One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[MrBarnett]

I couldn't give a monkeys what Mr Orsam has said with regard to Stepney. I have no interest in the Lechmere theory. However, the great majority of his work with regard to the Maybrick hoax makes a lot of sense. But what would I know, you refer to anyone who agrees with Mr Orsam as his "dim acolytes", this really says it all about you. And now, your traffic awaits. Have a trip down to the Highway, at the junction of Breezes Hill, last time I was there they were nipping along at 70 miles an hour.

Only ‘the great majority’ of his Maybrick work makes sense? That leaves a small minority that doesn’t?

Batten down the hatches, Observant one.

[Abby Normal]

I celebrate lord orsams latest with limerick

There once was a man named Barrett
whos nose was as long as a ferret
he said he found Jack
then took it all back
And flew away on a giant green parrot

[rjpalmer]

There once was a woman named Graham
Who helped Mike out of a jam
By telling folks
That SHE saw the hoax
When living with her pa and step-ma’am.

[jmenges]

Everyone:
Please cool it with the ridicule.
There's no need for that nonsense here.

JM

[Mark J D]

... James Street...

-- Do you happen to know where Lech's house was in James Street before his June 1888 move to Doveton? I can feel another graphic coming on...

Squinting at the animated graphic in TME, it looks like they may just have bunged the marker in the middle of the street...

M.

[MrBarnett]

-- Do you happen to know where Lech's house was in James Street before his June 1888 move to Doveton? I can feel another graphic coming on...

Squinting at the animated graphic in TME, it looks like they may just have bunged the marker in the middle of the street...

M.

No 20. I can’t remember if I’ve ever seen where it stood in the street.

[caz]

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.

I don't have the answers either, RJ. I thought I'd made that clear. The earliest reference I could find on my timeline, based on all the documentation I had access to and summarised, was as I posted.

Without checking right now, because I know from long experience that it would probably be a total waste of my limited time, there is a cryptic reference from around early May 1992, when Doreen was putting together her blurb for prospective publishers, to time revealing all - which could suggest Shirley had found Maybrick's motto by then, and therefore his identity was known, but Doreen was teasing without revealing - until she had a fish on the line. That could in turn suggest that Mike had revealed the diary's supposed author by mid to late April.

It's all speculation of course, but I can't see Mike hugging the secret to himself on April 13th if he knew it by then. He wanted to be the one to identify Jack the Ripper. I think that much is clear, whoever you think created the diary. If he already knew the author's supposed identity when he took it to London, I tend to think he couldn't have resisted blurting it out, rather than risk anyone stealing his thunder and being the first to identify Maybrick.

As Maybrick seems to be a dirty word, perhaps we should be calling this saga The Liverpool Play.

[caz]

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?

Hi Herlock,

There was absolutely no pressure on Mike to claim he had faked the diary - either by himself or with help from others. He put all the pressure on himself to do so, in the forlorn hope that it might provoke his estranged wife into making contact and letting him see their only child again. If they had faked the diary together, he'd have been able to prove it, and Anne might just have relented and agreed to his demands in exchange for a promise to retract all his confessions and destroy any incriminating evidence.

The fact is that Anne had no intention of giving in to the emotional blackmail of a drunk and abusive ex husband, and he never did produce any evidence of where and when he obtained the diary scrapbook. This could be viewed by any impartial observer as evidence of a man who had nothing but lies and empty threats left in his arsenal.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

So, Mike--this man you call an incompetent fool--fooled us all for TWENTY-NINE AND A HALF YEARS with a very simple and straight forward trick---until Lord Orsam finally decided to see if Mike's reference really could be traced to the Liverpool Echo.

And they can't be.

I'm just wondering if Mike used the Liverpool Echo references in his notes because his friend Tony Devereux worked there. So if Mike was questioned too thoroughly, he could just say he got (some of) the information from Tony.

[caz]

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

Poor Mike. By April 1992 his balls were in the grip of a second female - Shirley Harrison. His wife had had to tidy up all his written work since 1986, and now it was Shirley who gave him the tip regarding Bernard Ryan's book on the Maybrick story. He so wanted to impress everyone with his research skills, but it would be obvious he had simply followed Shirley's advice and taken notes from that book, if he named it as the source for his research supposedly dating back to August 1991, long before he'd ever heard of Shirley, let alone Ryan.

It took a sad git to go through Mike's notes with a fine-toothed comb after all this time, and come out the other end with what one highly respected researcher described to me privately as "nonsense on stilts".

Orsam should know the feeling by now of handing over one's balls on a platter. I can only assume he derives some pleasure from repeating the process on a regular basis.

Or is it a case of where there's no sense, there's no feeling?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Gary,

I think the argument goes that if Mike could only have used Ryan as his source for some or all of the Maybrick info in his research notes, which he sourced vaguely to the Liverpool Echo [no dates or page numbers], then he lied.

As if we didn't already know the man was capable of lying, whether or not he gained any advantage by doing so.

Where Orsam oversteps the mark is using his certainty that Mike faked the diary to inform his speculation. His certainty that Mike used Ryan's book as a source for the fake made it necessary to argue that he didn't name it in his research notes as it would look 'suspicious'. I'm not sure why that would have been so, given that anyone researching the diary innocently might very reasonably have reached for Ryan's book in doing so, as Shirley's own advice to Mike demonstrates. I imagine the same argument would be used to explain why Martin Fido was not named by Mike as a source for his ripper research.

The reason Mike didn't name Ryan was far more likely to be because he had claimed his Maybrick research dated back to before Shirley first made him aware of the book's existence.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Mike used Ryan's book as a source for the fake, which makes it necessary for Orsam to argue that he didn't name it in his research notes as it would look 'suspicious'. I'm not sure why that would have been so, given that anyone researching the diary innocently might very reasonably have reached for Ryan's book in doing so, as Shirley's own advice to Mike demonstrates.

What is this even supposed to mean, Caz?

If anyone might have innocently reached for Ryan--and the book was AVAILABLE in the same Central Liverpool Library where Mike was allegedly doing his research--then why didn't Mike simply name it as the source for his notes??

And if Shirley suggested that he use the book, wouldn't that have been all the more reason to simply do so?

And, by the way, Caz, you have still failed to provide any source or evidence that Harrison suggested Ryan's book to Barrett any time before July/August 1992. Do you plan on doing so, or just keep on repeating it as a fact?

Nor does the idea even make the least bit of sense.

Keith tells us that these notes were created with 'input' from Shirley Harrison, who was giving Mike research 'tasks.' (25 Years thread, 2017).

Yet we are supposed to believe Shirley asked Mike to find information down at the Library that she already had at her disposal in Ryan's book? How does that make sense? And why would Mike have been 'frustrated' at not finding the material (Keith's account from Shirley) if it was easily found in the book that Shirley suggested?

Yet, instead of just looking inside the book that Shirley told him to check, Mike just regurgitated the same information back to Shirley from Ryan, but attributed it falsely to The Echo, and she never noticed?

How does that make sense?

I think if I was Shirley, I'd be a little bit insulted by your suggestion, Caz.

And if Shirley is helping to create these notes, why do they refer to being transferred from 'August 1991' --eight months before Mike and Shirley were even working together?

There is a lot here that doesn't pass the smell test.

And if Barrett's motive was to impress Shirley--and there is not one jot of evidence this is the case for Mike had marketed himself as a 'scrap metal dealer' and hid his earlier journalist career--why didn't he do the same with the 'Ripper' material?

For instance, when Mike mentions Annie Chapman's nickname of 'Siffey' in the notes, why doesn't he say he found it in The Echo, or in the Manchester Evening News, which reported the nickname Siffey on September 9th?

Instead, Mike reports he got his information straight out of secondary source: Colin Wilson & Odell's book.



Doesn't look like he's trying to impress anyone. He's going with the obvious sources.

And this is the same book Mike made no effort to hide, because Paul Feldman remembered seeing it on Mike's bookshelf in Goldie Street.

Mike doesn't hide the Whittington-Egan source, either, nor Paul Harrison. He has page numbers throughout the notes for two of the books, and they are both secondary sources.

But suddenly when it comes to the Bernard Ryan material, he suddenly feels the need to hide his source and pretend he is doing 'real' research?

It doesn't make the least bit of sense.

At this point, I don't think there is much point in going any further with our discussion of these notes, because there are two points that can only be addressed once Keith Skinner returns, as they concern his own research.

RP

[rjpalmer]

One final bit.

It took a sad git to go through Mike's notes with a fine-toothed comb after all this time, and come out the other end with what one highly respected researcher described to me privately as "nonsense on stilts"

Hi Caz,

The way I look at it, it is a shame that they weren't gone over with a fine-toothed comb back in the day, because then maybe Anne Graham's provenance tale wouldn't have been so readily repeated and slow-walked as a plausible story in a number of prominent Ripper books, much to the confusion of the reading public.

Because--let's face it--don't these bogus notes finally put an inglorious end to Anne's claims?

Anne stated that she had given the diary to Mike through Tony Devereux sometime before August 1991 (the same date given on the notes), so this would mean that her husband had a minimum of 11 months to compile research, provided we accept the July/August date for these notes. During these many months Mike supposedly lived and breathed the Ripper, read every book in sight, spent hours down at the Liverpool Library, etc. etc. Digging through probate records, even.

Yet Anne Graham also admitted to "tidying up" and typing these notes from Mike's rough drafts and scraps. In some measure, they represent her work. And that work has now been shown to be deceptive and bogus.

Are we supposed to believe that Anne Graham wouldn't have been aware that notes quickly cobbled together from only four sources --and NO work down at the library--represented nine months of obsessive labor? Or didn't notice that Mike was studiously avoiding his major source?

Let's state the obvious. Stick with Fat Eddie Lyons if you want, this is the death knell of Anne's "in the family" provenance.

[caz]

I'm just wondering if Mike used the Liverpool Echo references in his notes because his friend Tony Devereux worked there. So if Mike was questioned too thoroughly, he could just say he got (some of) the information from Tony.

That's a reasonable suggestion, Scotty, except that I don't think Mike had even given a thought by mid 1992 to the idea that he might one day be suspected of writing the diary himself. In fact, he said he was flattered when it was suggested that he might have been capable of doing so. Mike knew what he was and was not capable of, and so did Anne.

Anne would have had to be clinically insane to embark on such a project with a man such as Mike, let alone be the one caught holding the pen.

That's the stuff of bad tv dramas where you are invited - in this case by Orsam - to park your disbelief at the door.

If Mike had only just worked out the diary author's supposed identity by April 1992, he didn't have much time to research Maybrick and support his claim that his research had been going on for many months before March 1992. Taking notes from Ryan, after Shirley pointed him in that direction, and sourcing them to old, undated issues of the Echo, would have been the quickest and simplest way to get round it.

Nobody ever came forward with a shred of first-hand evidence that Mike had even so much as dropped a hint about this diary before the magic date of March 9th, 1992, from which time it was all anyone could do to shut Mike up about it.

The clues are there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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!



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!

You'll be surprised to learn, RJ, that your last sentence makes perfect sense to me.

Unfortunately, the rest of your post was just more nonsense on stilts, confirming that there really was nothing to see there.

But do keep the faith. If Mike could see what you are reduced to claiming about him, I'm sure it would give him real fits.

I'll keep this really simple. Shirley asks Mike if he's read Bernard Ryan's book on Maybrick. Mike tells her he's never heard of it, so he gets himself a copy to get more acquainted with the Maybrick story - probably borrows it from the library to save dipping into the housekeeping or his beer tokens.

Shirley has been led to believe Mike has been researching the diary since the summer of 1991. He could make excuses for not having taken any notes, or for Anne accidentally hoovering them up or throwing them away, but he doesn't do that. Instead, he sets about putting together a series of notes and asks Anne to tidy and type them up for him to give Shirley, as a sign of his good faith as her partner in research. Taking the easy route, he uses Shirley's tip and takes his Maybrick info from Ryan's book, but then can't name it for obvious reasons: Shirley would know he has done next to no Maybrick research in all those months before she gave him a source to work with. It was evidently beyond his wit to look for other books on Maybrick to use instead, or it simply didn't occur to him until after he'd done the work.

If Mike had faked the diary using Ryan, however, it should have been child's play to pick any Maybrick source but Ryan for his bogus research notes, in the same way he is meant to have used Martin Fido's books for the fake diary, while studiously avoiding them when compiling his ripper notes.

I meant to add, Mike would also 'admit' to Alan Gray that he faked the scratches in Albert Johnson's watch.

Would you at least concede that the loaded word 'admit' has no place in the above sentence, and that Mike was talking the most desperate nonsense at this point? And can I expect a straight answer to this question or another load of waffle?