One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Well I'd love to be of assistance but - as the Dark Lord has said (or inferred) - I'm no chemist and this stuff is well beyond my ken, ken?

I hardly expect you to conduct chemical experiments on a piece of photographic paper that is now lost.

What you might do, in your conversations with Keith Skinner, is to enquire if Dr. Eastaugh made any notes about this paper before it went missing or has any clear recollection of it. As I say, I tried twice to contact him (using two different email addresses) and was ignored. Maybe he was too busy; maybe the emails were lost; or maybe he is simply embarrassed by the whole Diary fiasco and has put it in his rearview mirror like Anne Graham has apparently done. I have no idea, but I am in your debt.

The thing is, if Dr. E recalls plain white photograph paper like Baxendale seems to have been describing, your friend FDC has a major problem because carte de visit photographs were on exceedingly thin paper that was then mounted to card stock, and this would give their photographic outlines a bigger dimension that what was seen and measured in the diary.

And this, in turn, would mean that the photographs were almost certainly 20th Century, and thus what Michael John Barrett described has not been debunked.

I look forward to reading any progress you might be able to make on this important point.

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a bit of a yawning chasm? Are you seriously suggesting that Barrett would accept a partly-used Victorian notebook which had been used as a 'diary' by a Lady of leisure (or indeed by anyone else) and would thus have left those pages in in order to prove it was genuinely Victorian?

Why do you engage in this sort of moonshine, Ike?

Barrett, knowing that he now had a Victorian diary, would cut out the inappropriate pages (just as he did with the Edwardian photo album) confident that the paper would pass any forensic testing. The name 'Jack the Ripper' and the date '3 May 1889' would signal to the gullible that the diary was Victorian, and no forensic examination of the paper would give the game away as it did in the Hitler Diary fiasco.

You might recall that your good friend Lord Orsam found an article on the Hitler Diaries in Celebrity (a magazine that the freelance writer Michael Barrett frequently wrote for in the 1980s). If you go back and read that article--and who knows? Is it unlikely that Bongo Barrett wouldn't have read Celebrity since he was such a frequent contributor?--you will see it directly refers to the modern paper fibers giving the game away.

What you are doing here is the same thing that the early Diary researchers did--finding it to your advantage to portray Barrett as a 'mental vegetable' (the phrase someone evidently used when describing Barrett to the chemist Alex Voller)--in order to quickly brush aside any chance that he hoaxed the diary.

Methinks that any intellectually honest detective would balk at a such methods, but here we are.

If you and your comrades continually see fit to portray Barrett and/or Graham as mental vegetables (or some other strange personality type) then it is little wonder that you have "eliminated them from your inquiries."

But have you done so using legitimate arguments and analysis, or merely out of desire and self-deception?

[Iconoclast]

I hardly expect you to conduct chemical experiments on a piece of photographic paper that is now lost.

It wouldn't matter if it were lost or found, mate - my experiments in chemistry are legendary amongst those people who make money out of rebuilding houses.

What you might do, in your conversations with Keith Skinner, is to enquire if Dr. Eastaugh made any notes about this paper before it went missing or has any clear recollection of it. As I say, I tried twice to contact him (using two different email addresses) and was ignored. Maybe he was too busy; maybe the emails were lost; or maybe he is simply embarrassed by the whole Diary fiasco and has put it in his rearview mirror like Anne Graham has apparently done. I have no idea, but I am in your debt.

You excluded the possibility that he hasn't replied to you because he thinks you're a twat, RJ. Now, I don't know if he does think you're a twat (and I'm not about to ask in case he reveals that he thinks both of us are twats as I'm very sensitive about being criticised in any way, as you know) but I'll ask him and if he doesn't answer we'll know exactly where we stand.

The thing is, if Dr. E recalls plain white photograph paper like Baxendale seems to have been describing, your friend FDC has a major problem because carte de visit photographs were on exceedingly thin paper that was then mounted to card stock, and this would give their photographic outlines a bigger dimension that what was seen and measured in the diary.
And this, in turn, would mean that the photographs were almost certainly 20th Century, and thus what Michael John Barrett described has not been debunked.
I look forward to reading any progress you might be able to make on this important point.

Well thanks to you (you big snitch) I have to pretend that FDC's opinions and theories are my own, but I'm sure I won't disappoint you nevertheless. Hint hint, Mr C!

Why do you engage in this sort of moonshine, Ike?

Because all too frequently I come on these boards and find you barking at the freakin' Moon! If they just kept you in at night, my life might be seriously ameliorated.

Barrett, knowing that he now had a Victorian diary, would cut out the inappropriate pages (just as he did with the Edwardian photo album) confident that the paper would pass any forensic testing. The name 'Jack the Ripper' and the date '3 May 1889' would signal to the gullible that the diary was Victorian, and no forensic examination of the paper would give the game away as it did in the Hitler Diary fiasco.

Let's just remind ourselves how this debate started: You posted a picture of someone's inner thoughts and said it was from 1874 because they'd dated the blank pages thus, and you therefore inferred that Mike Barrett must have meant blank notebooks (as well as diaries) when he asked for an 1880-1890 diary. And all this just to 'show' that his highly specific request for a 'diary' was actually a highly generalised request for a genuine Victorian document (for which, by the way, the years 1837-1901 might have been significantly more appropriate). I think we can all see through this moonshine, chummy. Anyone - even the rabid, spitballing Mike Barrett - must have realised that they were being quite hopelessly specific when they would have a far better shot at glory if they'd specified, "A genuine Victorian notebook or diary" (etc.).

You might recall that your good friend Lord Orsam found an article on the Hitler Diaries in Celebrity (a magazine that the freelance writer Michael Barrett frequently wrote for in the 1980s). If you go back and read that article--and who knows? Is it unlikely that Bongo Barrett wouldn't have read Celebrity since he was such a frequent contributor?--you will see it directly refers to the modern paper fibers giving the game away.

I have it indeed, though it is one of over 1,000 articles so it would take me longer than I'm willing to commit to to find it. I therefore accept that it contained the critical prompt to Barrett not to use an old Beano album (happy 85th birthday to that great institution, by the way, even if it wasn't even remotely as good as the Buster or the Sparky) or a Psion Series 5.

What you are doing here is the same thing that the early Diary researchers did--finding it to your advantage to portray Barrett as a 'mental vegetable' (the phrase someone evidently used when describing Barrett to the chemist Alex Voller)--in order to quickly brush aside any chance that he hoaxed the diary.

I brush aside his claims to have written the text of the Victorian/Edwardian scrapbook because of the facts surrounding his many conflicting claims, RJ.

Methinks that any intellectually honest detective would balk at a such methods, but here we are.

Ike of the Yard (it was literally true!) remains that same bastion of truth and integrity all of my dear readers so love (yes, especially the thick ones at the back of the class pulling Alison Pratts' hair 'cos they really fancy her).

If you and your comrades continually see fit to portray Barrett and/or Graham as mental vegetables (or some other strange personality type) then it is little wonder that you have "eliminated them from your inquiries."
But have you done so using legitimate arguments and analysis, or merely out of desire and self-deception?

Evening all ...

[Iconoclast]

Rendell's team referred to it as Victorian or Edwardian and it has never been conclusively dated.

Here is what Rendell wrote in the summary of his report:

"The diary is not written in a Victorian diary book but in a scrapbook - highly unusual. The first twenty pages are torn out, which is illogical unless one assumes a forger bought a Victorian or Edwardian-era scrapbook, tore out the used pages, then filled in the diary."

In the main report Rendell writes:

"I was also surprised that the diary was written in a scrapbook, not a normal diary book. Scrapbooks, much larger in format and containing very absorbent heavy paper, were used for mounting postcards, photographs, valentines and other greeting cards, and I had not previously encountered one used as a diary. It was possible, but very unlikely."

Leaving behind the obvious, that Time Warner did not ask Kenneth T. Rendell to comment on whether he was 'a bit suspicious' because the Victorian scrapbook didn't look like the Jack the Ripper diary he was expecting James Maybrick to have written, it is clear that Rendell was merely spitballing from the back of the classroom over whether it was Victorian or Edwardian.

A little more work needs to be done to prove it wasn't Victorian is the message I take away from that heap of crap that Rendell passed off as commentary (by way of writing off millions of pounds of potential revenue for his customer, Time Warner - a sort of Alissa Heinerscheid moment when she was barely out of diapers).

" ... unless one assumes a forger bought a Victorian or Edwardian-era scrapbook, tore out the used pages, then filled in the diary".

Such a wonderfully nuanced position to take, don't you think?

[caz]

Sorry Caz, I should have realized you wouldn't get the joke without it being explained. Since I have a moment, let me help you out.

The funny part wasn't that you and Ike aren't joined at the hip; the funny part is that your contradictory guesstimations expose just how desperate you both were to come up with an excuse--any excuse--why Mike and Anne couldn't have written the diary.

"They couldn't have written it--11 days was too short!"

"They couldn't have written it--11 days are too long!"

Obviously, no thought went into either of your two guesses. What thought could have gone into them? Neither one of you were there, neither of you know how long it takes Anne to write a page, neither one of you know how much time she was allotted to work on the diary at night, etc. etc. It's just random guesswork, and it backfired badly because you came with completely different answers.

And naturally, when RJ makes the opposite claim: "They could and they did write it, between 1st and 12th April 1992", he is not indulging in random guesswork?

What is he relying on then? The word of a liar, who dated this back to 1990, arguably because he never dreamed anyone would give it the slightest credence otherwise? If it was designed to get a reaction out of Anne, he had to make it sound like it could be true, so if she still refused to talk to him or let him see Caroline, he could threaten to send it to Feldy or Shirley, to throw doubt on her 'in the family story', which she had convinced them was true. I doubt Mike could have cared less if Melvin Harris was inclined to believe his claims. From the evidence it is clear he cared very much about the fact that Anne had persuaded Feldy and the other diary people to believe she had given the diary to Devereux to give Mike and she had kept this from him all that time - his own wife.

What Mike could never have envisaged - or cared about - is just how desperate a couple of keyboard warriors would be in 2023 to believe the unbelievable - and by that I mean what would have been totally unbelievable to the people Anne was dealing with. If he'd tried to date the creation to early April 1992, it would have been a step too far, and Anne would have known it. Nobody who then believed Anne's story would have given Mike's a moment's credence.

What keeps getting forgotten is the transcript that the Barretts made from the diary, and the time that would have taken after the handwriting was done. Editing the typed draft to make it consistent with a transcription done afterwards would arguably have taken more effort, and possibly more time, to get it absolutely 'right', so this pair of fakers must have decided not to chance it, and do a freshly transcribed version straight from their freshly executed hoax, trying to imagine it was not their own work.

Another example of this desperation was the recent question about how Martin Earl could have sold Mike a blank or partially blank diary from 1880-1890 if there weren't any dates stamped on the booklet.

Doh! Was this Thom's idea of a brainteaser? Sorry, Tom, but I think a reasonably intelligent 10-year-old could figure it out.

Maybe because a partially blank diary, if Earl could find one, would have handwriting in it that would indicate the date?????

And maybe it wouldn't? It certainly wouldn't when Mike had removed every trace of what it had previously been used for.

Look no further than the image below:




Notice anything? No stamped dates anywhere in sight, but we still know it was written in 1874. The handwriting itself indicates the age of the diary.

A bit like the Battlecrease Bugle then, only we don't know it was written in 1889, just because the handwriting indicates it.

Once Barrett cut out all the used pages, he'd be left with a blank diary. Yes, there would be no markings to indicate the date--just as there are no markings in the Edwardian photograph album that Mike eventually used--but who cares? He would know it would forensically pass any tests it might be subjected to, which was the whole point of his request to Earl.

Wonderful, as long as the used pages of the 'diary' he asked for would all be at the front, or at least consecutive, eh? It would have looked beyond suspicious with a missing page here and a missing page there, and other missing pages elsewhere. And he couldn't have been that bothered about the date of the paper in any case, if he knew the photo album was Edwardian before he snapped it up at the auction sale. Did he assume that early 20th century paper would also 'pass any tests it might be subjected to'? Or did he have to lower his sights and abandon all hope of bagging a 'diary' from the 1880s because he was under 'intense time pressure' after all?

How bothered was he about the paper, when he specified 1880-90; got 1891; if he then settled for 1901-10?

When Donald Rumbelow's bookbinder contact examined this Edwardian photo album, he described it as a typical Victorian guard book, but opinion is apparently divided. I bet Mike thought he was a silly sausage, though.

I swear y'all spend your time putting ridiculous hurdles in your own path in order NOT to solve what is, in reality, a very simple problem.

Actual hurdles in RJ's path, including Brian Rawes, Tim Martin-Wright and the missing auction ticket, don't stop him clinging to ridiculous arguments about the diary's origins. That gives RJ a mighty three-hurdle problem. I don't consider that 'very simple' at all. But I can see why he is trying to distract everyone from hurdles he has no chance of clearing.

[rjpalmer]

I only have a minute before I must leave my desk.

Regarding Martin-Wright, from what I've read, he didn't inform Paul Feldman of this alleged incident (some bloke attempting to sell the diary) until June 1994. Yet, extensive news of the Maybrick Hoax had already been published in the Liverpool Post in April 1993---some fourteen months earlier, so this is hardly newsworthy.

Yet, as I understand it, you are claiming that Martin-Wright had already documented this conversation prior to April 1993, but is that strictly accurate?

You and Ike tend to speak in riddles, but from what I gather all Martin-Wright really did is to try to remember when he heard about this incident and for some reason he connected it to the purchase of a hat rack or a coat rack or some other unexplained transaction, and from this Martin-Wright thought it had occurred sometime in December 1992.

What exactly did he document in December 1992?

And why on earth did he date the proposed sale to 1991, which obviously means that whatever he had heard about was unrelated to the electrical work Dodd had done in March 1992?

Ciao.

[Iconoclast]

I only have a minute before I must leave my desk.
Regarding Martin-Wright, from what I've read, he didn't inform Paul Feldman of this alleged incident (some bloke attempting to sell the diary) until June 1994. Yet, extensive news of the Maybrick Hoax had already been published in the Liverpool Post in April 1993---some fourteen months earlier, so this is hardly newsworthy.
Yet, as I understand it, you are claiming that Martin-Wright had already documented this conversation prior to April 1993, but is that strictly accurate?
You and Ike tend to speak in riddles, but from what I gather all Martin-Wright really did is to try to remember when he heard about this incident and for some reason he connected it to the purchase of a hat rack or a coat rack or some other unexplained transaction, and from this Martin-Wright thought it had occurred sometime in December 1992.
What exactly did he document in December 1992?
And why on earth did he date the proposed sale to 1991, which obviously means that whatever he had heard about was unrelated to the electrical work Dodd had done in March 1992?
Ciao.

Quick answer, as far as I recall all the details off the top of my head, is that there is no physical evidence that Tim Martin-Wright was offered anything at all never mind Jack the Ripper's diary.

The power of his story is his credibility. It's pretty impeccable. He was (and still is, I imagine) a well-educated, highly successful businessman who had no obvious rationale for making up a story about being offered Jack the Ripper's diary. He places the offer to 1991 or 1992 because he recalls it being not long after a shop called APS Security (?) was set-up and he can't find the evidence to show whether that was in 1991 or in 1992, but that he knows it can't have been in 1993.

That's the very quick version. Mrs I wants me to go through and watch Blue Bloods with her so I need to dash too ...

[Iconoclast]

What you are doing here is the same thing that the early Diary researchers did--finding it to your advantage to portray Barrett as a 'mental vegetable' (the phrase someone evidently used when describing Barrett to the chemist Alex Voller)--in order to quickly brush aside any chance that he hoaxed the diary.
If you and your comrades continually see fit to portray Barrett and/or Graham as mental vegetables (or some other strange personality type) then it is little wonder that you have "eliminated them from your inquiries."
But have you done so using legitimate arguments and analysis, or merely out of desire and self-deception?

Hi RJ,

Looking back, I really ought to have asked you for the origin of this claim. I've never heard Barrett described as a 'mental vegetable', or at least I don't recall knowing it (or typing it) if I ever did.

Could you please let us know where this term was used?

Cheers ...

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Could you please let us know where this term was used?

Hi Thomas.

I'm puzzled.

Is it normal for you to ask questions of 'twats' and 'clowns' and those who are 'bonkers'? Is it your general habit to converse with the insane?

If so...welcome to the club!

Jokes aside, and seeing that I'm here anyway, I'm always happy to help.

The term 'mental vegetable' was used by Mr. Voller in a letter to Nick Warren in February 1996. He also used the phrase 'near moron.'



"...it is your comments about Mike Barrett which come as a real revelation and as I shall endeavour to explain, not a very pleasant one. I was not in fact aware that he had a criminal record but it is your comments about his intelligence which give me a sinking feeling. Nobody in the past, has ever described him to me as anything other than a near-moron. You are of course aware of my visit to London last October, when I examined the diary and expressed the opinion that on the basis of appearances, ink and paper had been together for 80-90 years. It was an honest opinion, taking into account all the known facts and making due allowance for the various unknowns and purely on the basis of appearances, I can see no reason to change that opinion. What you may not be aware of however, is that having expressed that opinion, I was asked whether I could think of any way in which such an appearance could be simulated by a forger and the gist of my reply was that I could not think of any method which would not be unmasked by chemical analysis. In the light of your comments about Mike Barrett, I rather regret making that statement because even at the time, I knew it not to be entirely true. There is in fact such a method, but I did not think it even worth mentioning because it seemed to me that a complete idiot such as I assumed Mike Barrett to be could not possibly comprehend the details. Briefly, the method I have in mind is as follows: A) Prepare the text, using paper of the right sort of vintage and an ink of the appropriate type i.e. an ink which though of recent manufacture is chemically identical or near-identical to a genuine Victorian ink. B) Wait for a few weeks, then expose the text to the radiation of an accelerated fading apparatus for as long as may be necessary. The apparatus mentioned above is widely used in industries such as ink, paint and textiles to reproduce quickly, the effects of long periods of natural fading. Traditionally, it consisted of a big carbon-arc lamp enclosed within a metal drum, on the interior of which, the samples would be affixed. In recent years, however, the carbon-arc lamp has been largely superseded by the xenon-arc lamp and more recently still, by the mercury-tungsten flurescent (MBTF) lamp. These are powerful tools; with samples of paint you can simulate effects say five years exposure to natural sunlight in just a matter of weeks. How long it would take to produce an 80-90 years old effect with ferrogalic writing, I have no idea; as far as I am aware the experiment has never been tried. But it might well be possible, certainly the dyestuffs involved are not noted for great lightfastness, so the period of time might not be prohibitive. I also have to say (ruefully) that as a method of forgery, the above technique would probably produce more convincing results in amateurish rather than professional hands because a person unused to the finer points of the operation of the equipment would probably obtain willy-nilly, exactly the sort of highly uneven fading that is very characteristic of the old documents. Of course, the above raises many questions and doubts. Would Barrett, in spite of your comments, really be able to grasp the point? Could he conceivably have access to such apparatus either personally or through some confederate? Could his reputed scrapyard connections have enabled him to get hold of an obsolete but still workable carbon-arc lamp? If so, could he afford to use it. Arc lamps use really prodigious amounts of current, although the objection would not apply to the MBTF lamp which usually requires no more than 0.5kw per hour. If he could obtain a carbon-arc lamp, could he also obtain the necessary electrodes, which have to be replaced after about 36 hours running time. Perhaps you might care to comment. All that I can say for the moment is that Mike Barrett the freelance writer (what sort of material did he write, by the way?) seems a very different proposition to Mike Barrett the mental vegetable."

It seems to me that the only people that could have left Mr. Voller with this impression were those who had gathered in Robert Smith's office the day that Voller made his visual examination of the diary. I don't recall who all were present, but it should be easy enough for you to look it up. Of course, unless Keith Skinner was there and taped this conversation as part of his exclusive archive, I can't, of course, know if the terms 'near moron' and 'mental vegetable' were actually used, but clearly one of the people present left Mr. Voller with that impression either on that occasion or in subsequent conversations.

By contrast, we have an account of Anne Graham saying she was first attracted to Barrett because of his 'intelligence'; we have Shirley Harrison, who probably knew Barrett better than any of the other researchers, as being "far from stupid"; and we have his old editor at Celebrity magazine remembering his professional reliability.

This is why I have wondered why one or more of the early diary researchers would have--dare I say 'muddied the waters'--by giving a subjective opinion about Barrett's alleged inabilities or mental weaknesses to someone who was meant to be giving an objective opinion about the diary's ink.

RP

[rjpalmer]

PS. Ike--now that I've obliged you with the above, do you happen to know if we'll be seeing Mike and Anne's 29-page typescript of the diary anytime soon? Thanks.

[Iconoclast]

PS. Ike--now that I've obliged you with the above, do you happen to know if we'll be seeing Mike and Anne's 29-page typescript of the diary anytime soon? Thanks.

I can honestly say that I think it is highly unlikely that that will be made available any day soon, RJ, at least not from my efforts. It's not mine to make available, you see, so - unless that situation changes - my copy will have to remain in the Iconoclast vaults, I'm afraid.

[rjpalmer]

It's a pity, Ike. Once upon a time--it's ancient history now--the policy was 'the more information out in the open the better.'

But everywhere we look the world's gone partisan and tribal, eh?

So, no different here.

[Iconoclast]

The term 'mental vegetable' was used by Mr. Voller in a letter to Nick Warren in February 1996. He also used the phrase 'near moron.'

"...it is your comments about Mike Barrett which come as a real revelation and as I shall endeavour to explain, not a very pleasant one. I was not in fact aware that he had a criminal record but it is your comments about his intelligence which give me a sinking feeling. Nobody in the past, has ever described him to me as anything other than a near-moron. You are of course aware of my visit to London last October, when I examined the diary and expressed the opinion that on the basis of appearances, ink and paper had been together for 80-90 years. It was an honest opinion, taking into account all the known facts and making due allowance for the various unknowns and purely on the basis of appearances, I can see no reason to change that opinion. What you may not be aware of however, is that having expressed that opinion, I was asked whether I could think of any way in which such an appearance could be simulated by a forger and the gist of my reply was that I could not think of any method which would not be unmasked by chemical analysis. In the light of your comments about Mike Barrett, I rather regret making that statement because even at the time, I knew it not to be entirely true. There is in fact such a method, but I did not think it even worth mentioning because it seemed to me that a complete idiot such as I assumed Mike Barrett to be could not possibly comprehend the details. Briefly, the method I have in mind is as follows: A) Prepare the text, using paper of the right sort of vintage and an ink of the appropriate type i.e. an ink which though of recent manufacture is chemically identical or near-identical to a genuine Victorian ink. B) Wait for a few weeks, then expose the text to the radiation of an accelerated fading apparatus for as long as may be necessary. The apparatus mentioned above is widely used in industries such as ink, paint and textiles to reproduce quickly, the effects of long periods of natural fading. Traditionally, it consisted of a big carbon-arc lamp enclosed within a metal drum, on the interior of which, the samples would be affixed. In recent years, however, the carbon-arc lamp has been largely superseded by the xenon-arc lamp and more recently still, by the mercury-tungsten flurescent (MBTF) lamp. These are powerful tools; with samples of paint you can simulate effects say five years exposure to natural sunlight in just a matter of weeks. How long it would take to produce an 80-90 years old effect with ferrogalic writing, I have no idea; as far as I am aware the experiment has never been tried. But it might well be possible, certainly the dyestuffs involved are not noted for great lightfastness, so the period of time might not be prohibitive. I also have to say (ruefully) that as a method of forgery, the above technique would probably produce more convincing results in amateurish rather than professional hands because a person unused to the finer points of the operation of the equipment would probably obtain willy-nilly, exactly the sort of highly uneven fading that is very characteristic of the old documents. Of course, the above raises many questions and doubts. Would Barrett, in spite of your comments, really be able to grasp the point? Could he conceivably have access to such apparatus either personally or through some confederate? Could his reputed scrapyard connections have enabled him to get hold of an obsolete but still workable carbon-arc lamp? If so, could he afford to use it. Arc lamps use really prodigious amounts of current, although the objection would not apply to the MBTF lamp which usually requires no more than 0.5kw per hour. If he could obtain a carbon-arc lamp, could he also obtain the necessary electrodes, which have to be replaced after about 36 hours running time. Perhaps you might care to comment. All that I can say for the moment is that Mike Barrett the freelance writer (what sort of material did he write, by the way?) seems a very different proposition to Mike Barrett the mental vegetable."

RP

First and foremost, I do feel rather churlish at not offering a quid pro quo as I note that Voller's letter is not already amongst my extensive collection but - as I've said before - what I possess is not mine to share (although I've sneaked in the occasional snippet here and there). I would dearly love to have a facsimile of the original but I could not then offer anything in return so I shan't hold my breath.

What I would iterate here is what you admitted to - there is no evidence that anyone other than Alec Voller used the expressions 'near-moron' and 'mental vegetable' to describe Mike Barrett, though I agree that having not met Barrett Voller must have applied his own linguistic gymnastics to similar implications expressed by someone somewhere. Not necessarily those congregating in Robert Smith's office but perhaps by someone with a more strident view of Barrett's cognitive charms. Indeed, Voller wrote to Paul Feldman on May 23, 1996, following a 'phonecall between them the previous evening so depending upon when Voller wrote to Warren, it is possible that Robert Smith and his entourage that day were entirely innocent of the potential charge.

The other point I would certainly make is that Voller's letter to Warren - detailing as it does a far from straightforward hoaxing process - fills me with great cheer. I had always assumed that the process would be somewhat more straightforward than he described but it is clear that it most certainly was not. So either unemployed ex-scrap metal dealer and cheeky chirpy Scouser Mike Barrett got his hands on some serious kit and used it highly effectively or else the research chemist for Diamine was betting his house on an 80-90 years age for the marriage of paper and ink.

I wonder how many of the diary detractors feel it is even vaguely realistic to think that Mike Barrett complied with Voller's fairly complex instructions? "Perhaps you might care to comment" stated Voller to Warren which reads very much like a challenge rather than a mere enquiry.

Oh, and all within the magical eleven days during which the linseed oil was drying in the gas oven and Mike and Anne were composing their work of hoaxing art!

Aye, right! [Thank you, Billy Connolly]

Ike

[Iconoclast]

It's a pity, Ike. Once upon a time--it's ancient history now--the policy was 'the more information out in the open the better.'

But everywhere we look the world's gone partisan and tribal, eh?

So, no different here.

I imagine the passing of time may have given Keith reason to mellow his otherwise open heart. His offer appears to have been made during a time when discussion was more respectable than discussion is today, certainly in these far darker places where the Maybrick debate struggles to just about breathe fresh air from time to time.

[rjpalmer]

Indeed, Voller wrote to Paul Feldman on May 23, 1996, following a 'phonecall between them the previous evening so depending upon when Voller wrote to Warren, it is possible that Robert Smith and his entourage that day were entirely innocent of the potential charge.

Well, it is always convenient to blame the dead guy, I suppose.

But Voller's phrase "nobody in the past has ever described him to me as anything other than a near moron" suggests to my ears that Mr. V is referring to several informants singing from the same hymn book, nor does it appear to me that Shirley Harrison was a member of that particular congregation.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Iconoclast]

Well, it is always convenient to blame the dead guy, I suppose.

But Voller's phrase "nobody in the past has ever described him to me as anything other than a near moron" suggests to my ears that Mr. V is referring to several informants singing from the same hymn book, nor does it appear to me that Shirley Harrison was a member of that particular congregation.

Enjoy your weekend.

Bollocks, I hate it when I'm wrong, but I've just noticed that you said that Voller's letter to Warren was dated February 1996.

Okay, so someone in Robert Smith's room that day is due a subpoena (see what you learn watching 'Blue Bloods'?) ...