One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

What's the worst that could happen? Making Anne laugh out loud about the subject for the first time in years?

Hi Caz.

Reading between the lines of the Jones and Dolgin book, that was pretty much Eddie Lyon's reaction when quizzed about your favorite Battlecrease provenance theory.

Laughter.

Not that his bemused denials have slowed down your public accusations.

Could a similar reaction from Anne possibly explain why you don't follow your own advice and call her on the phone for yourself?

If Anne is going to finally open up, is it really going to be a complete stranger or to someone like you—someone who co-wrote an entire book than many would view as a defense of her 'in the family' provenance?

And since you are now very publicly promoting a theory that paints her as a very elaborate liar who helped her ex-husband--and herself--profit off stolen goods, and then helped cover it all up with a bogus story, shouldn’t she equally have a chance to respond to your own accusations and insinuations?

What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. I'm sure you wouldn't want to leave the impression that you are freely asking others to do what you aren't prepared to do yourself.

So, I’d suggest you follow your own advice, Caz. Pick up the phone.

I’m sure there are many people here who would be interested in hearing you interview Anne after all these years, giving her a chance to validate your theories and clear the air and set the record straight once and for all.

Passing the buck on a Maybrick forum that few people read is hardly going to get it done, is it?

Do let us know how it went.

Thanks.

[Mike J. G.]

Following on from yesterday's post, I do feel it's high time that someone - anyone - whose arguments on these boards have been based on Anne Graham's handwriting being in the diary, would actually attempt to contact her directly, so she knows what has been said about her and is given the opportunity to comment if she wishes to do so.

You never know, she might even be relieved to admit, after all these years, that it all started out innocently enough on her part, but just got out of hand when Mike insisted on doing things his own way.

She might be willing to confirm or refute some of the arguments we have made about the typescript, for example. After all, she was there and we were not.

If it's a "no comment", at least she would have been treated fairly by having a chance to defend herself.

It's not much to ask, is it, of any Barrett hoax believer who is serious about trying to get at the truth while their prime suspect is still with us?

What's the worst that could happen? Making Anne laugh out loud about the subject for the first time in years?

Love,

Caz
X

Hiya, Caz, and happy 2024

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Anne is too keen on any diary discussions, according to Chris Jones on his most recent Rippercast talk. I'm sure everyone here is already aware of him meeting with her in 2021/2022(?) And stating that any talk on the diary was essentially null and void besides her briefly mentioning the negative impact it had had on her and her daughter's life. Chris went on to say that even Anne's daughter is reluctant to let her mother discuss anything about the scrapbook. Though he did say that one day, potentially, she might be more inclined. I doubt it'll be any time soon.

I've often wondered if Anne was still local, and from what Chris has said in passing, I'm led to believe that she might be. But if Chris can't get her to discuss it, I doubt if anyone here can. It's a shame that Chris didn't attempt to record or film any of the chats he had with the key players in this saga, as I think that we're all overdue an updated documentary on the topic. It certainly is Netflix worthy, imo.

For what it's worth, I'm not sold on Anne having penned it, and for much the same reason as not believing Sir Jim of Strychnine penned it, nor Mike Bongo Barret, for that matter. I do tend to agree with the failed solubility tests that Chris hangs his hat on in his latest book, in that I believe it points to the ink not necessarily being put to paper decades before '92. Like I've said, the notion of the diary being an older hoax is definitely intoxicatingly romantic, but not probable, imo.

I do wish Chris would elaborate on his "nest of hoaxers" claim, as it is intriguing, though isn't an original idea, but is rather vague considering he claims to be confident on who he thinks was behind it. I'm inclined to believe that we'll never know, and I'm okay with that.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Caz.

Reading between the lines of the Jones and Dolgin book, that was pretty much Eddie Lyon's reaction when quizzed about your favorite Battlecrease provenance theory.

Laughter.

Not that his bemused denials have slowed down your public accusations.

Could a similar reaction from Anne possibly explain why you don't follow your own advice and call her on the phone for yourself?

If Anne is going to finally open up, is it really going to be a complete stranger or to someone like you—someone who co-wrote an entire book than many would view as a defense of her 'in the family' provenance?

And since you are now very publicly promoting a theory that paints her as a very elaborate liar who helped her ex-husband--and herself--profit off stolen goods, and then helped cover it all up with a bogus story, shouldn’t she equally have a chance to respond to your own accusations and insinuations?

What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. I'm sure you wouldn't want to leave the impression that you are freely asking others to do what you aren't prepared to do yourself.

So, I’d suggest you follow your own advice, Caz. Pick up the phone.

I’m sure there are many people here who would be interested in hearing you interview Anne after all these years, giving her a chance to validate your theories and clear the air and set the record straight once and for all.

Passing the buck on a Maybrick forum that few people read is hardly going to get it done, is it?

Do let us know how it went.

Thanks.

Allo, RJ, and a happy New Year to you an' all.

I'm not sure if you've all discussed it much or not, though you probably have somewhere, but what did you make of Chris talking about how the boards that were lifted on the 9th were not in the Maybrick bedroom, and had already been lifted at least twice before?

I appreciated the comment he made about the lack of a skip outside the house, which had been floating around in some accounts as having been used to potentially toss the scrapbook into from a window. It'd never really occured to me exactly why a skip would've been needed until he brought that up. It does seem to be confirmed that a Victorian newspaper was found, with Dodd allowing the P&R worker to keep it. Is that what was rumoured to have been taken to the university for further investigation, as opposed to the scrapbook?

The timeline of events on the 9th has never sat right with me, and apparently not with Chris, either, so I found myself agreeing with much of that.

Cheers

[caz]

Hiya, Caz, and happy 2024

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like Anne is too keen on any diary discussions, according to Chris Jones on his most recent Rippercast talk. I'm sure everyone here is already aware of him meeting with her in 2021/2022(?) And stating that any talk on the diary was essentially null and void besides her briefly mentioning the negative impact it had had on her and her daughter's life. Chris went on to say that even Anne's daughter is reluctant to let her mother discuss anything about the scrapbook. Though he did say that one day, potentially, she might be more inclined. I doubt it'll be any time soon.

I've often wondered if Anne was still local, and from what Chris has said in passing, I'm led to believe that she might be. But if Chris can't get her to discuss it, I doubt if anyone here can. It's a shame that Chris didn't attempt to record or film any of the chats he had with the key players in this saga, as I think that we're all overdue an updated documentary on the topic. It certainly is Netflix worthy, imo.

For what it's worth, I'm not sold on Anne having penned it, and for much the same reason as not believing Sir Jim of Strychnine penned it, nor Mike Bongo Barret, for that matter. I do tend to agree with the failed solubility tests that Chris hangs his hat on in his latest book, in that I believe it points to the ink not necessarily being put to paper decades before '92. Like I've said, the notion of the diary being an older hoax is definitely intoxicatingly romantic, but not probable, imo.

I do wish Chris would elaborate on his "nest of hoaxers" claim, as it is intriguing, though isn't an original idea, but is rather vague considering he claims to be confident on who he thinks was behind it. I'm inclined to believe that we'll never know, and I'm okay with that.

Hi Mike,

A sound post here, if I may say so, although IIRC [and Palmer will correct me if I'm wrong] a former professional document examiner, Phil Kellingley, has disputed that Baxendale's solubility test result in 1992 proves that the ink had only recently been applied to the paper. Even Baxendale himself never hinted that it could have been written as recently as April 1992, which is the only theory in this part of town and depends on a) Mike only obtaining the scrapbook on 31st March 1992; b) Anne then handwriting the diary in it over the next 12 days and finally c) the Barretts - under no obligation - printing off their typescript, created at some point on their word processor, to accompany the diary, risking immediate exposure if they had created both documents between them.

I also find absolutely nothing 'romantic', intoxicatingly or even vaguely, about the notion of the diary being an older hoax. It can't change what it is, when it was written or by whom, so why would anyone want it to? It's clear enough to me, however, that if it's not in Anne's handwriting, natural or disguised, then it almost certainly has to date back to before April 1992, and the 9th March double event provides a very good clue [but not in the least an 'intoxicatingly romantic' one] that it existed before that date.

I personally don't think 'romantic' is a remotely appropriate word to use in connection with what this diary is supposed to be all about, and that's regardless of who might have been responsible.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.

Reading between the lines of the Jones and Dolgin book, that was pretty much Eddie Lyon's reaction when quizzed about your favorite Battlecrease provenance theory.

Laughter.

Not that his bemused denials have slowed down your public accusations.

Could a similar reaction from Anne possibly explain why you don't follow your own advice and call her on the phone for yourself?

The challenge was for anyone whose arguments appear to rely on Anne's handwriting being in the diary. If Palmer wants to duck that one or issue a different challenge entirely, that's up to him. But it reminds me of recent PMQs when the PM is asked a question, for example about his plan to stop the boats, and instead of answering it he asks the opposition what their plan is, when they are not even in power and not obliged to answer their own or anyone else's questions. If the original question is repeated, and the PM still fails to answer, you will instead hear the magic words "Jeremy Corbyn" and know he is clutching desperately at his favourite straw man.

Palmer's favourite straw man is Eddie Lyons, who has agreed to be questioned on several occasions and is fully aware of why his name has been associated with the diary's sudden emergence since at least as far back as 1993, and what others have said about his involvement and when they first heard about a "find" he had made. I didn't pick Eddie's name out of a hat, and I rather doubt that any of the Battlecrease witnesses did either. Chris Jones left during the conversation with Eddie in 2018, so he didn't hear everything Eddie volunteered to the others present. Laughing off all the statements made by his old muckers [among other people, including Robert Smith, Tim Martin-Wright and Paul Dodd] would be one thing; I don't suppose they were laughing when they gave his name and distanced themselves.

As far as I am aware, nobody who associated with Anne Graham before the diary became public news has ever pointed the finger at her as a remotely likely suspect for faking the diary or for helping anyone else to do so. I suspect they would all laugh even if Anne didn't. The two situations are quite different, despite all attempts to make them seem the same.

Anne was not happy back in 2002, when I turned up in Liverpool with my co-authors to interview her for the book, so I am not the best person to ask her if it's true what others are saying today about her handwriting being in the diary. Besides, it would be like the PM suggesting that the leader of the opposition should do his dirty work for him.

And since you are now very publicly promoting a theory that paints her as a very elaborate liar who helped her ex-husband--and herself--profit off stolen goods, and then helped cover it all up with a bogus story, shouldn’t she equally have a chance to respond to your own accusations and insinuations?

How predictable. Don't look over here; look over there.

In case anyone has forgotten, this topic is all about the evidence for the diary being a fraudulent document. Palmer believes Anne and Mike created it between them, and that therefore she lied in July 1994 about it being at least decades old, at a time when she knew there were people still very much out there who would give their eye teeth to prove otherwise beyond all doubt, using science or historical fact. The icing on the cake to keep the dentist busy would have been to prove who held the pen.

Anne is still here, and I doubt she has been quaking with fear since then, waiting for the day when she is finally exposed as that person.

That is why I could imagine her instead, shaking with laughter - tinged with a little relief - to hear that this is what they actually believe.

"Is that it? After all these years, they seriously think it's my handwriting in that stupid diary? They've got to be joking."

[rjpalmer]

ditto

[rjpalmer]

ditto. Some glitch in the software? It posted the same comment four times. I think this happened to Christer Holmgen a week or two ago.

[rjpalmer]

"Is that it? After all these years, they seriously think it's my handwriting in that stupid diary? They've got to be joking."

You're afraid to call Anne, but aren't afraid to make up imaginary responses on her behalf?

I think this a good reason as any to terminate this ridiculous conversation.

[rjpalmer]

I'm not sure if you've all discussed it much or not, though you probably have somewhere, but what did you make of Chris talking about how the boards that were lifted on the 9th were not in the Maybrick bedroom, and had already been lifted at least twice before?

Happy New Year, Mike.

I'll be blunt. I don't put any stock whatsoever in the Battlecrease provenance that Caz is promoting and can only repeat what I wrote over on the Orsam Books website.

The damning thing about the Eddie Lyons theory is that there is zero indication that these wild rumors about finding Jack the Ripper's Diary--the criminal discovery of the century!---were ever in circulation before Paul Feldman started calling people on the telephone many months later. Feldman seems to be the 'original sin' behind the whole saga.

And just think what is being claimed. The electricians supposedly found The Diary of Jack the Ripper under the floorboards of an old, historic Victorian house. There are claims about a ring, a watch, and a biscuit tin all being lifted by Eddie and the gang. And yet, back in 1992 when this remarkable event supposedly happened, nobody said anything. No one had a twinge of guilt and told the owner, Paul Dodd. Nobody told the police. Nobody leaked the story to the newspapers---Jack the Ripper's diary has been found! Nobody notified their boss at Portus & Rhodes--not even anonymously. They all just kept their gobs shut. Not a peep. How likely does that seem to you? We are even told that some of these blokes took it to a Liverpool university to be verified and none of those people spread a rumor, either. How did this amazing secret stay quiet? Are people really that tight lipped in rainy Liverpool? There's no gossip in the land of Paul and Ringo?


It wasn't until Feldman started quizzing people in 1993 that suddenly everyone knows about the theft of the century. Call me cynical, but could that be significant?


This is why the diary supporters are so desperate to claim that this Martin-Wright chap is an 'independent witness,' as he is being described, even though he was just a bloke repeating a third-hand rumor he heard and hadn't actually witnessed anything. They need Martin-Wright to try and date this rumor to a time before Feldman quizzed the electricians, but all he evidently has is a hazy memory of hearing the rumor at some not very specific date in the past. And he's the only one who claims to have heard it. Again, if Jack the Ripper's diary has been found in Liverpool, and one person heard about it, wouldn't a hundred have heard about it?

Caz and her crew need to convince the public that these rumors were already afloat and thus weren't the product of Feldman's clumsy interviewing techniques.

That's how I see it.

Obviously, in a real criminal or civil case, Martin-Wright would not be a witness. He wouldn't ever be allowed to take the stand. All he can offer is third-hand hearsay.

I hold to the shocking theory that the two people who marketed the diary and lied about it also wrote it. This means that not only was Paul Feldman wrong, but I suspect that Melvin Harris was wrong, too. I agree with Caz on one point and one point only. Mike wasn't the 'handler' of someone else's hoax.

All in my humble opinion.

P.S.

If you don't mind contacting a complete stranger in Liverpool and asking him out for a pint and asking him a few questions, drop me a PM. He seems like a friendly bloke, from what I've heard. Whether he'll talk, I don't know, but he might know a thing or two and a pint of Guinness might loosen his lips. Of course, it's up to you. I admit it's rather a strange thing to ask..

Cheers.

Let me just add that I'm not referring to Eddie Lyons, but if you could chase him down, too, and ask him yourself about 9 March 1992, that would be a fine development.

[caz]

It has been said in the past that because Mike himself had for a period of time 'admitted'/'confessed'/claimed to have faked the diary, it was perfectly reasonable for anyone else to accuse him of having done it. [I'm not sure the same argument can be extended to include Anne, just because Mike extended his claim to include her as his partner in crime, but that's by the bye.]

My point here is that, while I don't need to accuse Eddie Lyons of anything, because my gentle reminders of what others have accused him of are quite enough on their own, Palmer's repeated complaints that I am calling the man a thief, and that this is somehow terribly unjust and completely unacceptable, ignore the fact that Eddie himself had 'admitted'/'confessed'/claimed to have stolen the diary from Dodd's house in the Spring of 1993, asking Feldman what his confession was worth. This was a year before Mike did practically the same thing by going to Harold Brough with his diary claims.

Palmer believes that Mike was telling Brough the truth - or at least a version of it - but has repeatedly accused Eddie of lying to Feldman in an attempt to screw money out of him in return for a false confession. But apparently that's okay because Feldy didn't believe him, so Palmer is only accusing Eddie of having attempted to obtain money by false pretences.

[rjpalmer]

I'm not calling you out for accusing Eddie Lyons, the Murphys, and Anne Graham--the peddler of stolen goods.

I'm calling you out for the sanctimoniousness of constantly demanding that others confront Anne, when you won't confront her (or Eddie) yourself.

[rjpalmer]

My point here is that, while I don't need to accuse Eddie Lyons of anything, because my gentle reminders of what others have accused him of are quite enough on their own, Palmer's repeated complaints that I am calling the man a thief, and that this is somehow terribly unjust and completely unacceptable, ignore the fact that Eddie himself had 'admitted'/'confessed'/claimed to have stolen the diary from Dodd's house in the Spring of 1993, asking Feldman what his confession was worth. This was a year before Mike did practically the same thing by going to Harold Brough with his diary claims.

No, no. This won't do.

Paul Feldman did not name the electrician in his book--and he didn't accuse him of stealing, either. Feldman concluded it was just a bloke who wanted to 'help' a London film producer (Feldman, of course) with his provenance if it included a payday. Feldman didn't believe him. Nor, as I said, did he name him.

As far as I know, it was you, following on the heels of Robert Smith's book, who named Eddie by name on this forum and changed Feldman's explanation into an accusation of theft, with the obvious implication that Mike and eventually Anne marketed stolen goods and lied about it.

I don't care if you contact Eddie Lyons or not. I don't even care if you refuse to confront Anne about your suspicions.

I just don't like the fact that you keep trying to pass the onus--and the demands--onto other people when you're not doing any of it yourself.

Isn't that fair enough?

If you want to talk to any of these people, do it yourself.

I have communicated with a few people behind the scenes--but I don't feel the need to discuss it with you, especially considering your attitude and that I've been recently described by one of the diary's chief advocates as the recipient of a 'bargain lobotomy.'

If I'm that dimwitted, why do you even care what I think or do?

Again, have a great afternoon, Caz!

[rjpalmer]

What's the worst that could happen? Making Anne laugh out loud about the subject for the first time in years?

Love,

Caz
X

I think this little squabble has run its course, but I've just noticed something that Martin Fido once wrote about Anne's laughter.

"it has been my impression whenever I have spoken to Anne or listened to tapes of her being interviewed that she is lying, and describes herself well when she says she is a very manipulative person. I think she is particularly skilled at using a rush of girlish laughter to deflect and redirect embarrassing questions. "

So perhaps Anne's peals of laughter--if that indeed proves to be her reaction--might not quite mean what Caz believes they will mean.

I found Martin's quote--of all places---on a thread dedicated to Ronnie Biggs, the train robber.

Here is the whole conversation, which I give in deference to Keith Skinner for the following reason.

It probably doesn't matter now, but some months ago I repeated a story that I thought Keith had told, of Anne running from the room when questioned about the diary. I had thought I had wrongly attributed this to Keith when it was Martin who had told it (at an entirely different time and place) but I see now that both Martin and Keith did discuss the event at considerable length on this forum, including some email excerpts from Anne explaining her behavior. Other than using the word 'valuation' for 'evaluation,' she strikes me as quite literate when she needs to be.

Anyway, as I may have slightly misremembered what I had read 20 years ago, I repost this thread for Keith's benefit, as he explains his own memories and explanations for Anne's extraordinary behavior--at least as Martin remembered it.

If anyone is interested in this event of yesteryear, one would have to scroll down to the night of 23 July 2022 at 11:37 pm and read the next several posts.

Archive through 26 July 2002 (casebook.org)

Adieu.

[rjpalmer]

That should read 2002, not 2022, of course.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz.

I do know from past expressions of gratitude how much you enjoy trips down Memory Lane, so I can't resist making one small comment after rereading the above link.

One of the more fascinating observations is Martin's commentary on the long, tortured explanations from Anne Graham as she tries to explain how she managed to hide the diary for months--or perhaps years?--behind the furniture on Goldie Street (all of this being long before the electrically charged date of 9 March 1992, of course) to keep it away from Barrett's prying eyes.


Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 23 July 2002 - 11:37 pm

"Hi Peter,
The small detail was the room in which Anne claims to have hidden the diary for a period of months or years during which Mike could not find it. When she spotted that her answers to my questions included this contradiction of her story, she produced a very elaborate explanation that what had been Caroline's room at one time was a spare or guest room at another while Mike was redecorating. Mike confirmed the redecorating but (for once sounding a little reasonable) claimed that the furniture moving involved in that alone would have made Anne's successful concealment of the book from him impossible.
Anne's basic story hasn't changed SINCE SHE PUT IT FORWARD. But that was a long way down the line. Prior to that she certainly expected it to be understood that either Mike's story was true and all that was known, or that she knew nothing about it. It was a real shock to both Feldy and Shirley when Anne suddenly came out with her claim."


To which you added your own two cents:

Author: Caroline Morris
Wednesday, 24 July 2002 - 04:20 am

Er, so in other words, you are saying that it is Anne's word against Mike's, when it comes to what furniture was moved where, what rooms were used for what purpose, what decorating was being done when, and consequently, whether she would have been able to hide the diary where he never found it?


Ah, the old he said/she said.

And we know what's being implied here, don't we?

It is surely just a matter of Anne's word against the word of the hopeless liar Michael John Barrett, the king of all dishonesty. And since Barrett was such an extraordinary liar incapable of telling the truth, Anne's story can't be discounted, can it?

I'm not sure this observation still holds up, does it?

If, as you often tell us, you believe the diary came from under Dodds floorboards on 9 March 1992, doesn't this mean that these old conversations of Anne telling her shifting tales were a pack of lies, after all, and---heaven forbid!---it was none other than your old friend Michael John Barrett who was telling the truth when he said that Anne was full of it--just as Martin had discerned for himself?

If such was the case, are you really on firm ground on the other thread when you apparently accept--without any corroboration whatsoever---Anne's account of how the typescript was created, when it's simply Mike's word against hers in that instance, too?


Afterall, if we can't believe Anne about the furniture being shifted around, why should we believe her account of Mike reading from the diary while she types up the typescript? (And if I recall, isn't there a version where Anne only sometimes worked from Mike's dictation?)

Shouldn't we apply the same principle to Anne as you and David Barrat apply to Mike Barrett--believe nothing without corroboration?

What corroboration is there?

I'd love to hear your current thoughts on this example of Barrett's honesty in the face of Anne's extraordinary lies--as you must now believe them to have been--and if this presents any cautionary tale about not believing Anne's version of the typescript, either.

Thanks.