One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

It took over 20 years, but we've finally reached the promised land.

Over on JTR Forums, Caroline Brown writes:

"Option two then occurs to Mike. Why not try to obtain a genuine Victorian diary from the 1880s with at least twenty blank pages, so he can handwrite his best-seller into it as - a clever little sales gimmick? What's not to love?"


This might be the most delightful comment I've ever seen concerning the Maybrick Hoax.

I can certainly live with this.

Having already called a literary agent in London, Mike contacts Martin Earl to obtain a blank or nearly blank diary from the 1880s in order to create a best-seller about Jack the Ripper.

Which is precisely what Barrett admitted to doing in his 5 January 1995 affidavit and what I've been arguing for years.

And Mike ropes in his long-suffering wife to help him, who agrees on the assumption that the literary agent in London (Doreen Montgomery) will 'just send Mike packing,' or by contrast, on the belief that Mike will admit on arrival that the physical diary he spoke about on the phone was a sales gimmick and what he's really selling is the fictional story/Ripper theory.

And of course, Anne, the more able of our two writers on Goldie Street, would not have protested helping Mike based on either of these two beliefs.

I am delighted that Caz has finally come to her senses and has embraced the essence of my thinking.

Now just apply Ockham's Razor and toss out the non-event under Dodd's floorboards, and we can call it a night.

We've finally answered those three nagging questions.

When? March/April 1992. Who? Mike and Anne. Why? To create a bestseller.

Hallelujah.

[Scott Nelson]

Or maybe the copy Janet borrowed is a little red herring, like the little red diary?

Caroline, this is what I mean about the simplest of incidents being subject to alternate interpretations. Say it wasn't a red herring, maybe Janet didn't borrow it, but it was returned to her.

[erobitha]

It took over 20 years, but we've finally reached the promised land.

Over on JTR Forums, Caroline Brown writes:

"Option two then occurs to Mike. Why not try to obtain a genuine Victorian diary from the 1880s with at least twenty blank pages, so he can handwrite his best-seller into it as - a clever little sales gimmick? What's not to love?"


This might be the most delightful comment I've ever seen concerning the Maybrick Hoax.

I can certainly live with this.

Having already called a literary agent in London, Mike contacts Martin Earl to obtain a blank or nearly blank diary from the 1880s in order to create a best-seller about Jack the Ripper.

Which is precisely what Barrett admitted to doing in his 5 January 1995 affidavit and what I've been arguing for years.

And Mike ropes in his long-suffering wife to help him, who agrees on the assumption that the literary agent in London (Doreen Montgomery) will 'just send Mike packing,' or by contrast, on the belief that Mike will admit on arrival that the physical diary he spoke about on the phone was a sales gimmick and what he's really selling is the fictional story/Ripper theory.

And of course, Anne, the more able of our two writers on Goldie Street, would not have protested helping Mike based on either of these two beliefs.

I am delighted that Caz has finally come to her senses and has embraced the essence of my thinking.

Now just apply Ockham's Razor and toss out the non-event under Dodd's floorboards, and we can call it a night.

We've finally answered those three nagging questions.

When? March/April 1992. Who? Mike and Anne. Why? To create a bestseller.

Hallelujah.

Shame about that Eddie Lyons shaped problem. The so-called innocent bystander named by witnesses (even to this day) as having found something important / an old book by people who have no vested interest whatsoever. That is not even taking into consideration his appearance with Robert Smith and his old book in a skip story which we both believe to be false.

God forbid Eddie himself might have been telling porkies. Imagine that? Someone denying theft? What is the world coming to.

[FISHY1118]

It took over 20 years, but we've finally reached the promised land.

Over on JTR Forums, Caroline Brown writes:

"Option two then occurs to Mike. Why not try to obtain a genuine Victorian diary from the 1880s with at least twenty blank pages, so he can handwrite his best-seller into it as - a clever little sales gimmick? What's not to love?"


This might be the most delightful comment I've ever seen concerning the Maybrick Hoax.

I can certainly live with this.

Having already called a literary agent in London, Mike contacts Martin Earl to obtain a blank or nearly blank diary from the 1880s in order to create a best-seller about Jack the Ripper.

Which is precisely what Barrett admitted to doing in his 5 January 1995 affidavit and what I've been arguing for years.

And Mike ropes in his long-suffering wife to help him, who agrees on the assumption that the literary agent in London (Doreen Montgomery) will 'just send Mike packing,' or by contrast, on the belief that Mike will admit on arrival that the physical diary he spoke about on the phone was a sales gimmick and what he's really selling is the fictional story/Ripper theory.

And of course, Anne, the more able of our two writers on Goldie Street, would not have protested helping Mike based on either of these two beliefs.

I am delighted that Caz has finally come to her senses and has embraced the essence of my thinking.

Now just apply Ockham's Razor and toss out the non-event under Dodd's floorboards, and we can call it a night.

We've finally answered those three nagging questions.

When? March/April 1992. Who? Mike and Anne. Why? To create a bestseller.

Hallelujah.

Poor Ike , not going to take this well

I guess thats it then . Thank goodness

[Iconoclast]

Shame about that Eddie Lyons shaped problem. The so-called innocent bystander named by witnesses (even to this day) as having found something important / an old book by people who have no vested interest whatsoever. That is not even taking into consideration his appearance with Robert Smith and his old book in a skip story which we both believe to be false.

God forbid Eddie himself might have been telling porkies. Imagine that? Someone denying theft? What is the world coming to.

Ero b, are you referring to the same Eddie Lyons who lived with his girlfriend in Fountains Road on March 9, 1992, and who drank in the same pub on Fountains Road as Michael Barrett?

Assuming you are, if you put that information together with your information about what Eddie said to Brian Rawes (inter alia), you just might have the solution to every conundrum this case throws up.

Now, that's what I call 'Hallelujah'.

[Iconoclast]

Poor Ike , not going to take this well

I guess thats it then . Thank goodness

In fairness, Fishy, I took it rather well. Indeed, I haven't laugh as much since earlier yesterday when I realised that Lord Orsam's new website had studiously retained his trademark drainpipes!

[erobitha]

Ero b, are you referring to the same Eddie Lyons who lived with his girlfriend in Fountains Road on March 9, 1992, and who drank in the same pub on Fountains Road as Michael Barrett?

Assuming you are, if you put that information together with your information about what Eddie said to Brian Rawes (inter alia), you just might have the solution to every conundrum this case throws up.

Now, that's what I call 'Hallelujah'.

No, apparently that is completely nonsensical (clearly) and on par with flat earthers. Whilst I know the earth is round because I’m not an imbecile, I’m afraid I still believe Eddie Lyons might be lying. Crazy I know.

I have accused Eddie Lyons of Liverpool publicly of theft before and invited him to sue me for slander. Maybe even a cease and desist letter would be nice. No new messages on that front.

We often get accused that we do not wish to see the obvious.

Can’t help feel the ones missing the obvious are Palmer and Orsam.

[caz]

What you think you the only one thats read mutiple books on JTR .??? Gimmi a break Ike . Weve all been there and done that mate ,so no point you thinking your somehow any more an expert on the subject than the next man .

Ill let you in on a little secret too . 10000 post , ive read 1000s of them both for and against, so again ill put it to you again '' All you have is a Theory'' and you know it and so does everyone else here ,so when you have the courage to admit it then ill be happy to discuss it .

All you have to do is say these words '' In My Opinion James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, but just like all the suspects ever mentioned i can,t prove it to be tru . there thats not so hard is it , or is it ????????

All the Barrett hoax theorists have to say is that in their opinion Mike was guilty of knowingly passing off a fake diary as possibly genuine, but just as it is the case with all ripper suspects ever mentioned, they have no evidence that proves this to be true.

Not so hard, is it?

All they have is a theory, based on one of Mike's unproven and contradictory accounts of where the diary came from and when. As Mike lied as easily as you and I breathe, a note of extreme caution has to be attached to anything he ever said about the scrapbook he took to London in April 1992.

Not only that, but the account he gave, which Barrett hoax theorists rely on most, includes the claim that the scrapbook used for his fake was obtained from an auction in early 1990, before Tony Devereux died, which nobody believes was true. The theorists get round this by blaming Mike for being two years out with his dates due to his heavy drinking and, if that doesn't work with the known facts [because, for instance, there was nothing wrong with Mike's memory for dates just a few days later], they fall back on blaming the private investigator for not checking any of Mike's dates before typing up the affidavit and allowing him to sign off on it. It is also conveniently ignored that the malicious accusation Mike makes in this affidavit comes in the immediate wake of his wife divorcing him, and still refusing to let him see their only child after a full year's separation. That's a powerful motive for Mike to have made false claims, and there is nothing about this sorry episode that smacks of remorse, or a wish to unburden his soul and tell no more lies in the future. It has now been acknowledged that he lied in April 1999 when he claimed to have his auction ticket with him, but refused to show it to anyone, even privately.

The Barrett theorists must have to try really, really hard to swallow what Mike said in January 1995 about where that scrapbook came from. I almost pity them. It would hardly be more difficult for a drugs mule to swallow a dozen condoms.

Those of us - we lucky few - who don't have to believe Mike was doing his best to make a true confession, don't have to prove he did.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

All the Barrett hoax theorists have to say is that in their opinion Mike was guilty of knowingly passing off a fake diary as possibly genuine, but just as it is the case with all ripper suspects ever mentioned, they have no evidence that proves this to be true.

Not so hard, is it?

All they have is a theory, based on one of Mike's unproven and contradictory accounts of where the diary came from and when. As Mike lied as easily as you and I breathe, a note of extreme caution has to be attached to anything he ever said about the scrapbook he took to London in April 1992.

Not only that, but the account he gave, which Barrett hoax theorists rely on most, includes the claim that the scrapbook used for his fake was obtained from an auction in early 1990, before Tony Devereux died, which nobody believes was true. The theorists get round this by blaming Mike for being two years out with his dates due to his heavy drinking and, if that doesn't work with the known facts [because, for instance, there was nothing wrong with Mike's memory for dates just a few days later], they fall back on blaming the private investigator for not checking any of Mike's dates before typing up the affidavit and allowing him to sign off on it. It is also conveniently ignored that the malicious accusation Mike makes in this affidavit comes in the immediate wake of his wife divorcing him, and still refusing to let him see their only child after a full year's separation. That's a powerful motive for Mike to have made false claims, and there is nothing about this sorry episode that smacks of remorse, or a wish to unburden his soul and tell no more lies in the future. It has now been acknowledged that he lied in April 1999 when he claimed to have his auction ticket with him, but refused to show it to anyone, even privately.

The Barrett theorists must have to try really, really hard to swallow what Mike said in January 1995 about where that scrapbook came from. I almost pity them. It would hardly be more difficult for a drugs mule to swallow a dozen condoms.

Those of us - we lucky few - who don't have to believe Mike was doing his best to make a true confession, don't have to prove he did.

Love,

Caz
X

Surely it's up to the diary believers to prove its the real deal though? Especially considering its provenance. Also there is strong circumstantial evidence that William Henry Bury was the Ripper.

[erobitha]

Surely it's up to the diary believers to prove it’s the real deal though? Especially considering its provenance. Also there is strong circumstantial evidence that William Henry Bury was the Ripper.

I think John we might finally have something to agree on. In order to prove anything you have to have a clear understanding of where it came from first. This is where the whole diary and watch debate has been drowned in quicksand.

No provenance offered by the key players actually stands up to any proper scrutiny. Therefore the default reaction by most is simply to call it hoax and draw one big red line underneath it.

What we agree on is evidence needs to be better. The provenance we have the best evidence for is the Battlecrease House floorboards. Despite all the bull and bluster of RJ and Orsam they do not actually have any hard evidence of Mike forging anything. Accusations and insinuations which neither have ever directly take up with Anne herself by the way.

Now they too call the same argument against the “dairy defenders”. Except, the Battlecrease House provenance has witness statements and time sheets that strongly suggest that Eddie Lyons’s involvement is much more than as an innocent bystander. Eddie denies committing theft (shock horror). By the way, I would have no qualms in having the exact same discussion to his face. I’m more than just convinced of it. Would RJ or Orsam’s have similar discussions with Anne?

There are many different outcomes to this story (which could include Maybrick being the Ripper), but we need to to find out one way or another, how it came to be. Who knows, that story might be very interesting indeed. But what we need is clarity on where it came from first.

Those clinging to the Barrett/Graham hoax do so at their peril. Time will reveal all.

[caz]

It took over 20 years, but we've finally reached the promised land.

Over on JTR Forums, Caroline Brown writes:

"Option two then occurs to Mike. Why not try to obtain a genuine Victorian diary from the 1880s with at least twenty blank pages, so he can handwrite his best-seller into it as - a clever little sales gimmick? What's not to love?"


This might be the most delightful comment I've ever seen concerning the Maybrick Hoax.

I can certainly live with this.

Having already called a literary agent in London, Mike contacts Martin Earl to obtain a blank or nearly blank diary from the 1880s in order to create a best-seller about Jack the Ripper.

Crafty old Palmer. He misses out the bit about Mike taking what's already in the old book he got from Eddie, and copying it into this genuine Victorian diary, to pass off as his own literary masterpiece.

I very much doubt Palmer would be able to 'live with' what I actually suggested, as a direct counterbalance to his own funny little theory that Anne thought she was creating 'a sales gimmick' from Mike's photo album and her own fictional story about JM as JtR.

Did Palmer think I wouldn't notice his sleight of hand? He must think I'm as thick as the woman he supposes would have been fooled in this way.

And Mike ropes in his long-suffering wife to help him, who agrees on the assumption that the literary agent in London (Doreen Montgomery) will 'just send Mike packing,' or by contrast, on the belief that Mike will admit on arrival that the physical diary he spoke about on the phone was a sales gimmick and what he's really selling is the fictional story/Ripper theory.

Yes, which is precisely why I adapted Palmer's idea to one where Anne has advised Mike not to show the old book to anyone if he doesn't know where it came from, but to write his own story based on what's in it. He could simply have copied the text straight onto the word processor and sent this off as his own work, but perhaps he thought he could go one better than that, and dress it up in Victorian clothes, like the old book itself.

And of course, Anne, the more able of our two writers on Goldie Street, would not have protested helping Mike based on either of these two beliefs.

I doubt she'd have happily helped Mike to pass off what was already in the scrapbook as his own work, but she might have helped with the typed transcript, under the impression that he would send it off to London while holding onto the original, until he got an opinion back on the content alone. I don't believe for a second that Anne helped Mike to create that content, let alone that she'd have been persuaded by this idea of Palmer's about an innocent sales gimmick.

I am delighted that Caz has finally come to her senses and has embraced the essence of my thinking.

I've 'embraced' Palmer's sales gimmick idea because he can't turn round and say it's beyond barking mad. If it's sane enough for his own theory involving Anne, it's good enough to pinch for one of my own involving Mike.

Now just apply Ockham's Razor and toss out the non-event under Dodd's floorboards, and we can call it a night.

Oh, I bet Palmer dreams of that happening. I can't say I'm sorry to disappoint him when he deliberately omits the old book under Dodd's floorboards from the sales gimmick idea I ran with after stealing it from him. Naughty, naughty, Palmer. Off to the naughty step with you.

We've finally answered those three nagging questions.

When? March/April 1992. Who? Mike and Anne. Why? To create a bestseller.

Hallelujah.

Only in Palmer's dreams - unless or until he returns with Anne's confirmation that he has answered his own 'nagging' questions correctly.

They don't nag at me. Not at all. I have little doubt that the diary was first seen on 9th March 1992.

I have no doubt at all that Mike saw a best-seller in it - one way or t'other.

I have no doubt that Anne was caught up in Mike's enthusiasm, after initially fearing that the truth was bound to come out if he got it from somewhere he shouldn't.

Palmer can no doubt ask Anne who is the warmer.

Clue: We are experiencing a heat wave this week in Sid Valley.

[caz]

Poor Ike , not going to take this well

I guess thats it then . Thank goodness

You do realise, FISHY, that you have been thoroughly hoodwinked by Palmer's post?

Did he guess you were in a barrel at the time?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caroline, this is what I mean about the simplest of incidents being subject to alternate interpretations. Say it wasn't a red herring, maybe Janet didn't borrow it, but it was returned to her.

The difficulty is that alternate interpretations need some evidence which allows for one or more of them to be true. The only evidence we have is from Janet herself, who told the police that she had borrowed a copy of ToL from her father in January 1991, on the understanding that it belonged to "Bongo" and it was to be returned to him. We also know that in October 1993 she handed over the book she said she had borrowed nearly three years earlier. There was nothing to distinguish it from any other copy of the same book, so we don't even know for certain that Mike had ever handled it. Janet could have been mistaken on this point or misremembering. After all, her failure to return it between January 1991 and her father's death in August 1991, does suggest she had forgotten all about it belonging to Mike - at least until ToL was mentioned in a newspaper report in 1993 in connection with his diary. That may have been what triggered Janet's memory.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Surely it's up to the diary believers to prove its the real deal though? Especially considering its provenance. Also there is strong circumstantial evidence that William Henry Bury was the Ripper.

That's fine by me, John. I think Bury makes a decent enough suspect, since we know he offed his own wife.

It's absolutely up to 'diary believers' to prove their case, and I'm sure they are very well aware of it, being reminded at every opportunity - nearly always by 'Barrett believers' who have no proof that either Barrett wrote a single word of the diary.

It's wishful thinking city for them, yet they don't think they need to provide a scrap of evidence for Mike's claim that the Battlecrease scrapbook was acquired from an auction sale - and definitely not from Battlecrease House.

We will never get anywhere while people don't see the onus of proof being applicable to both arguments: Maybrick as a serial killer; or the Barrets as hoaxers.

It's not simply one or the other, because the handwriting cannot be identified with any degree of certainty. It may therefore be someone else's, writing at any time up to when Mike first got his grubby paws on it. It's not in his handwriting and nobody appears to be happy to put the pen in Anne's hand - apart from someone who clearly thinks the woman is as thick as mince.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

It's not in his handwriting and nobody appears to be happy to put the pen in Anne's hand - apart from someone who clearly thinks the woman is as thick as mince.

First off, please notice how naturally and effortlessly Caz Brown projects here own strange ideas onto those she disagrees with. This is why 'debating' with her is such a painful and futile task.

Not once have I ever argued that Anne is 'thick.'

I do not 'clearly think this.' Maybe Caz does, but I don't, and have said so many times.

I think Anne is intelligent and capable.

In reality, it was Caz Brown that has argued that only a 'thick' or 'stupid' woman would have assisted her alcoholic husband, Mike Barrett.

This is delusional, in my opinion, but if Caz wants to believe this childish idea, she is welcome to it, but I ask her to stop projecting it onto me. (Not this request will stop her, of course. She's been doing this sort of thing for years).

The following is intrusive, but it has already appeared in print, so I'll mention it. Early on in Jones and Dolgin's book, the authors allude to a letter written by Graham to Paul Feldman, outlining years of emotional and physical abuse. Barrett, as is well known, was a raging alcoholic and could be physically violent.

Most sensible people will have the insight to realize that a victim of abuse will not always act rationally, and might well humor her alcoholic husband, especially if she was under the belief that his schemes would amount to nothing, anyway. For instance, if she believed that the literary agent Doreen Montgomery in London would 'just send Mike packing,'---which is exactly what Anne herself said. It doesn't matter in the least that this person was or was not intelligent. The courts are filled with intelligent women who got dragged into a mess by their sketchy husbands.

As for the diary's handwriting not being Anne's, let me just post the following.





Twenty years later, no progress has been made. Anne's handwriting has still not been analyzed by a professional, and we can see from the above that one of the Diary's main champions--who also admitted to having extensive samples of Anne's handwriting---even gave his opinion that the 'onus' was on those who don't believe the diary is a modern fake.

Caroline Brown falls into that category.

If James Johnston's documentary is still in the works, maybe the film distributor he is working with would be willing to pay for the necessary analysis. Until then, it is merely wishful thinking to state that the diary's handwriting isn't compatible with Anne's.

Anyway, as Caz obviously can't resist the urge to misrepresent the views of others, I see any further debate with her as a waste of time.