The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[Scott Nelson]

My suggested explanation is simple. Mike was handed a completed diary. After a while he thought he could use it to create his own version of a Maybrick Diary, but soon realized it was beyond his capabilities, so he just handed over what he was given. Simple. The other activities he subsequently engaged in to procure a suitable blank diary (red diary, questionable auction) didn't pan out in time to deliver a promised Jack the Ripper diary to Rupert-Crew.

I don't think Barrett was ever a journalist in the sense of the word. The magazine articles he submitted displayed no significant writing abilities and I believe, as has been suggested, his wife did most of the writing for him. In one of his pieces his daughter Caroline Barrett is interviewed about a musician, so I think her mother, Anne, would have been more involved with the production of these articles than Mike would have been.

We can only guess at Mike Barrett's mental state prior to 1992. Koraskoff Syndrome could have developed before then, even though it was only diagnosed at a later time. One can't say he only started drinking heavily after his marriage broke up, it could have been well before then. The intent here is to suggest Barrett had the symptoms before he had the diary and would have been incapable of writing, let alone, conceiving a complex storyline about the unnamed Maybrick, even with a guide document (the diary) and a few other books, such as Ryan to use.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could the assumed chronology be slightly messed up? For example, could Mike already have had the photo album with diary handwriting in it before March 9, 1992? Was the red diary just a latter ego-driven attempt by Mike to produce his own version of the diary? So any deadline to try and do anything further using the red diary became moot after realizing he couldn't produce anything better (???) Also assuming there was no O & L auction sale of a scrapbook to Barrett.

It doesn't make much sense though, Scott. If he'd been magically presented, for free, with a fully completed Ripper diary in an "old book" (to borrow Caz's phrase), why faff around calling Martin Earl, wasting time, effort and money to buy a Victorian diary when he must have known he didn't have the pen skills to even copy the original, let alone write an entire new one in his own hand? As we've discussed before, he had formerly been a journalist, so why couldn't he have drafted the text himself and then got his wife to write the manuscript in an old photograph album he managed to acquire? I mean, he wasn't suffering from any illnesses which would have prevented him doing this, such as Korsakoff Syndrome, was he? Isn't the much simpler explanation far more likely?

[Scott Nelson]

What the Diary Crowd can't explain is why there really is an 11/12 day gap between the date of the red diary's arrival on Goldie Street --the date of the next auction by O & L---and Mike's arrival in London.

Could the assumed chronology be slightly messed up? For example, could Mike already have had the photo album with diary handwriting in it before March 9, 1992? Was the red diary just a latter ego-driven attempt by Mike to produce his own version of the diary? So any deadline to try and do anything further using the red diary became moot after realizing he couldn't produce anything better (???) Also assuming there was no O & L auction sale of a scrapbook to Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

"...if it was the arguably lengthier and more laborious process of transcribing from a wholly unfamiliar text by an unknown hand..."

I find this entirely unconvincing. Why would it be more 'laborious' to type out a pre-existing, finished, and 'static' handwritten document opposed to creating a handwritten confession of Jack the Ripper from whatever unfinished state it was in on Barrett's word processor when he called Doreen and found the raw materials? Mike never described the condition of the draft on his word processor at this point. The latter 'process' might well have involved creating new material, revision to the plotting, etc. etc etc.

But I find this whole discussion somewhat pointless. Anne Graham never claimed it took 11 days to create the typescript--this is Caroline's invention--it is her theory and she's welcome to it-- but it immediately contradicts Anne's own account, who said it was 'done very fast.' If Anne took time off from work to make this typescript as Caroline theorizes (one presumes, out of thin air) then she would have had all day to work on it. If she plodded along for 11 days, while burning her vacation pay, why would she later describe this to Keith Skinner as 'it was done fast.'? Would you describe it as such? It makes no sense. One could theorize Anne lied about how long it took, but what would have been the point of lying about it? That only raises more suspicion.

In effect, Caroline is here acting as a Barrett Believer insofar as she believes Barrett's 11-day claim describes something. But if Barrett was a pathological liar why do this? Why couldn't these 11 days have been made up from Mike's imagination and don't reflect any real event---just like his story of Anne slapping the diary's cover with a bloody animal kidney?

What the Diary Crowd can't explain is why there really is an 11/12 day gap between the date of the red diary's arrival on Goldie Street --the date of the next auction by O & L---and Mike's arrival in London.

I'm not sure anyone other than 'Lord Orsam' has really thought this through. If the 'awesome auction' was just a figment of Barrett's imagination, as Caroline and others believe, there is no reason to expect that there would be any such 11/12 day gap. Barrett was not consistent about when the diary was created. This supposedly imaginary 'awesome auction' could have been anytime in 1990 or 1991 or early 1992.

Only when one follows the internal logic of Gray's account and looks at the red diary as a failed attempt to obtain the raw materials for the hoax---and then work out the next available auction by O & L--and Barrett's eventual arrival in London--does this 11-day gap come into focus. IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY if Barrett was describing non-events. And there's no way he was clever enough to have worked it out in the hope that 10 or 15 years or 20 later someone would trace Earl's advertisement, etc. and work it all out. He couldn't even remember what bloody year it was (!)

In brief, if Barret's "awesome auction" was a figment of his imagination, this 'gap' should not be real. The 'gap' could have been any length---fifty days, a hundred and fifty days--any number of days. From all that we see and from that is documented, the only explanation is that Barrett is describing a real event that he knew through experience. Theorizing that the Anne also took 11 days to type the typescript doesn't make that enigma go away.

But, as I say, this is rather pointless. It's clear that the few remaining defenders of this relic aren't really interested in examining the account compiled by Gray in any rational way--they are only seeking to debunk it. I disagree with their approach

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm supposed to believe that Anne took 11 days to type a double or triple spaced manuscript, only 29 pages in length, and then describe this as "it was done fast"?

That's only 2.9 pages a day and she was supposedly a competent typist who worked as a secretary.

I suspect someone is connecting dots that aren't connected---adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 5.

However, if she was handwriting the typescript with an old pen in mock-Victorian style....

Ike must be struggling silently with the same problem, Roger, for I see that over on the other site, on 27 July 2022, he posted:

"Something I have never understood about the mythical eleven days is, why so long? I feel confident that 'my Anne' (as it were) could have written those sixty-three pages in no more than around three days at the very most. Why did it take Anne eleven days to complete the transcribing? Well, if you subscribe to the magic bullet theory, you have to subscribe to it taking her eleven days. I guess this is everyone's individual choice to make: does it sound plausible or not? To me, it sounds utterly contrived and totally implausible."

If he thought Anne could write the diary at her husband's dictation in around 3 days, how much faster would it have been for her to type it out?

Mind you, Caz replied to him the following day to say (with regard to the typed transcript):

"...if it was the arguably lengthier and more laborious process of transcribing from a wholly unfamiliar text by an unknown hand, whose writing made the words hard to decipher in places, it would make more sense if this took shape over the days immediately following Mike's meeting in London, when Caroline was between school terms, so Mike had no school runs to interrupt their flow, and Anne may have taken time off to coincide with Caroline's holidays."

She seems to be saying something very different now though. No doubt we'll find out soon enough how she explains the contradiction between her posts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I admire your commitment to getting up to speed on Maybrick, Herlock - it was I after all who suggested that you might want to. Can I just check, though, are you reading old posts randomly, chronologically, or via the search facility? I ask because post #6301 (and indeed #3601 if that is what it was) of any thread is - how can we put it - quite a long way in. If you were using the search facility, do you recall what you searched on?

I'm having a bad day, Ike, and now need to correct the correction.

The post in which Caz said the exact opposite to what she is now saying about the transcript was #6301 which was posted on 24 June 2021 in the thread "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary. "

I hope that clarifies the position.

[rjpalmer]

I'm supposed to believe that Anne took 11 days to type a double or triple spaced manuscript, only 29 pages in length, and then describe this as "it was done fast"?

That's only 2.9 pages a day and she was supposedly a competent typist who worked as a secretary.

I suspect someone is connecting dots that aren't connected---adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 5.

However, if she was handwriting the typescript with an old pen in mock-Victorian style....

[Iconoclast]

Furthermore, I'm really confused by your explanation of the timing of the creation of your transcript, and your placing of the "go-situation" as sometime in March, because I've been reading over old posts on CB to bring myself up to speed and I noticed that in one of your posts of 24 January 2021 (#6301 in the thread "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary") ...

*Correction: Caz's post of #3601 which I quoted from was dated 24 June 2021, not January.

I admire your commitment to getting up to speed on Maybrick, Herlock - it was I after all who suggested that you might want to. Can I just check, though, are you reading old posts randomly, chronologically, or via the search facility? I ask because post #6301 (and indeed #3601 if that is what it was) of any thread is - how can we put it - quite a long way in. If you were using the search facility, do you recall what you searched on?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t understand why you decided to introduce a completely new subject about whether the transcript is in line with one taken from the diary itself. What does that have to do with anything I've been saying or asking? What I originally asked you was: "What is it that you say is making it increasingly clear that Mike was confusing Anne writing the diary manuscript with her typing the transcript?". I just can't see how it's relevant to this question whether the transcript is a draft of the diary or was written after the diary's manuscript was created. I've always assumed it was typed from the physical diary. I've never suggested or hinted otherwise. So I just don't understand why you think what you said is responsive to my question.

The issue I thought we were discussing is that Mike said that the diary was written in eleven days. Your argument, as I understand it, is that he really meant that the transcript was typed in eleven days. Yet in your long post to me you haven't once explained where the eleven days came from if it related to the typing of the transcript. You seem to be saying that the transcript was created between 11th March 1992, when Mike would presumably have received Doreen's letter of the previous day, and 13th April 1992. That's over a month. So where did the eleven days come from.

Furthermore, I'm really confused by your explanation of the timing of the creation of your transcript, and your placing of the "go-situation" as sometime in March, because I've been reading over old posts on CB to bring myself up to speed and I noticed that in one of your posts of 24 January 2021 (#6301 in the thread "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary") you said:

"The chronology suggests to me that the "go" situation referred to by Keith, after consulting Anne, was when Mike returned from London on 13th April with the diary. If the typescript Doreen received had been ready by that date, it would have made sense to take both with him....If there was a reason behind Mike's word processor lie, and it wasn't Mike just being Mike, I suspect he said it to impress Doreen about the investment he had already made in the diary and the work he had already put in since his mate Tony had died. He may even have been fishing for an early expenses claim. But having lied, he was committed to producing [in both senses] the transcript he claimed to have bought the word processor for. Doreen naturally said "Yes please, Mike", and this was when Anne agreed to do the typing while Mike read from the diary. It was done fast – I suggest between 13th and 22nd April, while Caroline was off school for the Easter holidays – and Mike evidently saw it as a considerable achievement on his part, despite Anne doing the typing because he was "hopeless" at it – as every example I have seen from after Anne left him clearly demonstrates. They had created the transcript between them, but Mike liked to take the credit for what he saw as his creation. This was surely what he was recalling when he claimed the diary was written over 11 days."

Isn't that exactly what I said in my post about your theory but which you responded to like I was an idiot, telling me "It doesn't fit what we have on record"? You even now seem to be claiming it was the product of Orsam's imagination when it was clearly the product of your imagination.

Perhaps you and Ike can just forget about Orsam. He's not here. You're talking to me.

*Correction: Caz's post of #3601 which I quoted from was dated 24 June 2021, not January.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You misunderstood, Herlock. I meant you could check the actual transcript, as posted on casebook, to see for yourself whether it is more in line with one taken from the diary itself, or one created on the word processor at some point in time before finally being copied by hand into the old book.

If you agree that it's at least compatible with a transcript typed up from the handwritten version, and are still beguiled by the theory that Anne held the pen, and did the deed between April Fools' Day and 12th April 1992, then the transcript supplied to Doreen with the diary on Monday 13th would need to have been gone through carefully and adapted to 'look the part' at the last minute, comparing it line by line with the handwritten version when it was finally done and dusted - or blotted.

I don't recognise your interpretation - if it is yours and Orsam isn't worming his way into your thoughts via the back door - of how and when the transcript got to Doreen. It doesn't fit with what we have on record, which has all been posted before - and presumably ignored or conveniently dismissed as the product of several people's imagination. What you posted above is the product of imagination, so I will try to enlighten you, but no doubt you will dispute it all anyway and wish it away.

The "go situation" referred to by Anne, when they began to prepare the typed transcript, would have been at some point between receiving Doreen's first letter, expressing her interest in seeing the diary, and the letter of 8th April 1992 confirming the arrangements for Monday 13th. Mike had told Doreen he was off to York on Thursday 12th or Friday 13th March 1992, promising to make contact again on his return. When Mike went to London on 13th April he took the diary and a copy of the typed transcript from his word processor, which he left with Doreen, returning to Liverpool with the diary. There is no evidence that the transcript was sent by post, as Doreen would have kept a record of this on file. She later sent photocopies of the 'typed script' to both Shirley and Sally. Doreen's letter to Sally dated 22nd April 1992 makes it clear that Shirley and Sally had already started their research. On 12th May 1992 Doreen wrote to Mike asking him to get the diary from the bank and arrange for sample pages to be photocopied: 'The typescript you prepared won't do on its own.'

It was my own suggestion that Anne might initially have tried to persuade Mike to post off a transcript to Doreen instead of going to London with the actual diary, saving the expense of the return train fare if Doreen wasn't impressed by the contents, and still very nervous about where the hell Mike had got the bloody thing.

If you seriously still think Mike was consistent with his "Anne wrote the manuscript" refrain, after telling the mystery caller in August 1994 - while Alan Gray was listening! - that the diary was "100% genuine" but he couldn't say "Anne forged it" overnight [presumably because of the rather obvious libel implications of what he'd just said], and then trying to hoodwink Alan again in the November with his "fifty-fifty" claim, retracted the very next day, then I have a bridge to sell you. Come on, Herlock, I know you are better than this. Think for yourself, instead of relying on the word of Mike Barrett and his most avid champions.

Love,

Caz
X

I can’t understand why you decided to introduce a completely new subject about whether the transcript is in line with one taken from the diary itself. What does that have to do with anything I've been saying or asking? What I originally asked you was: "What is it that you say is making it increasingly clear that Mike was confusing Anne writing the diary manuscript with her typing the transcript?". I just can't see how it's relevant to this question whether the transcript is a draft of the diary or was written after the diary's manuscript was created. I've always assumed it was typed from the physical diary. I've never suggested or hinted otherwise. So I just don't understand why you think what you said is responsive to my question.

The issue I thought we were discussing is that Mike said that the diary was written in eleven days. Your argument, as I understand it, is that he really meant that the transcript was typed in eleven days. Yet in your long post to me you haven't once explained where the eleven days came from if it related to the typing of the transcript. You seem to be saying that the transcript was created between 11th March 1992, when Mike would presumably have received Doreen's letter of the previous day, and 13th April 1992. That's over a month. So where did the eleven days come from.

Furthermore, I'm really confused by your explanation of the timing of the creation of your transcript, and your placing of the "go-situation" as sometime in March, because I've been reading over old posts on CB to bring myself up to speed and I noticed that in one of your posts of 24 January 2021 (#6301 in the thread "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary") you said:

"The chronology suggests to me that the "go" situation referred to by Keith, after consulting Anne, was when Mike returned from London on 13th April with the diary. If the typescript Doreen received had been ready by that date, it would have made sense to take both with him....If there was a reason behind Mike's word processor lie, and it wasn't Mike just being Mike, I suspect he said it to impress Doreen about the investment he had already made in the diary and the work he had already put in since his mate Tony had died. He may even have been fishing for an early expenses claim. But having lied, he was committed to producing [in both senses] the transcript he claimed to have bought the word processor for. Doreen naturally said "Yes please, Mike", and this was when Anne agreed to do the typing while Mike read from the diary. It was done fast – I suggest between 13th and 22nd April, while Caroline was off school for the Easter holidays – and Mike evidently saw it as a considerable achievement on his part, despite Anne doing the typing because he was "hopeless" at it – as every example I have seen from after Anne left him clearly demonstrates. They had created the transcript between them, but Mike liked to take the credit for what he saw as his creation. This was surely what he was recalling when he claimed the diary was written over 11 days."

Isn't that exactly what I said in my post about your theory but which you responded to like I was an idiot, telling me "It doesn't fit what we have on record"? You even now seem to be claiming it was the product of Orsam's imagination when it was clearly the product of your imagination.

Perhaps you and Ike can just forget about Orsam. He's not here. You're talking to me.

[caz]

Well, Caz, you invited me to check the evidence of the transcript myself and I've done so. According to correspondence posted by Keith Skinner on Casebook, Doreen Montgomery wrote to Sally Evemy on April 22nd 1992 to tell her that she would send her a copy of "the typed script of the Diary". which I assume you will agree must be the Barretts' transcript. Considering that this means that Anne or Mike must have put it into the post no later than April 21st 1992 (if it was sent by first class post) this means that if they started to create the transcript as soon as Mike returned from London on what must have been the afternoon or early evening of 13th April, that transcript must have been completed in no more than 9 days between 13th and 21st April inclusive. And that includes the day when it had to have been posted, assuming that Doreen wrote her letter to Sally on the very day she received it. So how did that nine days become eleven days? Or do think it was created in a different 11 day period before Mike came to London?

You misunderstood, Herlock. I meant you could check the actual transcript, as posted on casebook, to see for yourself whether it is more in line with one taken from the diary itself, or one created on the word processor at some point in time before finally being copied by hand into the old book.

If you agree that it's at least compatible with a transcript typed up from the handwritten version, and are still beguiled by the theory that Anne held the pen, and did the deed between April Fools' Day and 12th April 1992, then the transcript supplied to Doreen with the diary on Monday 13th would need to have been gone through carefully and adapted to 'look the part' at the last minute, comparing it line by line with the handwritten version when it was finally done and dusted - or blotted.

I don't recognise your interpretation - if it is yours and Orsam isn't worming his way into your thoughts via the back door - of how and when the transcript got to Doreen. It doesn't fit with what we have on record, which has all been posted before - and presumably ignored or conveniently dismissed as the product of several people's imagination. What you posted above is the product of imagination, so I will try to enlighten you, but no doubt you will dispute it all anyway and wish it away.

The "go situation" referred to by Anne, when they began to prepare the typed transcript, would have been at some point between receiving Doreen's first letter, expressing her interest in seeing the diary, and the letter of 8th April 1992 confirming the arrangements for Monday 13th. Mike had told Doreen he was off to York on Thursday 12th or Friday 13th March 1992, promising to make contact again on his return. When Mike went to London on 13th April he took the diary and a copy of the typed transcript from his word processor, which he left with Doreen, returning to Liverpool with the diary. There is no evidence that the transcript was sent by post, as Doreen would have kept a record of this on file. She later sent photocopies of the 'typed script' to both Shirley and Sally. Doreen's letter to Sally dated 22nd April 1992 makes it clear that Shirley and Sally had already started their research. On 12th May 1992 Doreen wrote to Mike asking him to get the diary from the bank and arrange for sample pages to be photocopied: 'The typescript you prepared won't do on its own.'

It was my own suggestion that Anne might initially have tried to persuade Mike to post off a transcript to Doreen instead of going to London with the actual diary, saving the expense of the return train fare if Doreen wasn't impressed by the contents, and still very nervous about where the hell Mike had got the bloody thing.

If you seriously still think Mike was consistent with his "Anne wrote the manuscript" refrain, after telling the mystery caller in August 1994 - while Alan Gray was listening! - that the diary was "100% genuine" but he couldn't say "Anne forged it" overnight [presumably because of the rather obvious libel implications of what he'd just said], and then trying to hoodwink Alan again in the November with his "fifty-fifty" claim, retracted the very next day, then I have a bridge to sell you. Come on, Herlock, I know you are better than this. Think for yourself, instead of relying on the word of Mike Barrett and his most avid champions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's the difference between the evidence on record of the Barretts having prepared the typed transcript of the diary [which you can check for yourself here on casebook] for Mike to take with the handwritten document to London on 13th April 1992, and what Mike claimed was a fraudulent act of having created the diary itself.

The transcript either looks like it was typed up from a handwritten original, because that's what it is, or the Barretts gave themselves the added task of making it look 'right', if it had to be adapted from an original typescript of their own creation.

When Mike claimed in his affidavit that it took eleven days from start to finish to create the diary, he might just as well have been thinking of the transcription process from handwritten original to typed version for Doreen and Shirley to work from, mixing truth with lies - or fact with fantasy to be kinder - thus giving his forgery account an air of credibility. Their daughter was far more likely to have been allowed to stay in the same room to witness the transcript being prepared from the diary itself, than if her Mum was busy writing out the text by hand from a typescript, which then had to be adapted to make it appear like an innocent transcribing job.



And predictably, Herlock, you don't feel any need to ask yourself if Mike may have been motivated to lie about this, again and again?



The 'ten' days relates to a newspaper article, featuring one of Mike's forgery claims, where he allegedly spent those ten days tapping out the text on his word processor. In his affidavit this becomes eleven days 'in all':

'...at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting...'

'...Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline....'

If Mike was telling his usual porkies, but wanted to give his account the semblance of truth, he could have based it on the following reality check, which I have taken the liberty of reading between the lines:

'...at first we tried it with me doing the typing, but we realised - and I must emphasise this - my typing was hopeless [Anne's words], so it had to be Anne's typing...'

'Anne and I started to prepare a transcript from the diary when we both knew my trip to London would be going ahead. I dictated the words to Anne who typed them up and thus we "translated" the Diary of Jack the Ripper. There was a witness to this, our young daughter Caroline.'

In Mike's final days, it was all change again, when he tried to take sole credit for 'translating' the diary's contents using the word processor and claimed that Anne had had nothing to do with it. He was no longer claiming that he or Anne had written the diary; his only concern was to go down in history as the person who had single-handedly transcribed it. And even that was a lie.

If Mike had been blessed with more wealth and power to sell 'alternative facts' to anyone willing to buy, he could have been dangerous. What I find odd is that anyone would freely admit that they are still buying into Mike's 'alternative' diary 'facts'.

Love,

Caz
X

Well, Caz, you invited me to check the evidence of the transcript myself and I've done so. According to correspondence posted by Keith Skinner on Casebook, Doreen Montgomery wrote to Sally Evemy on April 22nd 1992 to tell her that she would send her a copy of "the typed script of the Diary". which I assume you will agree must be the Barretts' transcript. Considering that this means that Anne or Mike must have put it into the post no later than April 21st 1992 (if it was sent by first class post) this means that if they started to create the transcript as soon as Mike returned from London on what must have been the afternoon or early evening of 13th April, that transcript must have been completed in no more than 9 days between 13th and 21st April inclusive. And that includes the day when it had to have been posted, assuming that Doreen wrote her letter to Sally on the very day she received it. So how did that nine days become eleven days? Or do think it was created in a different 11 day period before Mike came to London?

As for your response to my comment that Mike was consistent in his story that Anne wrote the manuscript, it's unfathomable that you ask me if Mike might have been motivated to lie. You must surely be very aware that the issue we've been discussing is the consistency of Mike's story, not its accuracy. And why are we discussing the consistency of Mike's story in the first place? Because you claimed that his story was inconsistent in respect of who wrote the manuscript. I'm saying that this isn't correct. But, in the fact of the overwhelming evidence of his consistency (which you initially disputed), you now change the subject to him being a liar. It's incredible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for the record...

The tape labelled 6th November [a Sunday] features Mike's "fifty-fifty" claim at just before the 20 minute mark. I tracked it down by having Inside Story propped open at page 152 while listening. Alan Gray has just said to Mike that: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting." I can then hear Mike saying: "Ah ah ah ah ah, it was fifty-fifty."

On page 154, Seth recounts the events of the following day, Monday 7th November, when Alan and Mike are able to go to Outhwaite & Litherland, but Mike has given different years for his supposed auction attendance, initially claiming it was in 1987 - which was before the Barretts moved to Goldie Street and Mike met Devereux. Alan says: "Now we've had another date. We had 1990 the other day."

It would appear likely that Alan used the same tape for both encounters with Mike, while confusingly writing only the one date on the original label. If this is the case, there will be a natural break when they part company on 6th and meet up again on 7th. This may also be clear from the context.

Seth continues: 'It now transpired that Anne alone, not Barrett, bought the job lot which included the journal and compass.'

Alan tries and fails to get a coherent account out of Mike, who then claims to have been to O & L himself three times before, and claims that on the second occasion the girl in the office confirmed that the name Williams and their address were on record. Strangely - or perhaps not - Alan decides to leave it for the day and plans to make an official approach later to confirm Mike's account. I don't recall any evidence that he did this.

So was Mike lying to Alan about Anne attending the auction and bidding for the photo album herself? If so, what on earth was that all about? Or was he lying in his affidavit two months later, when describing his personal experience of the same thing?

Or was he lying every time his lips moved, when making claims about when and how the diary ended up in his hands?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Thank you for identifying the passage on the tape which is helpful.

However, I must ask you a question. Have you been listening to the tape of 6th November 1994 as posted on Casebook?

If so, I absolutely dispute your (and Seth Linder's transcription) and once again have to say that you seem to be imagining things.

I can just about make out the faint words "fifty fifty", although I wouldn't say with 100% certainty that this is what is being said, but the context (to the extent that it's audible) is in no way as it has been set out in Seth Linder's book or in your post.

Here is my very best transcription of the passage in question with time stamps. It's not helped by the fact that the two men sound like Pinky and Perky making it hard to distinguish between the two let alone hear what they're saying.


18:52 - Who wrote that?

18:53 - [E.O.R.? D.O.R.?]?

18:55 - By Christ I’ve seen that [line] somewhere else (Note: could be “Y” but doesn’t sound like it)

18:59 - ….the Ripper diary

19:04 - [the Ripper]

19:06…..[you] wrote the manuscript

19:12: [Anne?] (Note: Sounds like “Anne” is repeated a few times)

19:38 - We’re wasting our time

19:40 - How can I prove it?

19:41 - …saying that you wrote the manuscript - you wrote that, she wrote the manuscript. 19:44

19:52 - Ah ah ah ah ah

19:55 - [fifty fifty]

20:06 – …it was a long time ago

20:21 – …once upon a time

20:40 – …now, come on…the diary

20:45 – We’re going back now to 1990...

20:56: ...David Burness…magazine… in 1987 I was the chief writer, ,..he will confirm that, he will confirm I was the chief writer, 1987… Stan Boardman …..Bonnie Langford… Dorothy Wright…she was a girl in Liverpool…I’m going back to 1987…that’s a fact….I’m coming on to the diary….In 1987 Maggie…..died….this is factual…..living together at that address….now in 1987..this is factual…Maggie Graham….living together in 1987.... Christmas Eve ….15 (?) Street….a phone call….Maggie Graham….hang on…….….New Year’s Eve…..that’s a fact…..I’ve got to get myself out of this…..out of this….Anne….financial…..no heart no heart…I meant Maybrick didn’t have a bloody heart…..womaniser....

The key thing for me is that at 19:41 one of the men (obviously Gray) says "you wrote that, she wrote the manuscript" having apparently corrected himself after having said "you wrote the manuscript". This is clear as a bell on the tape but isn't reflected by Seth Linder in your book or in the transcript you've just posted and I wonder why not. As I've noted, this sentence concludes at 19:44 before we hear someone going "ah ah ah ah ah" at 19:52before a very faint possible "fifty fifty". I've listened to the intervening 8 second period over and over and, while it's inaudible, it certainly doesn't sound like Gray or anyone is saying anything that sounds like "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting." Are you saying, Caz, that you can hear this on the recording, or have you simply repeated what Seth Linder thought he could hear? I challenge anyone reading this to listen to the tape themselves to see if what is said in that 8 second gap sounds anything like what you've claimed.

Furthermore, I rather agree with Ike over in the other Hoax thread when he says that it's not the same person who says "ah ah ah ah ah" as the person who possibly says "fifty fifty". And if it's Gray saying "ah ah ah ah ah" he must be responding to something that Mike has just said in the 8 second gap between 19:44 and 19:52. This makes it even more certain that Gray hadn't just delivered a monologue sentence saying "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting". It seems to me like Seth Linder was filling in the gaps to try and make sense of the inaudible parts of the tape. But I really want to know what you are hearing, Caz. Please confirm what you can actually hear.

Just looking at the wider context. I couldn't hear the name of Dorothy Wright being mentioned until Mike starts telling his story of writing for Celebrity at around the 21 minute mark. Again, I wonder if Seth Linder got confused when he said at page 152 of your book that Gray saw the name Dorothy Wright on the tape of an interview. [I haven't put it in the transcript but I think I can hear the word "blank" being said shortly before 18:52 which could be a reference to a cassette tape.] According to Seth Linder Gray says "I've seen that Y somewhere else". I don't want to say that's wrong, although to me, if anything, it sounds like Gray says "I've seen that line before". Admittedly that would be a bit of a strange thing to say. As I've noted, at 19:06 it sounds like Gray asks Barrett who wrote the manuscript and, while I cannot be certain, I do feel that I can hear the name Anne then being mentioned.

We can see that Mike then goes on to tell a similar story about the origins of the diary that he was to tell in April 1999. There is some consistency for you.

But if we assume that Mike was saying "fifty fifty" there is no way in my view that he can be said to be saying this in response to a statement from Gray: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's her handwriting". As I've said, the only thing I can hear that's anything like this is "you wrote that, she wrote the manuscript". It's not clear to me what "that" could be but it seems that Gray has seen some handwriting which he thinks is Mike's and then accuses him of writing the manuscript to which Mike possibly says that Anne wrote the manuscript. Whatever is going on it's not anything like as clear as Seth Linder and now you are portraying it. There is no basis, in my opinion, to say that Mike was claiming that he and Anne jointly wrote the manuscript, fifty fifty. On the basis of what I can hear on the tape with my own ears it's simply not possible to say that this is what is happening.

Now it's possible that a better transcript can be prepared and I invite anyone, especially Ike, to collaborate with me in producing a definitive one of this passage. But if you, Caz, have a better copy of the tape in which you can hear more than is possible to discern on the Casebook version can you please provide it to Casebook? If we are creating a "record" as you say we are, we surely need to be accurate and have the best possible recording available.

p.s. I don't want to get drawn into other aspects of the recordings because the issue at hand is the "fifty fifty" comment but I had a listen to the part of the tape of 7th/8th November where one can hear the words "we had 1990 the other day" and, once again, I challenge the accuracy of the transcription you've put forward but, as we know Mike got confused by dates, it seems of no importance or significance. If you want to discuss other parts of the recordings I would suggest it's best to do it in separate posts because it's too distracting packing everything into one post.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

What is it that you say is making it increasingly clear that Mike was confusing Anne writing the diary manuscript with her typing the transcript?

It's the difference between the evidence on record of the Barretts having prepared the typed transcript of the diary [which you can check for yourself here on casebook] for Mike to take with the handwritten document to London on 13th April 1992, and what Mike claimed was a fraudulent act of having created the diary itself.

The transcript either looks like it was typed up from a handwritten original, because that's what it is, or the Barretts gave themselves the added task of making it look 'right', if it had to be adapted from an original typescript of their own creation.

When Mike claimed in his affidavit that it took eleven days from start to finish to create the diary, he might just as well have been thinking of the transcription process from handwritten original to typed version for Doreen and Shirley to work from, mixing truth with lies - or fact with fantasy to be kinder - thus giving his forgery account an air of credibility. Their daughter was far more likely to have been allowed to stay in the same room to witness the transcript being prepared from the diary itself, than if her Mum was busy writing out the text by hand from a typescript, which then had to be adapted to make it appear like an innocent transcribing job.

Mike was being crystal clear over multiple days that Anne wrote the manuscript.

I also posted an extract from what he said in 1999 when he was insistent that the diary was in Anne's handwriting.

And predictably, Herlock, you don't feel any need to ask yourself if Mike may have been motivated to lie about this, again and again?

Also, isn't it eleven days that Mike said it took to write the diary, not ten? What are the eleven days over which you saying the transcript was typed? From when to when?

The 'ten' days relates to a newspaper article, featuring one of Mike's forgery claims, where he allegedly spent those ten days tapping out the text on his word processor. In his affidavit this becomes eleven days 'in all':

'...at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting...'

'...Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline....'

If Mike was telling his usual porkies, but wanted to give his account the semblance of truth, he could have based it on the following reality check, which I have taken the liberty of reading between the lines:

'...at first we tried it with me doing the typing, but we realised - and I must emphasise this - my typing was hopeless [Anne's words], so it had to be Anne's typing...'

'Anne and I started to prepare a transcript from the diary when we both knew my trip to London would be going ahead. I dictated the words to Anne who typed them up and thus we "translated" the Diary of Jack the Ripper. There was a witness to this, our young daughter Caroline.'

In Mike's final days, it was all change again, when he tried to take sole credit for 'translating' the diary's contents using the word processor and claimed that Anne had had nothing to do with it. He was no longer claiming that he or Anne had written the diary; his only concern was to go down in history as the person who had single-handedly transcribed it. And even that was a lie.

If Mike had been blessed with more wealth and power to sell 'alternative facts' to anyone willing to buy, he could have been dangerous. What I find odd is that anyone would freely admit that they are still buying into Mike's 'alternative' diary 'facts'.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just for the record...

The tape labelled 6th November [a Sunday] features Mike's "fifty-fifty" claim at just before the 20 minute mark. I tracked it down by having Inside Story propped open at page 152 while listening. Alan Gray has just said to Mike that: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting." I can then hear Mike saying: "Ah ah ah ah ah, it was fifty-fifty."

On page 154, Seth recounts the events of the following day, Monday 7th November, when Alan and Mike are able to go to Outhwaite & Litherland, but Mike has given different years for his supposed auction attendance, initially claiming it was in 1987 - which was before the Barretts moved to Goldie Street and Mike met Devereux. Alan says: "Now we've had another date. We had 1990 the other day."

It would appear likely that Alan used the same tape for both encounters with Mike, while confusingly writing only the one date on the original label. If this is the case, there will be a natural break when they part company on 6th and meet up again on 7th. This may also be clear from the context.

Seth continues: 'It now transpired that Anne alone, not Barrett, bought the job lot which included the journal and compass.'

Alan tries and fails to get a coherent account out of Mike, who then claims to have been to O & L himself three times before, and claims that on the second occasion the girl in the office confirmed that the name Williams and their address were on record. Strangely - or perhaps not - Alan decides to leave it for the day and plans to make an official approach later to confirm Mike's account. I don't recall any evidence that he did this.

So was Mike lying to Alan about Anne attending the auction and bidding for the photo album herself? If so, what on earth was that all about? Or was he lying in his affidavit two months later, when describing his personal experience of the same thing?

Or was he lying every time his lips moved, when making claims about when and how the diary ended up in his hands?

Love,

Caz
X