith, and Paul - that's for reach of them to do if they feel so inclined (at I recall, at very least, Paul did respond, I imagine Caz probably did too, and Keith doesn't post). The reason I am pursuing this is that a huge number of posts are written which then get challenged and never get validated or justified and I feel yours was quite a significant suggestion that needed to be qualified.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

I find Orsam's detailed obsession with certain casebook members quite fascinating. Clearly the man has research skills, but the motivation behind his desire to focus on specific individuals, and almost every word they utter in relation to the diary is borderline obsessive. His 'nicknames' are designed to undermine and belittle all those who are interested in maintaining a sensible debate. We should question everything and debate it.

Anyone who thinks that I only believe in Maybrick as JtR for some financial gain might want to read my Amazon royalty statements so far.

I think researchers who have been involved with this subject for many years, should continue to get the respect they have earned. I have never seen anywhere that MrBarnett, Keith Skinner, Caz or Paul Begg have ever said they believe the diary to be genuine. I am agnostic to the diary but I a firm believer in James Maybrick as JtR. Only a handful us actually exist around these parts. Those who feel the diary "is a black eye" on ripperology far outweigh us as my recent poll indicated.

I am grateful the debate continues to interest those like those named above to keep the discussions going one way or another. This will hopefully eventually lead us the the truth. I am certain that is only what the above researchers are interested in. Innuendos and cheap nicknames will not deter those who simply are committed to understanding the truth.

We do not have the truth. The truth maybe the document is real. The truth could be it is a modern hoax. The truth is maybe it was hoaxed to support the watch, which could be real. The truth could be that both are hoaxes. We do not have any conclusive proof of anything regardless of Orsam's premature declarations of such.

A truly good researcher comes for the story but stays to find the truth. I do actually include Orsam in that, but he needs to tone down the playground antics I feel, as those interested in having a reasonable debate with him will be put off in doing so. That will help nothing. Perhaps that is his strategy?

[Mark J D]

... the Spandex Bully...

-- What the hell was going on before I got here...?

No, on second thoughts: don't tell me...

M.

[MrBarnett]

-- What the hell was going on before I got here...?

No, on second thoughts: don't tell me...

M.

It’s a long story. I also occasionally refer to him as the Rabid Carrot. Until recently his pet name for me was The Clanger (I once accused him of dropping a clanger and he latched onto the term) but he seems to have chosen a new name for me, the Forums Thug.

My new name for him is Lord Orsam of Stepney.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/584235-charles-lechmere’s-lair/page29#post587115

See posts 433 onwards.

Can we have a whip round and buy the poor chap an East End map? Preferably one showing parishes in BOLD LETTERS

[MrBarnett]

It’s a long story. I also occasionally refer to him as the Rabid Carrot. Until recently his pet name for me was The Clanger (I once accused him of dropping a clanger and he latched onto the term) but he seems to have chosen a new name for me, the Forums Thug.

My new name for him is Lord Orsam of Stepney.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/584235-charles-lechmere’s-lair/page29#post587115

See posts 433 onwards.

Can we have a whip round and buy the poor chap an East End map? Preferably one showing parishes in BOLD LETTERS

I don’t want to drag this wonderful thread too far off topic, but if you look at the link above you will find an example of Lord O employing some of the worst research I have ever encountered in this field in an attempt to make yet another tiresome dismissal of someone else’s research.

A warning to the gullible: check everything he says - he is not the god’s gift he makes out to be.

[rjpalmer]

Does anyone ever ask themselves why Mike’s research notes are headed ‘Transferring all my notes since August 1991’?

We've done so many times, Ike, but first things first. Here's a point that I think needs to be addressed:

From Robert Smith’s book:

"My first meeting with Michael Barrett was in the late afternoon of 4th June 1992 in Rupert Crew Ltd' quaint old offices in King's Mews, across the road from Gray's Inn Gardens near Chancery Lane. I brought Keith Skinner with me to benefit from his deep knowledge of the Ripper case. Barrett's literary agent Doreen Montgomery, introduced me to Barrett and his co-author Shirley Harrison. I read the diary in stunned silence, while the others talked...".

Okay, so here we have Smith, Keith, Doreen, Shirley, and Mike Barrett gathered, diary in hand, on 4 June 1992.

Question. Are we to believe that at this meeting there was no mention that James Maybrick was the diarist? That Robert Smith was deciding whether to go ahead with the project without the diarist having been identified? Or had the diarist been identified (by Barrett) but Mike was for some reason not passing this information on to Smith and Keith Skinner? A sort of 'non-disclosure' element to it? Did Shirley and Doreen even know?

This is not a trick question; I think you should ask Keith for clarification.

The reason I ask is that Caz makes a strange statement in Post #6399 of this thread:

“Incidentally, I checked my timeline again, and I realise there were phone calls which were never recorded or described in detail, and almost certainly some written correspondence that has not survived or been passed on to Keith, but I note that the earliest entry I have, which features the name Maybrick in a diary context, is in a letter from Shirley to Doreen dated 2nd July 1992.”

Whoa. July?

Caz continues:

**There is nothing to suggest that Mike made good his claim at the earliest opportunity to have personally identified Jack the Ripper. I'll leave you to decide if Mike was the sort of person to hide his light under a bushel and delay this once-in-a-lifetime revelation.”

It is sometimes difficult to decipher Caz’s musings, but it is the date, along with the last two lines which I have highlighted, that interest me.

Caz seems to be referring to a source indicating that Barrett claimed to have known the identity of the diarist either during his first phone calls to Doreen Montgomery, or, if not then, at his first meeting with Doreen on April 13, 1992, but he declined to reveal at the time that it was Maybrick. Presumably Caz thinks this is because Mike himself didn’t yet know the identity of the author—just that he had obtained “an old book” that is signed Jack the Ripper from Eddie. As you can see in this same post, the first recorded reference to the diarist being Maybrick isn’t recorded until 2 July 1992.

YET, IKE OLD BOY, THIS IS A MONTH AFTER KEITH’S MEETING WITH BARRETT ON JUNE 4TH.

Since Caz (and presumably Keith) were at one point trying to recreate the first known instance where the diarist had been identified as Maybrick—evidently in an attempt to identify when Mike first revealed this fact to Shirley and Doreen—but they unfortunately failed to document any instance before 2 July—am I to understand that Maybrick had NOT been identified as the diarist at this earlier meeting with Smith in June 1992?

Did Mike at least tell Keith at this meeting that he DID know the diarist's identity?

Or was Mike still keeping this knowledge from Keith, Smith, and perhaps even Doreen and Shirley, because, as Caz speculates, Mike still do not know the author until he stumbled across RWE’s book?

When did Shirley first record this amazing discovery inside the cover of Tales of Liverpool? Apparently never, as otherwise Keith and Caz would have a record of it.

Follow me so far?

[Scott Nelson]

RJ,

Wouldn't Shirley have known it was about Maybrick before meeting on June 4th? Otherwise, why bring an author like Harrison to a meeting before they could unscramble the identity of the diary subject?

[rjpalmer]

RJ,

Wouldn't Shirley have known it was about Maybrick before meeting on June 4th? Otherwise, why bring an author like Harrison to a meeting before they could unscramble the identity of the diary subject?

That's what I'm trying to find out, Scott. One would think so.

Obviously, Shirley and Mike must have been pitching the diary to Smith at this meeting on June 4th, but what all did they know and what did they reveal?

Mike first met Doreen and Shirley on April 13th, 1992. At that meeting, did Mike reveal the name of the diarist? There doesn't appear to be any record that he did. Shirley doesn't make any reference to it in her accounts.

Or did Mike keep the diarist's name confidential, which certainly seems possible, until Shirley signed a collaborative agreement with Mike and Anne, which she did on April 30, 1992?

Is that when Mike first told Shirley the identity of the diarist? April 30th, 1992?

Or was Mike still ignorant/playing ignorant of the diarist's identity, and the revelation that it was Maybrick came later, during one of those occasional surprise phone calls?

It doesn't seem possible, but it is strange that the exact chronology still seems to be a mystery 30 years later, and Caz is posting things about the first mention of Maybrick-as-diarist isn't to be found until a letter dated 2 July 1992, though she does state that it 'appears' there were earlier unrecorded phone calls and maybe even correspondence.

I don't have the answers; I'm just asking.

[MrBarnett]

That's what I'm trying to find out, Scott. One would think so.

Obviously, Shirley and Mike must have been pitching the diary to Smith at this meeting on June 4th, but what all did they know and what did they reveal?

Mike first met Doreen and Shirley on April 13th, 1992. At that meeting, did Mike reveal the name of the diarist? There doesn't appear to be any record that he did. Shirley doesn't make any reference to it in her accounts.

Or did Mike keep the diarist's name confidential, which certainly seems possible, until Shirley signed a collaborative agreement with Mike and Anne, which she did on April 30, 1992?

Is that when Mike first told Shirley the identity of the diarist? April 30th, 1992?

Or was Mike still ignorant/playing ignorant of the diarist's identity, and the revelation that it was Maybrick came later, during one of those occasional surprise phone calls?

It doesn't seem possible, but it is strange that the exact chronology still seems to be a mystery 30 years later, and Caz is posting things about the first mention of Maybrick-as-diarist isn't to be found until a letter dated 2 July 1992, though she does state that it 'appears' there were earlier unrecorded phone calls and maybe even correspondence.

I don't have the answers; I'm just asking.

Who does have the answers? David Barrat?

[MrBarnett]

This David Barrat?

“I can't enter into pedantic technical discussions about geographical sectors and parishes in every article I write and I'm also not responsible for James Street actually being in Stepney as per the beliefs of those who lived and visited there during the period. I just wanted to state where Lechmere lived in 1881 and as the examples I've provided show, I believe I did so with sufficient accuracy. I didn't think I was even saying anything new or controversial because, after noting that Lechmere's mother was living in Pinchin Street at the time of the 1881 census, my wording was:

''By this time, of course, Lechmere himself was married and living in Stepney'.

The use of 'of course' signalled that I wasn't saying anything that wasn't already known.

The precise location of where Lechmere was living in 1881 wasn't important to this point because I was dealing with Lechmere's connection to Pinchin Street itself”

[MrBarnett]

This David Barrat?

“I can't enter into pedantic technical discussions about geographical sectors and parishes in every article I write and I'm also not responsible for James Street actually being in Stepney as per the beliefs of those who lived and visited there during the period. I just wanted to state where Lechmere lived in 1881 and as the examples I've provided show, I believe I did so with sufficient accuracy. I didn't think I was even saying anything new or controversial because, after noting that Lechmere's mother was living in Pinchin Street at the time of the 1881 census, my wording was:

''By this time, of course, Lechmere himself was married and living in Stepney'.

The use of 'of course' signalled that I wasn't saying anything that wasn't already known.

The precise location of where Lechmere was living in 1881 wasn't important to this point because I was dealing with Lechmere's connection to Pinchin Street itself”

Lord O is still assuming that his dim acolytes wouldn’t dare question his opinions.

‘I just wanted to state where Lechmere lived in 1881, and as the examples I've provided show, I believe I did so with sufficient accuracy.’

Quite the opposite, Lord O, the examples you provided suggest you don’t have the foggiest idea about the Victorian East End.

[The Baron]

Are we allowed to quote David Orsam ?!


The Baron

[MrBarnett]

This really isn’t very complicated:not for the first time Lord O has made a complete fool of himself. If anyone has the interest (and the bollocks) to follow it up, feel free to discuss it. But beware if you do, you’ll probably become the subject of a 10,000 -word flush of ‘word vomit’.

[MrBarnett]

Are we allowed to quote David Orsam ?!


The Baron

Blimey! Where have you been?