Society's Pillar

[caz]

Well, if I understand Keith correctly, he believes that a receipt from Outhwaite & Litherland, had Mike held onto it, would have been conclusive evidence. The receipt from Earl, by contrast, would have immediately unraveled once Dodd contacted Earl.

You stumbled at the first hurdle. Mike would have had no idea what paperwork he might expect, even assuming his request would produce anything - which it nearly didn't as it was an unusual one. He would have been taking a punt, which might give him a bit of paper along with a diary, proving he was the kind of chap who did things legitimately. If Mr Barrett wanted his very own Victorian diary, he would jolly well buy one [or his good lady wife would] from a reputable source. Opportunist theft - cough, cough - was simply not in his nature, and he'd have nothing to do with it. Why you think Dodd would have contacted Earl I have no idea. If he had, the receipt would simply have proved Mike bought an 1880s diary [actually 1891 as it turned out] from Earl, which had nothing to do with Dodd. Mike was nothing if not impetuous and childlike in his words and actions, as his affidavits from April 1993 to January 1995 demonstrate.

His criminal record has been brought up often enough in the past, to try and support a belief that he and his wife spent time and effort faking a diary for filthy lucre. But his crime was for opportunist theft, snatching an old dear's handbag when temptation overtook him. Despicable as this was, it had nothing in common with the planned creation of a literary hoax, and was more akin to tricking a fellow Scouser out of an old book when seeing the name Jack the Ripper inside it.

You seem to be now raising the spectre that even if Barrett had produced the receipt from Outhwaite and Litherland, you could simply dismiss it as a gambit from the subtle mind of Mike Barrett, and the scrapbook for O & L was not the same diary he received from Eddie Lyons. What a tangled web you weave, but at least you're doing a good job of demonstrating the deviousness of my favorite hoaxer, Mike Barrett, so I thank you for that. I still can't help thinking that Mike's intelligence and stupidity seem to expand and contract like an accordion, depending on what is needed to fit the immediate theory.

Not getting any of this, sorry. It says more about your mind than mine or Mike's. Of course the scrapbook didn't come from O&L if it was the same old book Mike acquired from Eddie. But you believe in Orsam's auction, so what do you imagine the receipt - or ticket - from the one held on 31st March 1992 would have looked like, assuming O&L would have recognised it instantly as one of theirs? You are the one who needs it to have existed, not me. If it had a date or serial number on it, Mike could have given that information to Brough or Gray - or indeed Shirley or Keith - without having to remember it. So why didn't he? Alternatively, if it had no distinguishing features to help Mike with the date, or to allow O&L to trace such a purchase, how do you suppose anyone else could have succeeded, even while the trail was still warm, and Gray was following it like a bloodhound, hoping for a juicy bone?

I suppose I could try to understand your suggestion if you could actually provide evidence that Mike held on to this invoice from Earl, which seems fair enough, since you have always demanded to see the invoice from Outhwaite & Litherland. I believe David B. has suggested that Mike failed to produce the receipt from O & L on the night of the Cloak & Dagger interview because Keith referred to a policeman sitting in the front row, and Barrett worriedly asked if he was going to be arrested.

Well, later in 1995, Mike did bang on about a receipt supposedly lodged with his solicitor early on, for a diary bought in 1992, but he couldn't seem to make up his mind whether to match it with the black diary or the red one for his audience that day. So we'll probably never know now. But clearly David Barrat wants to believe Mike had some paperwork with him in April 1999, which was too incriminating to produce: paperwork with details to prove where and when he had obtained the black diary.

So two things to ask yourself here:

1) If Mike had those details with him in 1999, as David B believes, why did Mike - and Alan Gray - have to rely on his faulty memory when preparing the affidavit of January 5th 1995, when he could simply have read off those details at any time if he didn't want to part with the actual paperwork?

2) If Mike had read up all about the ripper in order to fake the diary, as he claimed in January 1995, is it not a little odd that he feared being arrested by a well known ripper author, who had long since retired from the force? Isn't it more likely that he was bluffing, and coming up with any excuse not to produce the goods? He had the opportunity to do so later, in private, but still ducked it.

If I were you, I wouldn't bet a cent on Mike ever having that auction ticket.

[caz]

Why then would he specify it had to be blank or have at least 20 blank pages?

Because the scrapbook had something like 20 blank pages after the writing?

Just a guess, Kattrup.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Obviously I didn't mean you, Your Most Cazness! I meant all those nasty boys. Obviously, you can do what you want.

Can I get you a lovely cup of tea?

Ooh yes please! I've just had a mince pie with boozy cream and am quite parched.

Cheers.

Love,

Her Most Cazness
X

[Iconoclast]

Maybe Lord Orsam can locate the appropriate advertisement placed in Biscuit Tinfinder between 9 and 12 March 1992 ...

Oh I have no doubt, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

It had to have the characteristics of the potentially stolen diary if he was to pass it off as the scrapbook if anyone came looking for it?

You know, Ike, I wouldn't want to dismiss this breakthrough too hastily.

Eddie & Company also described finding the book in a biscuit tin, didn't they?

Maybe Lord Orsam can locate the appropriate advertisement placed in Biscuit Tinfinder between 9 and 12 March 1992, which would further confirm your suspicions.

[rjpalmer]

Caz: ... for anyone at the Liverpool end of operations who might accuse him of nicking it ...

It had to have the characteristics of the potentially stolen diary if he was to pass it off as the scrapbook if anyone came looking for it?

And Martin Earl's intricately described, nearly empty red memo book from 1891 would fit the bill, eh?

At least be consistent with your theories, Old Man.

[rjpalmer]

The advert Mike placed between 9th and 12th March 1992 would also make sense if it wasn't the diary he wanted, but just a bit of paper he could wave about - preferably an invoice or receipt, or even the advert itself - to prove his interest in such an item at that time, or to legitimise his ownership of the old book supposedly dating from 1889, for anyone at the Liverpool end of operations who might accuse him of nicking it.

Blimey.

First off--technical point--Barrett never placed the ad. You stumbled at the first hurdle.

Barrett requested a blank Victorian Diary from Martin Earl, and we don't know that Barrett knew Earl's methods; indeed, the evidence suggests that he didn't.

It was Martin Earl who then placed the ad in Bookfinder. So, the 'advert itself' can be struck off your list. There is no evidence that Mike knew about it.

As for the rest of it---well, it's creative, if not convincing. Mike's need for 'at least twenty blank pages' still stands as the main objection.

I mean, it wouldn't have been the only time Mike was prepared to claim he had physical proof of his purchase of the scrapbook, would it? He was still claiming in 1999 to have the auction ticket for it, which presumably - if Orsam wasn't joining up the wrong dots - would have given him the date of 31st March 1992, to tell Harold Brough in June 1994, then Alan Gray when they were working together on the affidavit typed up in January 1995. Mike could have done as much without parting with the actual ticket, and without either of them needing to rely on his famously faulty memory for dates, of which Gray was only too well aware

Well, if I understand Keith correctly, he believes that a receipt from Outhwaite & Litherland, had Mike held onto it, would have been conclusive evidence. The receipt from Earl, by contrast, would have immediately unraveled once Dodd contacted Earl.

You seem to be now raising the spectre that even if Barrett had produced the receipt from Outhwaite and Litherland, you could simply dismiss it as a gambit from the subtle mind of Mike Barrett, and the scrapbook for O & L was not the same diary he received from Eddie Lyons. What a tangled web you weave, but at least you're doing a good job of demonstrating the deviousness of my favorite hoaxer, Mike Barrett, so I thank you for that. I still can't help thinking that Mike's intelligence and stupidity seem to expand and contract like an accordion, depending on what is needed to fit the immediate theory.


I suppose I could try to understand your suggestion if you could actually provide evidence that Mike held on to this invoice from Earl, which seems fair enough, since you have always demanded to see the invoice from Outhwaite & Litherland. I believe David B. has suggested that Mike failed to produce the receipt from O & L on the night of the Cloak & Dagger interview because Keith referred to a policeman sitting in the front row, and Barrett worriedly asked if he was going to be arrested.

Unfortunately, we will never know, since Barrett did indeed balk, and O & L subsequently pulped their books. Which leaves us speculating about angels dancing on the head of a pin.

[Iconoclast]

Why then would he specify it had to be blank or have at least 20 blank pages?

Caz: ... for anyone at the Liverpool end of operations who might accuse him of nicking it ...

It had to have the characteristics of the potentially stolen diary if he was to pass it off as the scrapbook if anyone came looking for it?

[Iconoclast]

You’re awfully prejudiced about nasty boys

I think it's maybe a fear-aggression thing, Katnip. I'm taking the meds, but nothing's helping.

[Kattrup]

Obviously I didn't mean you, Your Most Cazness! I meant all those nasty boys.

You’re awfully prejudiced about nasty boys

[Kattrup]

The advert Mike placed between 9th and 12th March 1992 would also make sense if it wasn't the diary he wanted, but just a bit of paper he could wave about - preferably an invoice or receipt, or even the advert itself - to prove his interest in such an item at that time, or to legitimise his ownership of the old book supposedly dating from 1889, for anyone at the Liverpool end of operations who might accuse him of nicking it.

Why then would he specify it had to be blank or have at least 20 blank pages?

[Iconoclast]

Rude, Ike. Rude.

The Switchblade has unfinished business here, so watch it!

Obviously I didn't mean you, Your Most Cazness! I meant all those nasty boys. Obviously, you can do what you want.

Can I get you a lovely cup of tea?

[caz]

Rude, Ike. Rude.

The Switchblade has unfinished business here, so watch it!

I asked RJ a couple of civil questions, based on his favoured hoaxer's actual words.

Mike has the floor again:

'When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.'

I asked RJ what he believed Mike did and how long this was before he took the diary to London. His response was swift as requested, but predictably contained projected hyperbole: 'I am confident that he wouldn't have soaked the entire diary in a bed pan filled with a gallon of the stuff, thus ruining the entire scrap book. Why would he do such a thing? Why would anyone do such a thing?'; deviation by the bed pan load, and more padding than Paddington.

Mind you, why would he answer in 30 words, when 1,000 would do?

He could simply have said: 'No, I don't believe Mike soaked the whole cover, or did this in early 1990. I believe he used a little linseed oil on or around All Fools' Day 1992.'

And how very appropriate that would have been!

The problem as I see it, is that you and Icon, etc. endlessly hunt for errors in Mike's statements...

More hyperbole. Mike's statements gave up their errors with nary a struggle, while RJ endlessly hunts for excuses. How is it 'confirmation bias' to point out that a sworn affidavit is only as reliable as the claims made within it? Why did Orsam have to make up his own date for the auction to make Mike's red diary claim viable, if it stood by itself as proof of his intentions for it?

I believe Keith has promised to explain why Barrett (or the Barretts) requested at "least twenty blank pages."

This suggests, to any reasonable person, that they intended to write something one those twenty blank pages, which, in turn, suggests a pre-existing typescript.

More spin, alleging that Anne knew what Mike was requesting and why, for which there is no supporting evidence.

But yes, without any other information, a reasonable person might well reach the conclusion that Mike intended something to be written on the blank pages.

It takes an unreasonable person to sweep away what other information exists, that casts a measure of doubt.

The advert Mike placed between 9th and 12th March 1992 would also make sense if it wasn't the diary he wanted, but just a bit of paper he could wave about - preferably an invoice or receipt, or even the advert itself - to prove his interest in such an item at that time, or to legitimise his ownership of the old book supposedly dating from 1889, for anyone at the Liverpool end of operations who might accuse him of nicking it.

I mean, it wouldn't have been the only time Mike was prepared to claim he had physical proof of his purchase of the scrapbook, would it? He was still claiming in 1999 to have the auction ticket for it, which presumably - if Orsam wasn't joining up the wrong dots - would have given him the date of 31st March 1992, to tell Harold Brough in June 1994, then Alan Gray when they were working together on the affidavit typed up in January 1995. Mike could have done as much without parting with the actual ticket, and without either of them needing to rely on his famously faulty memory for dates, of which Gray was only too well aware.

Love,

Switchypoo
X

[Iconoclast]

Oi, you lot - bugger off and play in your own back yards!

This thread is dedicated to the sale and merchandising of The Greatest Book of All. It's like a shrine for ****'s sake! Is nothing sacred anymore? Didn't your parents teach you respect?

I know who you are, I know where you live, I know who your parents are, I've never liked your dad, and I'm not afraid of your big brother or your big sister so get your arses out of here before I skelp them!

Mad Ike
(Bloody Fuming, in Fact)

PS We have just introduced a lovely range of SocPill keyfob/torch/bottle-opener/tie-pins - the perfect gift for the key-owning, hard of seeing, heavy-drinking, tie-wearing people in your life and the ideal gift for Commercialmas, only £9.99 from Iconozon (other retailers sell alternatives).

[rjpalmer]

All this is frustrating to comment on as I’ve never seen the inner cover of the diary so I’m unsure what to make of the linseed oil story.

To me it rings true because I can’t think of any other reason why you would falsely claim you undertook that process and offer it up for scrutiny if there wasn’t some truth in it.
But at the same time, from everything Ive read about linseed oil I gather the odour would be an issue for a good few days if not weeks.
Also, it dries yellow and can darken over time.

Those issues could be remedied to some degree by diluting the oil but it’s all guesswork without looking at the inner cover.

Agreed. This also might be one of those instances where it would be useful to listen to the now infamous "Barrett tapes" and see if there is anything more to be gleaned.

Recall that the affidavit represents, to some extent, the information that Alan Gray was able to wheedle out of Barrett during a series of very long conversations.

Did Mike ever give any further details to about this alleged linseed oil process that would allow us to better assess what he is talking about?

There are two types of linseed oil, "raw" and "boiled" (it's a chemical process; it's not actually boiled). The latter is less likely to leave a lasting odor, and who knows what slow cooking it might do?

There are recipes on-line that discuss cleaning and restoring leather using a combination of linseed oil and vinegar; the vinegar neutralizes any odor.

There is not enough information to dismiss this claim out-of-hand.