One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

...and we could add that he had for years worked as a freelance journalist, and he had the time to do it - in his own statements he explains the progression of the diary as lasting several years from the initial idea to the final production. Another thing to consider: the knowledge and research he presented after the diary was presented certainly show he was capable of leaving his beer unattended long enough to study his subject in some detail. That is, even if one believes that all his research notes and studying of the case dates to after the diary was presented, the fact that he did it then shows that he could equally have done it before. So he was capable of it.

Remind me, how many years did Mike work as a freelance journalist? How does that translate into hours per week, during that period, and how much of his published work did Anne do for him, while holding down her secretarial job? Both admitted that she had to type up his articles for him and make them suitable for submission, as would be obvious from a brief glance at his own written work, handwritten and typed, after Anne left him.

In Mike's affidavit of January 5th 1995 - which is available to read on this site if you require reminding - he claimed that 'the progression of the diary' began and ended in early 1990, from the initial idea to the final production. You can work out how long he claimed the whole process took by reading the details, and noting that he claimed the physical diary was all done and dusted in 1990 while Tony Devereux was still alive. You must be confusing Barrett with Barrat, because Barrett certainly didn't explain the progression as 'lasting several years'. It was Barrat who tried to claim that the final production did not take place until early April 1992, but like Barrett, he has not produced any evidence that the scrapbook was obtained from an auction sale at any time. Unlike Barrat, Barrett could have produced his auction ticket as proof, assuming he ever had it. But Barrett's claim was that it was proof of an auction held in January 1990.

Shirley, who with respect knew more by 1994 than you are ever likely to know, about Mike's research capabilities in 1992/3, found even simple tasks beyond him. A quick read through of his research notes do not demonstrate that Shirley underestimated him.

In short, there’s no particular reason to think Mike could not have done it - he presented a fairly coherent and plausible narrative of the how why and when...

Don't make me laugh. Barrat had to do a lot of cosmetic surgery to make Barrett's narrative either coherent or plausible to the hard of thinking.

If Mike - or Anne - did it, but Mike could not give his own account and make it credible, or else simply produce that AUCTION TICKET, you need to ask yourself why.

1) What made him confess at all, if he was guilty of fraud?

2) Why couldn't he prove it - with the AUCTION TICKET - if his mind was in RJ's 'mental fog', when trying to remember how long ago it all started and when it finished, and how much time went by in between the two?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hold the phone, Caz.

It's my job to write a chasing letter?

Yes, if you have any genuine interest in any of this, RJ.

If not, it's certainly not my job.

Smith wrote that he would contact these message boards with the results once he found a bottle of pre-1992 (I think it should be pre-1993) Diamine ink. As you allude, Smith's own 2017 book reveals that he did indeed obtain such a bottle over ten years ago, but despite "going into the subject of Diamine ink," as you put it, he oddly makes no mention of the test actually being carried out.

So your beef is with Robert and not me.

Let me remind you that I never suggested any such test should be conducted--being quite satisfied that the AFI results, coupled with other evidence, prove that the diary is a modern fake--Smith did.

So your beef is with Robert and not me.

I was justly idly wondering whether he stuck to his plan--and I am missing it--or if there is some other reason why the test was either not carried out as announced, or the results were for some reason not published. I read an article written by Lord Orsam and it piqued my curiosity.

'Idly' is the word for it, if you expect me to contact Robert on your behalf. Your beef is with him and not me.

It's no big deal, perhaps. If I was Smith, I think I would want to clarify the point, but maybe that's just me. I'll save the postage stamp for the time being, in hopes he will eventually respond to these message boards. I'm confident there is an entirely rational explanation.

No, it's clearly no big deal for you, but it serves as another of your nice little distractions to add to a looooong list of them.

AUCTION TICKET AUCTION TICKET AUCTION TICKET.

[Iconoclast]

Brilliant analysis, Caz.

Kattnip: "...and we could add that he had for years worked as a freelance journalist".

Really? We know that for certain? "Worked as a freelance journalist" implies a great deal more than we actually know about - it implies that that was his full-time occupation. Around 15 articles in Celebrity, apparently at least one in Chat, and some puzzles in Look-In? The Celebrity gravy train stopped in 1988, of course, which must have utterly crippled the household income - on an average of five articles a year, they must have been paying him around £2,000 per article? The Chat articles and the Look-In puzzles must have been bringing-in many thousands of pounds per annum to compensate when this income was lost? I'm not doubting for a moment that DC Thompson gave him around 15 commissions for their Celebrity magazine, arranging the interviews for him, and I don't doubt for a moment that they also gave him the questions he was to ask, and I have no doubt whatsoever that they did that because Anne's 'tidying-up' just about gave the editors enough to work with. But - come on - evidence that Barrett "had for years worked as a freelance journalist"? I think not. Unless it suits your argument, of course!

2) Why couldn't he prove it - with the AUCTION TICKET - if his mind was in RJ's 'mental fog', when trying to remember how long ago it all started and when it finished, and how much time went by in between the two?

Here's one for you, Caz. Why do you think Mike claimed the hoax was concocted in 1990 when one quick look at the auction ticket would have told him the scrapbook wasn't even in his hands until as very very very late as March 31, 1992? Do you think O&L didn't date their auction tickets, hence the confusion when he came to construct his next major enterprise - the January 5, 1995 affidavit? It just doesn't seem to add up, and yet this is a 'coherent' and what have you confession, is it not?

Anyway - spot-on post.

Ike

[caz]

It's called alcoholism, Keith, which leaves one with mental fog.

Yes, Barrett had the year wrong--hardly earthshattering considering his health at the time-- but your own investigation eventually showed that the event he described (the Barretts attempt to buy a blank Victorian Diary) did indeed happen.

It was just in 1992 and not in 1991/1990.

I apologise for assuming you were attempting to cite mental fog from alcoholism, as your explanation for Mike's inability to get the year right in his affidavit.

Who else did you have in mind?

[caz]

Let me just warn the few readers of this thread that 'mental fog' is simply Caz's mischaracterization, and despite her use of quotation marks, that's her phrase and not mine; that is not what I wrote, nor suggested.

I think you need a little lie down, RJ. Your 'mental fog' post was only written on 9th December.

It makes Mike's mental fog look reasonable by comparison.

[rjpalmer]

and how much of his published work did Anne do for him, while holding down her secretarial job?

According to Robert Smith, none.

Smith claims, without evidence, that Mike’s articles were “cobbled together by an in-house writer with a few quotes from other sources edited in."

I cannot imagine that this how these magazines worked, and Smith gives no source for this claim.

Further, it’s in direct contradiction to your insinuation, evidently based on Anne's claim—also uncorroborated—that she was the one who ‘tidied up’ Mike’s articles.

At the very least, Robert and Anne should put their heads together and agree on a consistent account, though it appears to be a little too late at this point.

You could save yourself further embarrassment, Caz, by reading Lord Orsam’s articles, as they do a very nice job of pointing out the shifting narrations that we've been fed over the years.

As far as I know, Barrett wrote all the articles himself. His name is on them, and some of them are quite good. I view the 25+ year effort to characterize Barrett as little more than an intellectual cretin to be quite below the belt, as well as a transparent attempt to imply that the Maybrick Hoax was beyond the abilities of the people Barrett named in his affidavit.

The results of the current poll show that this 'campaign' has not worked.

'Idly' is the word for it, if you expect me to contact Robert on your behalf. Your beef is with him and not me.

I assure you, dear Caz, I have utterly no expectations that you will contact Robert Smith about the matter.

Have a great week. I can't seem to get the old ABBA song 'Waterloo' out of my head. I'll have to listen to some Christmas music.

RP

[rjpalmer]

I think you need a little lie down, RJ. Your 'mental fog' post was only written on 9th December.

Touche, sweetie. I guess I've been hitting the Christmas cheer a little too freely this month. But as I leave, what do you think about the actual point of this morning's post?

Since neither of us think Keith Skinner is dishonest, why was he wrongly insinuating at the Cloak & Dagger meeting in 1999, as well as in a letter to the editor of the Ripperologist, that the red diary was obtained in May 1992 when it was really obtained in March 1992? What--or who-- is the source of this false impression hoisted onto the public?

But don't answer. You don't like it when I quiz you, and, after all, it is the season of good will. I'll leave it for Keith to answer, if he sees fit.

Mike's own explanation for not producing the auction ticket was the fear of being nicked, which might be attributed to Keith's rather unfortunate tactical error of mentioning a policeman.

It's only one document among several that have never seen the light of day, even though some of them are in the possession of those who read these boards.

Merry Christmas.

[caz]

Keith Skinner made a comment alluding to the alleged inaccuracies of Barrett's affidavit and I merely responded that 'alcoholism' is an ample and perfectly rational explanation for why Mike Barrett made a mistake of a wrong date--and wrong dates are given by people who aren't alcoholics, for example, when at the Cloak & Dagger meeting in 1999, we see an entirely sober interviewer imply that Barrett obtained the red diary in May 1992, when he actually obtained it in March 1992---before anyone had laid eyes on the Maybrick Hoax.

So when, prior to April 1999, was it known by anyone other than Mike that the red diary had arrived in the post in March? RJ will no doubt be able to provide the evidence for this prior knowledge and the date this evidence was traced. I do hope it doesn't amount to Anne's vague recollection of it being "pre-Doreen", which was not particularly edifying, and if anything implies that she wasn't trying to put it after Doreen had already seen the Maybrick diary.

I am by no means suggesting that the interviewer was being deliberately deceptive or was in a similar "mental fog"; I am of the opinion that Anne Graham previously and deliberately left a false impression with the interviewer (Keith Skinner), and this is a smoking gun, of sorts, which is why Anne's 'statement' that she 'sent' Keith would be of interest. Since Anne held the Goldie Street purse strings are we to believe that she was not aware that Barrett was down as a late payer and that Martin Earl sent a chasing letter? Personally, I don't believe it.

Martin Earl said he would have chased it up in a phone call, at which point Anne agreed to sign a cheque for Mike to settle the bill. It was her bank statement that she sent to Keith with details of the payment from her account in May 1992. Anne need not have known Martin's terms for settlement, or how long Mike had sat on the unpaid bill. Again, you read into it what makes you happy. It seems that Anne doesn't care what you think and almost certainly doesn't know who you are.

I believe Graham obtained a copy of Mike's sworn affidavit very early in 1995 (as alluded to in a scolding letter from Mike's solicitor) and thus she had several months to come up with an explanation before she was subsequently quizzed by Keith.

You may believe it, but that doesn't make it true. Mike's solicitor would not have known if Mike had handed his affidavit to Anne, unless Mike - or Anne - had told him. Why Anne would have done so, if she was pretending not to have received it, I have no idea. And you can forget it if it was Mike!

The rest of your post relies entirely on your own jaundiced opinion of Anne, as implied by Mike when he was an angry man, lashing out at her refusal to let him see his own daughter.

Anne couldn't afford to lie outright.

But she could have afforded to plead ignorance, knowing there was nothing to connect her, prior to May 1992, with Mike's request and order. How would that have painted her into a corner?

No, I do not consider that Barrett was in a "mental fog."

Then perhaps you now regret using that very phrase, particularly considering your admiration for David Barrat's take on it, that Barrett's account remained consistent over 'many years', which I can hardly believe I'm reading. His account changed almost from one day to the next, depending on his audience - and sometimes within the space of a single session! David Barrat, 'the most credible expert' on Mike Barrett's consistency when in confession mode? I've seen it all now. This is an absolute joke, given how much recorded material Barrat is totally ignorant about.

At the Cloak & Dagger meeting in 1999, a somewhat flaky individual named David Russell tried to trip up Mike, but Barrett dated these events to 1992.

Russell: Can I confirm something about the pens and nibs. Did you say in 1990 that you bought the pens and nibs?

MB: No, I didn’t say 1990. 1992.

Note that Keith: no mental fog by Barrett: 1992, not 1990.

Right, so Mike changed his story again to suit his new and approved narrative. What a surprise. And David Russell was a lovely chap all the while I was in his company. He attended almost all the meetings I ever did, over several years. How very dare you call him a 'somewhat flaky individual' on your brief experience of him as a person?

What followed is quite amusing. At this point, Russell tries to catch Barrett in a trap, but his efforts fail utterly. It appears that Barrett, despite being three-sheets-to-the-wind, was in less of a mental fog than his inquisitor, Russell, who left the false impression that he had closed down the shop in Liverpool in 1988 but had to eventually admit he had never been to the shop in question. If he had been, he would have been aware of what subsequent research by Shirley Harrison revealed: that art the shop sign from 1988 was still in place as late as 1997, thus Barrett had Russell BANG TO RIGHTS.

As a Liverpudlian, Mike would have been very familiar with the sign on that city centre art shop, where he claimed to buy the pens and nibs, so his knowledge of this proves absolutely nothing.

[caz]

My apologies for the typo near the end of the above screed: to be clear, the 'Medici' art shop sign in Bond Street, Liverpool, was still in place in 1992 (and afterwards) which would suggest that Barrett's account was entirely plausible. It was Russell who was ill-informed.

One final point.

As for Feldman's false claim that Anne never received a farthing off the Diary, and Caz's claim that Anne steadily refused royalty payments from Doreen Montgomery for about a year-and-a-half, let me point out to the readers of this thread that these are half-truths at best. The reality is more complex...and suggestive.

Peter Birchwood posted evidence on this website as early as 2001 that when Anne was still married to Barrett, she received several large royalty payments which she duly cashed. We have no way of knowing how that money was split up, or if it was indeed split up. There is also a letter from Doreen, mentioned in passing in Ripper Diary, and alluded to in one of Barrat's articles, showing that Barrett had requested that payments be made to Anne Graham after she left him, and Doreen acknowledges that these payments were, in fact, made. This doesn't show that AG wasn't refusing royalty payments, but it does show that she had been given some money from the Crew agency by a rather strange and circuitous route.

I think the relevant point is that Anne was accepting royalty payments when she was still married to Barrett, but the moment they split up and Mike started to confess to the hoax, she suddenly stopped taking these payments. Caz suggests Anne had nothing to fear from Mike's confession. I suggest this shows that she was very much afraid. Indeed, she told Harold Brough that it was a "nightmare."

Further, the above puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. To me, it suggests Graham might have refused the payments out of fear of legal jeopardy, based on the knowledge that Barrett was threatening to come clean, and may even have refused the payments on the advice of a solicitor, though this is merely my suspicion and I have no specific knowledge of the matter, nor am I claiming that it was necessarily the case. I am just wondering about the strange timing of her sudden refusals to accept payment, which seem to dovetail with Barrett's threats of exposure.

Meanwhile, considering that the current diary poll shows that the Diary Friendly have failed to move the needle so much as a single millimeter in the past 25+ years, and the informed readers of this forum still overwhelmingly dismiss that the diary as a modern fake--results that are not so much 'Brexit' as they are Waterloo seen from the perspective of the French-- I would pose the question as to whether the prosecution (ie., the diary critics) should not simply now rest their case?

The toothpaste is clearly not ever going to find its way back inside the tube, and when I read the result of the poll yesterday, what I felt most was pity. Pity that people have been sent on a 25+ year wild goose chase by the deceptions of a person living in Liverpool. What a waste.

Bloody hell, RJ. I don't think I have ever read so much misinformation and ignorance in a single post of yours, but don't worry. We have all the records we need to put you straight, but at this point I'd have to chase you down your rabbit hole to hand deliver them to you, and you would chuck it away unread as usual, so frankly what would be the point?

[Iconoclast]

i think you need a little lie down, rj. Your 'mental fog' post was only written on 9th december.

It makes mike's mental fog look reasonable by comparison.

bang to rights, caz!

ps i'VE TWICE PUT THAT LOT IN CAPITALS AND IT'S CHANGED IT TO LOWERCASE - I WONDER WHAT IT'LL DO WITH THIS PS???

[caz]

Here's one for you, Caz. Why do you think Mike claimed the hoax was concocted in 1990 when one quick look at the auction ticket would have told him the scrapbook wasn't even in his hands until as very very very late as March 31, 1992? Do you think O&L didn't date their auction tickets, hence the confusion when he came to construct his next major enterprise - the January 5, 1995 affidavit? It just doesn't seem to add up, and yet this is a 'coherent' and what have you confession, is it not?

Anyway - spot-on post.

Ike

Cheers Ike. I have no answer for you. But if O&L didn't date their auction tickets, and had no means of matching Mike's ticket to a specific auction, I'm blessed if I know how anyone else could have investigated it while the trail was still warm.

Perhaps we'll get an answer out of the usual suspects by this time next year.

AUCTION TICKET AUCTION TICKET, WHEREFORE ART THOU CALLED AN AUCTION TICKET, IF YOU CAN'T MARRY YOUR DETAILS TO THE AUCTION WHENCE YOU CAME?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

So when, prior to April 1999, was it known by anyone other than Mike that the red diary had arrived in the post in March? RJ will no doubt be able to provide the evidence for this prior knowledge and the date this evidence was traced.

Is there no end to your obfuscation and confusion, Caz?

Whether this is deliberate myopia or a "mental fog" of your own, I will leave to others.

Once again, from the top. I will go very slowly for your benefit.

I acknowledged that Keith DID NOT KNOW that the red diary was obtained in March 1992.

That was the whole point.

I stated that he was not lying or being deliberately misleading.

For some reason, he was ignorant of the truth.

But we now know that the red diary WAS obtained in March 1992, so what was the source of Keith's misinformation? It is of no interest to you, nor to Keith?

Keith said at the Cloak & Dagger meeting that this misinformation (though he did not yet know it was misinformation) was based on a 'statement' that was 'sent' to him by Anne Graham.

I submit that Graham misled him, not once, but twice. She also misled him that the red diary was for 'comparison' reasons, which is clearly poppycock when one sees Martin Earl's advert in Bookfinder.

It was useless for comparison purposes. And Keith should have realized this once he traced Earl's ad. His faith in Anne must have been nearly absolute.

Frankly, I have no desire to deal with you further on the matter, as you will continue to evade and obfuscate; if Keith wants to address it, he can, or he can decline.

Meanwhile, a few notes to my previous long post of this morning, then I really must leave.

As previous posted to this site by Peter Birchwood, here are the payments made to Anne Graham by Rupert Crew Literary Agency, re: the Maybrick Diary

A check to Graham in the amount of £3,666.74 on about 7 December 1993.

A check to Graham in the amount of £1,298.75 on about 5 January 1994.

A check to Graham in the amount £1,000 in March 1994 (no specific date given)

Anne Graham apparently ran the finances of the household, and we have no idea how this money was spent, or by whom.

Meanwhile, according to Feldman, Anne separated from Barrett at the beginning of 1994 (Feldman states January but doesn’t say whether this was before or after the 5th) so it would appear that Anne may have only cashed one further check after she left Mike.

Meanwhile, Barrett confesses to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post three months later, June 1994 (article published on 27 June), so it would appear that Anne cashed no further checks after Barrett began confessing, and, as indicated by Doreen Montgomery, refused further royalty payments, allegedly for a year-and-a-half, except for the money Crew funneled to her as requested by Mike, as mentioned in Ripper Diary.

I find this highly significant. Your calm woman with nothing to fear is a myth. She told Brough it was a "nightmare."

FINIS

[caz]

According to Robert Smith, none.

Smith claims, without evidence, that Mike’s articles were “cobbled together by an in-house writer with a few quotes from other sources edited in."

I cannot imagine that this how these magazines worked, and Smith gives no source for this claim.

Further, it’s in direct contradiction to your insinuation, evidently based on Anne's claim—also uncorroborated—that she was the one who ‘tidied up’ Mike’s articles.

At the very least, Robert and Anne should put their heads together and agree on a consistent account, though it appears to be a little too late at this point.

You could save yourself further embarrassment, Caz...

That's rich, judging by your performance today, RJ.

I only said what Anne and Mike claimed, about Anne tidying up his written work. Take it or leave it. You keep mentioning Robert Smith's claims for some reason, but I can't relate any of this with how I am meant to have embarrassed myself.

As far as I know, Barrett wrote all the articles himself. His name is on them, and some of them are quite good. I view the 25+ year effort to characterize Barrett as little more than an intellectual cretin to be quite below the belt, as well as a transparent attempt to imply that the Maybrick Hoax was beyond the abilities of the people Barrett named in his affidavit.

So it's not 'below the belt' to have the Barretts committing fraud together, on the strength of very little more than the word of a compulsive liar, when she had left him?

That's even richer.

I assure you, dear Caz, I have utterly no expectations that you will contact Robert Smith about the matter.

Why would I? It's your 'matter', not mine.

You have yet to show Mike's ability to have written the articles himself. His attempt to write, unaided, a fictional treatment on JtR in more recent years was risible in the extreme.

Maybe the mental fog he was not in after all, in 1995, enveloped him several years later.

[rjpalmer]

So it's not 'below the belt' to have the Barretts committing fraud together, on the strength of very little more than the word of a compulsive liar, when she had left him?

That's even richer.

Not in the least; I'm merely investigating Barrett's sworn affidavit, and whether it is a believable document. Unlike you, Keith acknowledges this is an entirely reasonable approach, which is why I would rather deal with Keith than you.

Where I differ with Keith is that I accept there is evidence showing that Barrett's account is indeed plausible and parts of it are even confirmable. I have no doubt whatsoever that it is generally accurate, and the vast majority of these forums would appear to agree.

By contrast, we have all notice that you remain very quiet when someone points out that your own accusations of criminality leveled at Eddie Lyons remain unfounded and unproven. He has denied them in four different interviews.

Tell us, Caz, are your accusations above or below the belt?

Like it or not, Barrett gave me the greenlight by confessing. Did Eddie give you the greenlight? Did Eddie confess?

[rjpalmer]

And during a long day's recorded interview on July 20th 1995, as Keith Skinner reminds us, in one comedy gold moment Mike asked for a pen and ink to demonstrate that the handwriting was his, and when reminded that his claim was that Anne wrote it, he moved swiftly on to other important evidence he had brought with him from Liverpool to London to prove the diary was a fake, consisting of his affidavit of April 1993, in which he swore Tony Devereux gave him the diary, and a bottle of Diamine ink.

Hi Caz,

I think it may be necessary at this point for Keith to address the message boards in order to clarify this claim of yours, since you seem to be putting a highly questionable statement in Keith's mouth that doesn't appear to stand-up to scrutiny. Is it possible that at this late remove you still cannot fully grasp that Barrett's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995, where he states that Anne was the pen person, was not in circulation on July 20th, 1995?

How could Keith have "reminded" Barrett of his claim that Anne wrote the diary, if Mike had only made this claim at a police station in November 1994, as well as in his sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995--a document that Keith tells us he did not see until the beginning of 1997?

Who "reminded" Barrett of this claim, and how did they know of it?

Your statement above also flies in the face of your own book, Ripper Diary (pg. 202), which tells us that it was Barrett himself who informed those present that Anne wrote the diary, rather than that Mike had been 'reminded' of anything.

Unless Keith can clarify, the comedy gold appears to be all your own.

Just seeking clarification,

RP