The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[caz]

Cheers Roger,

I just got this online:

Confabulation is a memory error that causes someone to create false memories. It's a symptom of other conditions that affect memory, such as brain damage, dementia, or Korsakoff syndrome. People who confabulate believe their false memories are true.

This certainly fits with Mike claiming to remember attending an auction sale, which was conducted in a way that the auctioneers concerned didn't recognise.

Perhaps he also 'remembered' Anne dropping a real kidney on the diary - until he remembered it differently and connected it with his own kidney problems.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

In one of the Radio Mersey interviews, Shirley Harrison refers to obtaining a statement from the hospital where Barrett was diagnosed with 'confabulation.' She's speaking loosely, though, because confabulation is a symptom and not a diagnosis.

I think it is the 'Blake' edition of her book (which I no longer own) that she identifies Mike's diagnosis as Korsakoff Syndrome. This came after Barrett was hospitalized in the summer of 1994, fully two years after he came to London with the Diary.

There is no evidence he was this far gone in 1991-92. Indeed, if I recall, Paul Begg spoke somewhat favorably of Barrett in the early days, 1992-1993.

Am I being dim, or is it not more important to note that Mike was 'this far gone' in the summer of 1994, when he was coming out with the fantasy that he had written the diary himself?

[caz]

It's interesting how Caroline Brown always accuses me of "reading Anne's mind" or some such rubbish, when mainly I just point out Anne's own words, contradictory statements and behavior---behavior that points directly at her own complicity.

Yeah, I'm sure Palmer considers himself a magnet for women who feel a strange need to confess all by giving him cryptic clues that nobody else gets.

Yet, like all sanctimonious pretenders, Caroline has no problem with using her own telepathy to read Anne's mind, like this doozy from back on February 25th:

"Assuming Chris [Jones] has yet to identify the diary author, may I humbly suggest that he would be looking for someone who knows a fair bit about the psychology of self-destructive self-deceivers with addictive personalities. Anne Graham may have had some knowledge of this, but would surely have found the subject matter too unbearably close to home for comfort - namely her home life with her husband."


Too unbearably close for comfort?

I don't need telepathy to recognise Mike as a self-destructive self-deceiver with an addictive personality. And Anne knew him better than anyone in 1992, when she had supposedly been up to her elbows turning James Maybrick into an even more extreme example.

It's not for me to prove she would not have been whistling while she worked, but for Palmer to prove she actually did it, either for Mike or with him.

Has there ever been a more ridiculous statement made, even on the Diary threads?

How on earth does Caroline Brown know what Anne was willing to write or think back in 1991-2? Was she taking bicycle trips with Anne in Cheshire?

Oh, very good. Nearly as good as my quip about Palmer joining the Barretts on their cycling tours of the moon.

And what fictional writer DOESN'T lean heavily on their own personal experiences--however painful they may be--when writing a piece of fiction?

Hang on a minute. I must have missed the evidence that Anne was a fictional writer. I do hope Palmer isn't using the diary as his only example, because that would be as circular as one of his tours round the moon. He don't 'alf get carried away by his flights of fancy.

Does Clairvoyant Caz envision that Anne was such a shrinking violet that she couldn't write about an arsenic taking Jack the Ripper because her own husband was an alcoholic?

If Mike was being half as abusive towards Anne in 1992 as Palmer would have us believe, I do rather doubt she'd have had the urge to help him write about a serial mutilator of women, but I admit that may just be me.

SERIOUSLY? If anything, that only increases my belief that Anne was involved in the hoax.

This just shows how belief often gets stronger when it's all someone has. It's a way of compensating for a total lack of evidence. With evidence, belief doesn't get stronger; it becomes redundant.

How Anne must have suffered when co-writing her biography of Florence Maybrick as she remembered her ex-husband's own drinking. I don't know how the poor woman held up. (And if I recall, this same shrinking violet also began researching a book on the tasteful theme of Victorian baby farming).

Hmmm, I thought this was after she had dumped the loser and had begun to make a new life for herself.

But I must stop or I'll once again be accused of being a misogynistic, sexist mind reader for suggesting Anne's involvement.

Did someone actually accuse Palmer of this? Wow, there's a fine line between brave and foolhardy, but if Palmer is just reading between the lines again, as he does with Anne Graham, perhaps it says more about him than the women he seeks to diminish. I ran his 'intimidated' and 'hysterical' description of me past my better half last evening and he was amazed because he thought personal attacks were not allowed. I told him I didn't take it that way, because Palmer is such a piss poor judge that I would have been more worried if he had complimented me on my sanguine nature.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with me, Herlock?



Your time - and mine - might be more usefully employed if you did some of your own digging through all the material available here, before you next ask to be spoon fed, whether it's by me, Ike or Scott.

I don't want to be ungenerous, but I'm afraid I just don't have anything like the amount of spare time you evidently have for posting on these boards - including subjects where you claim to know what the truth is.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I really don’t know why my posts appear to be annoying/irritating you because that’s not my intention. But I'll remind you that yesterday you said to Scotty that he should never be accused of gaslighting, adding, "Let me know if you are, and who is accusing you, and I'll whip out the metaphorical switchblade." Well it was me who Scotty was talking about, although my actual claim was that he was inventing the idea that Mike Barrett was suffering from WK syndrome in March 1992. Not wanting to be cut with your metaphorical switchblade, I asked if you could assist as to when, if at all, Mike had been diagnosed with WK syndrome. You said you had no idea. So that's what it had to do with you.

Once again, I regret to say, I've politely asked a poster for evidence to support one of their assertions and they've failed to do so. I've lost count of how many times this has happened in the short time I've been posting on diary matters. On most occasions, there has turned out to be no evidence, just like when Ike told me there was something said on a tape which turned out not to exist. At least Ike gave me a rough date. You seem to be suggesting that I should listen to all 15 tapes to find something that, for all I know, might not exist.

I'm not asking you to do my research or spoon feed me. I'm asking for a reference so that I can check your research. Surely that’s how it works, isn't it Caz? But if you refuse to provide a reference, isn’t it the case that I'd be reluctantly forced to conclude that the exchange between Gray and Barrett that you mentioned either doesn't exist or has been inaccurately summarised?

I can’t understand what I am doing or saying which isn’t a part of everyday forum discussion/debate Caz. It’s not my intention to try to annoy you.

[caz]

The correct answer is the truth, naturally, Caz.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't know the answer to my question because a couple of days ago, after I said to Scott: "there is absolutely no evidence that Mike suffered from this [Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome] in March 1992, no doctor diagnosed it, and, let's face it, you've basically invented it", he told me categorically that "Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome." Now he seems to be complaining of being accused of gaslighting even though he doesn't appear to be able to substantiate this claim with any evidence, and I would have thought that if it had happened, you would know all about it. When doing a search on CB, I discovered that Ike posted on 18 August 2019, in the thread "Acquiring a Victorian Diary" (#1746), that he couldn't recall Shirley Harrison having ever confirmed that Mike had been diagnosed with Korsakoff's syndrome and said, "Until we have confirmation that Mike was formally diagnosed with KS, we should not be building a case upon it." That seems sensible but Scott seems to be building his case on Mike Barrett not being capable of creating the diary in March 1992 on a formal diagnosis of Korsakoff Syndrome. Maybe you can help him out because he seemed a bit unhappy when I suggested he'd invented it.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with me, Herlock?

As for your question to me on a different subject, I haven't listened to all the tapes. The only reason I listened to some of them was because Ike told me that Barrett had said on one of them in early November 1994 that he and Anne each wrote half the diary but, upon searching the tapes from that period in painful detail, it turned out not to be there, despite Ike having told me categorically that it was. Are you able to identify what tape the exchange you refer to can be found on? If so, I'll happily check it out.

Your time - and mine - might be more usefully employed if you did some of your own digging through all the material available here, before you next ask to be spoon fed, whether it's by me, Ike or Scott.

I don't want to be ungenerous, but I'm afraid I just don't have anything like the amount of spare time you evidently have for posting on these boards - including subjects where you claim to know what the truth is.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lombro2]

Or fencing a diary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -- I just found this in the archive, from a post I wrote in 2019:

"In part 3 of the "Maybrick" podcasts, starting around the 5:45 minute mark, Shirley Harrison, who is speaking on Radio Merseyside, states that Barrett was "diagnosed" with "confabulation" due to his heavy alcoholism, and she has a "statement from the hospital" that proves this. Of course, one isn't diagnosed with confabulation--confabulation is a symptom. She means Korsakoff's syndrome. (She reveals the specific disease elsewhere). Shirley states this statement dates to "two years" ago, and since her Merseyside talk is in September 1995, this would be in 1993. But I suspect Shirley is talking loosely and the hospital's signed statement actually dates to June/July 1994 shortly after Mike's confession to Brough. The reason Harrison and Mike's lawyers would be interested in getting a signed statement of the diagnosis, other than any humanitarian motive, would be to "explain" Mike's confession to Brough as drunk talk. I don't recall if this statement was published in the Blake update."

One would have to recheck the Blake edition to see if Shirley gives a more specific date, but like I say, I no longer have a copy. I'm 99% certain the diagnosis was made when Barrett was in the Windsor Unit of Fazakerley Hospital for alcoholism in late June 1994/early July but check my memory if you can drum-up a copy.

Hi Roger,

A friend of mine does have the Blake edition and he has just emailed me back to tell me that on page 286, after she quotes Barrett's solicitor as saying in June 1994 that his client was receiving treatment in the Windsor Clinic, Harrison says: "The drinking had led to a condition known as 'confabulation' where the individual fills in memory gaps with fictitious stories that appear completely real to them". She doesn't mention Korsakoff's syndrome but I note that the Alzheimer's Association says that, "Korsakoff syndrome is a chronic memory disorder caused by severe deficiency of thiamine (vitamin B-1). Korsakoff syndrome is most commonly caused by alcohol misuse, but certain other conditions also can cause the syndrome."

This all seems to confirm what I thought which is that to the extent there was an actual diagnosis by a doctor, which seems to me to be uncertain in the absence of seeing the letter that Shirley Harrison claims to possess, it was following many months of excessive alcohol intake by Mike Barrett and that there is no warrant to suggest that he was similarly affected in March 1992. It cannot, therefore, be put forward as a reason why Mike would have been incapable, with the assistance of his wife, of forging the diary.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock -- I just found this in the archive, from a post I wrote in 2019:

"In part 3 of the "Maybrick" podcasts, starting around the 5:45 minute mark, Shirley Harrison, who is speaking on Radio Merseyside, states that Barrett was "diagnosed" with "confabulation" due to his heavy alcoholism, and she has a "statement from the hospital" that proves this. Of course, one isn't diagnosed with confabulation--confabulation is a symptom. She means Korsakoff's syndrome. (She reveals the specific disease elsewhere). Shirley states this statement dates to "two years" ago, and since her Merseyside talk is in September 1995, this would be in 1993. But I suspect Shirley is talking loosely and the hospital's signed statement actually dates to June/July 1994 shortly after Mike's confession to Brough. The reason Harrison and Mike's lawyers would be interested in getting a signed statement of the diagnosis, other than any humanitarian motive, would be to "explain" Mike's confession to Brough as drunk talk. I don't recall if this statement was published in the Blake update."

One would have to recheck the Blake edition to see if Shirley gives a more specific date, but like I say, I no longer have a copy. I'm 99% certain the diagnosis was made when Barrett was in the Windsor Unit of Fazakerley Hospital for alcoholism in late June 1994/early July but check my memory if you can drum-up a copy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no idea, Herlock, of the relevance of your question - or what the correct answer should be.

Would it help to make a forger out of a man who once tried and failed to steal an old lady's handbag?

Remember, it's not my theory that Mike forged anything. If the evidence isn't there, it isn't there.

By the way, while I have you here, did you listen carefully to the Alan Gray tape where Mike slipped up over who was meant to have authored the diary? Or were you one of those who only heard the words without registering their potential significance? Simon and Garfunkel sang about it: "People hearing without listening".

Mike was in the long drawn out process of persuading Alan Gray that he had composed the diary text, when he inexplicably said that Bernard Ryan's book had got a particular detail correct because Maybrick had confirmed it in his own diary back in 1888. Mike was using the diary as his primary source to check if Ryan had got his facts right.

Alan Gray, being Alan Gray, didn't pick up on this beauty, but one can't really blame him, considering the very merry dance he was being led in real time. But it's a real giveaway moment for anyone who doesn't suffer from selective hearing in the here and now.

Love,

Caz
X

The correct answer is the truth, naturally, Caz.

I'm a bit surprised that you don't know the answer to my question because a couple of days ago, after I said to Scott: "there is absolutely no evidence that Mike suffered from this [Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome] in March 1992, no doctor diagnosed it, and, let's face it, you've basically invented it", he told me categorically that "Barrett was diagnosed with the syndrome." Now he seems to be complaining of being accused of gaslighting even though he doesn't appear to be able to substantiate this claim with any evidence, and I would have thought that if it had happened, you would know all about it. When doing a search on CB, I discovered that Ike posted on 18 August 2019, in the thread "Acquiring a Victorian Diary" (#1746), that he couldn't recall Shirley Harrison having ever confirmed that Mike had been diagnosed with Korsakoff's syndrome and said, "Until we have confirmation that Mike was formally diagnosed with KS, we should not be building a case upon it." That seems sensible but Scott seems to be building his case on Mike Barrett not being capable of creating the diary in March 1992 on a formal diagnosis of Korsakoff Syndrome. Maybe you can help him out because he seemed a bit unhappy when I suggested he'd invented it.

As for your question to me on a different subject, I haven't listened to all the tapes. The only reason I listened to some of them was because Ike told me that Barrett had said on one of them in early November 1994 that he and Anne each wrote half the diary but, upon searching the tapes from that period in painful detail, it turned out not to be there, despite Ike having told me categorically that it was. Are you able to identify what tape the exchange you refer to can be found on? If so, I'll happily check it out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

In one of the Radio Mersey interviews, Shirley Harrison refers to obtaining a statement from the hospital where Barrett was diagnosed with 'confabulation.' She's speaking loosely, though, because confabulation is a symptom and not a diagnosis.

I think it is the 'Blake' edition of her book (which I no longer own) that she identifies Mike's diagnosis as Korsakoff Syndrome. This came after Barrett was hospitalized in the summer of 1994, fully two years after he came to London with the Diary.

There is no evidence he was this far gone in 1991-92. Indeed, if I recall, Paul Begg spoke somewhat favorably of Barrett in the early days, 1992-1993.

Cheers Roger,

I just got this online:

Confabulation is a memory error that causes someone to create false memories. It's a symptom of other conditions that affect memory, such as brain damage, dementia, or Korsakoff syndrome. People who confabulate believe their false memories are true.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz,

Perhaps you could help out Scott (and the rest of us) by answering this one simple question: When was Michael Barrett diagnosed with Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome?

Hi Herlock,

In one of the Radio Mersey interviews, Shirley Harrison refers to obtaining a statement from the hospital where Barrett was diagnosed with 'confabulation.' She's speaking loosely, though, because confabulation is a symptom and not a diagnosis.

I think it is the 'Blake' edition of her book (which I no longer own) that she identifies Mike's diagnosis as Korsakoff Syndrome. This came after Barrett was hospitalized in the summer of 1994, fully two years after he came to London with the Diary.

There is no evidence he was this far gone in 1991-92. Indeed, if I recall, Paul Begg spoke somewhat favorably of Barrett in the early days, 1992-1993.

[rjpalmer]

It's interesting how Caroline Brown always accuses me of "reading Anne's mind" or some such rubbish, when mainly I just point out Anne's own words, contradictory statements and behavior---behavior that points directly at her own complicity.

Yet, like all sanctimonious pretenders, Caroline has no problem with using her own telepathy to read Anne's mind, like this doozy from back on February 25th:

"Assuming Chris [Jones] has yet to identify the diary author, may I humbly suggest that he would be looking for someone who knows a fair bit about the psychology of self-destructive self-deceivers with addictive personalities. Anne Graham may have had some knowledge of this, but would surely have found the subject matter too unbearably close to home for comfort - namely her home life with her husband."


Too unbearably close for comfort?

Has there ever been a more ridiculous statement made, even on the Diary threads?

How on earth does Caroline Brown know what Anne was willing to write or think back in 1991-2? Was she taking bicycle trips with Anne in Cheshire?

And what fictional writer DOESN'T lean heavily on their own personal experiences--however painful they may be--when writing a piece of fiction?

Does Clairvoyant Caz envision that Anne was such a shrinking violet that she couldn't write about an arsenic taking Jack the Ripper because her own husband was an alcoholic?

SERIOUSLY? If anything, that only increases my belief that Anne was involved in the hoax.

How Anne must have suffered when co-writing her biography of Florence Maybrick as she remembered her ex-husband's own drinking. I don't know how the poor woman held up. (And if I recall, this same shrinking violet also began researching a book on the tasteful theme of Victorian baby farming).

But I must stop or I'll once again be accused of being a misogynistic, sexist mind reader for suggesting Anne's involvement.

Martin Fido--who by all accounts was a kind and delightful man--must have been a similar sexist mind reader for suspecting Anne.

If the Diary Defenders can't come up with any more coherent arguments than this, I won't be changing my own mind anytime soon.

[caz]

I have no idea, Herlock, of the relevance of your question - or what the correct answer should be.

Would it help to make a forger out of a man who once tried and failed to steal an old lady's handbag?

Remember, it's not my theory that Mike forged anything. If the evidence isn't there, it isn't there.

By the way, while I have you here, did you listen carefully to the Alan Gray tape where Mike slipped up over who was meant to have authored the diary? Or were you one of those who only heard the words without registering their potential significance? Simon and Garfunkel sang about it: "People hearing without listening".

Mike was in the long drawn out process of persuading Alan Gray that he had composed the diary text, when he inexplicably said that Bernard Ryan's book had got a particular detail correct because Maybrick had confirmed it in his own diary back in 1888. Mike was using the diary as his primary source to check if Ryan had got his facts right.

Alan Gray, being Alan Gray, didn't pick up on this beauty, but one can't really blame him, considering the very merry dance he was being led in real time. But it's a real giveaway moment for anyone who doesn't suffer from selective hearing in the here and now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

You ought never to be accused of 'gaslighting', Scotty. Let me know if you are, and who is accusing you, and I'll whip out the ol' metaphorical switchblade.

You are free to speculate to your heart's content, because you admit it would remain unproven in the absence of new information with the power to overturn what we already have.

Barrett sceptics are the ones who stand accused of 'gaslighting', but we must be pretty rubbish at it as I see no victims.

I would feel sorry for anyone repeatedly told by a Mike Barrett believer that the sceptics are lying or crazy, because in extreme circumstances they could be wound up like a clockwork toy and reduced to parroting, over and over again, one-liners such as:

'The Barretts created the diary'.

'The Barretts created the diary'.

'The Barretts created the diary'.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Perhaps you could help out Scott (and the rest of us) by answering this one simple question: When was Michael Barrett diagnosed with Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome?

[caz]

Hi Scott.

Do you notice anything about your theory that Billy Graham and Tony Devereux wrote the diary?

Caroline Brown never attacks it.

Why?

Because she's not intimidated by it. It's not worth her time of day.

Once again, Palmer claims the ability to read a woman's mind and proves himself incapable.

I have asked Scott on numerous occasions to look at what evidence there is for his theories, and I have reminded him that there is no independent evidence that Devereux ever imagined that a diary supposedly by Jack the Ripper might emerge after his death.

But I'm not 'intimidated' by anyone's theory, and I'm sorry to disappoint Palmer, if he thought I could be intimidated by his. It's yet another indication of how little he knows the real me - let alone the real Anne Graham.

She smirks at the idea of someone bothering to challenge the Lewis Carroll theory. Another obvious dud, so why bother with it?

I don't recall that one. Is Palmer perhaps thinking back to the days of a poster called Karoline Leach?

So why is she nearly hysterical when I suggest that Anne Graham wrote the Maybrick Diary and exerts so much effort trying to dismiss the idea as ridiculous?

Inquiring minds want to know.

How many inquiring minds would that be, I wonder?

Palmer is surely misusing the word 'hysterical' to describe me in this context, unless he means hysterical with laughter at his ever more inept attempts to shove Anne Graham into an ill-fitting forger's frame.

His use of 'intimidated' and 'nearly hysterical', to describe the effect he thinks his theory has on me, is duly noted. I'm not remotely concerned for myself, but I would be concerned for anyone I knew personally if they were to use inappropriate, borderline offensive language like that about anyone in my company.

This leads me to wonder if Palmer enjoys the thought of Anne Graham being similarly intimidated by his theory - which remains as baseless as it ever was, despite all the posturing - or perhaps even a little 'terrified' by what he has in mind.

Well, I don't suppose Anne cares any more than I do what Palmer thinks, so maybe he should be left in peace to enjoy such thoughts. What harm can they do, stuck inside his own head?