Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[rjpalmer]

Not happy. I bend over backwards and you throw it all back in my face, undigested.

No, Caz. I'm afraid you're wrong, and you misunderstood my point. You might want to follow your own advice and go back and re-read my post again...SLOWLY.

I have fully "digested" what you're saying. But all the above notes about the discussions between Harrison and Barrett were recorded in OCTOBER 1994.

I AGREE that she sent Barrett "back" [sic?] to the Library to get the page number at that time. (Whether Mike had gone in the first place might be debatable, so it may only be "back" from Shirley's perspective; she believes Mike's account of having been at the library, but that doesn’t prove that he was telling the truth).

To repeat: Shirley's claim that she had sent Barrett to the CLL in the first place, to discover the quote, is nowhere to be found in these October 1994 notes; it was a claim not recorded until her letter to Keith Skinner on 14 September 1995, which is 11 months after these events. (See below. Taken from your post #472).

So to repeat: the notes dating to Oct 1994 don't really explicitly state that Barrett had been sent to the library (the "first" time) on Shirley's orders. All they state is that Barrett told her he found the quote at the library (he could have been lying) and she told him to "go back" some three days later, because he didn't give the page number. This is entirely different from the claim that Barrett had been specifically asked to search the CLL by Shirley. Indeed, we are elsewhere told that Barrett went on his own volition because he had been humiliated due to his drink problem.

Now do you get it? I am only trying to establish that Barrett was telling two different sets of people two different tales on or around 30 September 1994. Sheesh! RP

- - - -
Thursday 14^th September 1995....

KS adds note: MB told SH and Sally on 22^nd June 1994 that he was going to say he forged diary – then, after Brough article and prior to paperback coming out, MB calmed down and SH told him to do something constructive – ie. source 'O costly…' quote.

RJP comments: This shows Harrison's memory of having Barrett 'do something constructive' (find the quote) dates to 14 September 1995, unless she has a CONTEMPORARY note from 22 June 1994 proving that Mike had been given this task. Indeed, her contemporary notes (from Oct 1994) indicated Barrett found it 'by chance.' How hard is this, Caz? What is there to dispute? I am only adhering to a strict analysis of the original sources. Isn’t this what we are supposed to do?

I am suggesting that on 14 Sept 1995 Shirley could have been remembering having asked Barrett to go to the library to find the quote (because SHE DID), but this was on 3 Oct 1994 and not in June 1994. I only say this because that is all that Keith's documentation shows.

Ciao.

PPS. My guess is only 3 people in the entire world would bother to analyze the tedium written above: me, Keith Skinner, and David B.

[caz]

It's of course entirely possible that the volume Barrett eventually handed over to Gray, and now in Keith's possession, isn't the missing volume from Jenny's collection, if Barrett had lost or destroyed the original incriminating copy.

Oh and I gave you that line myself in another recent post, so it's hardly an original thought. But it leaves you today, as it would have left Mike back in December 1994, with no evidence at all that Volume 2 was ever in the 'set' allegedly sent to him, to be held back or fetched back from Jenny. If Mike did have to hotfoot it round there to collect the 'relevant' volume, in order to phone Shirley with his bombshell, it would have been Volume 6, because that was the one he thought was 'relevant' when he spoke to her.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Surely this is game, set, and match?

As far as I am concerned, the note must refer to Harrison speaking directly with Jenny--if it had been Barrett, why would Mike have referred to stiffing his estranged girlfriend for seventy pounds? It's not something the average bloke would want to admit to.

Funny, I got the impression that Mike left Jenny richer to the tune of £70 when he took the book away. I suppose it's the way one reads these scraps of information, jotted down for the benefit of the person making the note. Maybe you are right though. Mike may well have touched her for some drink money if he was broke at that point.

I also still see no explanation from Keith or anyone else why Harrison would have stated in Oct 1994 that Barrett had found the quote "by chance" if she had specifically sent Barrett to the CLL to hunt down the quote. Her memory of having sent him on this task wasn't recorded until nearly a year later (14 Sept 1995) and it seems obvious that she is misremembering sending Mike to the CLL to get a photocopy of the correct page AFTER he had already revealed the correct citation over the phone. Any comment she made at the time of these events must carry far more weight then any recollection recorded a year later.

To be fair, I'd imagine only Shirley would be in a position to explain that one, and why would you believe she was remembering it accurately if you were to ask her today, since you believe her memory was unreliable all those years ago? But what about your own memory? I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure I posted the following timeline entries very recently, which make it obvious enough that Shirley was not misremembering a year on, but making the comment at the time of the events, that she had to send Mike back to the library to find the reference, after he mistakenly thought the quote came from Volume 6, The Victorians:

Monday 3^rd October 1994
KS notes ansafone message from SH:
Mike seems to have found “Oh Costly Intercourse of Death” – quite by chance.
Is in the Sphere Companion To English Literature Vol 6 (MB thinks) – did not even make a note of it!
Source: copy of notes by KS, 3^rd - 12^th October 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

Thursday 6^th October 1994
Fax sent to SH by L’Pool City Library, with page from Sphere volume containing ‘O costly…’ quote.
Source: copy of fax (CAM/KS/1994)

Tuesday 11^th October 1994
KS conversation with SH:
MB v. upset (w/b Sept 26^th 1994) by remarks in p/back about him being alcoholic…determined to do something serious about this he spends week in L’pool library trying to find source of O Costly Intercourse (p231 of Shirley’s p/back)…
Finds it but does not make a note of it. Phones Duocrave on Fri 30^th Sept…
Around this time his mother has read p/back – upset – throws MB out of house
Mon Oct 3^rd – MB phones Shirley – Shirley tells MB to go back to library and find the reference… By Oct 6^th Shirley has reference.
Source: copy of notes by KS, 3^rd - 12^th October 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)

While I appreciate there has been an awful lot to absorb of late, I would also appreciate it if you took a little more time absorbing it, considering how much more time I am taking over providing the information in the first place!

Love,

Caz
X

Yep, thought so. I posted these entries for you a week ago, on 7th May. See #435

Not happy. I bend over backwards and you throw it all back in my face, undigested.

[erobitha]

Hi erobitha,

I don't believe Feldman 'concocted' anything with Anne. I simply think she told him what he was waiting and expecting to hear, and convinced him as much as he had already convinced himself. He ruined his health and his marriage, and threw good money after bad, chasing an impossible dream, not spending a weekend concocting a lie with Anne, which would have required no actual research, just the hubris to get enough people believing it.

There, never let it be said [not by Mandy Rice-J Palmer at least] that I only ever challenge the opinions of Barrett hoax believers.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the comments.

I trust your reading of the situation more so than mine from a distance, as you have more experience of all the players involved.

Regards,

James

[rjpalmer]

Hi Observer - I'm going to leave it in your capable hands to duke it out with the believers, but one small note about my own beliefs.

You could be correct that Albert was involved in the hoax of the watch—it certainly is a reasonable and plausible assumption-- but here’s my current thinking, which, incidentally, keeps Albert out of the loop…to some degree.

From my reading of Feldman, Robbie seems to have had a lot of extra time on his hands. I reckon Robbie “discovered” the scratches while he was visiting Albert’s house one afternoon. Discovered them while holding a corroded brass etching tool, if you get my drift.

He shows the markings to Albert.

Albert is intrigued, but also skeptical. He knows Robbie has a history of getting involved in dodgy schemes, so he takes the watch to the college in order to get a second opinion. Here he stages his own “discovery” of the scratches, to distance Robbie from the timepiece, knowing that his brother would fall under immediate suspicion if it was revealed that he had been the one who had first noticed the markings, because, alas, Robbie had been recently released from the penitentiary.

So now everyone believes it was Albert, and not Robbie, that first found the markings. In this scenario, the only falsehood Albert ever committed was not fully disclosing how and by whom the marking were first noticed--he was protecting his brother.

Meanwhile, Albert’s skepticism starts to wane after the tests by Turgoose and Wild, and he becomes a ‘true believer’…to a degree. But even now, he knows Robbie’s ways and can’t help but notice how keen Robbie is to sell the watch. During the negotiations with the Texan Robert E. Davis, all the old doubts resurface, and Albert pulls the plug. He doesn’t like the possibility of a fraud being perpetrated and refuses to sell. His reluctance reveals his doubts and fears. In brief, he has decided to keep the watch as a pleasant conversation piece. His professed belief in its authenticity over the ensuing years is just another way of saying that he believes his beloved younger brother didn’t try to scam him.

Which is an entirely human and forgivable belief.

That is how I see it.

To borrow from what Macnaghten said of Druitt, “I have but little doubt that Robbie’s own family suspected that he was the hoaxer.”

As did Barrett’s. We are told in one of the notes above that Barrett's own mom threw him out of the house after she had read Harrison’s book... And no one knows us and our naughty ways like dear own mum.

[rjpalmer]

Jenny still has Sphere volumes minus the relevant one which Mike took when he left + £70!
KS asked Shirley to see whether we could get hold of these books from Jenny.

Surely this is game, set, and match?

As far as I am concerned, the note must refer to Harrison speaking directly with Jenny--if it had been Barrett, why would Mike have referred to stiffing his estranged girlfriend for seventy pounds? It's not something the average bloke would want to admit to. And why would Keith have asked Shirley to get hold of these books from Jenny, if she had only been speaking to Mike? Wouldn't Keith have written something along the lines of "has Shirley confirmed this with Jenny?," because, by now, Keith and everyone else would have been more than leery of taking anything Mike said on faith without the appropriate confirmation.

And, accord to "Ripper Diary" page 145: "Harrison phoned Barrett's friend Jenny Morrison, who corroborated his story..."

No, this must be Shirley confirming these events with Jenny Morrison.

So, to conclude, Jenny Morrison had a complete seven volume set of Sphere's (except Vol 2, the "Crashaw" volume which Mike had either held back or fetched back), and these she had received from Mike the previous summer (1994) which entirely jives with her account of the books having been "too advanced" for her son--the graduate level Sphere histories certainly falling with that category.

Thus Barrett already owned the volume before the CLL charade in late Sept 1994.

It's of course entirely possible that the volume Barrett eventually handed over to Gray, and now in Keith's possession, isn't the missing volume from Jenny's collection, if Barrett had lost or destroyed the original incriminating copy.

I also still see no explanation from Keith or anyone else why Harrison would have stated in Oct 1994 that Barrett had found the quote "by chance" if she had specifically sent Barrett to the CLL to hunt down the quote. Her memory of having sent him on this task wasn't recorded until nearly a year later (14 Sept 1995) and it seems obvious that she is misremembering sending Mike to the CLL to get a photocopy of the correct page AFTER he had already revealed the correct citation over the phone. Any comment she made at the time of these events must carry far more weight then any recollection recorded a year later.

Ok, back to the backseat.

[caz]

Everyone of them remembers scratches in the back? Yes, but there are scratches to the back of the watch in a neater hand than those associated with the "Maybrick" scratches, that is they are not associated with the Maybrick group...

May I just stop you there, Observer? Which 'neater' scratches are you referring to here? None of the scratches could be dated precisely, but the order in which they were made was easily determined, and the 'I am Jack' and 'J Maybrick' were made before any of the other discernible marks. Would it not have been obvious to anyone remembering these 'neater' scratches of yours, if they had vanished by the time the tests were conducted, and been replaced by the more crudely scratched Maybrick ones? You seem to be suggesting that the hoaxer removed every last trace of these 'neater' scratch marks before setting to work on a pristine surface, or they would have shown up in the tests beneath the hoaxed ones.

If the scratches you refer to are still there, and were remembered by 'everyone', as you say, then they are on top of the Maybrick scratches, which must have been there when the watch was sold.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Also lets look at the whiter than white Albert Johnston. If you believe that the watch came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House then that makes Albert Johnston a liar because he said he bought it from a jeweler in Chester.

Whoa there, Observer. It's a documented fact that Albert bought the watch from a jeweller in Wallasey on July 14th 1992, 3 months after the diary was first seen in London. How does that rule out the possibility that both were removed from Battlecrease House on March 9th that year?

If Albert created a hoax out of it the following year, how did he know the jeweller wouldn't be able to give it a perfect provenance going right back to whoever the prominent and professionally engraved initials JO had belonged to? Instead, it had been sold by a stranger, walking in off the street, so nobody knew a thing about its previous history. Lucky old Albert, eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I do not buy Anne Graham's story of the diary being her father's and handed down. I think Feldman was offering her a way to get something out of this whole debacle and between themselves concoted these theories with no basis in fact from any of the "evidence" I have seen.

Hi erobitha,

I don't believe Feldman 'concocted' anything with Anne. I simply think she told him what he was waiting and expecting to hear, and convinced him as much as he had already convinced himself. He ruined his health and his marriage, and threw good money after bad, chasing an impossible dream, not spending a weekend concocting a lie with Anne, which would have required no actual research, just the hubris to get enough people believing it.

There, never let it be said [not by Mandy Rice-J Palmer at least] that I only ever challenge the opinions of Barrett hoax believers.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I might have jumped the gun here, after having a brief look at the Diary I noticed the following words. Never the less. Un do. In tact.

When Mike Barrett wrote All ways in one of his confessions, perhaps he'd slipped subconsciously into Ripper Diary mode.

Interesting, Observer. I don't immediately recall those examples from the diary facsimile, but would like to see them again 'in the flesh' so to speak. Could you give me the page numbers please, or at least say roughly where you found them?

Thanks!

We do know that Mike had a penchant for peppering his conversations and correspondence with words or phrases from the diary, but that doesn't tell us much because he may only have picked up the habit after picking up and reading the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is an old saying in my neck of the woods: if a person is going to lie, they better have a good memory.

Oh the irony.

If we accept your take on the diary, R.J, Mike Barrett had a wonderful memory for a lie, but one like a sieve when it came to telling the truth.

PS to Ike. "Incontrovertible" thread, Post #5100. You said it was "inconceivable" that Kevin Whay didn't check the date 31 March 1992 in the O & L records. Yes it IS inconceivable that he wasn't asked to check that date ---but he wasn't, and by all appearances he didn't.

To be fair, R.J, I took that to be Ike's personal interpretation, and a minor one at that, in the great scheme of things. If Mike remembered getting the scrapbook at the end of March 1992, and told the truth about it to anyone investigating his story, then I too would find it inconceivable that Kevin Whay didn't check the records for the first quarter of that year, or wasn't asked to do so. But then I find it inconceivable that Mike's memory could have been so bad that he never so much as hinted at any date in 1992. Was he yanking everyone's chain, giving them all the wrong dates to avoid being nicked for forgery, or did he not get the scrapbook from O&L at all?

In short, either Mike recalled the 'truth' for once, when speaking to Harold Brough, or to Shirley, or to Doreen, or to Alan Gray [but made a big old mistake where it mattered most, in his affidavit], and said he attended the auction in 1992, in which case this would have been checked out, or he didn't, so it wasn't. Why would it be 'inconceivable' to you that Kevin Whay wasn't asked to check right up to April 1992, if Mike had given everyone different dates, ranging from 1987 to 1990, and nobody had any reason to suppose he had meant to say 1992, not even Melvin Harris? Where's the sense in clinging onto that affidavit for dear life, then blaming everyone else but Mike, for not instantly realising that his 'end of January 1990' could in fact be 'the end of March 1992'? That only came years later, after Keith had finally tracked down the advert which had produced the 1891 diary. But that was no thanks to Mike. He was the only one who knew when and where he obtained the scrapbook, but he failed to give anyone a straight story when it might have been possible to confirm or disprove it beyond all doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

You are most welcome, Steven. Sorry to overload you though, there's a lot to take in!

4) Or it was found and removed from the house on Riversdale Road, by an electrician who used the same pub as Mike [and lived on the same road as Tony had, up until his death], on the same day Mike phoned Doreen, using a false name, to tell her he had Jack the Ripper's diary. It can still be a modern hoax, if nobody knows where the old book was the day before.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz - fascinating stuff indeed.

It's truly amazing to have gradually revealed by genuine scrapbook insiders (pardon the obvious pun) such as yourself the level of archive detail which is available and which may not (generally speaking) have been ever in print before. It begs the question what The Good Lord Orsam and his Acolytes would make of it all?

By the way, I know a much quicker way to describe Option 4!!!!

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

You are most welcome, Steven. Sorry to overload you though, there's a lot to take in!

It's a modern mystery because the diary only surfaced in 1992, and the unanswered questions arise from four basic possibilities regarding where it was up until that point:

1) A modern hoax, as stated by Mike Barrett in his affidavit of January 5th 1995, taking the events back to whenever the idea first came to the three amigos, Tony Devereux, Anne and Mike. When did Mike first meet Tony, for instance? And how long before they became chummy enough to discuss forging Jack the Ripper's diary?

We could leave it there really, because where there are inconsistencies in his affidavit, as well as all around it, we have always been able to rely on some kind soul to help Mike out and come to his rescue with a detail which he never even hinted at himself, such as the very specific O&L auction held on March 31st 1992, and then make everything else fit round it. If it can't be shown that Mike didn't attend that auction, or that an album containing some 125 highly collectible WWI photographs, worth in excess of £100 at the time, would not have been included in one of their regular weekly auctions in any case, people can go on believing. Worst case would be having to conjure up a completely different scenario to make Mike's claims, and the conjurer's dreams, come true again. It's a bit too much like digging oneself into a corner for my liking. But where there's a will, I suppose there will always be a way out of one corner - and into another.

2) Mike's original story, that he was given the diary by Tony in the late Spring/early Summer of 1991. This allows for it still to be a modern hoax, but with Mike being unaware of what he was taking on.

3) Anne's story, that she gave the diary to Tony to give to Mike.

4) Or it was found and removed from the house on Riversdale Road, by an electrician who used the same pub as Mike [and lived on the same road as Tony had, up until his death], on the same day Mike phoned Doreen, using a false name, to tell her he had Jack the Ripper's diary. It can still be a modern hoax, if nobody knows where the old book was the day before.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Brilliant information, thanks a lot Caz. As with everything in Diary-world though, it just leaves you with more questions than answers!!

Or more quotation than response?

[StevenOwl]

Last lot for you now, Steven...

Thursday 5^th December 1996
KS makes handwritten note:
Shirley phoned.
AEG [Anne Graham] has obtained, from L'pool Central library copy of Sphere Book containing O Costly..
AEG photocopying relevant page
KS suggested to Shirley that AEG also photocopy date stamps at beginning of book.
Jenny still has Sphere volumes minus the relevant one which Mike took when he left + £70!
KS asked Shirley to see whether we could get hold of these books from Jenny.

[It's not clear whether Shirley had spoken directly to Jenny, or whether it was Mike who claimed Jenny still had the books 'minus the relevant one'. I have no idea what the £70 was all about.]

Wednesday 17^th April 2002
Melvin Harris posts on internet: Doubtful Standards
Harris states he will not be naming diary forgers in his new book and is not obliged to explain why.
'Alan [Gray] has done no more than faithfully record the bare facts. He was first told about an evidential book in August 1994…' 'It became relevant only when he was re-engaged by Mike during the first week of September.' 'It was in that week, that the book was named variously as a poem book, as a Sphere book of poems, as a Sphere book of poetry.'
'I first made contact with Alan Gray in the last week of October 1994. This was at the request of the Sunday Times. When I asked about hard evidence he told me about the Sphere book…'
MB 'never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes. And he did not mention it to the Liverpool Post because he held it in reserve as a possible money spinner'.
Source: Melvin Harris, 17^th April 2002, Internet JtR Casebook (CAM/KS/2002)


I can see two problems with the above, Steven. Firstly, neither Gray nor Melvin Harris ever produced this 'faithfully' recorded bare fact, that he was told about 'a Sphere book' of poetry as early as 'the first week of September' 1994. And of course, by 'the last week of October 1994', when Harris first made contact with Gray, everyone knew about it, except that Mike had so far not shown his 'hard evidence' - the Sphere Volume 2 itself - to any investigator.

Secondly, Melvin Harris appears to shoot himself in the foot by stating that Mike 'never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her'. I'm wondering if this was because even Harris found it hard to believe that Mike would have let the Crashaw volume slip out of his hands like that. Or might Harris have managed to ascertain from Jenny herself [via Gray?], that Volume 2 was not among the books Mike had lent her son? If Mike did take back the volume described as 'the relevant one', might this have been Volume 6, The Victorians? It would make sense, because this was the volume Mike referred to by mistake, when phoning Shirley to say he'd found the quote in a library book. He told her he 'thought' it was in Volume 6. Did he retrieve the wrong volume from Jenny and try to find the quote again? I'd be willing to bet the Victorians would have been the first, and most obvious one he'd have flicked through in the library. Shirley had to send him back there to find the right one. Was that when he realised his mistake and knew he'd have to track down a Volume 2 of his own?

Moving swiftly on...


Thursday 2^nd May 2002
Letter from KS to Jenny (Morrison), copied to SH and Seth:
KS tells Jenny about diary book and wishes to clarify MB's report of giving her son, James, some books during summer of 1994.
Rather complex story that KS would prefer to discuss with Jenny and James in person.
KS will ask SH to telephone Jenny on his behalf, to vouch for his credibility. Then KS will give Jenny a call.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/2002

Monday 21^st – Friday 25^th October 2002
'Ripper Diary' research trip to Liverpool:
Note made by CAM [that's me!] on Tuesday 22^nd October:
'Contact Jenny re price of car and Mike's birthday party, in May 1994.'

Keith can’t remember the significance of the birthday party question, and neither can I! But what Keith does remember is Seth telephoning Jenny to try and arrange to see her and Jenny not wanting to be involved. She couldn't remember very much and neither could her son - didn't have the books anymore – didn't know what had happened to them - so not much point in us going to see her.

Hope this helps!

Love,

Caz
X

Brilliant information, thanks a lot Caz. As with everything in Diary-world though, it just leaves you with more questions than answers!!