One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

It is interesting to see how Diarythink has evolved over the years.
Now that we know this isn't true--it's all in Bernard Ryan--the argument is that the diary DOESN'T contain any obscure or intimate knowledge of Maybrick's life (serving on a grand jury in December 1888/the bicycle/the walking tour of Wales/the funeral of John Piggot/etc.) because it is only Maybrick's murder journal.

I do so wish you'd include Maybrick's birthday and those of his wife and children in this list, RJ - after all, there's no way on God's good earth that a hoaxer could have known about them without the benefit of Ryan.

[Iconoclast]

Bollocks, Old Man.
Barrett did do research--he told Keith Skinner in 1999 that he had read one book on the Maybrick case---Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.
Of course, one might conclude that Mike was lying because he was a pathological liar, after all, but if he was lying, perhaps Keith can explain how Barrett was able to know that Ryan, did in fact, write the one book on the Mayrick case that does contain all the 'Maybrick' information that would allow the hoaxer to create the diary.
Was Barrett a scholar of the Maybrick case, or are we to believe that this was just another lucky guess by Mike?

Goodness, gracious me, RJ. Post-March 1992, there is always the possibility that someone simply told Mike that everything regarding Maybrick was to be found in Ryan and therefore - when he started to self-identify as the world's greatest forger - he made use of that information.

The problem with your arguments, RJ, is that you only ever seek out those which support your theory on the Barretts (a theory which is so ridiculous as to be utterly risible). So you present angles as though they are facts. This is your greatest weakness.

It's a shame. If you could overcome this blinkered, narrow-minded, tunnel-visioned myopia, your thoughts might actually add some value to the debate. Mind you, it's easy to sympathise with your condition given how constraining those bloody drainpipes you peer down are.

[rjpalmer]

there is always the possibility that someone simply told Mike that everything regarding Maybrick was to be found in Ryan and therefore - when he started to self-identify as the world's greatest forger - he made use of that information.

Ah, so that's it, Ike. Someone (the modern hoaxer, evidently) simply told Mike that the art shop sold an ink that would test for chloracetamide, that Ryan's book would 'work' for a modern hoaxer, that an obscure essay in a secondary source would contain the quote by Crashaw, that there was an appropriate 11/12 day span between the next available auction at O & L and Mike's appearance in London. The modern hoaxer wasn't Mike and Anne, who created bogus research notes, etc., it was 'Mr. Big.'

I'm glad we've finally got that settled. I'll move on then.

[Iconoclast]

Ah, so that's it, Ike. Someone (the modern hoaxer, evidently) simply told Mike that the art shop sold an ink that would test for chloracetamide, that Ryan's book would 'work' for a modern hoaxer, that an obscure essay in a secondary source would contain the quote by Crashaw, that there was an appropriate 11/12 day span between the next available auction at O & L and Mike's appearance in London. The modern hoaxer wasn't Mike and Anne, who created bogus research notes, etc., it was 'Mr. Big.'
I'm glad we've finally got that settled. I'll move on then.

Absolutely classic Muddy-the-Mud-Boy response from - appropriately - Muddy the Mud Boy.

I thought your post that I was responding to was specifically about Ryan?

Not being psychic, I didn't realise that you were about to expand my retort to so many other aspects of the case, though - with the benefit of hindsight (and memory), I really should have known better ...

[jmenges]

Perhaps the personal insults are meant to be good-natured, perhaps not.
So, lets tone them down, please.

JM

[rjpalmer]

Ike, Old Man, I've got to take off for a few days, but let me repeat my question, because I would love to see your answer. I've never seen Keith Skinner address this and when I ask Caz about it, she just talks in circles and makes no sense whatsoever.


If was the Diary came out of Battlecrease via an electrician, why didn't Anne Graham simply admit this to Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, or Carol Emmas?

We've been told Anne was 'free and clear' of Mike and had been for months. She was refusing her royalty checks, we are told.

Her story all along (including when quizzed by Harold Brough after Barrett's confession) is that Mike got the diary from a man he knew from the pub. It would have been a minor admission to say that she wasn't sure if this man was Tony Devereux or someone else.

Instead, she sends everyone on a wild goose chase for years. She produces photographs for Feldman to theorize about, etc. She even allows researchers in to quiz her dying father.

As far as I can tell, you have utterly no explanation for her extraordinary behavior.

I'll look forward to your response on returning.

Ciao.

[Iconoclast]

Ike, Old Man, I've got to take off for a few days, but let me repeat my question, because I would love to see your answer. I've never seen Keith Skinner address this and when I ask Caz about it, she just talks in circles and makes no sense whatsoever.


If was the Diary came out of Battlecrease via an electrician, why didn't Anne Graham simply admit this to Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, or Carol Emmas?

We've been told Anne was 'free and clear' of Mike and had been for months. She was refusing her royalty checks, we are told.

Her story all along (including when quizzed by Harold Brough after Barrett's confession) is that Mike got the diary from a man he knew from the pub. It would have been a minor admission to say that she wasn't sure if this man was Tony Devereux or someone else.

Instead, she sends everyone on a wild goose chase for years. She produces photographs for Feldman to theorize about, etc. She even allows researchers in to quiz her dying father.

As far as I can tell, you have utterly no explanation for her extraordinary behavior.

I'll look forward to your response on returning.

Ciao.

I would have to guess, same as everyone else, RJ, and I'm happy to do so, but not before you clarify that source for your remarkable claim that James Maybrick spent the entire day out at Aintree in 1889 stuck on a bus at his own choosing.

[rjpalmer]

I would have to guess, same as everyone else, RJ, and I'm happy to do so, but not before you clarify that source for your remarkable claim that James Maybrick spent the entire day out at Aintree in 1889 stuck on a bus at his own choosing.

It's always the same, isn't it, Ike?

Although the account we have is Maybrick staying back with Gertrude Janion while the others entered the grandstand, your response is 'prove to me that Maybrick didn't steal away at a different time and enter the grandstand and stand within a few feet of HRH.' Despite there being no historical source for this, and the handwriting is not Maybrick's.

Just like, 'prove to me that there wasn't a strangulation murder in Manchester in the Spring of 1888 that went unrecorded.' I keep forgetting. Yours is a faith-based religion. Belief comes first, and it must be unseated.

So that's my source---the standard ones, Bernard Ryan, etc. working from HO 144/1638/A505678. If you reject the notion that there is an error in the text, based on your faith, fair enough I suppose.

Now, I'll love to see your thoughts on Anne's remarkable behavior when I return.

[erobitha]

Ike, Old Man, I've got to take off for a few days, but let me repeat my question, because I would love to see your answer. I've never seen Keith Skinner address this and when I ask Caz about it, she just talks in circles and makes no sense whatsoever.


If was the Diary came out of Battlecrease via an electrician, why didn't Anne Graham simply admit this to Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, or Carol Emmas?

We've been told Anne was 'free and clear' of Mike and had been for months. She was refusing her royalty checks, we are told.

Her story all along (including when quizzed by Harold Brough after Barrett's confession) is that Mike got the diary from a man he knew from the pub. It would have been a minor admission to say that she wasn't sure if this man was Tony Devereux or someone else.

Instead, she sends everyone on a wild goose chase for years. She produces photographs for Feldman to theorize about, etc. She even allows researchers in to quiz her dying father.

As far as I can tell, you have utterly no explanation for her extraordinary behavior.

I'll look forward to your response on returning.

Ciao.

My guess is Anne didn’t know who gave it to Mike. My guess is Mike kept up the Tony D nonsense even with Anne. My guess is if Anne really knew how it came to be she would have put a stop to the whole thing early on.

My guess is when she threatened to burn it Mike knew he could never tell her the truth.

Just my guess. I think you should ask her yourself old chap. She’s on Facebook. I can send you a link.

[erobitha]

On the subject of Chloroacetamide, if anyone is interested, paper manufactured in the LVP was treated with Chlorine. It is quite feasible that the tiniest amount of chlorine contaminated with the ink would register as Chloroacetamide on a gas test.

It would explain why such a minuscule amount was detected on one of the tests and none found in another. If Chloroacetamide was more abundant in the ink itself the amounts detected would be significantly higher.

Something new I learned from an ink expert this week.

[rjpalmer]

My guess is Anne didn’t know who gave it to Mike. My guess is Mike kept up the Tony D nonsense even with Anne. My guess is if Anne really knew how it came to be she would have put a stop to the whole thing early on.

My guess is when she threatened to burn it Mike knew he could never tell her the truth.

How is that an answer?

I'm not asking whether she knew about Eddie Lyons or not. I'm asking why she told the Formby/Yapp/'I saw it in 1968 and my dying father can confirm it' story.

She didn't know where it came from, so she simply made up a story and told it to Bob Azurdia, to Carol Emmas (her friend and co-author), Keith Skinner, and to Paul Feldman (her alleged romantic interest) just for the fun of it?

If you don't mind me saying, Jay, you have a strange way of responding without actually saying anything.

[Iconoclast]

So that's my source---the standard ones, Bernard Ryan, etc. working from HO 144/1638/A505678. If you reject the notion that there is an error in the text, based on your faith, fair enough I suppose.

Anyone have a copy of HO 144/1638/A505678 handy, per chance?

[Iconoclast]

Barrett did do research--he told Keith Skinner in 1999 that he had read one book on the Maybrick case---Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.
Of course, one might conclude that Mike was lying because he was a pathological liar, after all, but if he was lying, perhaps Keith can explain how Barrett was able to know that Ryan, did in fact, write the one book on the Mayrick case that does contain all the 'Maybrick' information that would allow the hoaxer to create the diary.

Just back on this note, we should observe here that Mike did indeed tell Keith Skinner in April 1999 that he had read Ryan's book. He also told him in a 2 hour 15 minutes recorded interview in Liverpool Library - some five years earlier on April 14, 1994 - that he had never heard of The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick until after he had met Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery on April 13, 1992.

So which of these two versions do you think is true, RJ, and on what grounds have you chosen your preferred truth here?

Also, as I have just demonstrated that Mike was a liar, what faith do you then place in anything he said at all, ever?

I understand now why you chose to get rid of your copies of the Alan Gray tapes - they reek of Barrett's pathological, controlling lying. To someone like you - with your dogged determination to deny us the answer to the riddle of who Jack the Ripper was - those lies could not remain amongst your collection. Just imagine if someone with an objective mind ever heard them?

[rjpalmer]

Just back on this note, we should observe here that Mike did indeed tell Keith Skinner in April 1999 that he had read Ryan's book. He also told him in a 2 hour 15 minutes recorded interview in Liverpool Library - some five years earlier on April 14, 1994 - that he had never heard of The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick until after he had met Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery on April 13, 1992.

So which of these two versions do you think is true, RJ, and on what grounds have you chosen your preferred truth here?

Based on David Barrat's excellent analysis of Mike and Anne's bogus research notes, I conclude that Barrett lied about not knowing Ryan--for obvious reasons.

Also, as I have just demonstrated that Mike was a liar, what faith do you then place in anything he said at all, ever?

As far as I am able to determine, the only person on this forum who puts faith in Mike's unsupported claims is Caroline Brown. She believes his whopper about having a second copy of Tales of Liverpool and his even bigger whopper about finding the Crashaw quote during a 'serious week' in the Central Liverpool Library. Both claims are preposterous and there is no source for either of them other than Barrett. That makes her the sole Barrett Believer in sight.

Your theory that Barrett was lying in 1999 about having only read Ryan's book doesn't help you. Use a bit more subtlety, Ike. You're embarrassing yourself.

This alleged 'lie' shows an astuteness that Barrett wouldn't normally have possessed unless you are also arguing that he is a scholar of the Maybrick case, but Ryan is indeed the only book that would have 'worked.' Your only explanation is that Barrett was apprised of this by the mythical 'Mr. Big.'

I understand now why you chose to get rid of your copies of the Alan Gray tapes - they reek of Barrett's pathological, controlling lying.

We've been warned by the administration to play nice, Ike, so I would appreciate it if you would quit telling lies.

I didn't 'rid' myself of the Alan Gray tape (I've spent a lot of time digging through a storage unit to find it), but my loss of it had nothing to do with Barrett being a liar--something I already knew and have acknowledged hundreds of times.

If you are willing, please send me copies of the said tapes, or send them to Lord Orsam, and I'll be happy to help you transcribe them in their entirety so the public can judge for themselves what they tell us about Barrett's affidavit.

The fact that you have no intention of doing so tells me quite a lot. You and your secret supplier are the ones hiding their contents...not me.

Well, Old Boy, my transportation is pulling out and all I have is my iPhone for the next few days, so I can't respond further. Whenever I use my iPhone with the annoying 'autocorrect' feature and limited editing I find I have more scattered mistakes than normal, and when this happens the head of the Typographical Taliban flies into a frenzy, and I do worry so much about not aggravating this sensitive soul.

When are you going to address Anne's behavior?

RP

[Iconoclast]

We've been warned by the administration to play nice, Ike, so I would appreciate it if you would quit telling lies.

Not my lies, RJ - I don't lie and I'd be grateful if you would retract this. I was simply offering 'my view' which is what you do constantly. Offering 'my view' is nowhere near lying and I trust you know that.

If you are willing, please send me copies of the said tapes, or send them to Lord Orsam, and I'll be happy to help you transcribe them in their entirety so the public can judge for themselves what they tell us about Barrett's affidavit.

RJ, I've told you before, this is not my material to share. Also, I have fully transcribed them myself so I would have no need of your assistance.

The fact that you have no intention of doing so tells me quite a lot. You and your secret supplier are the ones hiding their contents...not me.

I'm hiding nothing, RJ. How many times do I have to say this? The material is not mine to share. I share it, I get no more material, and wouldn't expect to.

When are you going to address Anne's behavior?

When I have unpacked my copy of Ryan (if I can find it) and tracked down HO 144/1638/A505678 which is not in my extensive collection of (currently) 613 folders. See, you don't get to answer a direct question by simply deflecting away from it.