One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Here's a few questions for RJ. You may have answered these questions before, but given that you are driven by the details provided in Mike's January 5, 1995 affidavit, and you feel that a court of law would uphold Mike's hoaxing claims as a result of this affidavit, what are your thoughts about the following:

1) Your theory about the relationship between Robbie and Albert where you speculate that Robbie put the scratches in the watch. I don't think we've ever received a satisfactory response to the question regarding how Robbie obtained a copy of JM’s signature on the marriage licence in order that he (Robbie) could copy it into the watch.

2) Whose handwriting is in the diary seems to be constantly 'up for grabs' in Mike's various 1994-1995 claims – Anne's or Mike’s? If you hold to your belief that the book was bought at auction at the end of March 1992 then they have 11 days at most to transfer the narrative into the book. As the diary was apparently two years in the planning (dates extrapolated from affidavit of January 5, 1995) then might one have expected Mike and Anne to have thought about this aspect? You've previously - I think - speculated that Mike and Anne could have asked someone completely unrelated to what is now the historical case to to the transference. Given that Mike does not make that claim in his January 5, 1995 affidavit, is there any evidence for your suggestion or were you (assuming that you indeed it was) just spitballing?

3) Do you have any observations about whether any discussions might have occurred in the planning stages as to where they were going to say they obtained the diary given that they didn't have it until the very last days of the whole hoax?

In other words – can we have an 'on the record' source for everything that is critical to the hoax so that we can make sense of how realistic it would be to trust Mike's January 5, 1995 affidavit (upon which Lord Orsam - and your - hoax theory appears to critically hinge)? With that, we might all be able to more ably assess how likely your court of law would be to convict Mike as a hoaxer.

I think it would be useful if it could come from you, mind, RJ, rather than - say - a link to a Lord Orsam analysis. In that respect, I might even ask that you keep it reasonably brief (I'm not suggesting you should down tools and de-construct the entire case). Just some salient evidential points to support your claim that a court of law would see enough in Mike's affidavit to convict him of fraud (or whatever crime the prosecution decided to put to the court).

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Too late to edit my last post. I should have said that the question is would a court of law have accepted Mike’s affidavit as evidence of fraud rather than a reason in itself to convict him of fraud, but I’m sure everyone understood the spirit of the question (thought it best to qualify it anyway).

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

Do you mean Shirley's memory? As I said, I was going by what she wrote about Eddie on page 292 of her book, and she writes that Rawes dated these events to June.




I suppose you could ring Shirley and give her the same right good bollocking you gave me, but that wouldn't be very nice, would it?

Kindest regards,

R P

Steven Owl understood precisely what I was referring to, RJ, concerning your memory getting worse, because he read and responded to the whole post and didn't lift that comment of mine completely out of context to take a cheap shot, like you chose to do.

I didn't even mention Shirley in that post and was referring to your memory lapse concerning the last time it was explained to you the total irrelevance of an argument that goes [to quote your own recent post]:

Perhaps geniuses like Ike can remember where they were on any given day in 1992, but I suspect most people wouldn't have a clue, and if you asked them some years later about a job that was in July 1992 it would be exceedingly easy for them to become confused and admit that it was actually March 1992--it would depend on the context of the discussion and how the questions were posed by the interviewer.

As Steven wrote:

I really don't get why anyone would struggle with this one - I think they're being deliberately obtuse. I'm sure there'll come a day when Geoff Hurst won't remember if he played for England on July 30th 1966, but you can bet your life that he'll still recall the time he played for England at Wembley beating Germany 4-2 to lift the World Cup.

Shirley first wrote the words you quoted in her 1998 paperback, and it was assumed at that time that Eddie Lyons was talking to Brian Rawes about a find he had only just made, so whether that was in June or July 1992 was neither here nor there, because the diary had already been seen in London back in the April. You left out Shirley's next words: 'So if something was found it was not our diary.'

The electricians were only revisited in 2004 [after the publication of Ripper Diary] when Keith went to see Colin Rhodes and together they went through his records. One of the pieces of information that came out of this was that Brian had been out by a mere month, when trying to date his first and only visit to Battlecrease, where the conversation with Eddie had taken place. The only date which fitted with a detailed description of the day's events, as supplied by Brian and confirmed by Colin, was Friday 17th July 1992.

So this has nothing whatsoever to do with Shirley's memory, and it was hardly a fatal error on Brian's part either - unless you equate a slightly less than perfect memory for dates with inventing conversations for no apparent gain.

As you say yourself, most people wouldn't have a clue where they were on any given day in 1992, so I'm glad you appreciate how 'exceedingly easy' it was for Brian to be confused, a few years down the line, about the date of this particular job [especially if that old daily memo book led him astray], while still recalling the day he went to Doddy's house and saw Eddie and the boss's son working there on the ground floor. In fact, Shirley would not have known this when writing her book, but Brian had given the same account way back in 1993, just a year after the event, and on that occasion he was able to supply the right date - 17th July 1992 - most likely by asking his former boss to check the records because, as you acknowledge, most people don't have actual dates in their head all the time.

Steven referenced the '66 World Cup, while the example I used when we last had this discussion was a Rod Stewart concert, also at Wembley. Back at the Hilton after the concert, Rod the Mod kindly autographed my ticket. I can never remember the exact date, nor even the right year, but the occasion itself is etched into my memory as if it happened yesterday. Rod was accompanied by Rachel Hunter, and I congratulated the couple on their recent marriage. I will now pop upstairs to check the date on that concert ticket...

...Tuesday 2nd April 1991.

This time next week I will have forgotten it again.

[caz]

2) Whose handwriting is in the diary seems to be constantly 'up for grabs' in Mike's various 1994-1995 claims – Anne's or Mike’s? If you hold to your belief that the book was bought at auction at the end of March 1992 then they have 11 days at most to transfer the narrative into the book. As the diary was apparently two years in the planning (dates extrapolated from affidavit of January 5, 1995) then might one have expected Mike and Anne to have thought about this aspect? You've previously - I think - speculated that Mike and Anne could have asked someone completely unrelated to what is now the historical case to to the transference. Given that Mike does not make that claim in his January 5, 1995 affidavit, is there any evidence for your suggestion or were you (assuming that you indeed it was) just spitballing?

Hi Ike,

I would also be interested in hearing RJ's current thoughts on the diary's handwriting, as I do recall his speculation that the Barretts could have got a third party to do it for them [presumably over Mike's famous 'eleven days', between 31st March and 13th April 1992?], but I can't find the post concerned and want to be sure of what he actually wrote and in what context.

It would certainly be an intriguing suggestion, if it amounted to this unidentified third party committing fraud for the Barretts on credit, not knowing if the diary would sink or swim, and whether they would all end up in prison or on easy street, sharing the spoils of a best seller.

You'd also have had to be living in a cave, not to know how badly the Hitler Diaries went for their hoaxer, and how quickly his golden goose was cooked.

Of course, this would also hinge on how much reliance RJ's court of law would put on Mike's claim in his 5th January 1995 affidavit that it was Anne's handwriting in the diary. If RJ accepts that Mike may have been motivated at that time to name the wrong individual, that would surely be a cause for concern regarding the rest of his claims.

In addition, would RJ's court of law not take into account Mike's affidavit from 26th April 1993, in which he stated that Tony Devereux gave him the diary and told him that nobody else alive knew about it? At least one of those affidavits does not reflect the truth, so I would hope that any court of law worth its salt would at least be wary of accepting either in good faith, or as evidence of anything but the ability of the one doing the swearing to change his story.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The Maybrick Hoax was ruled a fraud in a court of law nearly 3 decades ago, when the Sunday Times was released from its non-disclosure agreement on the principle that the public was about to be scammed...

RJ, you made the above claim back on 11th July this year, but I am still wondering who or what your source was, as it would appear to conflict with my own information.

Would you care to enlighten your readers, preferably with an actual quote from your source?

Thanks awfully.

[Iconoclast]

Hi RJ (or indeed anyone else),

Whilst we're on this theme of seeking clarification around various key claims made surrounding the mooted hoaxing of the Maybrick scrapbook, I'd be interested to know everyone's thoughts - but especially RJ's as he is the most vociferous on the Casebook - around Mike's January 5, 1995 affidavit which makes it clear that he (Mike) had been trying to expose the diary as a fraud since December 1993. Does RJ (or anyone else) know of any evidence to support this claim? Obviously, by mid-1994 we are seeing him starting to make his claims, but where is the evidence that he had been trying since December 1993? Surely this required something which entered the public record?

Further, Anne and Caroline left Mike on January 2, 1994 following an argument which rendered Anne unconscious. Might the two events have become retrospectively related in Mike's mind?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi All,

For the uninitiated, I should have added that Mike claimed in his January 5, 1995 affidavit that he had been attempting to expose the diary as a hoax since December 1993 which was just two short months after its October 1993 publication. Why had he so suddenly 'changed his mind' in December 1993? What could have prompted his concern for integrity if - indeed - there was one?

On the subject of the October 1993 publication of the first edition of Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper, I am delighted to say that I have literally (in the last 10 minutes) just taken possession of an original copy - with qualifying sticker attached - for the highly symbolic value of £1. (It was first published in Britain on October 4, 1993 and reached number 6 in the Sunday Times bestseller list.)

I hadn't realised that the original publication was quite as ornate as it was so this is going to take pride of place in my bookshelves!

Ike

[Yabs]

Hi Ike

That’s a great copy of the book, I bought the original back then, I have no idea whatever happened to my copy though.
As for why Mike Barrett was trying to expose it as a fake in December 1993.
perhaps this is due to the ripper diary being mentioned in the House of Commons on the 6th of December.
perhaps the reality and fear of prosecution became a bit too much for him at that time.

“Mr. Parry

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what inquiries have been conducted by the Metropolitan police into the alleged diaries of Jack the Ripper; and if he will make a statement;(2) if the report of the Metropolitan police on the Jack the Ripper diaries has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement”

6/12/93

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike

That’s a great copy of the book, I bought the original back then, I have no idea whatever happened to my copy though.
As for why Mike Barrett was trying to expose it as a fake in December 1993.
perhaps this is due to the ripper diary being mentioned in the House of Commons on the 6th of December.
perhaps the reality and fear of prosecution became a bit too much for him at that time.

“Mr. Parry

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what inquiries have been conducted by the Metropolitan police into the alleged diaries of Jack the Ripper; and if he will make a statement;(2) if the report of the Metropolitan police on the Jack the Ripper diaries has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement”

6/12/93

Excellent spot, Yabs!

[caz]

Hi Ike

That’s a great copy of the book, I bought the original back then, I have no idea whatever happened to my copy though.
As for why Mike Barrett was trying to expose it as a fake in December 1993.
perhaps this is due to the ripper diary being mentioned in the House of Commons on the 6th of December.
perhaps the reality and fear of prosecution became a bit too much for him at that time.

“Mr. Parry

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what inquiries have been conducted by the Metropolitan police into the alleged diaries of Jack the Ripper; and if he will make a statement;(2) if the report of the Metropolitan police on the Jack the Ripper diaries has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement”

6/12/93

Cheers, Yabs.

I have just added this info to my diary chronology.

While doing so, I was reminded of the following entry, from just nine days earlier, which was my summary of the article in question:

Saturday 27th November 1993
Article in Liverpool Daily Post:
'Scotland Yard challenged as Ripper diary row rages':
Scotland Yard was challenged last night to back up claims that diary is fake. In report being sent to CPS, a Met Police detective claims it was written after 1987 by an unknown hoaxer in L'Pool. But claim had angered diary supporters, who point out that the officer has never even seen the document. Police conclusion based on Rendell report. Writing does not match samples of Maybrick's; diary contains words and phrases not in use until after 1889; large sections appeared to have been written at one sitting. "The diary seems to have been cobbled together from three other books on the Ripper", said a police spokesman. "The only mystery is who wrote the thing."
Paul Feldman attacked the Yard's inquiry, saying he had ten facts disproving Rendell's findings. Scientific tests on ink had proved it was written before 1921. He said, "We suggested that they run the diary through their forensic department but they haven't taken up the offer. Why?"
The month-long Yard probe began after the Sunday Times complained they were misled by Robert Smith during negotiations over serialisation rights.
A detective interviewed the owner of the diary, Mike Barrett.
Mike Barrett said yesterday, "To suggest the diary was forged is clear nonsense. No one has been able to show it is a forgery."
Robert Smith said yesterday, "The impression I gained from talking to the police was that they have no new evidence to suggest the diary is a fake."
Negotiations have already begun on a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster.
Source: copy of article (KS master file 1992/3)

So within days of this article in the local paper, quoting Mike's latest claim for the diary, he is meant to have done a complete volte-face, according to his affidavit of 5th January 1995, and was trying instead, in December 1993, to expose the diary as a fraud, through the press, the publisher - Robert Smith, the author - Shirley Harrison, and his agent - Doreen Montgomery.

Was he worried that the greenhouses he could afford on the back of a Hollywood blockbuster wouldn't all fit in his back garden in Goldie Street?

Was a conviction for fraud really the better option? He was still trying in 1999, six years later, and four years after swearing that affidavit. But try as he might, he just couldn't pull it off.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

If Mike Barrett ever said anything accurate about the Diary, it's that he got it from Tony Devereux. All of the confusion, contradictions and false trails that followed were probably due to the effects of Mike's Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome. When Mike met Eddie Lyons in the Saddle Pub on March 9, 1992, he already had the diary, and had possessed it for some time. Nothing was found in Battlecrease House on that date, but Eddie told Mike about a discovery years before his workmates had told Eddie, about another book being found in the house. That book eventually found its way into the hands of Devereux, who rewrote a Hollywood version of the story. It was Lyons' story told to Mike in the pub about finding the original book that inspired Mike to make the call to the publisher. I think Lyons and Devereux knew one another, but Tony never gave the full story to Mike.

[Iconoclast]

If Mike Barrett ever said anything accurate about the Diary, it's that he got it from Tony Devereux. All of the confusion, contradictions and false trails that followed were probably due to the effects of Mike's Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome. When Mike met Eddie Lyons in the Saddle Pub on March 9, 1992, he already had the diary, and had possessed it for some time. Nothing was found in Battlecrease House on that date, but Eddie told Mike about a discovery years before his workmates had told Eddie, about another book being found in the house. That book eventually found its way into the hands of Devereux, who rewrote a Hollywood version of the story. It was Lyons' story told to Mike in the pub about finding the original book that inspired Mike to make the call to the publisher. I think Lyons and Devereux knew one another, but Tony never gave the full story to Mike.

It's an interesting theory, Scott, but how do you factor-in Devereux's death in August 1991? I assume you mean that when Eddie and Mike were talking in the pub in March 1992 (of which, of course, there is no actual evidence) they somehow got onto the subject of the book found years ago to which you refer, Eddie not realising that Tony D had already given it to Mike in the months before he died (and Mike keeping schtum but deciding there and then it was time he sought out a publisher)?

I think there were rumours of something being found in Battlecrease pre-1991, but rumours tend to spray in all directions after car crashes like the scrapbook's arrival into the public eye. The electricians working for Portus & Rhodes appeared to share a fairly consistent 'rumour' that something had been taken out of Battlecrease in 1992, and this rumour they continue to support even to this day, except - funnily enough - the guy in the very eye of the storm, Mr. Edward Lyons.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

If Mike Barrett ever said anything accurate about the Diary, it's that he got it from Tony Devereux. All of the confusion, contradictions and false trails that followed were probably due to the effects of Mike's Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome. When Mike met Eddie Lyons in the Saddle Pub on March 9, 1992, he already had the diary, and had possessed it for some time. Nothing was found in Battlecrease House on that date, but Eddie told Mike about a discovery years before his workmates had told Eddie, about another book being found in the house. That book eventually found its way into the hands of Devereux, who rewrote a Hollywood version of the story. It was Lyons' story told to Mike in the pub about finding the original book that inspired Mike to make the call to the publisher. I think Lyons and Devereux knew one another, but Tony never gave the full story to Mike.

So many flaws with this theory. I can’t even begin to unravel them.

[rjpalmer]

When Mike met Eddie Lyons in the Saddle Pub on March 9, 1992, he already had the diary, and had possessed it for some time.

Hi Scott - I’m currently away from home, far away from any books or notes.

What is the source for Eddie living on Fountains Road in March 1992? I believe this was his girlfriend’s house and he was there in the summer of 1993. Is this the address that P & R had for Eddie the previous year?

Thanks for any elucidation.

[Scott Nelson]

It's an interesting theory, Scott, but how do you factor-in Devereux's death in August 1991? I assume you mean that when Eddie and Mike were talking in the pub in March 1992 (of which, of course, there is no actual evidence) they somehow got onto the subject of the book found years ago to which you refer, Eddie not realising that Tony D had already given it to Mike in the months before he died (and Mike keeping schtum but deciding there and then it was time he sought out a publisher)

Thanks Ike. I thought you may be coming around to considering a few merits of the theory as remotely plausible. Devereux gave the Diary to Mike, so Mike would have had it prior to August 1991. I don't think Eddie would have been aware that Tony gave the Diary to Mike prior to their later meeting in the pub, that is, until Mike told Eddie -- if he did at all.