One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Just a suggestion--it might help.

As would an apology but I shan't be holding my breath ...

[rjpalmer]

Since I have again reared my ugly head on a Diary thread, let me take this final opportunity to respond to a rare but quite interesting comment recently made by Robert Smith, the diary's owner, on JTR Forums.

I'd respond over there, but the thread has been shut down.

Here's the context.

Sometime back, I was rereading David Barrat's review of Smith's 2017 book-length defense of the diary, and noticed how he had taken issue with Smith's claim that Mike's work as a freelance journalist in the 1980s was 'clearly not interviews as such' but were 'cobbled together by an in-house writer with a few quotes from other sources edited in.'

Hmm.

'Cobbled together by an in-house writer.'

Hmmm.

This struck me, as it evidently struck Barrat, to be a very dubious claim, since this is not how magazines normally operate and we have been informed by the authors of Ripper Diary: Inside Story that it was Anne Graham herself who had "tided up" Mike's literary efforts in readiness for publication. Smith, by contrast, is painting a picture of Barrett doing little more than submitting some quotes that someone else had to fashioned into an article--including adding in additional research. At least one of Barrett's published articles---the one about the boy from Sierre Leone--was hardly an 'interview'--it was a standard public interest story that included descriptive passages.

But what made me really wonder about Smith's claim is that he had been previously oblivious to Barrett's work as a freelance journalist in the 1980s, as were the public at large, and since the magazine had gone defunct two decades ago, how could Smith have known any of this? He gave no source for this quote, and it seems as if he would have named names if he had somehow managed to track down this 'in house writer' some twenty years long gone, and we were previous told, again by the authors of Ripper Diary, that Barrett's editor at the magazine, David Burness, characterized Barrett as "always very reliable at the time he worked for me.' Further, as Barrat notes, Smith wrongly characterized this as a Liverpool magazine, when it was, in fact, a London-based national magazine. If Smith made this mistake, is it really likely he had contacted anyone at the long-defunct magazine to confirm under what circumstances Barrett's literary work had been submitted?

This seeming contradiction--which, in my opinion, was an obvious enough attempt to down-play Barrett's previous literary efforts--made me post an open challenge to name this "in-house writer" or "sub editor" who had allegedly written Barrett's articles for him.

To which, courtesy of Caz (thanks), Smith responded a week or so ago:

"Mike would have got a few quotes from the interviewees, from which any competent sub could have fashioned the published articles."

[Emphasis added].

What does Smith mean "could have"?

Now it's only 'could have'?

I'll be diplomatic and merely thank Robert Smith for what is apparently meant to be retraction. There is no evidence that an in-house writer wrote Barrett's articles for him. This was just a convenient theory which apparently and unfortunately somehow came to be stated as a confirmed fact in his book.

This in-house writer could have written Barrett's articles in the same way that Salman Rushdie or JK Rowling could have written Barrett's articles. There's just no evidence that anyone did other than Barrett, unless we accept Anne Graham's own admission or claim that she had helped him.

If you've read this far, I thank you for indulging me. I'll let y'all go back to it without any more of my unwanted commentary.

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Hey Ike (or anybody else), was Eddie Lyons sent to Dodd's house on March 9th to help lift floorboards or just to do clean-up?

[Iconoclast]

This in-house writer could have written Barrett's articles in the same way that Salman Rushdie or JK Rowling could have written Barrett's articles. There's just no evidence that anyone did other than Barrett, unless we accept Anne Graham's own admission or claim that she had helped him.

I could find the source if I had the time (which I don't right now) but I am 99.99% certain that Mike Barrett himself also made this claim in one of the many interviews on tape.

[Iconoclast]

Hey Ike (or anybody else), was Eddie Lyons sent to Dodd's house on March 9th to help lift floorboards or just to do clean-up?

Hi Scotty,

To be absolutely clear, there is no actual physical evidence that Eddie Lyons was ever at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. The first suggestion that he might have been was when Colin Rhodes stated that he would have sent his men out to assist on existing jobs to get them out from under his feet in the office. The second was when it emerged (through the timesheet evidence) that Lyons' work on 'the Skem job' had halted on Friday, March 6, 1992 (as very recently posted by Caz, inter alia), implying that he was at a loose end when Monday came around. The third (and to my recollection final) indication came from Lyons himself when interviewed outside Battlecrease House in 2016 (or so) during which he admitted to having been in Battlecrease House on that fateful morning. Clearly, we would have to take it as read that he was remembering March 9 and not simply remembering his evidenced work (through the timesheets again) in that house in the middle of July 1992.

So the answer to your question is that - if he was sent to Battlecrease House at all - it was simply 'to help out' Arthur Rigby and Jimmy Coufopolous who (as I recall) were on the timesheet for that day; and that, therefore, he was sent there neither to lift floorboards nor clean-up but may have ended-up doing one or both of these tasks (inter alia).

If I've missed a few bits, I'm sure someone will correct or fill-in the gaps.

Ike

[Lombro2]

Caz, does “Snips” have anything to do with non- “root plants”?

[Lombro2]

Here’s a thought Ike: you’re being asked to defend your unofficial narrative against Michael’s “official” one—his affidavit. His last affidavit was a five page statement of unproven and unverifiable details of how he forged the Diary. It’s being presented as proof which, I agree, it’s not.

A long affidavit is not for written for proof but for details after something is already proven by real evidence. Proof is a smoking gun, not long and detailed narratives. I think we agree. So I admire the fact that you don’t waste your time with the opposing narrative to pick it apart the same way your opponents try to do with yours.

However, I for one do believe that something can be proven by a seamless narrative with circumstantial evidence, at least to my own personal satisfaction. Barrett Hoax theorists seem to think seamless narratives are good too. So I’m just trying to help them out! They “seam” to need it!

[Iconoclast]

However, I for one do believe that something can be proven by a seamless narrative with circumstantial evidence, at least to my own personal satisfaction.

Hi Lombro2,

I think it's fair to say that very few things can be proven categorically without cast-iron and - yes - seamless evidence. We often don't have that which is why juries are permitted to convict on largely circumstantial evidence, depending upon the strength of that evidence and, presumably, with one eye on the likely sentence involved (for a capital crime in the old days, you'd like to think that circumstantial evidence would be like one grade lower than CCTV, but it sadly wasn't always).

If it is a battle of circumstantial evidence, 'my' narrative (it's not just mine where the argument against Barrett-as-Hoaxer lies, of course) trumps the Barrett-as-Hoaxers' comfortably. Everything Barrett did was easily explained if he didn't create the scrapbook text, and tortuously explained if he did. That's not even a contest.

The harder bit is presenting a cogent and convincing argument that James Maybrick was Jack the Spratt McVitie.

Ike

[caz]

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

I'm soooo sorry, Ike, but I cannot tell a lie - unlike Mike and Eddie. [Did they not have a catchy hit record out in August 1992, appropriately called "Would I lie to you"? Oh no, I tell a lie. It was Charles and Eddie. Mike couldn't hold a tune in a bucket so he must have had to lip-sync on TOTP while his old Uncle Charlie warbled away in the wings.]

The only foster bear here at Brown Towers came to us from a Somerset charity shop, sporting a knitted England Rugby jersey. Mrs Brown's furry boy may have come down west on the 4.50 from Paddington, but there the similarity ends. His name is William Blackledge Beaumont Brown, and he will be nestling down on the sofa with us for the 2024 Six Nations - no doubt with a packet of his favourite pickled onion flavour crisps and a can of pop.

All right, so that last bit was a lie, but the rest is true. He can't stand pickled onion crisps and fizzy drinks give him the most appalling wind.

Love,

Mrs Brown
X

[caz]

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 claim was:

'We are universally told that he stopped by mid-day to down a pint before picking up his daughter from school.'

The mid-day was even emphasised, but I for one don't recall being told that Mike was supping beer from 12 noon to 3.15, when the school bell rang and young Caroline needed collecting. Mike would have needed collecting by his daughter - in a wheelbarrow. It's even harder to believe that this man could have nursed 'a pint' for all that time, or downed just the one and spent the remaining three hours looking at an empty glass, while boring the pants off anyone who unwisely came within earshot, with tall tales about interviewing the likes of Kylie Minogue. God knows how he'd have spelled her name!

We do know that Mike was already referring to someone as a mate, in connection with the diary, before Feldman ever heard of anyone called Eddie Lyons, or could have been the cause of these two scallywags meeting for the first time. Now who could that mate have been?

To be continued...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I could find the source if I had the time (which I don't right now) but I am 99.99% certain that Mike Barrett himself also made this claim in one of the many interviews on tape.

He did, Ike.

If it's true that Anne did help Mike to transcribe his recorded interviews before he submitted them, it doesn't follow that the published articles would have been her own unedited work, and I'd be rather surprised if they had been. I did all the initial fact checking, 'tidying up' and proofreading for Inside Story, but Sutton Publishing had their own people working on it after that and also produced the index. However, I would think that Robert Smith has vastly more experience and knowledge of the process than any of us here, and bags of personal experience of Mike's competence - or lack of it - as a writer, so I'm not sure if there is any more mileage to be squeezed out of the articles. How can they tell us anything useful about Mike's true literacy or literary skills, that we didn't already know from his unaided typed and handwritten correspondence and attempts at creative writing?

Besides, if the theory is that Anne composed much of the diary text herself, and then copied it by hand into the guard book, does this not acknowledge Mike's obvious shortcomings? Perhaps the only remaining question is why she freely admitted to tidying up all his previous efforts, leaving herself wide open to suspicions that she did the same with the diary. Is this supposed to indicate an underlying need to confess all?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Scotty,

To be absolutely clear, there is no actual physical evidence that Eddie Lyons was ever at Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992. The first suggestion that he might have been was when Colin Rhodes stated that he would have sent his men out to assist on existing jobs to get them out from under his feet in the office. The second was when it emerged (through the timesheet evidence) that Lyons' work on 'the Skem job' had halted on Friday, March 6, 1992 (as very recently posted by Caz, inter alia), implying that he was at a loose end when Monday came around. The third (and to my recollection final) indication came from Lyons himself when interviewed outside Battlecrease House in 2016 (or so) during which he admitted to having been in Battlecrease House on that fateful morning. Clearly, we would have to take it as read that he was remembering March 9 and not simply remembering his evidenced work (through the timesheets again) in that house in the middle of July 1992.

So the answer to your question is that - if he was sent to Battlecrease House at all - it was simply 'to help out' Arthur Rigby and Jimmy Coufopolous who (as I recall) were on the timesheet for that day; and that, therefore, he was sent there neither to lift floorboards nor clean-up but may have ended-up doing one or both of these tasks (inter alia).

If I've missed a few bits, I'm sure someone will correct or fill-in the gaps.

Ike

Just a couple of tweaks for you, Ike and Scotty...

Eddie's final day on the Skem job was actually Saturday 7th March 1992, when he did a full day's work.

Colin told Keith, while they were consulting all the relevant timesheets, that he would have sent Eddie and Jim Bowling [the two main Skem boys] over to help Arthur and Jimmy C with the rewire job on Monday 9th March 1992, which required floorboards to be raised. He was surprised by Eddie's absence from the Skem timesheets when that job resumed on Friday 13th March, and could offer no plausible explanation. Jim Bowling's name was there, just as it had been from the beginning, back in December, so where was Eddie? In 'York' with Mike, having delicious afternoon teas in Betty's?

Eddie's interview in the drive of Battlecrease was in 2018, and he wasn't taken there in handcuffs. He freely admitted to helping out on a two-day rewire job at the house, which had been allocated to Arthur and involved floorboards being raised. His description of the work and who else was there could only have applied to that first visit in March 1992, and no other later jobs, including when he was there in July 1992. Following the rewire, the storage heaters had been installed on the first floor in the June, so Eddie had to be talking about the March rewire, to prepare for that installation.

It has been questioned why Eddie would have admitted to his presence when the floorboards were up if he had something to hide, but he could not have known about any existing records putting him there, and he couldn't be expected to remember the date, or to know that Mike had opened his trap about JtR's diary on the same afternoon and this was down on the record. From Eddie's point of view, he could admit to being there while denying that he had found anything, and who could prove otherwise? He strongly advised against contacting his old mate Jim Bowling, as he was in poor health.

My question would be why Eddie showed up at all in 2018 - or indeed back in June 1993 in the Saddle - unless he too was on a fishing expedition for information.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz, does “Snips” have anything to do with non- “root plants”?

Getting warmer, Lombro.

By root vegetables, I was thinking of parsnips and suchlike, but there is an edible plant connection.

Love,

Mrs Snips
X

[Iconoclast]

All right, so that last bit was a lie, but the rest is true. He can't stand pickled onion crisps and fizzy drinks give him the most appalling wind.

Can I suggest you try him on marmalade sandwiches instead and maybe a gentle soda and lime before hitting the heavy stuff?

[Iconoclast]

Just a couple of tweaks for you, Ike and Scotty...

How the hell do you do that, Mrs Brown-Snips?

I'm starting to think you have some secret document in which you have stored every word ever spoken or written by anyone, ever.

In the history of the human race and all other chattering primates, no less ...