One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Is Mike's advert as good as it gets?
Discuss.
Nothing I have personally seen or heard in Keith Skinner's vast 'Barrett archive' gives me any reason to suppose there will ever be anything better in terms of evidence for the prosecution, and plenty to suggest that the little red diary is a little red herring, which Mike, cat-like, pounced on to make the rest of his affidavit less whiffy.
Love,
Caz
X

My Dear Mrs Snips!

Never one to shirk a challenge, I put it to you that the source of said appellation lies in your nascent attempts at cutting the hair of said gentleman. Do I win the prize? And, no, I shall not take refuge in the obvious for one very good reason: the Switchblade never rests!

The little maroon (?) diary from 1891 is most certainly the only 'clue' in Michael Barrett's testimony that he had a direct hand in the creation of the text we read and/or the text we see. Other than that, he ain't not got no friends to back up his **** 'n' bull story and I for one am hesitant to jump in too quickly to a quagmire generated by that man. I think he was pulling a fast one - adapting what was true (he had ordered a Victorian diary) to fit what he wanted to be true (he was a master forger). He was certainly a master something but I don't think the word we're looking for here is 'forger', do you, Mrs Snips?

The electrician's finally arrived, gotta dash, dear readers ...

Mr Neeps

[caz]

I think the word you are searching for, Ike, is 'baiter'. Mike Barrett saw himself as a master baiter [no mucky jokes at the back] when swearing that affidavit, dangling his bait in the expectation that it would reel in those individuals who had caused him the most grief in 1994. In the end, it wasn't his ex-wife or his nemesis, Paul Feldman, who swallowed the bait, but those who were impressed by a liar's apparent attempt to atone for his sins.

I only prefer 'red' for the little 1891 diary, because maroon herrings don't really work.

I did occasionally take the scissors to Mister Brown's barnet on request, mainly during lockdown, but I now send him to lovely Laura at the salon across the road, to do things properly. He knows it makes sense.

So no, Mrs Snips has nothing to do with hairdressing - or root vegetables.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

So no, Mrs Snips has nothing to do with hairdressing - or root vegetables.

I feel I'm being pushed down a road I really shouldn't go down here.

Oh sod it - in for a penny, in for a face rearrangement - is it because you have recently been ever so slightly tetchy with Mr Brown and this is his (as he sees it) subtle way of indicating to you that he's ever-so-slightly, sort of noticed it?

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, how the hell is Paddington these days?



Ike

[Scott Nelson]

So why on the face of it use a real person like Lowry and take such care in using that minute detail, then to only come up with the perceived randomness of an apparently non-existent Mrs Hammersmith? Why be so thorough and then so careless?

Would the writer not just use a real person there as well? It’s odd writing behaviour.

Maybe because bits of one 'diary' were combined with another?

[Lombro2]

The “author” has James taking the diary with him to London. He has it in front of him when he’s committing cannibalism with Chapman’s remains. Presumably he left it in his bolthole room where it could conceivably be found. Why would he make his entries clear, easily legible and traceable to him?

Hopper and Lowry are common last names and I think, other than Maybrick, the only last names. The name Janion, if Matilda Janion Briggs is Hammersmith, is an uncommon name. Briggs is common but she was separated from Colonel Briggs. No one’s looking for a Mr Whoremaster so maybe there’s no reason to look for Mrs Hammersmith.

PS How about someone’s a fan of Steve Mr Snips Parsons? The only other one I found is the Mr Snips from the Blaylock sci-fi who looks for a map of London’s secret underground world hidden by a master criminal.

[caz]

Not even warm...

Off into Sidmouth shortly for some retail therapy in the rare November sunshine.

Mrs Snips is unquestionably a term of endearment here in Brown Towers - but does not extend to anyone encountering me in 'the drive' and being quizzed about their state of health.

Love,

Mrs S.
X

PS Paddington, Ike? Not getting it, sorry.

[rjpalmer]

Then again, we can just look at the evidence and note the staggering coincidence that Michael Barrett's sort-of drinking buddy down The Saddle was working on the floorboards of James Maybrick's home on the morning...

Good lord.

Now Michael Barrett and Eddie Lyons were "sort-of drinking buddies" in March 1992?

Is that "sort of" in the sense that there is no evidence that Barrett and Lyons even knew each other in 1992, and Lyons denies it?

Let's review what we know and see if Tom Mitchell is playing it straight with his congregation.

When quizzed by his employer in 1993, Lyons admitted that he sometimes drank in the Saddle. There seems to be some muddle exactly where Lyons was living the previous year, since his employer didn't have his current address, but his girlfriend lived near The Saddle, so it is not too surprising that either he, or perhaps they, should drop by on occasion. We aren't told how often or when.

Meanwhile, we are also told that in 1992 Lyons had a fulltime, daytime job, sometimes working 48 hours/week. As such, if Lyons even frequented the Saddle in 1992 (which as far as I know is not in evidence) it seems probable that it would have been in the evenings or on the weekend because he was gainfully employed.

By contrast, the Saddle was not truly Michael John Barrett's "local." We are universally told that he stopped by mid-day to down a pint before picking up his daughter from school. Her school was near the pub. This doesn't merely come from Barrett himself; Shirley Harrison interviewed the publican, and he remembered Barrett sometimes stopping in at "lunch," sitting with either Tony Devereux or with his own father, Stanley. The bartender didn't mention a fourth man, or any other "drinking buddy," let alone Eddie Lyons or any other electrician.

Yet now one of the more visible members of the Maybrick crowd is stating that the "evidence" shows that Barrett and Lyons were "sort-of drinking buddies" in March 1992.

Draw your own conclusions.

[rjpalmer]

It might also be noted that Tony Devereux, who was apparently Barrett's real drinking buddy (though oddly, one bartender at The Saddle stated that Mike and Tony didn't even seem to be all that friendly), died in August 1991. So, whether Barrett was still frequenting The Saddle with the same regularity in 1992 is not known. I know from experience that when one's mate dies, the pub is never quite the same, and one's visits can tend to trail off. I used to hoist a pint with my old friend George in a certain pub after work, and when he died of cancer, I stopped going in.

Also relevant is that Anne Graham has stated that Little Caroline was aware of Mike's drink problem before she was. This would suggest that Barrett wasn't down the boozer when Anne was home in the evenings or on the weekends, otherwise she would have known about it. One assumes Eddie Lyons's visits, if they even occurred in 1992, would have been outside of work hours. Last I heard, sneaking off to down a few pints of Tetley's before wiring a building is frowned upon.

[Lombro2]

I prefer the Pub Provenance because it gives Michael Barrett 5 weeks to figure out what a guard book is instead of 2 with the Auction Provenance.

[caz]

Good lord.

Now Michael Barrett and Eddie Lyons were "sort-of drinking buddies" in March 1992?

Is that "sort of" in the sense that there is no evidence that Barrett and Lyons even knew each other in 1992, and Lyons denies it?

Let's review what we know and see if Tom Mitchell is playing it straight with his congregation.

When quizzed by his employer in 1993, Lyons admitted that he sometimes drank in the Saddle. There seems to be some muddle exactly where Lyons was living the previous year, since his employer didn't have his current address, but his girlfriend lived near The Saddle, so it is not too surprising that either he, or perhaps they, should drop by on occasion. We aren't told how often or when.

Meanwhile, we are also told that in 1992 Lyons had a fulltime, daytime job, sometimes working 48 hours/week. As such, if Lyons even frequented the Saddle in 1992 (which as far as I know is not in evidence) it seems probable that it would have been in the evenings or on the weekend because he was gainfully employed.

By contrast, the Saddle was not truly Michael John Barrett's "local." We are universally told that he stopped by mid-day to down a pint before picking up his daughter from school. Her school was near the pub. This doesn't merely come from Barrett himself; Shirley Harrison interviewed the publican, and he remembered Barrett sometimes stopping in at "lunch," sitting with either Tony Devereux or with his own father, Stanley. The bartender didn't mention a fourth man, or any other "drinking buddy," let alone Eddie Lyons or any other electrician.

Yet now one of the more visible members of the Maybrick crowd is stating that the "evidence" shows that Barrett and Lyons were "sort-of drinking buddies" in March 1992.

Draw your own conclusions.

411 LYONS EDWARD J is listed as living at 44A Fountains Road L4 1QL with 412 his then partner [later his wife] as of February 1992.

I'm pretty sure this information has been posted before - and fairly recently.

Eddie was taken on by Colin Rhodes in late November 1991, and apparently gave his mother's address, which suggests he may have been living there prior to moving in with his partner. Jim Bowling was taken on at the same time.

We also have Bowling advising Feldman in April 1993 to contact Eddie, who lived near the Saddle. The evidence indicates that it was Bowling who gave Feldman a phone number for Eddie, at his Fountains Road address. There is no evidence to suggest that Feldman was told the street number, or that he passed this on to Mike Barrett. But Mike certainly knew where to find Eddie when he went round to threaten him with solicitors if he claimed he'd found the diary. But when Robert Smith was planning another trip to Liverpool, in the June, to take photographs for the book among other things, and had arranged to stay with the Barretts, Mike surprisingly agreed to introduce him to one of the Battlecrease electricians - Eddie Lyons no less - who surprisingly agreed to turn up in the Saddle, which 'kind-of' makes him Mike's 'sort-of drinking buddy' - at least by this point. Presumably the two cheeky Scousers had told each other to "calm down, calm down" after their recent angry doorstep encounter, so all was forgiven and forgotten when they tried their funny little games with the "wise old owl" [Mister Brown's nickname for Robert]:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu8q9-M7GTU

Eddie was indeed working full days, Monday to Saturday, right the way through from Monday 2nd December 1991 to Saturday 7th March 1992, on the same contract in Skelmersdale. Work there was put on hold for four days between Monday 9th and Thursday 12th March, resuming on Friday 13th 1992, but without Eddie. The rewire for Paul Dodd's storage heaters was fitted in on the Monday and part of the Tuesday.

Only Arthur Rigby is down for a full day's work on the Monday, accompanied by a young trainee for a couple of hours. Eddie and Jim Bowling are sent round just to help out because Colin doesn't want them hanging round making the office look untidy, so there is no record of how long they are at the house or when they push off for the rest of the day. In short, Eddie has no alibi from Monday lunchtime onwards - the first time his weekday whereabouts cannot be accounted for since the start of December.

I don't think Ike stated in so many words that Eddie and Mike had become any kind of drinking buddies by 'March 1992'. Let's complete the sentence which Palmer began to quote:

Then again, we can just look at the evidence and note the staggering coincidence that Michael Barrett's sort-of drinking buddy down The Saddle was working on the floorboards of James Maybrick's home on the morning...

...that he (Michael) suddenly rang a literary agent with the claim that he thought he might have the diary of Jack the Ripper.

This can now be interpreted as:

'Then again, we can just look at the evidence and note the staggering coincidence that Michael Barrett's sort-of drinking buddy down The Saddle [at least by mid-1993] had been working on the floorboards of James Maybrick's home on the morning that he (Michael) suddenly rang a literary agent with the claim that he thought he might have the diary of Jack the Ripper.'

If we add in Mike's angry denials that this same diary was ever in Maybrick's home, it becomes somewhat difficult to believe that he and Eddie would ever have patched up their differences, and yet there they were together, like partners in crime - or should that be thick as thieves? - feeding Robert porkies as if they were both trying to save their own skins.

Incidentally, how many is a 'crowd'? Three? Ten? A hundred?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

PS Paddington, Ike? Not getting it, sorry.

It's desperately tangential, I now realise, but I was of the understanding that our favourite Peruvian bear lived with Mr and Mrs Brown and in a moment potentially representing my much-heralded cognitive bereavement I imagined that maybe your Mr Brown (and therefore you) just might be his kith and kin (as it were) as you two are the only Mr and Mrs Brown I know.

Reading between the lines, I'm now sensing with some considerable dread that you don't in fact share your home with our railway-station-named, marmalade-loving, Queen-visiting friend?

Oh - do say you do!

Ike

[caz]

It might also be noted that Tony Devereux, who was apparently Barrett's real drinking buddy (though oddly, one bartender at The Saddle stated that Mike and Tony didn't even seem to be all that friendly), died in August 1991. So, whether Barrett was still frequenting The Saddle with the same regularity in 1992 is not known. I know from experience that when one's mate dies, the pub is never quite the same, and one's visits can tend to trail off. I used to hoist a pint with my old friend George in a certain pub after work, and when he died of cancer, I stopped going in.

Also relevant is that Anne Graham has stated that Little Caroline was aware of Mike's drink problem before she was. This would suggest that Barrett wasn't down the boozer when Anne was home in the evenings or on the weekends, otherwise she would have known about it. One assumes Eddie Lyons's visits, if they even occurred in 1992, would have been outside of work hours. Last I heard, sneaking off to down a few pints of Tetley's before wiring a building is frowned upon.

My understanding, from what Tony Devereux's daughters had to say, is that Tony tolerated "Bongo" rather than encouraged a friendship with him, and we have all known people like that down our local boozers: okay in small doses, or a chinwag over a pint or two, but you'd pretend to be busy if they invited you back for dinner.

Mike's primary purpose for frequenting the Saddle in the first place was two-fold: to kill an hour or so over a pint or three and then collect little Caroline from the school over the road. From my own swift half there back in the day, I should imagine it was rather quiet on a weekday lunchtime, particularly Mondays, and Mike had the gift of the gab, so whoever happened to be in there at the same time would have had a job to ignore or avoid him without appearing rude. That might help explain why Mike had a different view of his relationship with Tony than his daughters and the bar staff evidently did. Given where Mike was living, and the distance between his home and Tony's, I'd be surprised if the two had not met for the first time in the Saddle, because it was a convenient place for both of them, but for different reasons. When Tony became housebound in 1991, Mike visited him at home and presumably combined this with his usual pint before collecting Caroline. Tony died while the Barretts were on holiday, but I see no reason why Mike would not have resumed his school run ritual from the September.

If we accept that Mike lied in 1992 about Tony's role in the diary affair; lied again about it in his April 1993 affidavit; and finally threw his dear departed friend under the bus, along with his own ex wife and late father-in-law, in his January 1995 affidavit, does that not suggest that Mike might also have been a little economical with the truth about how much of a friend he had ever really been to Tony?

Sort-of drinking buddies of convenience?

[rjpalmer]

'Then again, we can just look at the evidence and note the staggering coincidence that Michael Barrett's sort-of drinking buddy down The Saddle [at least by mid-1993] had been working on the floorboards of James Maybrick's home on the morning that he (Michael) suddenly rang a literary agent with the claim that he thought he might have the diary of Jack the Ripper.'

So, if I understand you, you are now justifying Tom's reference to Eddie Lyons being Mike's "sort-of drinking buddy" in a clear reference to an event that supposedly took place in March 1992 by stating that he only meant that they were instead drinking buddies in 1993?

You don't think the distinction is highly relevant and should have been made explicit?

And anyway, what evidence is there that Barrett and Lyons were even drinking buddies in 1993, which is a year too late for Barrett and Lyons, those old drinking pals, to have been hoisting a pint of Tetley's on 9 March 1992?

According to Jones and Dolgin, who interviewed him, Lyons thought Barrett was "weird" and the first time he ever met him was in 1993--after Barrett evidently got wind that Feldman had been calling the electricians on the phone, which they would have seen as basically an accusation of theft from a Londoner they did not know.

Lyons, either in a bit of Scouser jest or seriously, realized Feldman's eagerness to place the diary in Dodd's house, supposedly said something along the lines of "what's it worth to you?"

Barrett, getting wind of this, went down to Lyons' house, and according to Lyons, that's the first the twain did meet. Afterwards, Robert Smith, who was being threatened with a lawsuit by Dodd, asked Barrett to set up a meeting with Lyons at the Saddle, now an entire year after the wiring job. According to Smith's account (which Lyons disputes) Lyons briefly showed up at the pub on that occasion.

How does any of that justify calling Lyons and Barrett "sort-of drinking buddies" unless one is attempting to imply an intimacy that did not exist?

[Iconoclast]

Good lord. Now Michael Barrett and Eddie Lyons were "sort-of drinking buddies" in March 1992?

I'm sure I'm still not talking to you as you called me a liar and still haven't had the good grace to apologise, but - that aside (plus I can't remember where I got to with that insult) - I really need to apologise to Caz (who had to invest considerable time in replying to your post) and to all of my countless other dear readers who may have been misled by my casual remark. For clarity, by 'sort-of drinking buddy', I meant (largely tongue-in-cheek) that they almost certainly occupied a similar drinking space at some time or other and at the same time occasionally, all in The Saddle Inn.

Is that "sort of" in the sense that there is no evidence that Barrett and Lyons even knew each other in 1992, and Lyons denies it?

Asked and answered.

When quizzed by his employer in 1993, Lyons admitted that he sometimes drank in the Saddle. There seems to be some muddle exactly where Lyons was living the previous year, since his employer didn't have his current address, but his girlfriend lived near The Saddle, so it is not too surprising that either he, or perhaps they, should drop by on occasion. We aren't told how often or when.

Asked and answered (by my learned friend, Mrs C. Snips QC).

Meanwhile, we are also told that in 1992 Lyons had a fulltime, daytime job, sometimes working 48 hours/week. As such, if Lyons even frequented the Saddle in 1992 (which as far as I know is not in evidence) it seems probable that it would have been in the evenings or on the weekend because he was gainfully employed.

Except when he wasn't, as noted again by my learned friend, et cetera ...

By contrast, the Saddle was not truly Michael John Barrett's "local."

This claim was not part of the disclosure process, M'Lud! The Saddle Inn was - to our collective knowledge (bar one, evidently) the only public house the accused, Michael John Barrett - ever claimed to frequent. The only pub. He was in others, it is true, but only once to our collective knowledge (bar one, evidently).

We are universally told that he stopped by mid-day to down a pint before picking up his daughter from school. Her school was near the pub. This doesn't merely come from Barrett himself; Shirley Harrison interviewed the publican, and he remembered Barrett sometimes stopping in at "lunch," sitting with either Tony Devereux or with his own father, Stanley.

I think we should not confuse the jury with overly literal interpretations of what time 'lunch' is, should we , counsellor? Does it mean noon to most, 1pm to many, even 2pm to some?

The bartender didn't mention a fourth man, or any other "drinking buddy," let alone Eddie Lyons or any other electrician.

That is because the bartender clearly anticipated my goodnatured comment 30 years later and knew that Lyons was only a 'sort of' drinking buddy (in the non-literal, sharing the same drinking space sense).

Yet now one of the more visible members of the Maybrick crowd is stating that the "evidence" shows that Barrett and Lyons were "sort-of drinking buddies" in March 1992.

Asked and answered.

Draw your own conclusions.

I think the sensible members of the jury already have ...

Ike Iconoclast
At the Bar
Ker-ching!

[rjpalmer]

Thanks for clearing that up, Thomas.

To prevent further misunderstandings in the future, perhaps the Maybrickians could develop some sort of code to let us readers better determine (when someone is "good naturedly" accusing Eddie Lyons of theft, or James Maybrick of murder, or Ron and Suzanne Murphy of buying stolen goods and then lying about it) that they are only speaking "tongue-in-cheek" or are stating theories and conjectures as facts for convenience sake, but we must understand that none of it should be taken seriously or literally.

Blue ink for tongue-in-cheek; green for theory-stated-as-fact...that sort of thing.

Just a suggestion--it might help.

Cheers.