One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[John Wheat]

I've decided to reply to you again because the thing you were doing which caused me to 'ignore' you, you appeared to have immediately stopped doing. Obviously, I was 'ignoring' you so if you were still posting those stupid one-word and one-line cliched responses, I wouldn't know. I only knew what people were replying to. Being a man of real integrity (not the pretend kind of a certain individual back in the 1990s when he was actually terrified his own Ripper work would sell even less than the copies he was planning himself to buy), I act on my values not on my ego. If, however, I had not seen an unusual spate of attempted arguments by you when others therefore replied to you (I can't 'ignore' those), then I would most definitely be sticking to my guns.

The conclusion that you should;d draw - though, as I say, you won't give a toss either way - is that if it turns out that you are still posting those facile responses, then I'll definitely be sticking to my guns next time.

Fair enough.

[John Wheat]

PS It's a whim if it's done on the spur-of-the-moment which my 'unignoring' you was not.

It seemed like you were unignoring me on a whim. Again fair enough if it wasn't.

[caz]

It's hard saying, John. I would hope not.

But what I do know is that their willingness to turn a blind eye to the obviously bogus handwriting exposes the flimsiness of Caroline's argument.

No. My argument exposes a second contradiction in Palmer's, regarding Mike's request to Martin Earl.

According to Palmer, the only possible reason for Mike's request for a diary dating from 1880-90 was in order to get paper from the 'correct period', which would pass the kind of forensic testing that the Hitler Diaries had failed.

According to Palmer, Mike rejected the 1891 diary he was sent [which had paper from pretty much the right period, but was very small and had 365 printed dates inside] then went out and bagged himself a photo album dated 1908/09, knowing there was no actual difference, forensically, between late Victorian and Edwardian paper.

According to Palmer, while Mike was forensically aware when it came to the paper, and knew it had to be of the correct period, he didn't give two hoots that his wife would be holding the pen, because he knew [how??] that when it came to the handwriting, an exception would be made and a blind eye would be turned.

Palmer's entire argument is based on his own presumption that the handwriting has to be Anne Graham's.

Think about it.

According to Palmer, Mike makes sure that the paper is right, but somehow knows that a) the handwriting won't be readily identifiable as his wife's, and b) even if it is, he will still get away with it because nobody will care.

Let's hope Palmer gets a response from Anne soon because, goodness knows, we could all do with a good laugh.

[caz]

I then asked Caz to outline the advances in bookbinding and paper production that occurred between 1888 and 1909 that allowed her to call the photo album Victorian rather than Edwardian, but I'll let you work out for yourself whether she gave me a straight answer.

Personally, I'll put my money on Edwardian...

But that's not how Palmer worded the question to me originally, so I'll let the readers work out for themselves whether the question was straight in the first or the second place.

Back on 27th July, I wrote:

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.

That should have made it fairly plain that I was bowing to the expertise of an actual bookbinder, so Palmer's reworded question above was addressed to me in error.

But it gets worse.

On 3rd August, I wrote:

And what does Barrett do next, according to Palmer? He bags himself an Edwardian photo album, totally forgetting why he needed Victorian paper that would pass the test that failed Kujau.

On the same day, Palmer responded:

Please describe to your readers (do we even have readers on the Maybrick threads?) the advancements in paper production and/or bookbinding techniques that took place between 1889 and 1908/9 that would allow an expert to differentiate between a Victorian album from an Edwardian one.

Note how 'would allow an expert' has been altered to 'allowed her' [Caz]. Naughty.

On 4th August, I responded to the original question:

Not my problem. I'll check back to see Palmer's evidence for Mike Barrett knowing there were no advancements in the twenty years between 1888 and 1908 that could have caught him out, just like Kujau was caught out.

So it was never about my personal knowledge of the subject, but firstly the opinion of a professional bookbinder when he was examining the scrapbook and secondly - and more to the point - what Palmer supposes Mike Barrett could have known about the date range that would work if he had been attempting to fake JtR's diary.

It was Palmer's argument that Mike knew he needed Victorian paper when contacting Martin Earl, and Palmer who is still putting his money on Mike buying Edwardian paper at the auction sale at the end of the same month. So could he finally give his readers a straight answer to a very straight question:

How does Palmer expect Mike to have known, by 31st March 1992, that there would be no discernible difference forensically, and therefore he hadn't needed Victorian paper after all?

[Iconoclast]

Palmer's entire argument is based on his own presumption that the handwriting has to be Anne Graham's.
According to Palmer, Mike makes sure that the paper is right, but somehow knows that a) the handwriting won't be readily identifiable as his wife's, and b) even if it is, he will still get away with it because nobody will care.
Let's hope Palmer gets a response from Anne soon because, goodness knows, we could all do with a good laugh.

I might as well save RJ the digital ink. What he will say is that Mike got Anne to transcribe the text for 'innocent' reasons and therefore neither he nor Anne would have had any concerns about the obvious mismatch between Anne's handwritten account and what they guessed would be Maybrick's hand. It was all just for a bit of fun, see? No harm, no foul, and all that. It was only in very early March 1992 - when it suddenly occurred to Mike that he ought to self-identify as someone who couldn't pay their mortgage - that he decided that it was an obvious Get-Out-of-Jail card of the financial problems they weren't actually in to present the scrapbook as the actual account by James Maybrick of his crimes as Jack the Ripper.

But - hold on - why then the 1891 diary? And why then need a scrapbook from Outhwaite & Ltherland on March 31, 1992? If it was all done beforehand, no further artefact was needed? And if the Maybrick scrapbook was compiled in the early days of April 1992, was it still in all 'innocence' or did Anne and Mike know exactly what they were doing, scribbling away as they were just days before taking the document to London where they hoped and prayed that it wouldn't occur to anyone to check its provenance, and chief amongst which, its handwriting?

See how the handwriting issue cuts very much both ways? If Maybrick's very private journal was not in a hand which matches his very public hand, why on earth not? Is it possible that the two were sufficiently different as to appear from two entirely different people?

But if it were not Maybrick's journal at all but rather that of a hoaxing scoundrel, we just come back to the even stranger possibility that such an attempt was undertaken with seemingly not a jot of attention to detail around the very thing that would be pretty much checked first - the hand it was written in.

Curioser and curioser, says I. But at least their fellow hoaxers - those of the watch - made some effort to convince those fools in London by at least tracking down Maybrick's actual signature from the freemason records in order to prepare a hoax at least vaguely credible right from the start.

Can anyone make sense of this conundrum???

[caz]

Well, as of course you know, Caz, Michael Barrett had no established back story in the world of forgery or hoaxing anything whatsoever. He was very much the one-hit wonderman of that particular genre - like God and His best-selling 'The Bible' (whatever happened to Him, by the way?), Zagar & Evans and their 'In the Year 2525', and the bloke selling face-masks down our local in November 2019 (now that seriously put Melvin Harris to shame).

Honestly, guv'nor, it's a fair cop, I've got Shergar in me barn, Lord Lucan's me gardener, the original Jules Rimet trophy's on me mantlepiece, and I wrote the Maybrick scrapbook. No, but, really, I did. I wouldn't lie about such a thing!

Yeah, it's odd, isn't it, that we all know Mike was a thief, a liar and a con merchant, but some people just can't believe he might have been lying about Mr and Mrs B 'solving' the Christian world's greatest murder mystery with a literary fake that was all their own work.

What happened to make this mendacious thief turn over a new leaf and let his dAirY cash cow's milk turn sour and dry up? Are we meant to believe that he had a sudden, unprecedented attack of conscience? Reminds me of a hilarious line from the Royle Family, about someone in a supermarket having "an attack of déjà vu by the tomatoes".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If John Wheat "really has to hear" the Alan Gray tapes, then why doesn't the person allowing you access allow others to hear them?

What is so damning about these tapes that they can only be heard and interpreted by those in the inner sanctum?

Funny. Palmer was once in the 'inner sanctum', but carelessly gave away his own Barrett & Gray tapes, like there was nothing quite damning enough to put an end to the debate one way or t'other.

But no matter if Anne can finally put a lid on it for Palmer.

[rjpalmer]

How does Palmer expect Mike to have known, by 31st March 1992, that there would be no discernible difference forensically, and therefore he hadn't needed Victorian paper after all?

Caz acts like these are baffling enigmas and contradictions when, in reality, a child of 10 can work out Mike's train of thought.

It's called "lowering one's standards," and one would think the Diary Detectives, in particular, would be familiar with the concept.

Barrett sought suitable Victorian paper from Martin Earl in early March, almost immediately after speaking to his fish-on-the-line, Doreen M.

Mike initially fobbed-off Doreen with the 'I'm going to York' excuses while Earl rummaged around, but Earl ultimately failed to find a suitable medium, instead sending Barrett a useless, too small 1891 memo book.

This wouldn't do.

Now fearing the London fish would soon swim, and knowing the York excuse was running thin, by the end of the month Barrett settles for the Edwardian photo album at O & L, having earlier failed, with Earl's assistance, to find something more suitable.


Caz doesn't seem to appreciate that by now three weeks had passed since Mike's initial call. When running a swindle, one must strike while the iron is hot.

Yes, the idea that Jack the Ripper would write his confessions in an Edwardian photo album in handwriting that was not his own is an utterly inane concept and it is indeed amazing that Barrett would have thought such an idea would work....

...and yet here we are!

There is no contradiction at all: just an objection lesson that a conman like Barrett has more insight into human gullibility than the London literati.

Mike may have picked up some of this insight into human frailty when working as a scrap metal dealer--a profession not especially known for giving suckers an even break.

One early account refers to Barrett as a scrap metal scale's man, but his own sister called him a 'scrap metal dealer.' The jury is out.

[rjpalmer]

I think Caz must imagine that the O & L auction house employed an in-house paper and bookbinding expert, warning any potential forgers or hoaxers the danger of using a 1909 photo album to create a 'Victorian' relic, because the forensics might be off.

I rather think such was not the case.

An increasingly eager Barrett took a chance, and, as I wrote earlier, nothing succeeds like success. Smith & Co. accepted it hook, line, and sinker. And then there's Tom.

Let me also remind the small number of people still reading this sub-forum that in the 1790s a man called William Henry Ireland hoaxed dozens of documents, including an entire play, purportedly written by William Shakespeare.

He didn't bother imitating the handwriting, assuming that no hidden trove of genuine Shakespeare documents would pop up, biting him in the backside.

Hoaxers take risks.

Seems like a rather obvious concept, no?

But while some willingly turned a blind-eye to the bogus handwriting, I still can't imagine that they would have accepted a spiral notebook from the 1960s.

I would think the Maybricknicks would be insulted by Caz's line of argument, but instead they seem to embrace it!

[Iconoclast]

What happened to make this mendacious thief turn over a new leaf and let his dAirY cash cow's milk turn sour and dry up? Are we meant to believe that he had a sudden, unprecedented attack of conscience?

Well, I don't know either, Caz. It's a complete mystery why Michael Barrett suddenly decided to attempt to derail the gravy train when it was just gathering steam at the same time that his marriage had collapsed, he had lost access to his beloved Anne and his beloved daughter Caroline, and he had started to hate Paul Feldman who - he thought - was sleeping with his errant wife.

It's a complete conundrum, isn't it?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Mike initially fobbed-off Doreen with the 'I'm going to York' excuses while Earl rummaged around, but Earl ultimately failed to find a suitable medium, instead sending Barrett a useless, too small 1891 memo book.

Oh, it's a 'memo' book now, is it? Did it suddenly self-identify as such having once been a diary? Barrett asked for a diary but he got a 'memo' book - but that's okay because it's got the chromosomes of a diary! Sorry to be transdiaric, RJ, but it was a diary and no amount of linguistic surgery or medication will change that fact.

Now fearing the London fish would soon swim, and knowing the York excuse was running thin, by the end of the month Barrett settles for the Edwardian photo album at O & L, having earlier failed, with Earl's assistance, to find something more suitable.

And yet are we not recently minded to note that the date of April 13 had not yet been set in stone so there was absolutely no pressure whatsoever on Barrett or anyone else?

Caz doesn't seem to appreciate that by now three weeks had passed since Mike's initial call. When running a swindle, one must strike while the iron is hot.

I refer you to my previous comment. Was it not you yourself who not so long ago argued that Barrett was under no pressure whatsoever because the April 13 date had yet to be agreed or confirmed? Where's the pressure, RJ, except when it suits you?

Yes, the idea that Jack the Ripper would write his confessions in an Edwardian photo album in handwriting that was not his own is an utterly inane concept and it is indeed amazing that Barrett would have thought such an idea would work....

Oh, you just can't help it, can you? Muddy the Mud Boy slings in a bit of mud at what he thinks is just the right moment to influence the argument in his favour. " ... in handwriting that was not his own ...", as if never were it more proven.

...and yet here we aren't!

There is no contradiction at all: just an objection lesson that a conman like Barrett has more insight into human gullibility than the London literati.

There are many times when I sit and wonder if you actually believe this stuff, RJ. Not only did Barrett know that the London literati would be gullible, it turned out that actually they were! That's some weed you're smoking, my son.

Mike may have picked up some of this insight into human frailty when working as a scrap metal dealer--a profession not especially known for giving suckers an even break.

Of course. It all makes sense now.

One early account refers to Barrett as a scrap metal scale's man, but his own sister called him a 'scrap metal dealer.' The jury is out.

Well it's critical that the jury rightly considers the profound impact that Barrett's mooted history as a scrap metal dealer had on his nascent and quite brilliant hoax. I just hope they're not all on the same dope you're polluting the air with.

[caz]

I might as well save RJ the digital ink. What he will say is that Mike got Anne to transcribe the text for 'innocent' reasons and therefore neither he nor Anne would have had any concerns about the obvious mismatch between Anne's handwritten account and what they guessed would be Maybrick's hand. It was all just for a bit of fun, see? No harm, no foul, and all that. It was only in very early March 1992 - when it suddenly occurred to Mike that he ought to self-identify as someone who couldn't pay their mortgage - that he decided that it was an obvious Get-Out-of-Jail card of the financial problems they weren't actually in to present the scrapbook as the actual account by James Maybrick of his crimes as Jack the Ripper.

But - hold on - why then the 1891 diary? And why then need a scrapbook from Outhwaite & Ltherland on March 31, 1992? If it was all done beforehand, no further artefact was needed? And if the Maybrick scrapbook was compiled in the early days of April 1992, was it still in all 'innocence' or did Anne and Mike know exactly what they were doing, scribbling away as they were just days before taking the document to London where they hoped and prayed that it wouldn't occur to anyone to check its provenance, and chief amongst which, its handwriting?

See how the handwriting issue cuts very much both ways? If Maybrick's very private journal was not in a hand which matches his very public hand, why on earth not? Is it possible that the two were sufficiently different as to appear from two entirely different people?

But if it were not Maybrick's journal at all but rather that of a hoaxing scoundrel, we just come back to the even stranger possibility that such an attempt was undertaken with seemingly not a jot of attention to detail around the very thing that would be pretty much checked first - the hand it was written in.

Curioser and curioser, says I. But at least their fellow hoaxers - those of the watch - made some effort to convince those fools in London by at least tracking down Maybrick's actual signature from the freemason records in order to prepare a hoax at least vaguely credible right from the start.

Can anyone make sense of this conundrum???

Palmer believes that Anne Graham can, so we shall see what she makes of it all.

In her place, I would personally love to receive a letter from a sympathetic American stranger, giving chapter and verse on how I was unfairly tricked by my deceased ex husband into writing a fictional story, identifying JtR as James Maybrick, and didn't even suspect the lying bugger of anything untoward when he asked me to transfer it by hand into a doctored photograph album, so he could take it straight to a London literary agent as a sales gimmick.

Normally, manuscripts are sent to agents, not taken to them in person, even when the distance is not great, so from Anne's point of view it would only have been the 'sales gimmick' angle that involved the additional expense of Mike's return train ticket down south. I remain sceptical that Anne would have been persuaded by Mike to go along with this highly unusual request [a second one, following the 'unusual request' he had made to Martin Earl] when she'd have had every reason to refuse, and just tell him to post off what was on the word processor.

Ah, it's cocktail hour here at Brown Towers, so I must dash.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Let me also remind the small number of people still reading this sub-forum that in the 1790s a man called William Henry Ireland hoaxed dozens of documents, including an entire play, purportedly written by William Shakespeare. He didn't bother imitating the handwriting, assuming that no hidden trove of genuine Shakespeare documents would pop up, biting him in the backside.

This is not even vaguely the same situation as the Barretts in 1992. I know that Wiki has a habit of being wrong so I'm prepared to be corrected, but here's what the great fount says:

His father, Samuel Ireland, was a successful publisher of travelogues, collector of antiquities and collector of Shakespearian plays and "relics". There was at the time, and still is, a great scarcity of writing in the hand of Shakespeare. Of his 37 plays, there is not one copy in his own writing, not a scrap of correspondence from Shakespeare to a friend, fellow writer, patron, producer or publisher.

So Ireland had every reason to know (not simply suspect) that it would be extremely unlikely that the handwriting issue would cause his 'forgery' any concerns, unlike the 'forgery' of James Maybrick's confession for which Barrett could have had no such prior insight into the likelihood of Maybrick writings turning-up. Indeed, given the nature of his death, Barrett ought to have assumed that Maybrick material would be still extant. And yet you have Anne gaily scribbling away in some random hand immune to the very great risk that a prison sentence would soon follow because of the speed at which Maybrick's handwriting could be 'proven'.

Hoaxers take risks.

Everyone takes risks. Every day. There is nothing insightful about the fact that hoaxers take risks. Their taking risks is not evidence that everyone is a hoaxer, which is what you appear to be surreally implying.

Seems like a rather obvious concept, no?

Nope. Not for a moment, Muddy.

But while some willingly turned a blind-eye to the bogus handwriting, I still can't imagine that they would have accepted a spiral notebook from the 1960s.

Had Barrett turned up with a spiral notebook from the 1960s, I think he'd had been soon locked-up for his own safety. What is your point, caller?

I would think the Maybricknicks would be insulted by Caz's line of argument, but instead they seem to embrace it!

I've clearly missed something about Caz's line of argument ...

[Iconoclast]

Palmer believes that Anne Graham can, so we shall see what she makes of it all.

Let me make a Harrislike prediction: RJ Palmer will never contact Anne Graham (via Chris Jones) other than to verify the ingredients of Mike's happy baccy ...

[Iconoclast]

I'd like to make a request of Paul Begg - assuming he's still reading the Casebook (or probably more likely just The Greatest Thread of All as so many others do): Could he confirm or deny that Melvin Harris ever shared with him the source of his (Harris') three mythical predictions regarding the bones of the Maybrick scrapbook (i.e., the claim that Harris predicted that it would be pretty much as it was)?

We have rather allowed this claim to go unchallenged over the years and I reckon it's time we addressed it head-on.

"But before seeing it I made three predictions; it would be written in a simple iron-gall ink, which could not be dated; it would be written in an old journal with its front pages torn out; the handwriting would not match the known handwriting of James Maybrick. With time all three forecasts proved correct ...".

This is such a bold claim and - on the surface - makes Harris' hoax busting credentials appear untouchable; but - to my knowledge - Harris has not provided the occasion (and therefore the date) of his prescient expectations on hearing about the emergence of this most controversial of Ripper artefacts.

So, if Paul (or indeed anyone else) can confirm for us when Harris wrote, published, or made his claims (in front of witnesses, obviously), I think we would all be grateful.

Harris was a Man of Integrity as his cabal was actually named so he should have recorded his predictions for the record and there should be no problem locating the occasion or situation in which he foretold the mooted failings of Jack the Ripper's scrapbook.