One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Observer]

This is all a bit new to me, but Ol' FDC has emailed me this interesting artefact

Whato Earl Edam, I see you're still churning out the cheddar, but could you ease up a bit I'm already at cringe zero, I don't think the old back will take much more.

This "Ol" (dear me, agghhh) FDC seems like a regular soothsayer, oh the wisdom.

The thing is yer Earldom, now that Mr Palmer has rightly vacated Casebook's crapiest thread it will die the death again. You see nobody wants to discuss Maybrick as the Ripper, including your dear reader. Maybrick is a dead duck, feet up in the water. How many voted for Maybrick as the Ripper in the recent poll? This thread is all about Barrett.

Bye for now, and ease up on the Diary.....errr dairy products

[erobitha]

Whato Earl Edam, I see you're still churning out the cheddar, but could you ease up a bit I'm already at cringe zero, I don't think the old back will take much more.

This "Ol" (dear me, agghhh) FDC seems like a regular soothsayer, oh the wisdom.

The thing is yer Earldom, now that Mr Palmer has rightly vacated Casebook's crapiest thread it will die the death again. You see nobody wants to discuss Maybrick as the Ripper, including your dear reader. Maybrick is a dead duck, feet up in the water. How many voted for Maybrick as the Ripper in the recent poll? This thread is all about Barrett.

Bye for now, and ease up on the Diary.....errr dairy products

Thanks for your deep insight about a post no-one supposedly will read or respond to anymore.

My old gran used to say “If you have nothing to say then say nothing at all.”

So I pass on my dear old gran’s words of wisdom to you old chap.

[Observer]

Thanks for your deep insight about a post no-one supposedly will read or respond to anymore.

My old gran used to say “If you have nothing to say then say nothing at all.”

So I pass on my dear old gran’s words of wisdom to you old chap.

Tell your old gran it's all been said. Maybrick was being discussed in this forum long before this thread was started. I also thank you for your recognition of my deep insight. By the way keep up the sarcasm, it suits you. Sounds familiar?

[caz]

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

Cheers, Yabs!

That's interesting. Morland's book gives the address as 6a Riversdale Road, so there has clearly been some confusion over the years.

Mike's story was that when he saw in RWE's Tales of Liverpool the reference to 'Battlecrease' [which features early on in the diary] and read that James Maybrick lived there, and the house was on Riversdale Road - no street number given - he hopped on a bus the very next day to see the place for himself. It's one of two large semi-detached houses, 6 and 7 Riversdale Road, so I don't know what made Mike think Battlecrease was number 6. It's possible that he mistook the two houses for just the one large Victorian dwelling and the first number he saw was 6. But it seems that it was an easy mistake to make, judging by your example and that of Morland.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Afternoon Ikester,

I read somewhere: the longer the sentences, the greater the intellect of the writer.

You're welcome.

Can you imagine if RJ and Orsam ever had a major disagreement over the diary? It would be the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

I do wonder what on earth they imagine the transcript contains, that could possibly satisfy their visceral need to be right about the Barretts?

It's another minor mystery.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

The thing is yer Earldom, now that Mr Palmer has rightly vacated Casebook's crapiest thread it will die the death again. You see nobody wants to discuss Maybrick as the Ripper, including your dear reader.

Doh! Well that was embarrassing for you!

The highest number of responses on the entire Casebook (currently a breath-taking 8,297) doesn't sound particularly dead to me. You can't rank on views but - at 1.3million - I suspect that it is only beaten by the 'A6 Rebooted' thread so I therefore suspect it is by far and away the most frequently viewed thread on Jack the Ripper (which is, you may have noticed, the theme of the Casebook itself). Indeed, the 'Incontrovertible' thread is so compelling that it can gain more incremental views in a single week than the vast majority of threads ever gain in their 'lifetime'. That's the stuff of legend, chummy me lad.

The Casebook was set up to address the issue of the Maybrick scrapbook and its popularity today is no less than it was then. It is the only horse in town, ol' chap, and you evidently are one of its most frequent riders! The fact that most posters who voted on the recent poll did not go for Maybrick clearly does not reflect in any way whatsoever the massive worldwide interest in the progress of its core theme.

As I said - doh!

[Iconoclast]

Afternoon Ikester,

I read somewhere: the longer the sentences, the greater the intellect of the writer.

You're welcome.

Can you imagine if RJ and Orsam ever had a major disagreement over the diary? It would be the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.

I do wonder what on earth they imagine the transcript contains, that could possibly satisfy their visceral need to be right about the Barretts?

It's another minor mystery.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you Cazster,

According to Lord Orsam, you are my mistress! Oo-er matron!

I noticed in one of his dark, drain-related diatribes yesterday that he had cause to ever so slightly disagree with RJ Palmer in some utterly harmless way and I thought it was spectacular how he did so without any of his usual invective. His tone was positively dripping with caution (which frankly just added to the congestion in that tight funnel he publishes in to make his arguments appear longer and therefore - by your own logic - more erudite, perhaps?). Why do you think that is? Why is it reserved for those who hold a different view to the Dark Lord of Sludge (he really ought to get those drainpipes cleaned-out - the over-use of the F word was shocking, and I'm from Newcastle!).

A 'minor' mystery - I love it!

Ike

[caz]

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

Hi Ikypoo,

Listed in my Radio Times for this morning at 10am [I didn't watch it] is 'Fraud Squad - A benefits cheat claims to have 19 children - ten of whom are blind.'

Mike Barrett would have been soooooo envious of that chutzpah - if only he could spell it.

In February 1996 Mike was found to be 'fully mentally competent' by the doctor who examined him for his Disability Living Allowance Medical Report.

The same doctor found that 'clinically there is NO evidence of renal failure'.

There was also no suggestion that Mike had ever suffered a stroke.

He was found to be capable of safely doing, without anyone's help, everything on a long list of daily physical activities, from shaving and bathing to chopping vegetables and cooking.

In short, the doctor could find very little the matter with him.

History repeating itself.

Back in 1889, Dr Fuller told Maybrick he could find very little the matter with him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.”—

Er, I have one just like it upstairs on my bedroom bookshelf, Ike.

I'm not joking.

It is mine and the rumour that it was ever owned by RWE was started by someone who saw my old eBay username and positively leapt to the wrong conclusion, hugging themselves with their super sleuthery [is that a word? It should be].

Clue: I recently posted elsewhere to a fellow cat lover, that her cat and my mum had something in common - the name Molly.

There - my secret is out.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Doh! Well that was embarrassing for you!

The highest number of responses on the entire Casebook (currently a breath-taking 8,297) doesn't sound particularly dead to me. You can't rank on views but - at 1.3million - I suspect that it is only beaten by the 'A6 Rebooted' thread so I therefore suspect it is by far and away the most frequently viewed thread on Jack the Ripper (which is, you may have noticed, the theme of the Casebook itself). Indeed, the 'Incontrovertible' thread is so compelling that it can gain more incremental views in a single week than the vast majority of threads ever gain in their 'lifetime'. That's the stuff of legend, chummy me lad.

The Casebook was set up to address the issue of the Maybrick scrapbook and its popularity today is no less than it was then. It is the only horse in town, ol' chap, and you evidently are one of its most frequent riders! The fact that most posters who voted on the recent poll did not go for Maybrick clearly does not reflect in any way whatsoever the massive worldwide interest in the progress of its core theme.

As I said - doh!

Haha, keep yer ganzie on old truckle.

Embarrassing? Ally hit the nail on the head with regard to the popularity of this thread when she said

"The reason there have been more views than posts is that people consider this topic too idiotic to bother with, except to watch the never ending progression of morons arguing it get smacked down."

Everyone loves to view the train crash, to go to the circus.

Let's see how this thread now develops now that Mr Palmer has left the room.

It's a Barrett thread, pure and simple

[caz]

Thank you Cazster,

According to Lord Orsam, you are my mistress! Oo-er matron!

I noticed in one of his dark, drain-related diatribes yesterday that he had cause to ever so slightly disagree with RJ Palmer in some utterly harmless way and I thought it was spectacular how he did so without any of his usual invective. His tone was positively dripping with caution (which frankly just added to the congestion in that tight funnel he publishes in to make his arguments appear longer and therefore - by your own logic - more erudite, perhaps?). Why do you think that is? Why is it reserved for those who hold a different view to the Dark Lord of Sludge (he really ought to get those drainpipes cleaned-out - the over-use of the F word was shocking, and I'm from Newcastle!).

A 'minor' mystery - I love it!

Ike

He may deposit all his hate speech in a drainpipe, Ike, but his mind appears to have done a nosedive into the gutter.

I would advise him to get out more, but that would be grossly unfair to anyone eagerly anticipating his next thrilling attempt to prove something or other.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

The Casebook was set up to address the issue of the Maybrick scrapbook and its popularity today is no less than it was then. It is the only horse in town, ol' chap, and you evidently are one of its most frequent riders! The fact that most posters who voted on the recent poll did not go for Maybrick clearly does not reflect in any way whatsoever the massive worldwide interest in the progress of its core theme.

As I said - doh!

Surely this must be the epitome of delusionary grandeur?

[caz]

Haha, keep yer ganzie on old truckle.

Embarrassing? Ally hit the nail on the head with regard to the popularity of this thread when she said

"The reason there have been more views than posts is that people consider this topic too idiotic to bother with, except to watch the never ending progression of morons arguing it get smacked down."

Everyone loves to view the train crash, to go to the circus.

Let's see how this thread now develops now that Mr Palmer has left the room.

It's a Barrett thread, pure and simple

‘It's amazing how many people feel compelled to argue something fervently and endlessly when they openly admit they haven't read or educated themselves beyond the limits of their entrenched opinion.’

Ally, December 9th 2021

'Almost worse is when people won’t admit this, and ignore information they already have, which challenges their entrenched opinion, while knowing that much more information exists, which they have not yet seen or heard, which has the potential to turn their entrenched opinion to mush.'

Caz, today.

[Observer]

‘It's amazing how many people feel compelled to argue something fervently and endlessly when they openly admit they haven't read or educated themselves beyond the limits of their entrenched opinion.’

Ally, December 9th 2021

'Almost worse is when people won’t admit this, and ignore information they already have, which challenges their entrenched opinion, while knowing that much more information exists, which they have not yet seen or heard, which has the potential to turn their entrenched opinion to mush.'

Caz, today.

I've read the books, saw the evidence posted here in this forum, and until something new comes along I have no doubt in my mind that Barrett was responsible for the hoaxing of the Maybrick Diary. I can't speak for other people, but I'll say this. There is ample information here in the Maybrick threads for individuals to make up their minds as to who they think was responsible for the authorship of the Maybrick Diary. The overwhelming majority voted for a Barrett ownership. If the Maybrick saga is, (as our old friend Iconopest reckons it is) of Worldwide interest, I'd ask those millions of dear readers to join Casebook, and let's see what they believe in a new poll. I won't hold my breath. It's more likely, they visit in their substantial numbers, to have a bit of a laugh, a bit of levity, in these days of uncertainty.

[caz]

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

Quick reminder of RJ's claim:

...it was Birchwood who produced a number of bank statements showing that she [Anne] had cashed several large royalty cheques before leaving Mike...

Let's put the house in order:

Friday 15th October 1993
Cheque from Rupert Crew to MB for £2009.37.
Source: copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Wednesday 3rd November 1993
Royalty statement from Smith Gryphon to SH and MB, c/o Rupert Crew Ltd:
royalty payments: 23rd March 1993 MB £1,000,
20th August 1993 MB £250,
Source: copy statement (KS master file 1993)

Saturday 4th December 1993
Royalty statement from Rupert Crew Ltd to MB:
Total amount due: £9,742.19, of which the share due MB was 50%, ie £4,871.10 less £487.11 agents commission. After VAT of £85.24 deducted MB to get £3,000 and Anne to get £1,298.75. (NB by CAM: Both cheques actually paid on 7th January 1994)
Sources: Peter Birchwood 10th February 2002, Internet JtR Casebook (CAM/KS/2002);
copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Tuesday 7th December 1993
Cheque for £3,666.74 sent to Mrs. Anne Barrett:
Statement from Rupert Crew Ltd (Tax Point 7th December 1993) for total of £8,309.88, of which Anne’s 50% share is £4,154.94 less 10% commission - £3,739.45 less VAT of £72.71 = £3,666.74.
Sources: Peter Birchwood 27th March 2001, Internet JtR Casebook (CAM/KS/2001);
copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Sunday 2nd January 1994
Anne leaves Mike following an argument which renders her unconscious. She takes Caroline with her, never returning to the marital home.
Anne has endured physical and mental abuse over the last few years, due mainly to Mike’s alcoholism, the physical abuse increasing over the last year.
Source: copy of letter from AG to PF in July 1995 (CAM/KS/1995)

Friday 7th January 1994
Statement from Rupert Crew Ltd, tax point 7th January 1994, to MB:
As schedule of payments dated 4th December 1993
Amount due 5th January 1994: £9,742.19
Your 50% share: £4,871.10 (less 10% commission) net £4,383.99
VAT on our commission: £85.24
Cheque to Lloyds bank a/c M. Barrett: £3,000.00
Cheque to Mrs Anne Barrett: £1,298.75
Sources: Karoline Leach 4th April 2001, Internet JtR Casebook (CAM/KS/2001);
copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Monday 7th February 1994
Cheque from Rupert Crew to Bank (MB) for £3,392.04 and to Bank (AB) for £1,000.00.
Source: copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Friday 25th February 1994
Royalty statement from Rupert Crew Ltd to MB:
Total amount: £21,808.76, of which 50% due to MB (ie £10, 904.38) less £1,090.44 agents fee and £190.83 VAT. MB to get £8623.11 and Anne to get £1,000.
Sources: Peter Birchwood 10th February 2002, Internet JtR Casebook (CAM/KS/2002);
copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Friday 4th March 1994
Cheque from Rupert Crew to Bank (MB) for £8,623.11 and to Bank (AB) for £1,000.00.
Source: copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Friday 11th March 1994
Cheque from Rupert Crew to Bank (MB) for £2,132.88.
Source: copy of list of cheques enclosed with letter from Doreen M to MB dated 2nd August 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Thursday 12th May 1994
MB’s bank account overdrawn by £3249.
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Friday 13th May 1994
MB’s bank account: “Credit by Post” entry appears for £8886.38.
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Tuesday 17th May 1994
Payments from MB’s bank account of £500 and £1000.
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Thursday 19th May 1994
Payment from MB’s bank account of £1000.
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Monday 23rd May 1994
Payment from MB’s bank account of £1000.
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Wednesday 25th May 1994
Payment from MB’s bank account of £1000.
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Friday 27th May 1994
Payment from MB’s bank account of £1000.
(At close of this banking period MB again overdrawn by about £284.)
Source: Peter Birchwood, 30th January 2002, Internet JtR Casebook
(CAM/KS/2002)

Monday 25th July 1994
Letter from Doreen M to Anne:
'Mike, alas, seems now to be a lost cause’. He has ‘gone through a considerable amount of money, it would seem, without having anything to show for it, beyond a broken marriage, home life, and his own health’.
‘You have said, I know, that you are not interested in money, but willy-nilly, there will certainly be some for you and Caroline, as Mike’s family, and it would be ludicrous for you not to keep us in the picture and apprised of what is going on.’
Sources: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1994)

Tuesday 2nd August 1994
Letter from Doreen M to MB:
Doreen and MB talked the other day about the amount of money paid over to MB and/or AG. Doreen encloses list of cheques drawn and sent ‘either to you and Anne personally, or to your bank accounts’, up to 11th March 1994.
Source: copy of letter and list of cheques (CAM/KS/1994)



Ooh goody, it's beer o'clock here in Brown Towers!

Love,

Caz
X