One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[milchmanuk]

the show is no longer available/ i would not contemplate subscription ether to any site, i would found it.
on JTRforums they had a link to the old site.it,s possible for a request to channel 4.?
or if one of the forums has a download !
or member has private copy.
means thread request?

[milchmanuk]

i lifted this off an earlier posting i was reading,
my view as changed again .with the signature on the watch .
i now think its a shame it,s been polished.
as what looked like a X for Maybrick - K now to me looks like earlier signatures.
which is what i was trying to say,
i could not imagine a signature on paper bein the same as on a metal surface.
i guess i eat my own words again soon.

[rjpalmer]

One the principal that a cancer should not be allowed to spread, but should contained, let me here respond to certain remarks made by Caz Brown elsewhere.

On another site, Caz refers to Anne Graham taking “legal action” against those who have “damage[d] her personal reputation.”

The hypocrisy of this statement would be jaw dropping if we weren’t accustomed to similar shenanigans from the same source.

Does Caroline Brown include herself among those in legal jeopardy? She has made no secret of the fact that she believes Anne Graham is a serial liar who didn’t really see the diary in the late 1960s and thus lied both in speech and in print; by implication, Caz also believes Anne must have coached her own dying father into telling Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman another lie---that he had also seen the diary years earlier---shortly after World War II.

Caz doesn’t believe Anne’s story, and frankly I don’t either—it is an absurdity—so I can only imagine Caz will be my fellow defendant in this theoretical civil suit. Apparently, we are legally required to believe obvious malarky and to keep our tongues in our mouths.

But Caz’s hypocrisy gets much worse than this.

She has further insinuated on numerous occasions that an electrician named Eddie Lyons is guilty of both theft and the selling of stolen goods, using evidence that can only be described as flimsy to the point of non-existence. She is so accusing the Barretts, or at least Barrett, of accepting those stolen goods, and of both the Barretts of covering the crime by giving false and conflicting testimony.

What Caz is doing is commonly known as “projection”--- turning the tables away from her own accusations and acts of libel, by waving her finger at others.

What exactly is my offense? I believe Barrett is the hoaxer, but I can hardly be accused of libeling Mike Barrett. Barret CONFESSED to hoaxing the diary in a sworn affidavit. How can you libel someone who has admitted his crime? I believe him and have good reasons for believing him and that is the end of the matter.

Has Eddie Lyons, the focus of Brown’s accusations, similarly signed a sworn affidavit admitting to theft and the sale of stolen goods? Can Caz Brown produce this affidavit?

As for Anne Graham, I have not accused her of any crime. My belief is that Barrett told his then wife that the diary’s typescript was going to be a fictional work, marketed as a diary, and she cooperated on that false premise. There is nothing illegal about writing a work of fiction. Yes, she did sign a contract, but this was before the diary was sold to anyone, and, as she later admitted, “I just signed what Michael told me to sign.”

Barrett was a struggling journalist (not the ‘ex scrap metal dealer’ that he was marketed as by the diary’s supporters) and Shirley Harrison has revealed that Barrett belonged to a local writer’s circle. There is not a member these writers circles, regardless of their abilities, who isn’t writing a novel or a screenplay or fancying himself or herself as the next bestselling author. Barrett was no different. He even admitted it in his affidavit---the diary would be a “bestseller.”

Brown dismisses the idea that the diary began life as a work of fiction as ‘flimsy,’ but of course many people over the years, including at least one professor of English Literature, have commented that the Maybrick Hoax comes across as a work of fiction, complete with the obvious and immediate setting of the stage, the clumsily introduction of characters, the clear plot out-lines and foreshadowing, and the melodramatic repentance scene at the end. It stinks of fiction, and that someone could take this text seriously as a true confession of the Ripper doesn’t say a lot about their discernment or their judgment, nor does Caz’s dismissal of this idea say much about hers.

Anyway, that Caz is trying to project her own accusations on others is obvious enough, I suppose, so I’ll let it rest here.

[rjpalmer]

One other thing.

The biggest elephant in the room here - the missing link RJ seems reluctant to provide - is the small matter of how Anne's fictional typescript is meant to have come out of the wash as a handwritten diary in a genuinely old book, which Mike took to London on 13th April 1992 when the ink was barely dry on the page. What did Anne think was going on in Goldie Street, under the noses of herself and her daughter, in the days leading up to that point?

Despite Caz's grandstanding, there is no 'missing link' that I am reluctant to provide.

I've explained my beliefs and my reasoning about this numerous times. This "playing dumb" act is getting old. If Caz doesn't agree with my beliefs, it is neither here, nor there. I similarly disbelieve her strange and unsupported theories about the Diary being an old document that came out of Batttlecrease. We profoundly disagree, but the claim I am reluctant to explain my reasoning is just bilge water and bosh.

Anne Graham's own statement was that she believed Doreen, the literary agent, would just send Mike "packing" when he brought the diary to London. I've already quoted her numerous times.


In other words, she believed that Barrett's whole scheme would implode due to its own lack of merit. This is not my 'theory'--this is what Anne Graham herself stated.

This would explain how Anne--who claims to have been physically and emotional abused by Barrett--could have been coerced into cooperating. Just to keep the peace, believing (wrongly) that the diary would implode anyway. Further, as I have also said many times, there is circumstantial evidence and testimony that Graham actually attempted to stop Barrett's scheme. By her own admission, she fought Barrett and tried to burn the diary. According to an account given by the daughter (Caroline Barrett) to Paul Begg, she personality witnessed the fight. There is also the account of Anne's workmate Audrey, who said that Anne was upset about her husband "writing a book."

I am not 'reluctant' to explain my thinking--I think Anne both resisted Barrett, but also finally gave in, believing the diary scheme would implode when Barrett brought it to London. MY BELIEF IS BASED ON ANNE'S OWN STATEMENT.

The way I see it, Anne never believed in a million years that people would be dumb enough to actually believe in the diary's legitimacy. I've never walked an inch in Anne's shoes, but if Barrett was as violent and volatile as she claims he was, I can readily see how she might have humored him to keep the peace, knowing (wrongly) that his hoax would collapse anyway. And for all we know, Mike could have told her the physical diary was just a marketing gimmick and he would alert the literary agents to this fact.

This would hardly have been the first time someone blurred the lines of fact and fiction in a literary work. There are many, many examples of fictional works doing this.

I see nothing the least bit wrong with my beliefs--I think they cover all the known facts---but I've been told by Caz Brown that I've ignored the evidence that has exonerated the Barretts.

When asked what this evidence is that I'm allegedly ignoring, she has refused to say.

I ask again. What evidence exonerates Barrett and Graham?

[milchmanuk]

i dont know the truth about MB work life. never alone a scrappy.
but i bet he wished he collected that watch that a Texan offered hard dollars for.
this caz Brown as her self as a author .what has she written .
i did google her but found fictional stories ? are you a author RJ i have to ask as i dont know you.
its.relating to her legal jive on the other site.
these as i understand are forums for people to discuss what they please.
there not public statements in a way.
i thought she was goin to have a dig at me !.
if your a author i would understand if there was published allegations,
but i started to believe she is upping the anty !

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

i dont know the truth about MB work life. never alone a scrappy.
but i bet he wished he collected that watch that a Texan offered hard dollars for.
this caz Brown as her self as a author .what has she written .
i did google her but found fictional stories ? are you a author RJ i have to ask as i dont know you.
its.relating to her legal jive on the other site.
these as i understand are forums for people to discuss what they please.
there not public statements in a way.
i thought she was goin to have a dig at me !.
if your a author i would understand if there was published allegations,
but i started to believe she is upping the anty !

Caz co-authored 'Ripper Diary - Inside Story' with Seth Linder and Keith Skinner. Fairly essential reading if your delving into this subject.

[Iconoclast]

Caz co-authored 'Ripper Diary - Inside Story' with Seth Linder and Keith Skinner. Fairly essential reading if your delving into this subject.

Hi Milky (and Abe),

For clarity, Caz was Caroline Morris at the time the book was published.

Cheers,

Ike

PS Premier League kicks off two weeks today - can't wait! Howay the Lads!

[milchmanuk]

Caz co-authored 'Ripper Diary - Inside Story' with Seth Linder and Keith Skinner. Fairly essential reading if your delving into this subject.

was going to buy this but got so many books to get through at the moment.

[erobitha]

Caz can answer for herself with regards to RJ's legal comments, but I will just paste below what I just wrote over at the other place:

You can only defame people who are alive. When they are dead, you can say what you want about them to a degree.

The only exception to that is if direct family can claim their lives have been negatively affected in some way by such accusations.

In the case of Eddie Lyons, for example, I have publicly named him as finding the Maybrick document. He can sue me if he so wishes, and I will take my chances in court. I have, in effect, accused him of theft. He is welcome to sue me over it.

As for Anne Graham, RJ believes he has circumnavigated such risk by claiming Anne Graham may have been hood-winked or coerced. It does not mitigate against the fact he is associating her name with fraud directly or indirectly. I think she could have a case.

However, defamation cases are notoriously long and very expensive. Unless either Anne or Eddie wins the lottery, they can simply just write a legal cease and desist letter in the first instance in the hope the accusations (or innuendos) stop.

Mine with regards to Eddie will not.

[Iconoclast]

Caz can answer for herself with regards to RJ's legal comments, but I will just paste below what I just wrote over at the other place:

Morning ero b,

Although I would always accept that 'the other place' is a posher rag by half and therefore attracts a better class of poster (usually just the same ones playing nicer in the playground, in truth), I have never been able to get my head around its format. How do I find an active thread? Dead easy on Casebook. A total mare in the Kensington End.

Could you post the path so that the brickies and the sparkies and the ne'er do wells like I can find this happy wee chat you and Cazmo are having in your top hats and tails, please?

Ever so 'humbly yours, guv'nor,

Ike
Ex-Scrap Metal Dealer

[erobitha]

Well Ike it would appear the powers that be at the other place feel my post needed to be deleted.

I'm afraid I've just had to delete your post about the Maybrick Diary - not because I particularly disapprove of what you say, but because, as you say, you're making an accusation that could lead to legal action and while it's reasonable for you to be willing to take that risk, it could also lead to legal action being taken against the site. Obviously we have to protect the site against that possibility as a matter of principle, even though I don't believe it's at all likely. Please don't post any other potentially defamatory material.

It had been posted here https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/memb...maybrick-diary

[rjpalmer]

Well Ike it would appear the powers that be at the other place feel my post needed to be deleted.

[I]I'm afraid I've just had to delete your post about the Maybrick Diary - not because I particularly disapprove of what you say, but because, as you say, you're making an accusation that could lead to legal action and while it's reasonable for you to be willing to take that risk, it could also lead to legal action being taken against the site.

I would be very surprised to learn that the above wording was meant to suggest that the writer is endorsing your theory and accusations against Eddie Lyons as 'reasonable.'

[milchmanuk]

this has been discussed with many threads i presume.
the diary's origin .
i wondered if it was a wedding photo book.
and the front pages cut out in Rage , when Dear James learnt of his wife,s male friendships.

[rjpalmer]

From the pen of Tom Mitchell, aka 'Iconoclast', aka 'Soothsayer,' and possibly other aliases:

What is interesting is the dearth of examples where he [Barrett] claimed to have created the Victorian scrapbook whilst sober.

Mike created the hoax while sober? I very much doubt it. If he hadn't been three-sheets-to-the-wind the hoax would have been far more convincing, and he probably wouldn't have had the gumption to even pull this stunt.

If you mean that he never confessed to the hoax while in a state of sobriety, we have on record a private warning from Barrett's solicitor, advising Barrett to stop "strangling the golden goose." As such, it is hardly surprising that a sober Barrett would retract a confession that was so obviously detrimental to his legal and financial well-being on advice from counsel.

Barrettt did, in fact, make a rather lame and unconvincing retraction of his original confession to Harold Brough during an interview on the Bob Azurdia Show, but years later he was right back to confessing. Mr. Mitchell also keeps forgetting that Barrett's affidavit was not originally intended for public consumption --it was not a publicity gimmick-- and even the diary's most dedicated researcher, Keith Skinner, was not aware of it for many months or years after Barrett had presented it to his then wife, Anne Graham. This is an interesting and important point, but it clearly flies over the head of the diary's supporters who don't give it a moment's thought.

Tom argues that there is no evidence to back up Barrett's sworn affidavit. This is nonsense, of course, and it is telling that Tom immediately felt the need to write a postscript (available on JTR Forums) mentioning Barrett's attempt and subsequent purchase of a blank Victorian diary in the weeks before coming to London with the Maybrick Hoax. Funny how Tom felt the need to bring up this non-evidence. I'll set aside the part that Barrett also marketed himself as an ex-scrap-metal dealer when the record shows he had been working as a freelance writer in the 1980s and yet lied to his agent and to his collaborator, Shirley Harrison, about why and when he had purchased a word processor. If Tom and others don't find that suggestive, they should.

A key point is that no one was aware of Barrett's suspicious attempt to purchase a blank diary until after his sworn affidavit from January 1995 leaked to the public. Even then, the early diary researchers shrugged it off as just another of Barrett's lies---and as late as 1999 (at a Cloak and Dagger meeting) Keith Skinner was still clearly under the false impression that Barrett had purchased this diary in May 1992--that is, after Barrett had already brought the Maybrick Hoax to London in April of that year. Keith makes this clear during his rather sarcastic questioning of Barrett on this point. Thus, Barrett's account was generally mocked and dismissed as a fabrication, just as Tom Mitchell is trying, but failing to do now.

It was only subsequently shown that Barrett had been a late payer, and that he had in fact ordered and received this blank diary in late March 1992--that is, in the weeks before coming to London with the hoax--thus proving the account given in his affidavit. Much later, David Barrat tracked down the original advertisement published on Barrett's behalf (but almost certainly without his knowledge) by Martin Earl in Bookfinder. It shows that Mike specifically wanted a blank late-Victorian diary with a minimum of twenty blank pages---which makes a mockery of Anne Graham's later claim that he just wanted to see what a Victorian Diary looked like. Why does one need at least twenty blank pages to see what a diary looks like? Why does one need to actually purchase such a diary, anyway? There were Victorian diaries available at the Central Liverpool Library where Barrett was allegedly doing his research, including that of Edward Henry Stanley. And why does one have to do try to purchase this diary from a bookdealer in far-off Oxford?

Caz Brown has given the preposterous explanation that Barrett needed twenty blank pages in his appeal to Martin Earl in order to replicate the blank pages in the back of the Maybrick Hoax. His goal, according to her theory, was to determine a fair purchase price for the Diary of Jack the Ripper, then in the possession of Eddie Lyons, whom she alleges discovered this "old book" under Maybrick's floorboards. But this, of course, is not what Barrett asked for--Mike would have settled for an entirely blank Victorian diary if he could have got it--nor does it make the least bit of sense that the small, blank memo book that Barrett was desperate enough to buy would tell him anything about the value of a diary allegedly found under the floorboards of the house owned by James Maybrick, the victim in an infamous poisoning case. Her explanation is an absurdity, and even some of the diary faithful on Howard's old site scoffed at it.

I think Anne Graham was willing to make this flimsy excuse about Barrett's motive for buying a blank diary because she was unaware of Martin Earl's methods and was entirely unaware there was a paper trail showing that Mike had specifically asked for a blank diary or one with 'at least twenty blank pages.' (The typescript of the hoax created on Barrett's word processor was 29 pages in length).

When that advertisement was found, it should have been end game. Barrett's attempt to buy the raw materials, coupled with what we know about the diary's modernity, and the various conflicted stories told by Graham and Barrett, places this hoax squarely in their lap.

I do, however, feel that Graham is guiltless of any crime. I think she was bamboozled, bullied, and coerced by her then husband.

Despite Jay Hartley's accusation that I am "circumnavigating" legal risks by stating something I do not believe--this is not the case. As I have stated, my interpretation is that Anne Graham herself was alluding to this realty in her taped 'confession' to Paul Feldman.

Hartley, by contrast, is accusing Eddie Lyons of theft and the selling of stolen property--without the least scrap of evidence. He can't even show that Lyons knew Barrett in March or April, 1992, let alone that he sold him the Diary of Jack the Ripper for 25 quid. There's probably a reason the diary supporters don't want Eddie Lyons questioned by those who don't believe these accusations are valid. If I'm wrong about this, Tom Mitch, Caroline Brown, or Jay Hartley can feel free to send me his current whereabouts in a private message.

[rjpalmer]

this has been discussed with many threads i presume.
the diary's origin .
i wondered if it was a wedding photo book.
and the front pages cut out in Rage , when Dear James learnt of his wife,s male friendships.

Tom Mitchell's anonymous friend, if he exists, known only as 'FDC' has argued that the size of the missing photos is consistent with those of a Victorian carte-de-visit photograph.

But this doesn't work because the size of the photos in the diary are only consistent with unmounted carte-de-visite photographs, and these photos were invariably mounted on card stock because the albumen paper was so flimsy. By contrast, the 20th Century photos of that size were on sturdy paper stock with a border of the appropriate size.

This is highly relevant to FDC's theory, because the border of a photograph was even found in the binding of the scrapbook but subsequently (and amazingly) lost by the diary's chief forensic examiner who apparently never submitted it to any testing. It appears that he said nothing about it being sepia or tintype or albumen as discussed in Post #43 of the thread below, which has never been rebutted by Tom Mitchell:

Society's Pillar - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums