Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Yabs]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but during the Victorian era wouldn’t Maybrick, or anyone else for that matter, be very lucky to have a copy of Crashaws complete works in order to make the reference?
only 156 copies were printed for private circulation in 1872-73
It wasn’t printed again until 1927.

I’ve searched for the phrase on the newspapers archives and there’s no mention of anyone else quoting it.
Would Maybrick have been aware of it?

[Observer]

1. It's Crashaw. CRASHAW. Observe the spelling for next time.

No excuse I'll admit but there is a large chain of butcher's shops in the North by the name of Crawshaws, names stick in the mind.

2. The quote does appear in the Sphere book and I didn't say otherwise. Read my post again and observe what I actually wrote.

3. No, you presumed too much. It wasn't 'the complete works'. That was my point. It wasn't even the complete poem, just a few lines - taken from the middle of the poem, and with little context to provide inspiration to anyone who hadn't read the whole poem.

To really understand any of this, you will need a) a copy of the Sphere book, b) a copy of CRASHAW'S Complete Works, and c) the facsimile of the Maybrick diary. Then you will be able to see precisely how the two quoted lines appear in each, and in what context.

When you have read up on it, you can come back and explain how Mike Barrett managed to place CRASHAW'S lines about intercourse and death [which IRRC, Melvin Harris once suggested Mike naively translated as 'sex and murder', thinking that sounded appropriate for Jack the Ripper], not at some random point in the diary, but at THE most apposite point in 'Sir Jim's' thought processes, for him to be calling that poem to mind as he writes. But that would have been impossible for anyone simply taking the lines from the Sphere book, because the rest of the poem is not there.

So you believe that the author of the Diary had the full version of the poem to hand? I've had a look at CRASHAW'S (better?) poem "Santa Maria Dolorum", are you referring to the line in the poem which goes.

"Her eyes bleed tears, his wounds weep blood"

If so, or if indeed you refer to another section of the poem, why then did the author of the Diary not include the whole section of the poem which dealt with his "thought processes", it would have made more sense, why did he include only the lines OCIOD? The Simple answer to me is that Barrett only had the Sphere book to work from, why he stuck OCIOD where he did is anyone's guess. Mr Harris was on the right track with his suggestion, I'd say. By the way, Mike Barrett stated that his wife added an H to make it Oh Costly, instead of O Costly, whoever penned the Diary, and I believe it was Barrett with the help of others, also missed putting on S on the end of Death

You can then explain why Mike chose to write the six poetic lines towards the end of the diary, which all begin 'Tis love...'. You won't find CRASHAW beginning a line that way in the Sphere book, but there are at least two such lines to be found in CRASHAW'S Complete Works.

Why have you not included them then? Let's see them first, and then I'll comment , for I can't find a CRASHAW verse which begins

"Tis Love That Spurned me"

[caz]

So it was Shirley Harrison who picked up on the Crawshaw poem, clever woman, I wonder what prompted her to single it out from the other little dittys to be found in the Diary? Tell me, does Shirley Harrison mention in any of the books on the subject that it was she who instructed Barrett to investigate the Crawshaw poem? Or is that inside information? Also, are you saying that OCIOD does not appear in the Sphere book? You do admit that Barrett, "like a good boy" actually found the poem in a book in Liverpool Central Library, presumably it was the complete works. So how did he with only two lines to work with, and not knowing the poet's name, or even which time period the poem was written in, find the volume in question?

1. It's Crashaw. CRASHAW. Observe the spelling for next time.

2. The quote does appear in the Sphere book and I didn't say otherwise. Read my post again and observe what I actually wrote.

3. No, you presumed too much. It wasn't 'the complete works'. That was my point. It wasn't even the complete poem, just a few lines - taken from the middle of the poem, and with little context to provide inspiration to anyone who hadn't read the whole poem.

To really understand any of this, you will need a) a copy of the Sphere book, b) a copy of CRASHAW'S Complete Works, and c) the facsimile of the Maybrick diary. Then you will be able to see precisely how the two quoted lines appear in each, and in what context.

When you have read up on it, you can come back and explain how Mike Barrett managed to place CRASHAW'S lines about intercourse and death [which IRRC, Melvin Harris once suggested Mike naively translated as 'sex and murder', thinking that sounded appropriate for Jack the Ripper], not at some random point in the diary, but at THE most apposite point in 'Sir Jim's' thought processes, for him to be calling that poem to mind as he writes. But that would have been impossible for anyone simply taking the lines from the Sphere book, because the rest of the poem is not there.

You can then explain why Mike chose to write the six poetic lines towards the end of the diary, which all begin 'Tis love...'. You won't find CRASHAW beginning a line that way in the Sphere book, but there are at least two such lines to be found in CRASHAW'S Complete Works.

Two neat coincidences for the price of one, which have to be considered alongside Mike's contradictory claims regarding how and when he first found the quote.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh a play on my username, I've never heard that one before, what a wit.

I'm sorry, Observer, but you did rather ask for it. A less observant observer would be hard to find around here.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Observer - Shirley Harrison did claim in her revised edition of the Diary of Jack the Ripper (Blake), that she had asked Mike to find the ‘O Costly’’ quote in the Central Library (see excerpt below).

The thing is, I asked Harrison about this, when she used to contribute to the boards, and she didn’t seem to have a clear recollection of the chronology of events. Could she be mistaken?

The reason I ask, is that there is no mention of this highly relevant claim in Skinner & Morris’s account of Mike’s Crashaw discovery on pages 142-145 of Ripper Diary, even though it is discussed at length and Harrison is mentioned. Why would such an important detail be left out?

Indeed, Ripper Diary tells us:

“On 3 October 1994 Keith Skinner learnt for the first time of Barrett’s discovery when he received an answerphone message from Shirley Harrison. ‘Mike seems to have found “Oh costly intercourse of death” –quite by chance. It is in the Sphere Companion to English Literature Vol 6, MB thinks—did not even make a note of it!’ Three days later, on 6 October, came confirmation of the quotation, when the library faxed Harrison the relevant pages from the anthology…” (p 143).

“quite by chance” are Harrison’s own words…but my emphasis.

If Shirley had sent Mike to the library, why did she say Mike’s discovery was “quite by chance”? How could it have been “quite by chance” if Mike had been “badgering the librarians” to help him find the quote (See below)?

It sounds to me more like Barrett called Shirley up out of the blue, just as he had done with Feldman on 30 September. But perhaps Keith or someone can clarify this seeming contradiction. It seems odd to me that Harrison would have claimed this discovery was by "chance" if it had been a specific task given to Barrett.

Is it possible that Barrett had notified Harrison about finding the quote (same day as Feldy, 30 Sept) and then SHE contacted the Liverpool Library for confirmation and later confused the events? I don’t know, but there is something amiss with the two accounts. They don’t entirely add up.
Further, if Mike “badgered” the librarians, and if Harrison herself was in contact with the library on Oct 3-6th, what do we make of the failure of Anne Graham and Carol Emmas to find the quote that same week when Feldman sent them to check it out? Wouldn’t the librarians say something like, “what ho, ladies, you are the third person to ask about that quote this week! We know now EXACTLY where to find it!”

Instead, they came back empty-handed. It's difficult for me to believe Barrett ever set foot in that library. From what we read in Feldman, this was at the depths of his struggle with alcohol.



In a further excerpt, Ripper diary tells us that Barrett told Harrison that he had taken it upon himself to spend an entire WEEK in the Central Liverpool Library in order to find the quote, having become upset by people describing him as an alcoholic. No mention of Harrison's involvement in this scheme (p. 144).

[Observer]

Let me just stop you there, R.J. I'm sure Ike will fill in some more gaps in your understanding, and Observer's knowledge, but for now, I'll just ask you how you know it is an 'invention' on Ike's part that Mike and Anne were asked to help find where the quote came from?

My own understanding is that it was Shirley who first suggested to Mike that he could do something useful, following his first unsupported forgery claim in June 1994, and try to find the quote in the library. It wasn't Mike who identified it as a quote, or even suggested it could be one. He was simply packed off to look for it. But instead of turning round to Shirley and saying: "Even better than that! I can tell you right now where it comes from, how I found it and why I put it in the diary, and I'm getting straight on the blower to tell that bastard Feldman too", he went off like a good boy and finally came up with the goods for Shirley, giving her the information she needed to confirm with the library that they had the volume Mike described to her. No wonder he called Feldy, to taunt him with his 'inside' knowledge!

It might be useful at this point if I mention - for only about the umpteenth time - that Mike would not have found a Crashaw line beginning 'Tis love... in his Sphere book, but he would if he had consulted Crashaw's Complete Works, published in 1858.

The devil is in the detail, as they say.

Love,

Caz
X

So it was Shirley Harrison who picked up on the Crawshaw poem, clever woman, I wonder what prompted her to single it out from the other little dittys to be found in the Diary? Tell me, does Shirley Harrison mention in any of the books on the subject that it was she who instructed Barrett to investigate the Crawshaw poem? Or is that inside information? Also, are you saying that OCIOD does not appear in the Sphere book? You do admit that Barrett, "like a good boy" actually found the poem in a book in Liverpool Central Library, presumably it was the complete works. So how did he with only two lines to work with, and not knowing the poet's name, or even which time period the poem was written in, find the volume in question?

[Observer]

So when are you going to start, and set us all a good example, Observer?

Reasoning is all very well, but it can only be good, solid and responsible if it is based on solid ground, and a sound understanding of the subject matter, or it's just a pointless and time-wasting exercise.

Your observations concerning Mike's relationship with the Crashaw quote demonstrate such a fundamental and extraordinary lack of understanding of everything that has ever been said or written about it, that I can only conclude you have either not read up on this subject at all, or your ability to absorb any of it is on a par with your ability to live up to your username.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh a play on my username, I've never heard that one before, what a wit.

[caz]

Hi Ike.

I may need to edit the above...

Ah, yes, I see you had a rethink, R.J. See my previous post for more on the Crashaw quote.

[caz]

(emphasis added).

Hi Ike -

I think it is worth pointing out that the above scenario you gave in Post #360 does not adhere to the facts as we know them.

Mike and Anne were not "asked to help locate the 'inspiration' (Crash quote). This is your invention...

Let me just stop you there, R.J. I'm sure Ike will fill in some more gaps in your understanding, and Observer's knowledge, but for now, I'll just ask you how you know it is an 'invention' on Ike's part that Mike and Anne were asked to help find where the quote came from?

My own understanding is that it was Shirley who first suggested to Mike that he could do something useful, following his first unsupported forgery claim in June 1994, and try to find the quote in the library. It wasn't Mike who identified it as a quote, or even suggested it could be one. He was simply packed off to look for it. But instead of turning round to Shirley and saying: "Even better than that! I can tell you right now where it comes from, how I found it and why I put it in the diary, and I'm getting straight on the blower to tell that bastard Feldman too", he went off like a good boy and finally came up with the goods for Shirley, giving her the information she needed to confirm with the library that they had the volume Mike described to her. No wonder he called Feldy, to taunt him with his 'inside' knowledge!

It might be useful at this point if I mention - for only about the umpteenth time - that Mike would not have found a Crashaw line beginning 'Tis love... in his Sphere book, but he would if he had consulted Crashaw's Complete Works, published in 1858.

The devil is in the detail, as they say.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Lets stick to good solid responsible reasoning, and let the good readers decide who has the more solid argument.

So when are you going to start, and set us all a good example, Observer?

Reasoning is all very well, but it can only be good, solid and responsible if it is based on solid ground, and a sound understanding of the subject matter, or it's just a pointless and time-wasting exercise.

Your observations concerning Mike's relationship with the Crashaw quote demonstrate such a fundamental and extraordinary lack of understanding of everything that has ever been said or written about it, that I can only conclude you have either not read up on this subject at all, or your ability to absorb any of it is on a par with your ability to live up to your username.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.

When was Barrett supposed to mention Ryan? Back in 1992-1994 when he was still telling everyone the diary was genuine??!?

Of course I don't think it matters. He's not going to confess...until he confesses.

But I don't think you quite grasp my point. I don't think Barrett ever said that Ryan was his 'main source.' He only mentions Ryan in passing. It's an independent textual study of the diary that demonstrates that Ryan would have been the most useful source for a modern forger, and, to me, this makes Mikes off-the-cuff statement come across as both unrehearsed and convincing. It did not have the appearance of a canned response that he could have gleaned from hearing Feldman or Harris or anyone else discussing the diary; indeed, Melvin and Feldy, quite mistakenly in my opinion, were more obsessed with Moreland, Christie, etc. being possible sources.

Hi R.J,

And I don't think you quite grasped the entire point of my last post! But no matter. It was more for other people's benefit than yours, to try and demonstrate why no amount of evidence, or lack of it, will ever have any effect on your belief in a modern Barrett forgery.

Moving on, I'm trying to think when Mike would have heard Feldman or Harris discussing the diary, or possible sources. He had been contracted to work with Shirley on their diary book since 1992, 'helping' her with the Maybrick research and what have you. For what little it's worth, when Keith Skinner interviewed Mike at Liverpool Library in April 1994 [two months before his first 'confession'], Mike told him had never heard of Ryan until Shirley mentioned the book to him. Here is the extract from my timeline:

Thursday April 14^th 1994
'MB had never heard of 'Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' until SH told him about it.'

Interestingly, I note that immediately above this, I recorded:

'MB repeats that he can't remember how he identified Battecrease. "You're going back two years".'
[I added a note of my own here: (From April 1994 would take him back to April 1992.)


I don't think anyone ever suggested that Mike couldn't read, or fully appreciate what Ryan's book and the diary have in common. It's just another chicken and egg question really. I'm obviously more inclined to believe that Mike came to 'The Poisoned Life' after the event, courtesy of Shirley, and was genuinely fascinated to compare Ryan's Maybrick material against the diary. Your belief - or idee fixe - is that Mike came up with a cunning plan to create the diary and astutely judged that Ryan's book would give him a rich and reliable account of the life and loves of 'Sir Jim'.

More than anything by 1992, Mike would have loved to show the world he could write a bestseller. And with Shirley's help this time, his dream came true in October 1993 with the publication of the first diary book and facsimile of the diary itself, from which he and Anne had produced the first transcript. His greatest achievement - at least until the cries of hoax went up, and Scotland Yard beat a path to his door. By the middle of 1994, his wife and only child were gone, and his self-esteem was through the floor, back where it was when he was a humble house-husband, having to ask his wife to 'tidy up' his celebrity interviews. If he joined a writers' circle to show he was serious, and was hoping to earn more than enough from his published articles to pay for the word processor he had invested in, he might have been able to sign up to Maggie Thatcher's Enterprise Allowance Scheme for the unemployed, and claim £40 a week. But by the time of his first forgery claim, in June 1994, he was finding cold comfort in a bottle and trying to prove, once more, that he had it in him as a writer, only this time it was the diary itself he wanted to claim as his own work.

Pure speculation? Or very possibly nearer the truth than some people would feel comfortable to contemplate?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike.

I may need to edit the above. While I was outside digging post-holes yesterday afternoon, it struck me that there had been some discussion years ago about Shirley Harrison mentioning the ‘O Costly’ quote to Barrett at some point, and the need to identify it. Perhaps this is the genesis of your remarks? The account of these events in Ripper Diary doesn’t mention this--but we are seeing the ‘Crashaw’ discovery from Feldman’s viewpoint and not Harrison’s, so it may be worthwhile to find out when Shirley made the suggestion (if she did) and how it relates chronologically to Mike’s call to Feldman’s office. The thought occurs to me that Barrett himself might not have been astute enough to immediately realize the relevance of the quote’s obscurity—even if he had placed it there himself--so there could have been a delay between his ‘discovery’ of the quote in Sphere and his decision to lord it over the head of Feldman’s personal assistant. If that makes sense. Still, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the failure of Graham and Emmas to find the quote in the Central Liverpool Library.

Okay, back to work.

[rjpalmer]

As for Ryan’s book, Mike doesn’t think to mention it as his main source of Maybrick material until – when exactly? 1995? Is he giving Alan Gray chapter and verse about this before or after his January 5^th affidavit? Perhaps R.J can tell us. But of course, he will say it doesn’t matter, because Mike is still demonstrating inside knowledge of the diary’s construction, and better late than never.

Hi Caz.

When was Barrett supposed to mention Ryan? Back in 1992-1994 when he was still telling everyone the diary was genuine??!?

Of course I don't think it matters. He's not going to confess...until he confesses.

But I don't think you quite grasp my point. I don't think Barrett ever said that Ryan was his 'main source.' He only mentions Ryan in passing. It's an independent textual study of the diary that demonstrates that Ryan would have been the most useful source for a modern forger, and, to me, this makes Mikes off-the-cuff statement come across as both unrehearsed and convincing. It did not have the appearance of a canned response that he could have gleaned from hearing Feldman or Harris or anyone else discussing the diary; indeed, Melvin and Feldy, quite mistakenly in my opinion, were more obsessed with Moreland, Christie, etc. being possible sources.

I'll try to respond to any further questions you have posed before the end of the week. Cheers.

PS.

The following is for Ike; he'll recognize the significance from Society's Pillar.

His obscure fact of Maybrick's parents being buried together...can actually be found...in...Bernard Ryan. I thank him for making my point for me.

[rjpalmer]

As part of his contribution to the ongoing research, he and his wife were asked to help locate the 'inspiration' which - because he had nothing else to do all day - he successfully achieved. Seeking his own copy of the source, he then seeks out a copy in bookshops in Liverpool. He finds a dog-eared ex-student copy and purchases it. He then eventually gives it to Alan Gray who he doesn't pay for his services in tracking down his errant wife, so Gray sells it to Keith Skinner, who does not request any receipt for the purchase never mind the original one.

Hey - and why not make the dog-eared Sphere book part of his sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995, as well as the O&L auction ticket, the red diary, and the receipt for the red diary?

(emphasis added).

Hi Ike -

I think it is worth pointing out that the above scenario you gave in Post #360 does not adhere to the facts as we know them.

Mike and Anne were not "asked to help locate the 'inspiration' (Crash quote). This is your invention. Also, Mike "seeking out a copy in bookshops in Liverpool" is pure speculation on your part--it is not a documented fact.

It might be worth your time to review pages 142-145 of Ripper Diary.

According to the authors, the first anyone ever heard of Richard Crashaw being the author of the quote is when, out-of-the-blue, Barrett called Feldman's personal assistant, Martine Rooney, on 30 September 1994. This was during Barrett's on-going feud with Paul Feldman, and Barrett is taunting him with the fact that he owns the book from which the quote was taken. HE DOES NOT IDENTIFY THE SOURCE. Nor is there any mention of Feldman having asked Barrett to locate the quote.

Indeed, Feldman is apparently rattled by this news, and he immediately sends Anne Graham and Carol Emmas to the Liverpool Central Library to see if they can find the author. This turned out to be an excellent, if inadvertent, experiment on Feldman's part. Here we have two ladies, good researchers by all accounts and the future authors of The Last Victim. I am also assuming they were stone cold sober.

And guess what? They failed to find it. They came up empty. With "nothing else to do all day," they couldn't locate the quote. One would assume at some point they would have enlisted the help of the Central Library's librarians. Still no luck. And little wonder; it's just five words, obscure as all heck, and, as later confirmed by Harrison, Harris, and little old me, it is not a quote that has been found in the standard books of famous quotations, indexes to English poetry, etc.

Nope, the one guy who knew where to find it was your man Bongo Barrett.

As for Barrett not mentioning ownership of the Sphere in his January 5, 1995 sworn affidavit, I don't understand your question. Mike told Harrison that he was going to lodge the book with his solicitor back on 12 October 1994 (see pg. 145), whether he got around to it, I do not know. Is Keith suggesting that there was a delay between 12 October and when Mike actually visited his solicitor with his dog-eared copy?


Evidently Mike's friend Jenny Morrison corroborated that Barrett owned this book in the summer of 1994--which would mean that he had it before calling to harass Feldman on 30 September. It is unclear whether Morrison was also able to corroborate the charity drive on behalf of the Hillsborough Disaster; the authors are a little vague on this point, but I assume she only corroborated that Barrett had the book in the summer of 1994.

Enjoy your week.

[caz]

Hold your horses, Ike.

And does Keith have the receipt/auction ticket for Mike's purchase of this dog-eared copy of the Sphere Guide, or are we just taking it on faith this time around?

From what I've been reading all week, only a receipt will settle matters once and for all when it comes to Mike's mysterious purchases.

Unless you can produce the receipt for this alleged purchase, I'll be forced to draw my own conclusions about why Barrett never turned the receipt over to Keith when he assumed ownership of the book. I learned that attitude from Caz.

PS. This pot, kettle, black, tit for tat is getting kind of old, isn't it? It might interest you that Robert Smith pointed out several years ago on this site that that particular edition of The Sphere Guide is not easy to find. Smith wrote that he looked for it in dozens of bookshops and had never seen it. So, the Miracle of Research set aside, it still stretches credibility well beyond the breaking point that Barrett ran out and found a copy of The Sphere and then had the wherewithal to lodge it with his solicitor. The tour de force of deception that you describe is more difficult to believe than Barrett simply taking part in the creation of the hoax. And you have your ignoramus Bongo doing it!

And here we are again...

Does R.J seriously expect anyone to believe that his faith in a Barrett production would be shaken or stirred to the slightest degree, if he were to see a receipt for the Sphere book Mike handed over to Alan Gray in December 1994? The regular readers will know by now that he would simply shift the goal posts again, like he always does.

Imagine if R.J saw a receipt from a second hand bookshop for this Sphere book, dated between July and December 1994, suggesting Mike didn’t have a copy when he made his first confession in the June. Here is a lifeline for R.J I prepared earlier...

As soon as possible after April 13^th 1992, the sensible Anne personally destroys, or oversees the destruction of everything she can find – books, correspondence, writing materials, notes, receipts, tickets – which connects them with the diary’s creation. If the diary proves to be a recent fake, and the police then search the house from top to bottom, they must find nothing to incriminate the Barretts, and no proof that it didn’t originate with the late Tony Devereux, just as Mike claimed. Had Anne claimed from the start that it had been ‘in her family for years’, proof of a more recent production would have instantly exposed her as a liar and worse.

Fast forward to June 1994, when Mike confesses that he wrote the diary. Just a month later, at the end of July, Anne counters his confession with her ‘in the family for years’ story, sufficiently confident that Mike has no surviving physical evidence of their joint enterprise, and hoping the diary itself will continue to resist attempts to prove it modern. Sure enough, try as he might, Mike can lay his hands on nothing he can use to support his confession or disprove Anne’s new provenance – no writing materials, no Sphere book or related paperwork, no auction ticket for the scrapbook, no receipts - nothing in fact that dates back before April 1992. Blast the woman, Anne must have done a pretty thorough job of getting rid of it all two years ago, as any competent forger would.

Now, R.J can simply argue that from July 1994 Mike is left with no choice but to make up excuses and employ delaying tactics, while trying to remember what they had used for the forgery and scratching around for credible replacements. So he claims his sister had the writing materials but destroyed them. When he later remembers the Sphere book, which provided him with the Crashaw quote, he claims it’s now with a new girlfriend, buying himself time to hunt round for another copy, eventually tracking down the used one in the second hand bookshop. No evidence that this copy, or the one he needed to replace, has ever been lodged with his solicitor, but it sounds more convincing that way.

Then at some point in late 1994, one of the Barretts suddenly remembers the little red diary, and what it was ordered for. But where is it now, if Anne failed to destroy it two years ago, along with everything else? If Mike can find it, it may well be the only original piece of physical evidence in his arsenal, and a tangible link to the forgery, dating to before April 1992. He can produce it in support of his sworn affidavit of January 5^th 1995. Only he can’t, because he hasn’t got it by then. Anne has it. He says she asked for it recently and he gave it to her. [If this makes no sense, R.J can simply fall back on the reasonable observation that Mike said and did a lot of things that made no sense.] So maybe it had never left Anne’s possession since she paid for it in May 1992. Maybe she forgot she still had it until the summer of 1995, and then thought it unwise to deny the purchase. Or maybe she kept it so she could control the story, and make it look like she had nothing to hide. I’m sure R.J has it all worked out.

As for Ryan’s book, Mike doesn’t think to mention it as his main source of Maybrick material until – when exactly? 1995? Is he giving Alan Gray chapter and verse about this before or after his January 5^th affidavit? Perhaps R.J can tell us. But of course, he will say it doesn’t matter, because Mike is still demonstrating inside knowledge of the diary’s construction, and better late than never.

In short, why would R.J have expected any actual physical evidence to have survived, if he is satisfied that the object was for the Barretts to offer up their own handiwork, and not be caught with the tools of their trade? That’s why the absence of evidence will never trouble R.J. He doesn’t need it in order to believe it was all sitting there in Goldie Street at some point in early 1992.

I’m going back to watch paint dry now.

Love,

Caz
X