One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Writing this on my iPhone so bear with.

Lord Orsam’s elf has delivered me word that he’s rather miffed that I called him a liar and - of course - he can’t respond.

Look, life’s too short so I’ll apologise for the misunderstanding. I’m pretty sure I said that his claims were not exactly the verite, but in saying so I was saying that his claims were not the truth not that he was actively lying. His claims could have not have been the truth without him deliberately lying - he could have simply overlooked certain information without malice aforethought.

Anyway, I don’t want to come across as abusing someone who can’t fight back so I’m perfectly happy to apologise and retract what he thinks was a claim that I don’t personally think I was making.

[caz]

Of course, it's entirely possible that if she had helped Barrett create the hoax, and he was now mouthing off about it, that all those old fears resurfaced and led to a rash act...

So now it's only 'if she had helped Barrett create the hoax'? Are we finally beginning to penetrate some tiny corner of Palmer's mind which he keeps free for the concept of reasonable doubt?

Mike was now mouthing off about it, so if he'd actually had something incriminating to mouth off about, regarding who created the diary and when, then I'm sure Anne would have had plenty to fear from acting rashly and overdoing the provocation. From Mike's point of view, she was helping Feldman in some diabolical quest to prove that their only daughter was descended from Jack the Ripper. If that wasn't calculated to send Mike into a frenzy and produce that damning auction ticket - if he'd ever had it - to put an end to it there and then, perhaps Palmer could suggest what would have done the trick.

[caz]

Jumping Jack Flash, Ike!

This is brilliant!.

And it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING I've been telling Caz, Keith Skinner and everyone else for the last 20 + years.

Anne invented the 'in the family story' (the story that Keith and Shirley and others accepted) in order to undermine Barrett's confession.

Palmer can say the same thing for another 20 + years and it still won't change the bleedin' obvious fact that Anne could only have hoped to undermine Mike's confession with her 'in the family' story if she knew his 'hoax creation' claims were false.

How hard can this be to grasp? Is anyone other than Palmer having trouble with this one?

Does Palmer seriously want to argue that if Mike had handed over his auction ticket in 1994 or 1995 or 1999, Keith and Shirley and others would still have 'accepted' Anne's story?

Did Anne correctly predict that Mike would never go that far?

Or is it just possible that she knew he couldn't, because the ticket never existed?

What's the more likely explanation?

[caz]

The criminal mastermind Anne, you tell us, came forward to undermine Barrett's story--not that she had anything to fear from it, mind you!

It's gibberish, Ike. You're talking in circles.

It's Palmer's gibberish.

Palmer argues that Anne came forward with her own story to undermine her estranged husband's first go at making a true confession, even though one flash of his auction ticket was all it would have taken to obliterate her story and her credibility forever.

And take care with those superfluous apostrophes. The Typographical Taliban are about!

Congratulations to Palmer for volunteering for the role after the last incumbent got bored. He is taking to it like a duck to water.

[caz]

It is indeed telling, Ike, because there is no reason Anne couldn't simply tell the truth now and support her old friend's theory. He'd be the toast of the town, but, strange to say, her lips are sealed.

Have you listened to the podcast on the Cottingley Fairies yet? The one I recommended?

The reason the girls didn't come forward for decade is because they didn't want to embarrass and disappoint the people who had put faith in them. They literally waited until after Conan Doyle and Gardner were dead.

I hope that doesn't happen in this case, but I interpret Anne's silence much differently than you do.

So Palmer hasn't had any luck with unsealing Anne's lips? Or has he not made contact yet?

I'm not sure I see Anne as a Cottingley Fairy storyteller myself. I thought Palmer's theory was that Anne didn't start off with any intention to deceive, but had to undermine Mike's damaging confession with a deception, in the hope that she would be believed over Mike - even if the repentant fraudster had then whipped out his auction ticket and stuffed it under Keith Skinner's nose.

In fact, if Palmer is right about Anne being an innocent victim of Mike's abuse and trickery, who didn't know what he was planning for her fictional story until it was a fait accompli, then there is no reason why she couldn't simply tell the truth now and confirm Palmer's compassionate take on things. He'd then be the toast of the town, for reading between her lines and seeing the confession she was subtly trying to make all those years ago. She'd finally be able to explain fully how Mike had made her do it, and her 'old friend' would surely understand and be as compassionate and understanding as Palmer.

Worth a go, no?

[rjpalmer]

Palmer can say the same thing for another 20 + years and it still won't change the bleedin' obvious fact that Anne could only have hoped to undermine Mike's confession with her 'in the family' story if she knew his 'hoax creation' claims were false.

How hard can this be to grasp? Is anyone other than Palmer having trouble with this one?

Does Palmer seriously want to argue that if Mike had handed over his auction ticket in 1994 or 1995 or 1999, Keith and Shirley and others would still have 'accepted' Anne's story?

I would suggest that you get some sleep and think over what you are saying in the cold light of day.

Your 'logic' only begins to make sense (barely) if the auction ticket still existed, and if Anne knew Mike still had it. And even that wouldn't guarantee that Anne wouldn't have tried to bluff her way out of it.

And the funny thing is...you don't believe the auction ticket existed. So, what are you banging on about? You created you own little paradox and then are utterly baffled by its lack of logic, and for some strange reason associate it with me.

It's already been determined that a lot of items as trivial as a compass and a photo album would have been marked as "miscellaneous" by Outhwaite and Litherland so it wouldn't be proof positive that Barrett had bought the photo album--only that he had attended an auction, and even then only if he used his own name and not an alias, and if I recall, O & L also stated that the use of aliases was not uncommon.

Thus, you are quite wrong in arguing that Anne had much to fear from this. She could have known for a fact that the ticket was worthless or now missing.

Further, is there anyone not on the far side of Mars who believes that if Barrett had produced a receipt marked "miscellaneous" and without his own name attached to it, that you and your Diary friends would have been the first to reject it as worthless??

And...I stress this again...at the same time, YOU DON'T believe the auction ticket existed. You've created your own paradox, and then have convinced yourself that it makes sense. It doesn't.

My own assumption is that the physical evidence for the creation of the hoax had been destroyed.

Barrett, for what it is worth, even states this in the affidavit.

There were no video tapes showing Mike and Anne creating the diary. So, it was basically "he said/she said" and seeing that Barrett was an alcoholic it's not difficult to understand why Anne would be confident that she could gain the upper hand--which she did do, despite the startling implausibility and illogic of her own shifting story.

Anne, as keeper of the financial records, had control over any nagging paperwork that might have still existed, as demonstrated by the time she was forced by Barrett's account of the red diary to turn over a check stub to Keith. If she didn't, Mike could conceivably have chased down Martin Earl by himself and proved her a liar.

So, yes, I reject your commentary as nonsensical and merely convenient to your own beliefs.

And personally, I don't think Barrett had the auction ticket. I think Mike liked to play games and he was just yanking Keith's chain.

Your endless yammering about the auction ticket strikes me as quite strange and misguided.

You have apparently convinced yourself it is a profound observation, but I see it as a straw argument.

Sorry for having to say that. Have a good night.

[rjpalmer]

Meanwhile, this conversation has become too bitter, too bizarre, and too repetitive for my liking. Nor do I like people constantly misstating my views.

I'm off.

[caz]

Other than in footballing success terms, our lives seem to rather mirror themselves even at the level of occasional chocolate bars, Caz!

Mrs I, not-so-young Izzy (now 24!), and I have chocolate on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings (well, I suspect Izzy has a stash in her bedroom, if I'm honest). Mrs I loves Crunchies. I love Picnics. And Izzy loves Twirls. If ever any of these are missing from the shelves, we always buy Snickers as we all love them! How bizarre is that?



Absolutely irresistible!

Mr Brown and I only tend to have a chocolate bar on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings! We love Picnics best of all, with Snickers usually coming second in my case, and a bar of orange flavoured dark chocolate in his.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Keith seems to have totally lost sight of the reason why the tapes need to be released. It's got nothing to do with the tapes conclusively proving that Mike and Anne created the diary (or did not do so). It's all about trying to work out why Mike's affidavit, obviously drafted by Gray, contains the errors that it does. Also, to see if Mike ever mentioned creating the diary after 9th March 1992.

And who does Palmer think would be best able to 'work out' anything significant from the tapes he once had and then lost? They were Gray's tapes to begin with, so presumably Melvin Harris would have been sent copies very early on, which he would have scoured thoroughly for any vital clues that would confirm his own predictions.

I do hope Palmer does not imagine that Keith would knowingly be holding back something on those tapes pointing to Mike creating the diary after 9th March 1992. I assume Melvin would have been all over it like a rash years ago had that been the case.

What a great pity that Palmer didn't think to make, or at least retain any notes of his own when he listened to the comedy duo in action. It would have saved him having to blame someone else.

Is Palmer suggesting that, since Mike's affidavit was 'obviously drafted by Gray', before being typed up by Gray, Mike may not even have dictated it to him, or checked it through after it was typed? That would explain some of the errors in it, where they were not deliberately made by Mike himself. But this is the best evidence Palmer has for the Barretts creating the diary together? Really? Can it get any weaker?

[caz]

And personally, I don't think Barrett had the auction ticket. I think Mike liked to play games and he was just yanking Keith's chain.

For once, I can agree with Palmer about something. Of course Mike lied about having the auction ticket with him in April 1999 and then lied again about not showing it to anyone for fear of being arrested by the ex coppers in the audience.

It was a stupid suggestion in the first place, by whoever made it, and I'm glad Palmer rejects it too.

[caz]

Why don't we just the Casebook readers to complete a poll, Caz? For every single issue ever discussed about Jack the Ripper or indeed any other subject, let's just establish our truths by the popularity by which they are held.

Okay, I'll start: Who thinks polls are of any value whatsoever in determining any sort of truth at all, ever, on any subject?

A: Me
B: Me mum in Carstairs
C: Yabs

Like Brexit must have been a good idea, in spite of all the evidence of our eyes and ears to the contrary, because the vote was 52% in favour?

Every day is a school day in this place.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You've spread this misinformation before.

David Barrat has made a very strong case for Mike and Anne's research notes not only being bogus, but studiously avoiding any mention of Bernard Ryan.

You then argued--without any evidence or citation--that Mike didn't mention Ryan because Shirley had already quizzed Mike about his book.

Not only does this make no sense whatsoever, you were asked to give your source for this, and you never did.

In reality, the only source for Shirley asking Mike about Bernard Ryan is from a taped interview recorded fully two years after Mike turned in his notes.

Why would she have asked him this if she had already asked him back in 1992?

If Palmer is not prepared to quote me directly, I am not prepared to accept his version of events unchallenged. I don't recall claiming that Shirley had 'quizzed' Mike about Ryan's book. I thought I had merely suggested that she could have mentioned it to him before he handed his notes over to her in the summer of 1992.

Anyway, Keith had some observations for me, which he has not asked me to post, but in fairness to us both, and to the historical record, I would like to do so in response to Palmer's accusation that I am spreading misinformation:

'As I recall, Shirley never quizzed Mike about the Ryan book. She asked him in the very early months of research if he had ever heard of The Poisoned Life Of Mrs Maybrick by Bernard Ryan -to which Mike replied no. Mike then went along to Liverpool Central Library and borrowed it. This was after the diary had been brought to London and the transcript made - and prior to the research notes being given to Shirley.

Which taped interview is Palmer referring to? Is it the one in April 1994 where I chatted with Mike for three hours in Liverpool Central Library and he studiously did not avoid any mention of Ryan but told me he only knew about the book when Shirley asked him if he had heard of it? And he only told me that because I was asking him which books on Maybrick he had consulted after he had made the connection between the diary and James Maybrick at some point after the death of Tony Devereux in August 1991 and prior to contacting Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992?

Or is Palmer referring to the taped interview with Mike at his home in Liverpool in January 1995 where Mike passionately emphasises he was given the diary by Tony Devereux and he knew very little about the Maybrick case until he started researching it in the Library, had never heard of Bernard Ryan's book until Shirley mentioned it to him and all he wanted was to be reunited with his wife and daughter who he had not seen for a year - and he would go on kicking up all sorts of sh.t until this was achieved?'

Edited to add: Shirley was present at the January 1995 interview, so she would have heard Mike reminding Keith that the first he'd heard of Ryan's book was when she had mentioned it to him. Shirley would have been able to confirm that Mike had told her the same thing, but there is no suggestion that she was asking if he'd heard of it as late as 1994, months after their book was published!

[rjpalmer]

I do hope Palmer does not imagine that Keith would knowingly be holding back something on those tapes pointing to Mike creating the diary after 9th March 1992.

This is a meaningless, snarky statement, merely meant to stir up trouble. And entirely typical.

People have different ideas about what is, and what is not relevant. And what might be valuable and what might not be valuable.

Unless Keith was to give a line-by-line transcription of the tapes and explain his interpretation of each and every statement, and why he has decided for himself that it is irrelevant, how in the hell could I or anyone else know if he is dismissing something that we, by contrast, might find important or relevant, even though he does not?

Have you ever heard the concept of 'discovery' in a criminal case? Both sides have a right to see all the evidence. It's a well-established rule of procedure.

It has jack-all to do with honesty. It has to do with interpretation and context and a sense of fair-play.

Keith apparently found Anne's 'in the family' story credible, while it is obvious enough that Martin Fido, among many others, did not. Does that mean Martin is accusing Keith of holding back information, and thus he has no reason or right to hear a tape of Anne's account for himself?

It's ridiculous.

We have only received a tiny snippet from the tape in recent days and yet on the very trial run 'Iconoclast' gives an account that is weirdly different from the quote in Inside Story describing what is apparently the same event.

--as good an indication as any that a second set of ears is entirely appropriate.

Anyway, my understanding is that Keith was going to release the tapes to Rippercast and now he has decided that he is not going to do that.

In which case it's a done deal. No reason even to discuss it anymore.

Nothing to see here, folks.

I'm just a bit curious about the obvious glee that the diary folks are now expressing that I no longer have a tape of my own, unless it should it suddenly resurface.

Anyway, like I say, I'm off. I've grown tired of the juvenile, snarky comments. And the ridiculous repetition.

[rjpalmer]

I really should respond to this, I suppose.

Which taped interview is Palmer referring to? Is it the one in April 1994 where I chatted with Mike for three hours in Liverpool Central Library and he studiously did not avoid any mention of Ryan but told me he only knew about the book when Shirley asked him if he had heard of it?

And, if you don't mind me asking, you believed him? You believed Mike Barrett?

He just spontaneously mentioned not reading Bernard Ryan? I find that fairly interesting, Keith. Why that book in particular, I wonder? Why was he focusing on this one specific book? Any ideas?

Or is Palmer referring to the taped interview with Mike at his home in Liverpool in January 1995 where Mike passionately emphasises he was given the diary by Tony Devereux and he knew very little about the Maybrick case until he started researching it in the Library, had never heard of Bernard Ryan's book until Shirley mentioned it to him and all he wanted was to be reunited with his wife and daughter who he had not seen for a year

Again?

Again, Mike just spontaneously made a point of never having read Bernard Ryan? And again, just this book, or did he mention any other specific Maybrick books that he hadn't read?

This is getting more and more curious.

It's a bit like John Wilkes Booth making a point of insisting, on three different occasions, that he never heard of Ford's Theatre. It does raise a bit of a red flag, doesn't it?

Like I say, different people will have different interpretations, even when hearing the same account.

And if I recall, Shirley couldn't give a date when Mike and Anne gave her the bogus research notes. She didn't have a clear memory of it, but perhaps you have a precise date?

[Iconoclast]

The silly posts like this with awful comparisons is the exact reason I tend to make a point then duck out.

By the way, Yabs, you really shouldn't be so dismissive. In logic, if one takes a theory to its extreme cases (what you call 'silly'), one quickly establishes the plausibility of the whole theory. If you discuss examples which are mundane, commonplace, and intuitive, you will learn nothing about the boundaries of whatever theory you are discussing. By taking an argument to its extremes, you test its robustness under stress. If a theory fails at its extremes, it fails everywhere else (including in the mundane, commonplace, and intuitive applications of it).

Did you not know that?