The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[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

[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.

[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.