One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

You can't read this analysis by Caz and not be struck by how utterly implausible it would be for Mike Barrett to have created the Maybrick scrapbook and for him to subsequently persuade Eddie Lyons to largely incriminate himself (or to sail very close to it) in The Saddle if the poor bloke had nothing whatsoever to do with the scrapbook's arrival in the public eye a year earlier.

Some people might say that Mike paid Eddie to come in and say it, I suppose, and we'll doubtless never know if that's true or why Eddie would be so cavalier with a story that might easily have backfired on him.

Some people might say that Mike got someone else to come in to The Saddle to see Robert Smith; but I've emailed a picture of Eddie (albeit from 2018) to Robert and he was categorical that that was the bloke he met in the pub in 1993. Robert could be wrong, I suppose, but he was very categorical in his response so I take it as clear evidence that the actual Eddie Lyons joined Robert Smith and Mike Barrett in The Saddle on that June evening - something which just seems to me to be utterly bizarre if Eddie didn't particularly know Mike and if Eddie had nothing to do with the scrapbook seeing the light of day.

Back to your analysis, Caz. It should be required reading on all Jack the Ripper degree courses. It was first class, kidda.

Many thanks, Ike. It makes up for the verbal thrashings I routinely get from those who put more trust in Mike Barrett than can really be healthy for them.

I certainly doubt, with Mike's track record, that he would have paid a penny he didn't have to, to get Eddie to cough up the 'skip' story for Robert down the boozer. Eddie himself has said on record that he would have had no financial motive while working for Portus & Rhodes for pinching and selling on the diary if he had found it. That only gets us so far, though, because there are several billionaires knocking around who are not above adding to their wealth by immoral or illegal methods.

Eddie didn't hang around in the pub, either, in the forlorn hope that Robert might whip out his wallet and offer him something for his trouble and information. The impression Robert gives me is that Eddie was in a hurry to leave as soon as the tale was told - not sold.

The only way Mike might have been persuaded to part with any dosh was when he got his first substantial royalty cheques, if Eddie had been demanding a cut not to spill the same beans with which he had previously teased Feldman, when he asked what his confession was worth.

It's still a matter of what incentive Eddie would have for telling Robert - a perfect stranger - that odd story of a find he had made in Battlecrease. What better way would he have had to explain away the growing rumours, if he was aware by June 1993 that they were not only true, but concerned the diary being found - and taken away - by him? We know Eddie's name was given to Paul Dodd later in the summer by a worried Arthur Rigby, because that's what Dodd told the police in the October, so it does look likely that Eddie was aware when talking to Robert in the June that people were linking his name with finding the diary in Dodd's house. He must also have been thinking back ruefully to his own loose-lipped conversation with Brian Rawes in July 1992, which Brian also told the police about in October 1993.

That would have been quite an incentive for Eddie to tell the future publisher of the diary a cockandbull story about throwing some worthless old book into a skip. If Brian or Arthur then did their worst, and he got to hear about it, he could use a similar story to say yes, they were right about him finding an old book in that house full of books, but he didn't take it away to sell on and it wasn't Jack the Ripper's diary. If challenged over the skip, he might have had to say it was at a nearby property, but he evidently considered the risk worth taking.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Unbelievable - he wants us to disregard actual documented evidence which backs up the Battlecrease provenance, in order to believe his tales of pure fabrication regarding the auction and Anne's involvement. I for one am not having it.

Good for you, Owly.

I won't be swallowing any of Palmer's flights of fancy either. I had enough of Mike Barrett's when they were served up as if they represented the God's honest truth.

If that man [Mike, I mean] had been around in 1889, and had been one of the sad sacks who tried to confess to the ripper murders, without a scrap of evidence, would anyone on the planet now have him down as a serious suspect?

The term 'cognitive dissonance' comes to mind when I see Mike Barrett's tales of Liverpool still taking preference over the word of Tim Martin-Wright, Alan and Margaret Davies, Alan Dodgson, Brian Rawes, Arthur Rigby - and we may as well include Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

If these Battlecrease witnesses had claimed the murderer was Miss Scarlet in the ballroom with a revolver, or Professor Plum in the library with a candlestick, or Colonel Mustard in the conservatory with a rope, it would be argued that they had never heard of Cluedo before April 1993, when Paul Feldman fed them all they needed to know to join in the game.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You do realize tho that its all just a fairytale based on a wild theory with not a shread o evidence to prove its tru.?

Hi FISHY,

Well, I did think Palmer's hoodwinking post, which you appeared to be responding about, and which misrepresented my own version of his 'sales gimmick' theory, was a bit fantastical, but I won't bother disputing your own description of it being 'all just a fairytale based on a wild theory with not a shread o evidence to prove its tru'.

That is what you meant, wasn't it? It's not always terribly clear whether you are responding directly to the words you have chosen to quote, or are going off on a tangent - which is not a bicycle made for two, in case you were wondering.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Hi FISHY,

Well, I did think Palmer's hoodwinking post, which you appeared to be responding about, and which misrepresented my own version of his 'sales gimmick' theory, was a bit fantastical, but I won't bother disputing your own description of it being 'all just a fairytale based on a wild theory with not a shread o evidence to prove its tru'.

That is what you meant, wasn't it? It's not always terribly clear whether you are responding directly to the words you have chosen to quote, or are going off on a tangent - which is not a bicycle made for two, in case you were wondering.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz

Merely expression my opinion based on fact regarding the subject.

[caz]

But which subject, FISHY? You quoted a post which related specifically to the subject of Palmer's misrepresentation, which is a fact, not an opinion.

You still appear not to realise that you were reeled in by Palmer and stitched up like a kipper.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

But which subject, FISHY? You quoted a post which related specifically to the subject of Palmer's misrepresentation, which is a fact, not an opinion.

You still appear not to realise that you were reeled in by Palmer and stitched up like a kipper.

Love,

Caz
X

Again, regardless of what rj said or posted, and the last time I checked its ok to do on that on this forum, unless you know something I don't?,.I was merely stating a personal opinion based on fact ,.

Please don't try any more mumbo jumbo nonsense as to try and prove a useless point , im too used posters trying this shite on here, and frankly caz,its boring.

[caz]

Again, regardless of what rj said or posted, and the last time I checked its ok to do on that on this forum, unless you know something I don't?,.I was merely stating a personal opinion based on fact ,.

Please don't try any more mumbo jumbo nonsense as to try and prove a useless point , im too used posters trying this shite on here, and frankly caz,its boring.

Yes, FISHY, it does appear to be 'ok' for Palmer to misrepresent on this forum what someone else posted on another forum.

I still have no idea what personal opinion based on fact you were stating, when you quoted me on the subject of Palmer's misrepresentation. You said something about a 'fairytale' - which seemed appropriate in that context, but you didn't elaborate on the nature of this fairy tale, so I took a stab at it.

If it was not about Palmer's post, telling a fairy tale about one of mine, it could have been a reference to one of Mike Barrett's many fairy tales for all the casual reader could have picked up from what you wrote. Why would you want to leave either impression, if you meant some other fairy tale entirely?

Why not try spelling it out, for cod's sake, just for the halibut?

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Yes, FISHY, it does appear to be 'ok' for Palmer to misrepresent on this forum what someone else posted on another forum.

I still have no idea what personal opinion based on fact you were stating, when you quoted me on the subject of Palmer's misrepresentation. You said something about a 'fairytale' - which seemed appropriate in that context, but you didn't elaborate on the nature of this fairy tale, so I took a stab at it.

If it was not about Palmer's post, telling a fairy tale about one of mine, it could have been a reference to one of Mike Barrett's many fairy tales for all the casual reader could have picked up from what you wrote. Why would you want to leave either impression, if you meant some other fairy tale entirely?

Why not try spelling it out, for cod's sake, just for the halibut?

Love,

Caz
X

Gee caz I don't know else's to say it , its a wild fairytale based on a wild theory with not a sheard of evidence to prove its tru.

Were back where we started i guess. Ah well.

[caz]

So, the idea of a Jack the Ripper journal would have more credence with you if no one had ever mooted the idea publicly that a diary of Jack the Ripper might be something of interest?

I'm struggling to see any logic in that.

Me too, ero.

Who'd have thought that Mike or Anne Barrett would have looked in an old book signed Jack the Ripper and imagined it might be worth a bit to its rightful owner?

Where on earth could they have got that idea unless they'd read it somewhere and decided it would be a jolly wheeze to create one of their own?

Back on planet earth...

Mike: Get in! We'll have a best seller on our hands in no time, Anne.

Anne: If you don't get arrested for nicking it off someone, Michael.

Mike: No fear of that. No effing bugger alive knows about it, girl.

Anne: If this is another of your porkies, Michael, I swear to God it's going on the fire.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Gee caz I don't know else's to say it , its a wild fairytale based on a wild theory with not a sheard of evidence to prove its tru.

Were back where we started i guess. Ah well.

We wouldn't be, FISHY, if you would just state for the record what you believe is a 'wild fairy tale based on a wild theory with not a sheard of evidence to prove its tru'. How hard can it be?

Is it Palmer's post?

One of Palmer's hoax theories?

One of Barrett's affidavits?

Tim Martin-Wright's account?

Brian Rawes's police statement?

Paul Dodd's police statement?

Am I getting warmer?

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

We wouldn't be, FISHY, if you would just state for the record what you believe is a 'wild fairy tale based on a wild theory with not a sheard of evidence to prove its tru'. How hard can it be?

Is it Palmer's post?

One of Palmer's hoax theories?

One of Barrett's affidavits?

Tim Martin-Wright's account?

Brian Rawes's police statement?

Paul Dodd's police statement?

Am I getting warmer?

Love,

Caz
X

. Now I know why this thread has 10105 posts.

[caz]

. Now I know why this thread has 10105 posts.

Give us a clue, FISHY.

Is it because you don't understand the questions you have been asked?

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Give us a clue, FISHY.

Is it because you don't understand the questions you have been asked?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, don't be silly . Move on, your trying to make something up just for arguments sake.

My point was fairly straightforward and simple....... well for some anyway.

.

[caz]

A useful update from Keith Skinner here:

From memory it wasn't just one volume that Mike claimed was in his attic. It was the entire canon which Shere had sent to him for his "white elephant" stall in order to raise funds for victims of the Hillingsborough dsaster. Mike didn't think these would sell so stuck them up in the attic and then later gave them to his girlfriend for her teenage son who might find them useful in his school work. When Mike allegedly found the Crashaw quote, he thought the book had a familiarity about it and went and reclaimed it from his girlfriend and gave it to his solicitor for safe keeping. The solicitor has no record of any book ever being deposited with them. However, Alan Gray witnessed Mike go into the solictor's office and minutes later come out with the book - which he gave to Alan Gray - and I bought off him circa 2004. It is a worn book - no dustjacket - with pencilled notes in it. Mike later admitted that he had bought it in a second hand bookshop in Liverpool. He also admitted asking for help in Liverpool Library when trying to identify the quote and "getting lucky".


It's not much of an update, Ike. I've read basically this same statement many times over the years, but thanks.

"[Mike] admitted asking for help..."

"Mike later admitted that he had bought it in a second-hand bookshop..."

Are these those rare moments where we are to become Barrett Believers and accept these statements from a pathological liar, or should I start yelling to see the...

Bookshop receipt!

And what was the name of the librarian that helped Mike? Can you provide it, or is it just another one of Mike's many uncorroborated yarns?

It sounds like Keith is putting a lot of trust in Mike's own unverified statements, that is, if we are supposed to take Mike's accounts at face value.

Is Keith forgetting that Jenny Morrison confirmed to Shirley Harrison that Mike had had these twelve volumes? Not Mike Barrett--Jenny Morrison. I think it was on the old forums that Shirley was told by Morrison that she still had the whole twelve volume set--minus volume 2--which Mike had come to retrieve.

Which puts Mike's "secondhand bookshop" claim in serious jeopardy.


Mike "finding this volume in a second-hand store" sounds a lot like Mike "finding a copy of Tales of Liverpool" in a bookshop sometime later, when we know for a fact that Devereux had been lent a copy of the same volume as far back as 1991 and Mike was caught in a lie about it by Martin Howells.

Alan Gray also confirmed with "Mike's own family" (at one point Alan said 'Mike's sister') said that she, too had, seen these Sphere volumes.

So, it is hardly just "Mike's word for it"---unlike his mythical trip to the Central Liverpool Library during a serious alcoholic bender which is based solely on Mike's uncorroborated claim and is not even remotely plausible.

More on that another day but let me correct a small error on page 145 of Ripper Diary: The Inside Story that will later take on some small significance.

"Among a number of publishers he contacted to donate books for selling were Sphere Books, who sent several volumes from their literary criticism series, including a volume containing an essay on Crashaw."

The essay was not on Richard Crashaw.

It was on George Herbert. The full title being George Herbert and the Religious Lyric by Robert Ellrodt.

This is not an insignificant detail.

If Palmer wants a really significant detail, he can start by tracking down his source for the following remarkable statement:

Is Keith forgetting that Jenny Morrison confirmed to Shirley Harrison that Mike had had these twelve volumes? Not Mike Barrett--Jenny Morrison. I think it was on the old forums that Shirley was told by Morrison that she still had the whole twelve volume set--minus volume 2--which Mike had come to retrieve.

As far as I am aware it has never been established that Jenny ever told anyone that the crucial volume 2 of the Sphere series had been among any books Mike gave her for her son, or that this volume was retrieved by Mike. Clearly, if that had been the case, it would have been a new and barely used copy from 1989, which Mike could have handed straight over to Alan Gray, now Mike realised it would be powerful evidence for how the line came to be in Anne's fictional story, tarted up as a 'sales gimmick'.

But the volume 2 Mike eventually handed over to Alan was obviously a used copy, with its early pages all dog-eared from its previous owner's use. I doubt it would have been Mike's first choice of bedtime reading, or Alan's for that matter. I'd love to have seen Melvin's face when he saw its condition. Little wonder that he wanted Alan to keep it well away from Shirley! Melvin himself wrote the following on 17th April 2002:

'I first made contact with Alan Gray in the last week of October 1994. This was at the request of the Sunday Times. When I asked about hard evidence he told me about the Sphere book…'

'Mike Barrett never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes. And he did not mention it to the Liverpool Post because he held it in reserve as a possible money spinner.'

A likelier reason for Mike not mentioning it in June 1994 is that he had no idea where 'o costly' came from until later, when he found it in the library!

If Mike did have 'a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes', which he took to Jenny's, it's unlikely that he could have appreciated at the time that one of them might be considered evidence of a Barrett hoax. Armed with that knowledge, he may well have gone round at a later date, hoping to retrieve the 'o costly' volume, only to find that this one was not among the other books. If there was no volume 2, Mike may even have retrieved the wrong one, having previously confused volume 6 for volume 2 when telling Shirley that he had found the quote in the library. That would explain why Gray had to be given a used copy, obtained from a second hand bookshop - my guess would be Reids in Mount Pleasant.

Here are some previous posts of mine on this subject, from 13th May 2020, if anyone apart from Palmer needs to refresh their memory about what was - or wasn't - confirmed, and by whom:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/726357-maybrick-a-problem-in-logic/page32#post735579

[Iconoclast]

Tom Mitchell should immediately contact the Victoria State Library in Melbourne and voice his concern that they dare refer to this once blank book as a "diary."

Also:
Sailor's War Time Diary including time in HMNZS Leander during Battle. (navymuseum.co.nz)

I can't let this go because it is a deliberate attempt to prove a point with false logic (perhaps even by just plain attempting to lie by tangential means) - yet again, by the way, because he keeps doing it (despite my highlighting that what a notebook becomes because of its ultimate use is not necessarily the same as what it began life as).

RJ Palmer should immediately contact the Victoria State Library in Melbourne and ask for the evidence that anyone on the planet called this once blank book a 'diary' when it was still a blank Victorian notebook.