One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[MrBarnett]

‘But check, re-check, question 'certainties,' don't get bullied into accepting the party line without independent confirmation.’


Not RJ’s finest moment. The words ‘arse’ ‘about’ and ‘face’ come to mind.

I found it a bit of a struggle to convince anybody that Thomas Cross had been born in Breinton, Herefordshire. There was certainly no one bullying me to accept the fact. I thought it was my discovery - still do.

[caz]

1) An explanation for Keith's notation 'apparently not' on Mike and Anne's research notes. I thought this annotation was dated 19 or 20 April 1999, but could it actually say 10 April 1999? The day after Camilla Wolf's gathering and the very day of Mike's Cloak and Dagger interview? Shirley was present. Did Mike and Shirely inform Keith at that time that Shirley HADN'T been involved in the creation of these notes, as he previously noted and then repeated in 2017?

I think RJ is right about the date - it does look more like 10-4-99 on my copy, which I did not receive from Keith until much later.

I suspect Keith may have asked Mike or Shirley on that date if his understanding was correct, that Mike had 'updated' the notes using his word processor, at some point after July/August 1992, to include information and input from Shirley. In other words, was there a later version with that input? Shirley would simply have replied that she was not aware of a later version, but the original record of Mike's research would/could have included information she had given him between April and July 1992, or had asked him to look for.

My copy has a covering note typed by Keith, who refers to this as the 'top page' on the first page of the actual notes. The top page still refers to some of the information and input coming from Shirley, which Mike added to his own notes. That would be consistent with the input being included with what Mike handed over, and not involving any subsequent updating.

Another mountain being made out of a molehill methinks.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

I’ve just been reading Chris Scott’s Will The Real Mary Kelly…

According to Chris, Millers Court was ‘off’ Dorset Street and Dorset Street was ‘off’ Commercial Street. I hadn’t realised he was a New Yorker.

[rjpalmer]

‘But check, re-check, question 'certainties,' don't get bullied into accepting the party line without independent confirmation.’


Not RJ’s finest moment. The words ‘arse’ ‘about’ and ‘face’ come to mind.

I found it a bit of a struggle to convince anybody that Thomas Cross had been born in Breinton, Herefordshire. There was certainly no one bullying me to accept the fact. I thought it was my discovery - still do.

I've sent you a private message, Gary.

[MrBarnett]

I've sent you a private message, Gary.

And I’ve responded, RJ.

[caz]

I thought he was a Brit.

I was just teasing.

It’s possible that a New York born Princeton graduate might employ the ‘off’ usage. We know a Scouser would. I would myself, and I’ve only just learned of Ryan’s existence.

Morning Gary,

From Ryan, page 26:

'Maybrick's cotton brokerage flourished. He maintained a fine office in the Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street.'

I can hear the American accent in 'a fine office', so would your point be that Ryan's typically British use of 'off' indicates that he took the address from an earlier British source?

I forget what Orsam's claim is regarding this piece of info from the research notes, which Mike simply claimed was 'recorded in the Liverpool Echo'.

Is Orsam claiming to have checked every edition of the Echo in existence, and the address of Knowsley Buildings is nowhere to be found? I can't see otherwise how he could claim the address must have come from Ryan's book. Is that what he is claiming?

Mike makes roughly half a dozen references to the Echo, and apart from a brief one to Tales of Liverpool and two or three nods to probate records, the rest of the Maybrick info – a significant majority of it - is not sourced at all.

The unsourced notes include the Britannic detail, which was jumped on by RJ as the ‘death-blow’ no less – and clear evidence that Mike lied about the source - even though he doesn’t claim it came from the Echo or anywhere else. Could he not have come away from his library research with only his scribbled notes on Maybrick, with nothing to remind him where he had found the info - no dates or page numbers? Later, when Anne came to put them in some sort of order and type them up, I could see her suggesting that it would look more professional [or more genuine for those with terminally suspicious minds] if Mike could add where he found each piece of info. Short of going back to the library, to retrace his steps and find the precise references [as Shirley had to ask him to do two years later, in 1994, when he told her he had found 'sweet intercourse' there, but had not made a note of the page number and even told her the wrong volume number], did Mike simply try to think back, sourcing just a few of the notes to the best of his recollection? If Ryan's book was back in the library too, would he have remembered the title and author's name by the time Anne typed up his work? Two years down the line, Mike still hadn't learned to make a proper note of what he claimed to find and where he claimed to find it.

Mike would claim that his ripper research came first, and he only names two ripper books in the notes, at the end of the various sections, rather than alongside the individual notes, as he does with Maybrick. If he had both ripper books at home when Anne came to do the typing up, it would have been easy enough for him to add the relevant page numbers from those titles at that stage.

I now wonder if RJ identified any examples [from Orsam's research or his own], where Mike could only have taken his info from Ryan, but named a different source for it, whether by accident or design.

If not, Britannic is holed below the waterline, destined to sink beneath the waves. There is no evidence that Mike knew exactly where he found each piece of information, but made a conscious decision to give an erroneous source for anything he got from Ryan's book.

Incidentally, it's not clear why Mike thought that the address of Battlecrease was number 6 Riversdale Road. He later repeated this mistake to Feldman when they went there with Paul Begg and Martin Howells, where it was established that he was wrong. It was number 7. He also told Shirley that he had originally identified the wrong house.

No doubt RJ will have a sinister explanation up his sleeve for his inevitable return to this place, as it doesn't appear to have been a simple typing mistake in the notes. And what was Mike planning to say to Shirley, if she asked where all his unsourced Maybrick information came from? Same as he would say two years later, that he had failed to make a note of the source while he was at the library?

Once again, would it not have been far safer, and considerably less trouble, to avoid Ryan like the plague, if he had used the book extensively for faking the diary?

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Morning Gary,

From Ryan, page 26:

'Maybrick's cotton brokerage flourished. He maintained a fine office in the Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street.'

I can hear the American accent in 'a fine office', so would your point be that Ryan's typically British use of 'off' indicates that he took the address from an earlier British source?

I forget what Orsam's claim is regarding this piece of info from the research notes, which Mike simply claimed was 'recorded in the Liverpool Echo'.

Is Orsam claiming to have checked every edition of the Echo in existence, and the address of Knowsley Buildings is nowhere to be found? I can't see otherwise how he could claim the address must have come from Ryan's book. Is that what he is claiming?

Mike makes roughly half a dozen references to the Echo, and apart from a brief one to Tales of Liverpool and two or three nods to probate records, the rest of the Maybrick info – a significant majority of it - is not sourced at all.

The unsourced notes include the Britannic detail, which was jumped on by RJ as the ‘death-blow’ no less – and clear evidence that Mike lied about the source - even though he doesn’t claim it came from the Echo or anywhere else. Could he not have come away from his library research with only his scribbled notes on Maybrick, with nothing to remind him where he had found the info - no dates or page numbers? Later, when Anne came to put them in some sort of order and type them up, I could see her suggesting that it would look more professional [or more genuine for those with terminally suspicious minds] if Mike could add where he found each piece of info. Short of going back to the library, to retrace his steps and find the precise references [as Shirley had to ask him to do two years later, in 1994, when he told her he had found 'sweet intercourse' there, but had not made a note of the page number and even told her the wrong volume number], did Mike simply try to think back, sourcing just a few of the notes to the best of his recollection? If Ryan's book was back in the library too, would he have remembered the title and author's name by the time Anne typed up his work? Two years down the line, Mike still hadn't learned to make a proper note of what he claimed to find and where he claimed to find it.

Mike would claim that his ripper research came first, and he only names two ripper books in the notes, at the end of the various sections, rather than alongside the individual notes, as he does with Maybrick. If he had both ripper books at home when Anne came to do the typing up, it would have been easy enough for him to add the relevant page numbers from those titles at that stage.

I now wonder if RJ identified any examples [from Orsam's research or his own], where Mike could only have taken his info from Ryan, but named a different source for it, whether by accident or design.

If not, Britannic is holed below the waterline, destined to sink beneath the waves. There is no evidence that Mike knew exactly where he found each piece of information, but made a conscious decision to give an erroneous source for anything he got from Ryan's book.

Incidentally, it's not clear why Mike thought that the address of Battlecrease was number 6 Riversdale Road. He later repeated this mistake to Feldman when they went there with Paul Begg and Martin Howells, where it was established that he was wrong. It was number 7. He also told Shirley that he had originally identified the wrong house.

No doubt RJ will have a sinister explanation up his sleeve for his inevitable return to this place, as it doesn't appear to have been a simple typing mistake in the notes. And what was Mike planning to say to Shirley, if she asked where all his unsourced Maybrick information came from? Same as he would say two years later, that he had failed to make a note of the source while he was at the library?

Once again, would it not have been far safer, and considerably less trouble, to avoid Ryan like the plague, if he had used the book extensively for faking the diary?

Love,

Caz
X

I honestly don’t know whether the ‘off’ usage would come naturally to an American. It certainly would to a Brit. I don’t think we have to look any further to explain MB’s employing it.

Lord O tells us that Ryan is the only source he is aware of where Knowsley Buildings are described as ‘off’ Tithebarn Street. So by using it MB gave away his ‘secret source’.

[caz]

I didn't sleep well last night, so let me restate the above for clarity.

Did Mike and Shirley inform Keith (on or around April 10th) that Shirley didn't have any 'input' into these notes, as Keith had previously noted in his annotations and then repeated again in his introduction to Smith's 2017 book? What does the annotation 'apparently not' mean, and on what was it based?

RJ should get more sleep.

Where on earth did he get the idea that Keith had anything to do with the introduction Robert very obviously wrote to his own book in 2017?

RJ has been making mistake after mistake in what now seems to be a borderline obsessive quest to blame Keith for anything and everything. What next? Keith's failure to reveal what happened to Shergar?

And what happened to RJ's strange decision to leave Mike 'out of the equation', regarding Keith's annotation made on the date of the April 1999 C&D meeting?

RJ now appears to have kept Shirley, reinstated Mike and dropped Anne, which is a slight improvement, but I remain puzzled why it means this much to him. It appears like a personal campaign to find something new to blame on Keith, which has bugger all to do with trying to prove who authored the diary.

Doesn't it all boil down to the period Mike claimed his research covered: August 1991-March 1992 [all before Shirley's time], or August 1991-July 1992 [which could have included some help from Shirley after March 1992]?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I honestly don’t know whether the ‘off’ usage would come naturally to an American. It certainly would to a Brit. I don’t think we have to look any further to explain MB’s employing it.

Lord O tells us that Ryan is the only source he is aware of where Knowsley Buildings are described as ‘off’ Tithebarn Street. So by using it MB gave away his ‘secret source’.

Cheers, Gary.

It's a bit lame, isn't it?

All that work to try and prove something that we were told had already been proven umpteen times before?

And what about baby Gladys? Mike was ultra careful not to give anything away concerning her d.o.b according to Ryan, which appears on the page immediately after Knowsley Buildings. Mike also craftily put Gladys well away from Knowsley in his notes, if he got both from Ryan.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We can no longer do anything about Mike's refusal to release the auction ticket, since he is dead and buried, but one of us can still do something about the strange delay in making Mike and Anne's typescript similarly "available to all"

I have no evidence for this, but is it not remotely possible that a new diary book is being planned, in which the typescript could feature?

Why would anyone feel obliged to reveal their plans, if any, for its publication, just because some hobbyist on a message board petulantly repeats his demands to see it now or know the reason why not?

The very fact that RJ describes it as a 'refusal' on Mike's part to release the auction ticket demonstrates his own refusal even to consider the possibility that it never existed, and that the auctioneers may actually have known what they were talking about, while it was Mike who was making it up as he went along.

When Orsam finds proof that Mike emerged from any auction with the diary scrapbook, that'll be the day we can all take up another hobby.

Meanwhile I can only say - that'll be the day.

Love,

Caz
X

[Yabs]

Morning Gary,

From Ryan, page 26:

'Maybrick's cotton brokerage flourished. He maintained a fine office in the Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street.'

I can hear the American accent in 'a fine office', so would your point be that Ryan's typically British use of 'off' indicates that he took the address from an earlier British source?

I forget what Orsam's claim is regarding this piece of info from the research notes, which Mike simply claimed was 'recorded in the Liverpool Echo'.

Is Orsam claiming to have checked every edition of the Echo in existence, and the address of Knowsley Buildings is nowhere to be found? I can't see otherwise how he could claim the address must have come from Ryan's book. Is that what he is claiming?

Mike makes roughly half a dozen references to the Echo, and apart from a brief one to Tales of Liverpool and two or three nods to probate records, the rest of the Maybrick info – a significant majority of it - is not sourced at all.

The unsourced notes include the Britannic detail, which was jumped on by RJ as the ‘death-blow’ no less – and clear evidence that Mike lied about the source - even though he doesn’t claim it came from the Echo or anywhere else. Could he not have come away from his library research with only his scribbled notes on Maybrick, with nothing to remind him where he had found the info - no dates or page numbers? Later, when Anne came to put them in some sort of order and type them up, I could see her suggesting that it would look more professional [or more genuine for those with terminally suspicious minds] if Mike could add where he found each piece of info. Short of going back to the library, to retrace his steps and find the precise references [as Shirley had to ask him to do two years later, in 1994, when he told her he had found 'sweet intercourse' there, but had not made a note of the page number and even told her the wrong volume number], did Mike simply try to think back, sourcing just a few of the notes to the best of his recollection? If Ryan's book was back in the library too, would he have remembered the title and author's name by the time Anne typed up his work? Two years down the line, Mike still hadn't learned to make a proper note of what he claimed to find and where he claimed to find it.

Mike would claim that his ripper research came first, and he only names two ripper books in the notes, at the end of the various sections, rather than alongside the individual notes, as he does with Maybrick. If he had both ripper books at home when Anne came to do the typing up, it would have been easy enough for him to add the relevant page numbers from those titles at that stage.

I now wonder if RJ identified any examples [from Orsam's research or his own], where Mike could only have taken his info from Ryan, but named a different source for it, whether by accident or design.

If not, Britannic is holed below the waterline, destined to sink beneath the waves. There is no evidence that Mike knew exactly where he found each piece of information, but made a conscious decision to give an erroneous source for anything he got from Ryan's book.

Incidentally, it's not clear why Mike thought that the address of Battlecrease was number 6 Riversdale Road. He later repeated this mistake to Feldman when they went there with Paul Begg and Martin Howells, where it was established that he was wrong. It was number 7. He also told Shirley that he had originally identified the wrong house.

No doubt RJ will have a sinister explanation up his sleeve for his inevitable return to this place, as it doesn't appear to have been a simple typing mistake in the notes. And what was Mike planning to say to Shirley, if she asked where all his unsourced Maybrick information came from? Same as he would say two years later, that he had failed to make a note of the source while he was at the library?

Once again, would it not have been far safer, and considerably less trouble, to avoid Ryan like the plague, if he had used the book extensively for faking the diary?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Excuse the rough rendering of the text converted to digital from the original…

“While visiting my patients in the Royal Southern Hospital early in the afternoon of that day I received a telephonic message from an unknown speaker, Medico asking me if I could go at once to No. 6, Riversdale Road, Aigburth, to see a * gentleman in consultation with Dr. Humphreys. I replied that I could not go as I should be engaged for some hours”


From the Maybrick trial as quoted from MacDougall

[Iconoclast]

I have no evidence for this, but is it not remotely possible that a new diary book is being planned, in which the typescript could feature?

Hi Caz,

I love the way you're ramping up the excitement, but can I just remind all of our dear readers that that isn't for at least another three years yet - possibly even longer (I have so much to say)!

It doesn't matter anymore what so many of Lord Orsam's unprovable 'proofs' are supposed to represent. I did note that Lord Orsam has published something along the lines (it's quite dim in that drainpipe he uses - he really ought to offer a 'This is Not a Dark Slide' warning to those contemplating venturing in) that Mike and Anne's transcript which he craves and which was so clearly typed-up (in parts erroneously) from the scrapbook itself was simply a post-scrapbook version for the likes of Doreen Montgomery. Apparently Mike's word prosser (curiously rendered as the proper noun 'Word Processor' by Lord Orsam in a most unusual grammatical slip) contained a pre-scrapbook version (it is implied) from which the scrapbook text was transcribed by Anne into the scrapbook, and - I hope everyone is keeping-up, I know that Lord Orsam frequently finds my longer sentences incomprehensible but I imagine that's his age - then a post-scrapbook version was obviously typed up, presumably by Anne, in which she was inexplicably unable to properly transcribe what she herself had transcribed into the scrapbook to fool the world, et cetera. We only have the post-scrapbook version, see? Somewhere in the world, there's the mythical pre-scrapbook version which would certainly reveal all (if it was time-stamped, or even if it existed!). With that kind of liberality of interpretation, it is no wonder that Lord Orsam believes himself to simply never be wrong! I wonder if I could catch him out one day - oh boy imagine that!

I have a feeling - despite his claims - that RJ will not fade away from these pages. He is drawn to them like a moth to a candle. Thank goodness we few provide such incandescent light on Lord Orsam and The Acolyte's dark, foreboding corners. RJ provides us with just so much American pie in the sky theorising. Perhaps it really is time for him to think it over?

Ike

[caz]

Your glaring ignorance of the Diary saga never ceases to amaze me, Ike.

Peter Birchwood, a highly respected genealogist (once featured in a television series), was one of the early diary researchers; among other things, he personally met and had dealings with the shadowy Stanley Dangar of Maybrick watch infamy, as well as other key players. This was all before your time, of course. Peter also worked with Melvin Harris, I believe. He had a lot of interesting commentary on Feldman's crackpot genealogy. When Feldman and the Diary Faithful were claiming that Anne never received a penny off the Diary, it was Birchwood who produced a number of bank statements showing that she had cashed several large royalty cheques before leaving Mike--putting Feldman's false claims to bed.

Hi Ike,

If RJ is going to accuse others of 'glaring ignorance', he ought at least make some effort to check his own knowledge of the facts. I do hope he wasn't relying on Birchwood's posts no longer being available for you to check, or too much of a faff for you to do so. RJ was either relying on memory for his claims, or he didn't check carefully or thoroughly enough through the archives, if he has access to all the relevant Birchwood posts.

Firstly, I don't know about Feldman, but I don't recall anyone else, Diary Faithful or otherwise, ever claiming that Anne 'never received a penny' off the Diary. That would have been a bit foolish, considering the documentary evidence to the contrary, not from Birchwood, but from Doreen Montgomery's own records going back to the beginning.

Secondly, RJ forgets that you simply had to ask The Switchblade for chapter and verse on Birchwood's posts on the subject of what Anne received and when.

Birchwood didn't produce any bank statements showing cheques paid into Anne's account, and I can't see how he could have obtained such information. What he posted about payments to Anne were Rupert Crew royalty statements, which were sent to Mike. As far as I'm aware, the Barretts didn't have a joint bank account, and Birchwood's material would have come originally from Mike. It's possible that RJ was remembering the several large cash withdrawals Mike made from his own bank account in May 1994, but I will check my timeline and come back to you regarding who posted that information and when.

I don't know how Birchwood or RJ could know when, or even if, Anne cashed any cheques without access to her bank statements. I have seen no evidence that she didn't pay the money in, but who knows how she spent it. A charity in aid of relief for Barrett hoax believers perhaps? But again, I will come back to you soon with another housekeeping post.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

More from my foreign correspondent, FDC (whose line "It's making my kidneys hurt!" will surely soon be trending - just genius!). I haven't edited this one as I've just made myself a lovely cup of Rooibos decaff tea and wish to drink it up whilst you all drink it in.

Mike Barrett made a lot of questionable claims about his health!
What I wanted to say is that the content of the text does not give the professional impression one would expect from a a physician.
A patient's information is confidential and may not (and will not) be made public!
The fact that the kidney "maybe" should be removed is the most suspicious sentence in the text. The person in charge of housing has no business with this!
If only 10 to 15 % functioning of the kidney is left, the patient is eligible for dialysis until the moment that one can proceed to a transplant.
Removal or replacement of a kidney is ultimately the end stage of the disease. I don't see why this medical fact should be stated in a note to 'housing'?
Kidney damage is irreversible and a patient on kidney dialysis can never be cured without a transplant.
A person can survive perfectly with just one (healthy) kidney! It's again strange that Bongo Barrett of all people should need a donor, when one could easily survive on one kidney?
If one is addicted to drink or medicines, one will in any case not be eligible for a transplant so easily!
This is everyday reality, and one does not need an academic degree to know all this! General knowledge and interest can go a long way!

If Mike really suffered from Korsakoff's syndrome, he wouldn't be able to recognize anyone : from Pink Moon to Keith Skinner! And possibly not even his ex Anne Graham or his daughter Caroline!
Korsakoff's syndrome is not progressive like dementia but remains stationary.
Mike wouldn't be able to make an affidavit or quote and answer questions in the Cloak & Dagger, because you can no longer have a normal conversation with such person!
RJ claims that some of Korsakoff's patients can be cured? Miraculously it was again Mike who - as one of the few - recovered from this incurable disease? As he miraculously recovered from most diseases!

And what exactly does one mean by recovery?
That people are again able to get a loaf of bread from the bakery, independently?
Or people are able to give once again a speech in the Cloak & Dagger?
Or that Mike could write his long-awaited epic: "The MIBRAC Diary" Part2 : How I did it - (The Korsakoff Years) ?

My goal is only to underline the lies of Mike Barrett. I've seen several similar characters in action up close in my past! Hallucinatory situations!
And yes Mike could have been a perfect con man because of his pathology. Lying and cheating go hand in hand, but that doesn't make Mike the author by any means.
It must be noted, however, that the phenomenon of 'the pathological liar' and 'mythomaniac' is systematically denied by many on this forum, and in the case of Mike Barrett is denied, minimized or toned down. And only because it challenges the theory of 'Mike the forger & c°’. All this is such an unbearable thought to many that all means are good, as long as the debate can be slowed down and sabotaged!
It's making my kidneys hurt!

p.s.: Ike, can you also inform us where RJ Palmer received his medical degree? [Same place I got mine, FDC - eBay]
Because everyone has to show academic titles before anything can be written down while Mr. Palmer has been telling pure nonsense on this forum for years now on row!
He alone is empowered to constantly claim and assume things without the slightest evidence or academic knowledge!
Everything for him is allowed, as long as it points to “Barrett the master forger” theory! Everything else for him, is not worth considering!
This can no longer be called a debate!

Ol' FDC is a fan of the exclamation mark, as you can see. A passionate fellow who cares about the truth of things. I think it's maybe time I used a few myself!!!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

This is all a bit new to me, but Ol' FDC has emailed me this interesting artefact which those who have travelled this road a long time will recognise. I agree with FDC that one can discern 'Jim' in the engraving, but I'm not convinced it is indeed 'Jim'. Each to their own, of course - this is the same principle as my brilliant discernment of the Goulston Street Graffito in my brilliant Society's Pillar (brilliant new edition due out in 2025 if I can get my typist - Old Mrs Iconoclast (not to be confused with my secretary Mrs Iconoclast, of course) - oh I do so hope Lord Orsam is able to keep up this time!) - off the gin for more than a day at a time). I love the 'coincidences' quotation which I wish I'd written ("Oh you will, Ike, you will", et cetera). They do so cluster around old Maybrick, do they not?

Hope the picture comes out, by the way.

Ike

I know that a ‘ripper’ is a small boat.
At least the letters could match the handwriting on some ripper correspondence! (see example)
This 'watch stand' would have been owned by Richard Whittington-Egan, which is strange because the item refers to ‘Jim’, and I thought Egan was anything but a Maybrick fan?
Another coincidence? Or a fake? In any case, a good fake!
The item was already discussed on the forum when it went up for sale on eBay in 2004 ?
Maybe Caz or KS know more about this?
Patricia Cornwell quotes in her “Jack the Ripper—Case Closed”, FBI profiler Ed Sulzbach, said :— "There really aren't many coincidences in life. And to call coincidence after coincidence after coincidence ‘a coincidence’ is just plain stupid.”—