The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[erobitha]

Poor Jay Hartley. Doesn't even warrant a nod.

I haven't forgotten you, Jay, even if others have.

Thanks for that RJ. I'm touched.

[Iconoclast]

Poor Jay Hartley. Doesn't even warrant a nod. I haven't forgotten you, Jay, even if others have.

I'm sure ero b will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that he too questions that Mr J Maybrick wrote the Mr J Maybrick scrapbook. I think his theory is that the watch is genuine and that therefore Mr J Maybrick could well be Mr J the Spratt McVitie but that the scrapbook may have been conceived as a vehicle to deliver Mr J Maybrick to some sort of justice. I'm sure he'll correct me when he gets back off his superyacht after his apparent sabbatical.

I'm sorry, Ike, but it appears that somewhere hidden in her right good bollocking of me she is giving your ideas a 'no dice.'

I have advised all of my dear readers who need much tutoring on Maybrick, RJ - and, of course, I include you in this - to tred very carefully around a woman possessed of a large collection of switchblades and probably Swiss Army knives for all I know. Sometimes, I feel like that contestant at the round table screaming, "But she's obviously a Traitor!" but the foolish fools fail to fall into line and thus ultimately get sliced and diced in the dingy Scottish turret (and I'm not talking about my upstairs loo). Personally, I'm incredibly nice to her in case she's incredibly unnice to me. When will you all get in line on this one?

The door is closed; the key is turned.

And she's coming through it with a scythe - lock the bloody thing, man!

I'm almost tempted to once again mention trace amounts of chloroacetamide and the lack of bronzing as noted by Dr. Baxendale and a dozen other things, but why bother when the key is turned, and my own ideas are so obviously foolish and unconvincing?

Mention away, RJ - now that the Red Devils have finally stopped losing, I need something else to laugh at. Baxendale was a busted flush the moment he sent his asinine first report to Smith and anything he subsequently claimed is tarnished by the very strong possibility that he was happy to turn the screw if almost certainly not the key.

Ike

BOLLOCKS - I'VE JUST REALISED I'M ON THAT THREAD!

[rjpalmer]

Why would I, when Ike would still appear to be the only one on the ‘Maybrick dunnit’ side, even after all these years?

Poor Jay Hartley. Doesn't even warrant a nod.

I haven't forgotten you, Jay, even if others have.

I'm sorry, Ike, but it appears that somewhere hidden in her right good bollocking of me she is giving your ideas a 'no dice.'

The door is closed; the key is turned.

There is no hope, my dear boy, that either of us will ever seduce her away from her own weird theory that the diary was an old spoof with deliberate spelling errors, hidden under Maybrick's 'virgin' floorboards by the Great Unknown and Unknowable author who, as far as can be shown, first put the phrases 'bumbling buffoon' and 'one off instance' to paper and had access to a City of London Police inventory list long before it was available to the public in 1984.

What a hill to die on, but I'm told such ideas are 'coherent.'

So coherent they must be.

I'm almost tempted to once again mention trace amounts of chloroacetamide and the lack of bronzing as noted by Dr. Baxendale and a dozen other things, but why bother when the key is turned, and my own ideas are so obviously foolish and unconvincing?

Shalom.

[The Baron]

Most kind of you, Baron.

Fully recovered, thanks, apart from the odd coughing fit - often as a result of laughing too much when reading certain posts - which makes me sound like someone with a forty-a-day Woodbine habit.

Love,

Caz
X

If you ask me, that only adds to your unmistakable elegance, who knew humor could be so... disarming?

I can only imagine the posts you’re laughing at. Should I be worried it’s one of mine? Or relieved if it is?


Stay delightful

The Baron

[caz]

Palmer made this personal comment about my posting behaviour:

‘Off-hand, I can't recall Caz ever challenging the 'Maybrick dunnit' hypothesis with the vigor and contempt she has shown for the utterly simple and sensible suggestion that he who brought it, wrought it...with the help of his long-suffering wife, of course, the future co-authoress of an entirely different book on the Maybrick case.’

Why would I, when Ike would still appear to be the only one on the ‘Maybrick dunnit’ side, even after all these years? I don’t hold with persecuting minorities who are not considered a threat to the majority, so I’m not about to join the ranks of those who appear to get off on it.

Palmer may find it 'peculiar' that my responses to his posts about me, and to me, are impersonal. I find it more important to focus on the post, not the poster or their style of address, and to only address what has actually been written. I don't question the poster's reasoning, by basing it on a condescending and inaccurate personal reading from what they haven't written.

[caz]

So, I misunderstood you? My humble apologies.

To me, Anne's bizarre behavior is a key question, and since you have written at enormous length about all-things Maybrick Diary, and have even co-written a book that investigated (among other things) Anne's provenance, I am surprised that you can offer no insights for Anne's extraordinary behavior other than a simple 'only Anne knows.'

If you have no theories or explanations for these vexing questions, just as you now admit that you have no explanation why Barrett sought a blank or nearly blank Victorian Diary 1880-1890, from Martin Earl, I certainly don't have any further questions.

And I also have little desire to keep up a discussion with someone who only refers to me in the third person. I find that peculiar.

Thanks for the clarification, though.

That sounds like a wrap.

Apologies accepted. I'll judge their humility and sincerity by Palmer's efforts to restrict any future responses to what I write, and not what he thinks he can read between the lines, which is a waste of everyone's time at best and an insult to their intelligence at worst.

If it sounds like a wrap, I'm all for it. My better half is going to make us fish finger wraps with sweet chilli sauce this Friday.

If Palmer no longer has the stomach for a speculative discussion on why the Barretts may have behaved as they did, when only the Barretts were ever qualified to tell us and their word could not be relied on in any case, then maybe it has finally dawned on him why my considerable talents do not extend to mind reading, and his insatiable curiosity was never going to be satisfied by any insights or explanations I could offer. I'm not a psychologist either, so I'm left wondering why on earth Palmer would think I could help him understand anyone else's behaviour. It's interesting to see him factor in the 'key' but nebulous and unanswerable question of what made the Barretts tick. His certainty that they created the diary together would imply that he already thinks he understands their 'bizarre' behaviour perfectly well, in which case why ask me in the first place? I'm clearly no expert on bizarre behaviour.

[caz]

Most kind of you, Baron.

Fully recovered, thanks, apart from the odd coughing fit - often as a result of laughing too much when reading certain posts - which makes me sound like someone with a forty-a-day Woodbine habit.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

I have just now been catching up with various diary related posts, which I missed over the festive season due to illness or other more pleasant distractions, and would like to refer on this thread to some specific observations I noted, where my name was invoked but I had no chance to read or respond directly at the time. I'm assuming that this is acceptable to everyone concerned, as the thread's title seems appropriate and I'm sure nobody wants me to start a new one for the purpose!

Glad to see you back and catching up Caz, hope you are fully recovered and that the festive season had more of the pleasant distractions than the not so pleasant ones.

It is always interesting when you dive into a thread, you tend to notice things most of us overlook!

Threads like this do seem a little brighter with your perspective around.



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

I would just like to state for the record that this misrepresents my position, where I clearly stated that it was a fact that Feldman promised Anne money in return for her signature on a document, but was offering no opinion on whether or not this motivated her to lie 'to everyone around her'. Only Anne can possibly know her own reasons for doing or saying anything

So, I misunderstood you? My humble apologies.

To me, Anne's bizarre behavior is a key question, and since you have written at enormous length about all-things Maybrick Diary, and have even co-written a book that investigated (among other things) Anne's provenance, I am surprised that you can offer no insights for Anne's extraordinary behavior other than a simple 'only Anne knows.'

If you have no theories or explanations for these vexing questions, just as you now admit that you have no explanation why Barrett sought a blank or nearly blank Victorian Diary 1880-1890, from Martin Earl, I certainly don't have any further questions.

And I also have little desire to keep up a discussion with someone who only refers to me in the third person. I find that peculiar.

Thanks for the clarification, though.

That sounds like a wrap.

[caz]

I have just now been catching up with various diary related posts, which I missed over the festive season due to illness or other more pleasant distractions, and would like to refer on this thread to some specific observations I noted, where my name was invoked but I had no chance to read or respond directly at the time. I'm assuming that this is acceptable to everyone concerned, as the thread's title seems appropriate and I'm sure nobody wants me to start a new one for the purpose!

Firstly I noted that RJ Palmer wanted to explain why he 'can't buy into Caz's theory that Anne Graham lied to everyone around her because Feldman promised her millions.'

I would just like to state for the record that this misrepresents my position, where I clearly stated that it was a fact that Feldman promised Anne money in return for her signature on a document, but was offering no opinion on whether or not this motivated her to lie 'to everyone around her'. Only Anne can possibly know her own reasons for doing or saying anything, so I would prefer it if Palmer would make it clear in future when he is arguing against an inference he has made, as opposed to anything I actually wrote. It's not merely annoying and poor form - particularly when it hangs around uncorrected - but it does him no favours if he needs to do this to strengthen his own position.

Palmer goes on to argue that Anne was 'terrified of being linked to Barrett's hoax', which is an odd position to take for someone who believes it was Anne who gave birth to the diary in April 1992, while her husband watched his new baby come into the world, and just two years later she is so 'terrified' that her secret is about to be revealed, that she tempts Mike to do the revealing by telling Feldman she saw the diary back in the 1960s. I have to say that her 'terror' was evidently unfounded and remains so to this today, because while Mike was clearly provoked by her 'in the family' story into taking action against her, she must have been rather relieved when he only demonstrated his own impotence.

Palmer then asks me how confident Anne could have been by July 1994 to tell Feldman her story if she still didn't know where Mike had got the diary from and rather suspected that it had been nicked. Well, a damned sight more confident, I would think, that nobody was going to realise it was missing after two years, and claim it back with proof of ownership; or that anyone involved in stealing or receiving it would come out of the woodwork and confess, with proof; than if Mike had possessed all the beans since March 1992 and was heavily motivated to spill them and ruin his wife's first summer without him, in revenge for her ruining the rest of his life.

Palmer then observes that it is 'borderline ludicrous' [cheers] to think that Mike could have worked out the 'ten/eleven-day timetable' for the diary's creation as described in his affidavit, 'since he couldn't even remember what year it was'. He forgets that this 'borderline ludicrous' thought was never one of mine, because Mike certainly didn't need to remember the year if he was merely being crafty and using his recollection of the days spent jointly creating the transcript - in time for his unforgettable trip to London - to represent the creation of the physical diary. This was the easy bit, because he could never forget that date, even in his cups: Monday 13th April 1992. He just worked his sweet way back the appropriate number of days when recalling his greatest feat - the transcript. But he gave the year as 1990, arguably because even Mike assumed 1992 would be considered a tad too recent for the diary's creation.

[John Wheat]

The Diary is so obviously a modern hoax.

[rjpalmer]

Melvin could have got it 'out there' by sending copies to Feldman, Shirley, Keith, Robert, Doreen and every newspaper in the land and the Barretts could have done nothing about it.

This is a smokescreen, by the way.

Barrett's secret, non-circulating affidavit was lodged with his solicitor and would have been protected by attorney/client privilege. Melvin would have known that.

[caz]

Good Lord, Tom, you really are struggling.

We know that Mike, Alan, and Melvin knew about the secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit. Mike & Alan are the ones who created it, and Alan was taking advice from Melvin or at least keeping him in the loop. This has been established and is not in dispute.

My question is who was Mike's intended audience? What was his motive for signing it and lodging it with his solicitor?

I've already given you Keith's theory from 2018 in an earlier post. His explanation (and he can correctly me if he thinks I'm a misstating it) is that Mike made a false confession because "he hated Paul Feldman" (the owner of the visual rights) and wanted to get back at him.

I'm trying to establish the legitimacy of that hypothesis.

If this was the case, what is the evidence that Barrett circulated this allegedly bogus confession to potential film companies, or to newspapers, or to the media, etc., which certainly would have complicated Feldman's quest for a major motion picture?

There isn't any. No evidence has been provided.

Instead, you have identified an audience of one: Anne Elizabeth Graham. Which is exactly what your good friend David Barrat has argued. Again, I suggest that you chase down a copy of his dissertation.

Thus, we are faced with the bizarre fact that Barrett, with Gray's help, created a supposedly bogus confession and then released it solely to the only person in the entire world who would have personal insight into its authenticity or inauthenticity. Anne Graham.

It doesn't compute. No matter how much you wriggle, you can't make it make sense.



I used the word 'leaked' deliberately because I've seen no evidence that Barrett agreed to the release of the affidavit. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't; perhaps Stephen Ryder, if you contacted him, could clarify matters, but my assumption is that Melvin Harris released it.

Whether he had Barrett's permission, I couldn't say, but the first public airing this secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit came two years after its creation.

Those are the facts.

A might strange delay if the motivation was to harm Paul Feldman. No; whatever the motivations of Gray and Harris, Mike was clearly using the affidavit as 'leverage' over Anne, and Mike's private notes to Anne confirm this.

But the motivations of Gray and Harris, to get this statement out of Mike, are pretty crucial to explore, are they not?

Would Mike have produced that affidavit, for instance, if Gray had not been advised by Harris to try and obtain one?

The fact that Mike saw an opportunity to use it to get to Anne is neither here nor there, because it was destined to fail in that mission. It made no difference to her resolve not to dance to his tune, and he had no say in who else would be allowed to read it.

Harris would have used it in January 1995, no question, in his campaign against Shirley and Feldman, had it contained damning evidence of what Mike was claiming. But I'd be surprised if Harris was not aware that an affidavit relies on the word of the person swearing it and is no substitute for proof, even if that person is of good character and not known for making things up - which could not have applied less in Mike Barrett's case. It was in fact worse than worthless to Melvin Harris in this regard, being the clearest example yet of Mike's ability to lie and lie again without compunction, shame or self-awareness. If it had contained an ounce of truth it would have been a unique document, considering its source.

[caz]

I would be shocked if anyone reading this recent series of posts genuinely thought that Barrett's infantile and surreal affidavit of January 5, 1995, was ever meant to be kept a secret.

Let's stop for a moment and think this through. How could it have gone down? How about:

Mike: I'll do an affidavit if you can promise me it will be kept absolutely secret from the world. And by 'secret' I obviously mean that common or garden term 'non-circulating'.
Gray: Oh, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. Not a soul outside of us will ever know about it because it's critical that the terrible truth of your guilt is never revealed.
Mike: I'm going to do this in order to blackmail Anne into letting me see little Caroline.
Gray: Of course, Mike, of course. Absolutely. I get it. She's evil. She wrote all of the diary text, or half of it, and Tony did the other two-thirds, I get it - so get it down on paper and I'll type it up. I'll then eat the paper you wrote it on, type it up, and then we'll put it away in a solicitor's safe and no-one will ever know about it, ever, ever, never.
Mike: That sounds great, Alan. You're such a great and trustworthy friend, you really are. I really must pay you one day.
Alan: Oh, just create and sign that affidavit, Mike, and we'll be done with it - no payment required!
Mike: That's amazing friendship, Alan.
Alan: That's what friends are for, Mike.
Mike: But will I not be immediately nicked?
Alan: No - just the opposite, you'll be fully-protected by it. We'll need lot of details, Mike, so make sure you put in all the crucial steps and provide us with the evidence.
Mike: Sure, Alan, I can do that no problem. "I did it" - there's all the evidence you need! By the way, who is this 'us' you've referred to a couple of times? Just you and me, right?
Alan: Absolutely, Mike, absolutely. Oh, and [inaudible].
Mike: Who?
Alan: [Inaudible].
Mike: I can't hear what you're saying, Alan.
Alan: Melvin Harris.
Mike: Melvin Harris. Isn't he the diary's biggest and most vocal critic? The bloke who published a book about a totally implausible candidate just as the industry's biggest seller hit the shops and appeared to try desperately to stop it ever hitting the shops because of all of that integrity he had?
Alan: Yep, that's him.
Mike: Well, surely he's got a huge vested interest in publishing any detailed confession I make and making sure that the world thinks James Maybrick's diary is a hoax?
Alan: No!
Mike: You sure about that, Alan?
Alan: Of course, Mike. He told me himself that he is all about integrity. If he had evidential proof that the diary was actually a hoax after all but he had promised not to say anything, then he'd put it away in a drawer and never mention it again.
Mike: That's a relief, I can tell you. Well, I'll tell you what, with that in mind, let's also send a copy to Maurice Chittenden of The Sunday Times, Nick Warren of Ripperama, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Alan: Great idea, Mike. Here's a pencil, mate.

What a shame this thread was not to Ike's liking! You'd have to be made of bitter stuff for the above scenario not to raise a titter.

But it does pack a serious punch, for those who have allowed themselves to be fooled by Mike Barrett's woefully inept attempts to claim responsibility for the diary's existence. They twist themselves in knots to make the unworkable work for them, because the alternative is unthinkable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Author: Caz

08-21-2020, 09:19 AM

Hi Kattrup,

Bottom line is that Shirley and Keith did not get to see Mike's January 5th 1995 affidavit until two years later, in January 1997, when he sent Shirley a copy. This was after a version of it had reached the internet without their knowledge.

---

It was "definitely out there" very quickly, yet the diary's chief researcher, Keith Skinner, didn't get wind of it until two years later, and Feldman nowhere mentioned it in his book.

Q.E.D.

'Out there', meaning that Mike could have done nothing to stop it getting 'out there' as soon as Alan Gray had typed it up and whizzed it off to Melvin Harris. Melvin could have got it 'out there' by sending copies to Feldman, Shirley, Keith, Robert, Doreen and every newspaper in the land and the Barretts could have done nothing about it.

The question has always been why Melvin treated it like the last roll of lavatory paper left in the shop during a chronic shortage and was afraid to use it even when he was desperate.