One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[StevenOwl]

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 ...

Caz has her oft-mentioned 'Diary Timeline' doesn't she? Would love to get my hands on that...

[caz]

Caz has her oft-mentioned 'Diary Timeline' doesn't she? Would love to get my hands on that...

Hello Owly,

I didn't consult my timeline for those tweaks, as some facts and dates seem to be etched into my memory. If I'm not sure, though, I will say so or check before posting.

The only reason I got an A grade in my Latin O level exam was that I could commit various translations of poetry to memory the night before - and would probably have forgotten it all by the following week! I also see numbers and letters in my mind as different colours, so dates and years and things like PIN numbers tend to be easy for me to recall. I only found out in recent years that this is a recognised condition called synesthesia. I thought I was the only one as a child.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

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.

Once again, you seem to be missing--or evading--the point.

And frankly you should be happy that I'm providing Eddie Lyons with the largest window possible to stop by and hoist a pint of Tetley's with his good friend, mate, and drinking pal, Eddie Lyons. No doubt we'll soon learn that Eddie was also the best man at Mike and Anne's wedding.

I characterized Barrett's habit of going to The Saddle as 'mid-day' to accommodate both the bartender's recollection of Barrett sometimes stopping in for lunch, as well as the well-known claim that Barrett stopped in before picking up his daughter from school.

Call it mid-afternoon if you prefer. Call it 'stopping in at various times between 12 noon and 3.10 pm and either staying or not staying until the school bell rang.' It doesn't matter.

The point is that Barrett's known schedule does not coincide with Eddie Lyons' known schedule. Not only is there not a jot of evidence that Barrett & Lyons were "sort of drinking buddies," or even knew one another (as Eddie plausibly claims), it is not even clear how this could have been the case, due to their differing schedules. That was the point.

You now inform us (though you don't quite give use your source) that Eddie Lyons' can be placed in Fountains Road in February 1992.

Wonderful. How does this make Eddie and Mike Barrett "sort-of drinking buddies" a short time later?

Unfortunately for your own argument, you have already put on a great show of pointing out that Eddie Lyons was working full-time in Skelmersdale between December 2, 1991 and Saturday, March 7, 1992.

48 hour work-weeks.

Skelmersdale is fully 14 miles from The Saddle Inn on Fountains Road.

Are you suggesting that Eddie drove the fourteen miles back to Fountains Road during his lunch break to hoist a pint with Barrett? And then another fourteen miles back to Skelmersdale to play around with electrical wiring in a state of groggy bliss? What evidence do you have for it? Is it even remotely plausible?

Portus & Rhodes were commercial and residential electrical contractors. I know from experience what sort of hours these outfits keep, and they don't start work at 4:30 a.m. and finish by 1 pm, though, of course, you could always post the appropriate time sheets. The outfits need to be open when other businesses are open, and when electrical supply companies are open.

You could, of course, cut to the chase and name a single bartender, barmaid, friend, acquaintance, Eddie's ex-wife, or anyone else, etc., to prove that Mike Barrett and Eddie Lyons were "sort of drinking buddies."

But really, why bother? Tom Mitchell has already admitted that this characterization was "tongue-in-cheek," (and perhaps he's right to treat the Battlecrease provenance as joke-material) but you seem to be trying to imply that it could be true nonetheless, though strangely, also tried to excuse this characterization by suggesting they were drinking buddies a year later--which is not only a year too late for Keith's provenance, but is also not in evidence.

It could be true. Sort of like the mythical writer of Mike's 1980s magazine articles could be true.

On this score, I'd be curious to know why--if Mike was just handing in a cassette tape or a few jotted lines of dialogue in BLOCK LETTERS so an 'in house' writer could cobble together a magazine article--why he and Anne splurged £458.85 for a Amstrad word processor on 3 April 1986.

Sound to me like they were planning to do a spot of writing, don't you think?

RP

[Iconoclast]

... and perhaps he's right to treat the Battlecrease provenance as joke-material ...

To be clear on this point, I don't think anyone could ever realistically call the Battlecrease provenance 'joke material'. The fact that Lyons was under the floorboards on the morning that a guy who drank in the same pub as he did was touting a Jack the Ripper diary and it turned out to be purportedly written by James Maybrick whose last breath was expelled in Battlecrease House is a claim (it's not a fact, of course, but it's extremely close to one) which absolutely nails the mystery of the 'missing' provenance. For 103 years, James Maybrick's scrapbook in which he detailed his life as his alter ego Jack the Ripper lay underneath the floorboards of Battlecrease House. That's pretty obvious and is obvious because of the 'double event' of March 9, 1992.

Once you accept that there requires an incredible leap of faith to argue somehow differently, you can then move on to the scrapbook's obvious reference to Florence Maybirck's initials being in Mary Kelly's room, and then - when you check - you find that they are.

Once you accept that, you can then move on to James Maybrick's watch in which he claimed "I am Jack", inscribed the initials of the five canonical victims, and then rather wonderfully inscribed his signature with that highly idiosyncratic 'k'.

Once you accept that, you don't actually need any of the wealth of circumstantial evidence which surrounds Maybrick, but the good news for my dear readers is that they may very well have it in 2026 (or so).

Watch this space!

[caz]

Once again, you seem to be missing--or evading--the point.

And frankly you should be happy that I'm providing Eddie Lyons with the largest window possible to stop by and hoist a pint of Tetley's with his good friend, mate, and drinking pal, Eddie Lyons. No doubt we'll soon learn that Eddie was also the best man at Mike and Anne's wedding.

I really don't appreciate the suggestion that I'm the kind of person who should be happy that I'm being provided with a wholly improbable scenario [improbable for the reasons I have given], just because it might support a belief, which I don't even espouse and have never expressed. The opposite is the case here, because I have provided plenty of actual evidence, time and time again on these very boards, to show how unlikely it is that Eddie and Mike's paths would have crossed where the Saddle stands before 9th March 1992, due to Eddie's full work schedule and Mike's weekday routine prior to that day, when the evidence suddenly and unexpectedly allows for a rare opportunity for the two men to have coincidentally dropped in for a beer during that particular lunchtime session, where their eyes could have met for the first time across an uncrowded bar.

I characterized Barrett's habit of going to The Saddle as 'mid-day' to accommodate both the bartender's recollection of Barrett sometimes stopping in for lunch, as well as the well-known claim that Barrett stopped in before picking up his daughter from school.

Call it mid-afternoon if you prefer. Call it 'stopping in at various times between 12 noon and 3.10 pm and either staying or not staying until the school bell rang.' It doesn't matter.

Again, I'm not going to 'call' it anything and this has got nothing to do with what I 'prefer'. It has more to do with English pubs, where 'lunch' traditionally referred to the lunchtime session for the taking of alcoholic 'refreshment', which, after 1988, could vary from pub to pub and extend from just two or three hours, between 12 and 3, to any opening time from 11am onwards, when 'lunch' could blend seamlessly with the evening session. Pubs can choose whether or not to offer meals, although most would at least sell crisps [potato chips], nuts or pork scratchings [don't ask] - perhaps a pickled egg for the adventurous. Mike stopping in for 'lunch' therefore means little, because it could well have been what is widely known as a 'liquid lunch', but unlikely to have consisted of a twelve course tasting menu with mineral water.

The point is that Barrett's known schedule does not coincide with Eddie Lyons' known schedule.

I've been saying this since the dawn of time. It doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter? Because we know these two men did meet each other and strike up a 'sort-of' acquaintance; we just don't have it on record where and when their eyes met for the very first time, or under what circumstances. The first time could have been when Mike went round to Eddie's place to have it out with him, at some point between April and June 1993, but that would be an assumption not based on any actual evidence.

There seems to be another assumption being made that one man can't have something that another man sees and desires if they are perfect strangers. There is no rule that says they have to be good mates or drinking buddies before that can happen, or before one can begin the process of making that desirable object his own. By April 1993, it is clear that Mike believed Eddie was trying to take a very desirable object away from him by claiming to have found the diary in Maybrick's old house, of all places.

Not only is there not a jot of evidence that Barrett & Lyons were "sort of drinking buddies," or even knew one another (as Eddie plausibly claims), it is not even clear how this could have been the case, due to their differing schedules. That was the point.

You now inform us (though you don't quite give use your source) that Eddie Lyons' can be placed in Fountains Road in February 1992.

Wonderful. How does this make Eddie and Mike Barrett "sort-of drinking buddies" a short time later?

How short is a 'short time'?

Unfortunately for your own argument, you have already put on a great show of pointing out that Eddie Lyons was working full-time in Skelmersdale between December 2, 1991 and Saturday, March 7, 1992.

48 hour work-weeks.

Skelmersdale is fully 14 miles from The Saddle Inn on Fountains Road.

So when I provide information, I'm putting on 'a great show'? It's a pretty poor show when an argument I'm not even making is disagreed with in such a disagreeably hostile fashion.

Are you suggesting that Eddie drove the fourteen miles back to Fountains Road during his lunch break to hoist a pint with Barrett? And then another fourteen miles back to Skelmersdale to play around with electrical wiring in a state of groggy bliss? What evidence do you have for it? Is it even remotely plausible?

No. I'm not 'suggesting' anything of the sort, and I'm wondering where this line of thought is coming from, because it seems totally unrelated to anything I have posted.

It could be true. Sort of like the mythical writer of Mike's 1980s magazine articles could be true.

Is this a joke? If the argument here is that because an article has Mike Barrett's name attached to it, we are obliged to conclude that it was written by him, and him alone, when all the evidence screams: "Oh no it wasn't!", and even Mike admitted he needed help, does the rule then extend to a piece of written work with Jack the Ripper's name attached to it? It's ironic that Mike is meant to have been behind the creation of a fake diary in 1992, and one of the arguments for this is that he produced a string of genuine articles in the 1980s through his own honest toil.

On this score, I'd be curious to know why--if Mike was just handing in a cassette tape or a few jotted lines of dialogue in BLOCK LETTERS so an 'in house' writer could cobble together a magazine article--why he and Anne splurged £458.85 for a Amstrad word processor on 3 April 1986.

What evidence is there that it was Mike or Anne who 'splurged' all that money on the word processor? Could it not have been a loan from her father, for instance? There is no denying that Mike had writing ambitions, but efforts to deny that they were way above his natural ability will not wash, because we are awash with actual evidence for it.

People with no talent but a burning need to be a somebody are often encouraged by friends or family members to "have a go" and scratch that itch. Good money may be invested against their better judgement, or possibly just to get some peace and hope they get whatever it is out of their system. Getting that word processor would have been a way for Mike to show anyone he needed to impress that he was serious about making a go of it. It doesn't equate to a sign that he was going to be any good at it - any more than buying a second-hand knitting machine in the early 1990s was a sign that I would go on to supply M&S with lambswool sweaters. I quickly realised that the blasted machine and I were not going to get along, and reverted to knitting - slowly - by hand, and saving my sanity. My daughter was little at the time and to my shame she thought the knitting machine was called a "fuksake" because of my foul language when trying to grapple with it.

[caz]

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.

Might I suggest that the above rant will have more chance of reaching its intended target - and obtaining further answers and clarification if that was the purpose of posting it - if it is correctly addressed:

https://www.robertsmithliteraryagency.com/

Hope this helps.

[caz]

Housekeeping time, otherwise known as 'putting on a great show'...

20th April 1993
A labour record of visits by Portus & Rhodes to 7 Riversdale Road is faxed to Feldman by Colin Rhodes, along with seven timesheets.

21st April 1993
Mike Barrett phones Colin Rhodes, fishing for information, including the names of his employees. Colin tells him nothing.

23rd April 1993
Names and [incomplete] contact details for the P&R crew are faxed to Feldman by Colin.

26th April 1993
Mike swears an affidavit, repeating his original claim to have been given the diary by Tony Devereux in 1991. In it, Mike claims he asked Tony who knew about it, and he replied: "No 'effing' bugger alive". [This neatly explains Mike's emphatic denial to Feldman that it came out of 7 Riversdale Road in the hands of a very much alive electrician.]

25th May 1993
A Letter is sent to Colin Rhodes from Mike's solicitors, requesting that he 'supply the dates' on which his company 'was involved with work at 7 Riversdale Road'. Colin does not respond to this request.
[Mike is still not getting the information he wants from anyone, despite repeated attempts, but he doesn't explain why he needs it.]

26th June 1993
Mike asks Eddie Lyons if he will come to the Saddle that evening to meet Robert Smith. Eddie agrees and makes his bogus skip claim, before making a hasty exit.
[It's not known what Mike said to Eddie about who Robert is, or the reason he wants to meet him.]

Fast forward to 20th July 1995 in Baker Street
Feldman is convinced that Tony Devereux must have told Mike that the diary was connected to Anne. He keeps trying to get Mike to admit this, but gets nowhere. Mike, clearly frustrated, ends up saying that Tony couldn't have told him anything because he never knew the diary existed.
[Feldman doesn't appear to take this in, or he disregards it because it doesn't fit his own fixed narrative.]

Rewinding to February 1993
Martin Howells thinks there has to be more to the Devereux story than what Mike has said. Mike asks cryptically: "Would you split on a mate?"
Anne reacts to this and comes out with her own question: "Did you nick it, Mike?".
[It sounds like she is trying to warn him to keep his trap shut, because he is hardly likely to reply: "Well yes, as a matter of fact I did. Well spotted, girl."]

What is all that about splitting on 'a mate'?

Is it just Mike's way of changing the subject by saying something meaningless? Or does Anne's reaction suggest otherwise?

Mike seems to have been very short of male friends, throughout the story, dead or alive. Curious for someone with the gift of the gab, who could make conversation with anyone he met. Only Tony came close, but was he really as close to "Bongo" as Mike tried to make out? He was not only dead long before February 1993, but how would Mike be 'splitting' on Tony anyway, unless he had got the diary "from somewhere he shouldn't" and Mike knew it?

If we are looking for a 'mate' of Mike's who is very much alive in February 1993 [which is also when Paul Dodd reveals to his visitors that electrical work has been done on Maybrick's old house and Mike reacts as if he's just been stung by a giant hornet], and might not appreciate being 'split on', are we seriously going to be spoilt for choice? Or are we seriously going to dismiss the one who is staring at us and daring us not to 'split' on him like his own workmates did?

If this 'mate' of Mike's in February 1993 is none other than Eddie Lyons [who else is there, apart from an invisible childhood friend?], this would be two months before Feldman had heard the name or could have been the cause of bringing these two scallies together over a hot doorstep.

Something to think about - or not if it doesn't fit a fixed narrative.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Might I suggest that the above rant will have more chance of reaching its intended target - and obtaining further answers and clarification if that was the purpose of posting it - if it is correctly addressed:

https://www.robertsmithliteraryagency.com/

Hope this helps.

Thanks, but why are you sending me this?

I already asked my question--the name of the in-house writer that allegedly wrote Barrett's articles in the 1980s--- and you already passed it on to Robert Smith.

He answered that this "could have" happened, which I took to be an admission that he has no actual first-hand knowledge and was merely guessing.

Considering that the company has been defunct for decades, and Smith wrongly assumed it was a Liverpool publisher, it's pretty obvious that he hadn't actually spoken to anyone to determine what Barrett submitted.

Thus, I see no reason to waste a stamp or send an email.

Thanks again, though.

[rjpalmer]

I don't feel like wasting any more time on this, but I figure we should at least hear from Eddie Lyons about his alleged friendship with Barrett.

Here is Eddie's own statement about the extent of his knowledge of Mike Barrett as described by Dolgin and Jones, p. 130

****Note: "He" in the first sentence is Eddie Lyons.




Maybe it's me, but this doesn't sound like either 'drinking buddies' or 'mates.'

More information can be found in The Maybrick Murder and the Diary of Jack the Ripper: End Game by Christopher Jones and Daniel Dolgin, available at Amazon.

[Iconoclast]

Maybe it's me, but this doesn't sound like either 'drinking buddies' or 'mates.'

Goodness me, man - we know they weren't 'drinking buddies' or 'mates'. We all know that, and indeed I posted this just the other day (my "tongue in cheek" post) and you acknowledged that you had read it by replying to it. There is absolutely no-one on the planet who has ever described them as 'drinking buddies' or 'mates' except as part of a quick delve into irony.

But that doesn't mean they didn't know of one another or even know one another, just without the Christmas cards and the occasional curry.

I promise to try my best to be more literal in future.

[rjpalmer]

There is absolutely no-one on the planet who has ever described them as 'drinking buddies' or 'mates' except as part of a quick delve into irony

So, Caz is also being ironic in her previous post?

If we are looking for a 'mate' of Mike's who is very much alive in February 1993 [which is also when Paul Dodd reveals to his visitors that electrical work has been done on Maybrick's old house and Mike reacts as if he's just been stung by a giant hornet], and might not appreciate being 'split on', are we seriously going to be spoilt for choice? Or are we seriously going to dismiss the one who is staring at us and daring us not to 'split' on him like his own workmates did?

If this 'mate' of Mike's in February 1993 is none other than Eddie Lyons [who else is there, apart from an invisible childhood friend?], this would be two months before Feldman had heard the name or could have been the cause of bringing these two scallies together over a hot doorstep.

Sure sounds like she's attempting to imply that were 'mates.'

[Iconoclast]

So, Caz is also being ironic in her previous post?
Sure sounds like she's attempting to imply that were 'mates.'

Yes, she was definitely claiming that they were ‘mates’ (in the ironic sense) but not that they were mates (in the literal sense) - at least, that’s how I read Caz’s comments.

i maybe shouldn’t have used apostrophes in my previous post.

Hope this helps.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, she was definitely claiming that they were ‘mates’ (in the ironic sense) but not that they were mates (in the literal sense) - at least, that’s how I read Caz’s comments.

She seems to be saying that Mike's statement 'Would you split on a mate?' only makes sense as a reference to Eddie Lyons, yet Eddy Lyons was only 'ironically' Mike's mate, so Mike must also be making an 'ironic' reference to Lyons some weeks before Lyons and Mike actually met (according to Lyons).

Okay, whatever.

These semantic distinctions have become too subtle for my pea-sized brain, Ike. I'll have to leave you two to it.

[Lombro2]

Why wouldn’t you want Michael to be drinking mates with someone who is potentially a thief and could conceivably have contacts who are fences and might know what a Guard Book is?

This can only help your Auction Provenance theory. Even if it is “Two men walk into a pub”.

A recent post from a credible source says it’s “documented” Eddy was on Fountains in February so you have at least a month of weekdays where Michael is there every day and Eddy just has to leave work early once and pop in on one of them.

[Lombro2]

I think I must be getting too old for this game - I'm clearly not keeping-up…

I understand what you mean Ike. You probably look back at the beginning of this thread and go, “What ever happened to that Tom guy?!”