Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[caz]

I reckon old Bongo spied Jeremy Beadle at the back of the room and thought "****, this whole thing has been an elaborate 7 year wind-up by someone, and if I whip out the auction ticket now the TV cameras will be revealed and I'll be made to look a right tit on national tele".

Hi Steven,

Now there's a thought.

Mike had actually met Jeremy the previous day at Camille Wolff's lunch.

See my post #331 for the link to the articles in the June 1999 issue of Ripperologist if you'd like to read more about the events leading up to the C&D interview.

I'm off to the garden to catch some rays.



Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.

Fair enough, fair enough. But with this in mind, doesn't it make Anne's use of the phrase "pre-Doreen" when quizzed about the red diary back on 22 August 1995 slightly strange? (I refer to the link you provided to Keith's letter to the Ripperologist, dated 27 April 1999).

As in the above exchange, Keith would have been working from Mike's January 5th confession, and would have presumably asked Anne about a red diary supposedly purchased in 1990. Agreed? Thus, Anne referencing the purchase date by the yardstick of 'post-Doreen' or 'pre-Doreen' is curious isn't it? What brought that up? Why did she hone in on that event, if the red diary was supposedly purchased in 1990? Doreen wasn't the Nazarene, I'm assuming, and people didn't normally speak of the passing of time in terms of "B.D.' or 'Anno Doreeni.'

Maybe I'm being unfairly suspicious and critical, but Anne must have been fairly sharp on her toes if she immediately fathomed that the relevant point wouldn't be 1990 or 1992: it would be whether the red diary had been ordered before or after someone as trustworthy as Doreen Montgomery had laid their eyes on the black ledger.

But you'll say I'm over analyzing it.

The other thing Keith's letter to The Ripperologist seems to reveal is that as of April 1999 no one yet knew that Barrett had been set down as a "late payer." Neither Anne or Mike had mentioned it, because Keith (and Shirley) are still in the process of determining whether the red diary had been ordered in March or May. If they had known Barrett was down as a late payer, the writing would have been on the wall.

To be fair to Anne, her willingness to produce her check stubs is a mark in her favor. On the other hand, the terminally cynical will wonder if she would have produced them if, rechecking her records, the stub had said March instead of May, since she was already astute enough to realize that pre/post Doreen was going to be the key issue. Once she saw May (don't get excited, Ike, 'May' is just a coincidence, there's no greater meaning), she may have realized it was a way of defusing Barrett's little bomb. She presumably couldn't have known that documentation of Barrett's late paying would turn up, or the existence of Earl's advertisement.

I'll be diplomatic and withdraw my question and admit that Anne's behavior is inconclusive on this point.

Hi R.J,

Back so soon?

Firstly, you are assuming that Keith knew about Mike’s sworn affidavit of January 5^th 1995 by August 22^nd 1995. He didn't. Mike sent a copy of this affidavit to Shirley on January 22^nd 1997 and Shirley then gave Keith pages one and two the following day. This was the first Keith knew about its existence. He thinks it’s possible it had been put on the internet by someone in 1996. But in short, he had no knowledge of it, or the content, back in 1995. Keith doesn’t know if Mike could have given Anne a copy, but Keith wasn’t working from it when speaking to her in August 1995, so the 1990 date didn’t come up.

I have no idea what Anne meant by pre-Doreen. Before April 13^th 1992, when Mike finally took the scrapbook to show her? Before his first telephone contact with her, on March 9^th? Or before Doreen's first letter arrived, expressing interest in the diary? Whatever Anne meant, she was evidently not seeking to put the enquiry, which produced the red diary, after Doreen had seen the scrapbook.

The first note Keith has relating to the red diary is on July 5^th 1995, when Paul Feldman phoned and asked him to make a note that Mike had phoned him the previous week, saying Anne had bought a Victorian diary in 1992(!) [KS exclamation mark made at the time] for which he, (Barrett) had the receipt. Feldman asked Anne about it – and Anne said, yes, she had bought a Victorian pocket diary – and still has it.

Immediately after Keith’s telephone conversation with Anne on August 22nd 1995, he made the note below in biro. Anne had called him for a chat, and Keith took the opportunity to ask her about the red diary. He didn’t get the impression that she had prepared notes for what to say just in case he brought up the subject:

22.8.1995

Anne’s recollections re Victorian Diary –

Thinks it was pre [KS underlining made at time] Doreen... thinks Mike got it by phoning up Yellow Pages – wanted to see what a Victorian Diary looked like – All Ann can clearly remember is having to pay £20 for it – is going to search for cheque stubs ! [KS exclamation mark made at time]

Added in pencil and squashed up in the top right hand corner is an additional note:

3.30pm Anne phoned back – has been looking at statements and old cheque books – between 17 May 1992 and 21 May 1992 there is a stub which says £25 – book. Anne is going to see whether bank can identify who cheque is payable to...

Hope this helps.

Love,

Caz
X

[StevenOwl]

Well, Ike, Mike's grasp on reality may just have been firm enough to realise that there's one born every minute, so someone, somewhere, at some point - cough, cough, Orsam, cough, cough - was bound to fall hook, line and sinker for this poorly thought-up excuse for not whipping out his auction ticket. Poor Mike, he comes along to a club packed to the rafters with dozens of true crime enthusiasts and professionals, expecting to prove he is a true criminal and forger, and it simply doesn't dawn on him that if he succeeds, he is more likely to have the darbies clapped on him than a medal hung round his neck.

No, I think R.J. got it right. Mike was yanking everyone's chain - as usual. And most of us know it.

Love,

Caz
X

I reckon old Bongo spied Jeremy Beadle at the back of the room and thought "****, this whole thing has been an elaborate 7 year wind-up by someone, and if I whip out the auction ticket now the TV cameras will be revealed and I'll be made to look a right tit on national tele".

[caz]

And here's another thought!

Mike was 'apparently' willing to show the auction ticket at the C&D Club but backed-out because there were some retired policemen in attendance (he may not have known they were retired) who could have grassed him up?

Is it beyond Mike's infantile grasp on reality to work out that showing a room full of people who were not police-related an auction ticket which proved he was the world's greatest ever hoaxer might just have been as legally incriminating? Surely it had crossed his mind at some point?

Ike

Well, Ike, Mike's grasp on reality may just have been firm enough to realise that there's one born every minute, so someone, somewhere, at some point - cough, cough, Orsam, cough, cough - was bound to fall hook, line and sinker for this poorly thought-up excuse for not whipping out his auction ticket. Poor Mike, he comes along to a club packed to the rafters with dozens of true crime enthusiasts and professionals, expecting to prove he is a true criminal and forger, and it simply doesn't dawn on him that if he succeeds, he is more likely to have the darbies clapped on him than a medal hung round his neck.

No, I think R.J. got it right. Mike was yanking everyone's chain - as usual. And most of us know it.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

So yes, just as you wrote above, Keith was 'behaving as if he has caught Barrett in a lie--as if he has caught Barrett with his pants down', for very good reason. Mike had claimed the red diary was bought two whole bloody years before contacting Doreen, so of course Anne's cheque stub disproved this.

Hi Caz.

Fair enough, fair enough. But with this in mind, doesn't it make Anne's use of the phrase "pre-Doreen" when quizzed about the red diary back on 22 August 1995 slightly strange? (I refer to the link you provided to Keith's letter to the Ripperologist, dated 27 April 1999).

As in the above exchange, Keith would have been working from Mike's January 5th confession, and would have presumably asked Anne about a red diary supposedly purchased in 1990. Agreed? Thus, Anne referencing the purchase date by the yardstick of 'post-Doreen' or 'pre-Doreen' is curious isn't it? What brought that up? Why did she hone in on that event, if the red diary was supposedly purchased in 1990? Doreen wasn't the Nazarene, I'm assuming, and people didn't normally speak of the passing of time in terms of "B.D.' or 'Anno Doreeni.'

Maybe I'm being unfairly suspicious and critical, but Anne must have been fairly sharp on her toes if she immediately fathomed that the relevant point wouldn't be 1990 or 1992: it would be whether the red diary had been ordered before or after someone as trustworthy as Doreen Montgomery had laid their eyes on the black ledger.

But you'll say I'm over analyzing it.

The other thing Keith's letter to The Ripperologist seems to reveal is that as of April 1999 no one yet knew that Barrett had been set down as a "late payer." Neither Anne or Mike had mentioned it, because Keith (and Shirley) are still in the process of determining whether the red diary had been ordered in March or May. If they had known Barrett was down as a late payer, the writing would have been on the wall.

To be fair to Anne, her willingness to produce her check stubs is a mark in her favor. On the other hand, the terminally cynical will wonder if she would have produced them if, rechecking her records, the stub had said March instead of May, since she was already astute enough to realize that pre/post Doreen was going to be the key issue. Once she saw May (don't get excited, Ike, 'May' is just a coincidence, there's no greater meaning), she may have realized it was a way of defusing Barrett's little bomb. She presumably couldn't have known that documentation of Barrett's late paying would turn up, or the existence of Earl's advertisement.

I'll be diplomatic and withdraw my question and admit that Anne's behavior is inconclusive on this point.

[Iconoclast]

We all know that by 1999 Mike had been insisting he was a forger since June 1994, and the police had not taken a blind bit of notice since the end of 1993, when they completed their investigation. Mike could not even reignite their interest with his copy of the Sphere book. How chilling would the effect have been on him in April 1999, if he had been told there were a dozen police officers present, after claiming he had that auction ticket on him? Two years previously, in 1997, he had faced a far more serious charge, by sending a written death threat to his ex wife. He narrowly got away with that one by claiming he was drunk at the time and never meant it.

And here's another thought!

Mike was 'apparently' willing to show the auction ticket at the C&D Club but backed-out because there were some retired policemen in attendance (he may not have known they were retired) who could have grassed him up?

Is it beyond Mike's infantile grasp on reality to work out that showing a room full of people who were not police-related an auction ticket which proved he was the world's greatest ever hoaxer might just have been as legally incriminating? Surely it had crossed his mind at some point?

Ike

[caz]

As for Barrett's auction ticket, I always kind of figured Mike was just yanking everyone's chain. He states in his Jan 1995 confession that his sister destroyed the physical evidence and why wouldn't the ticket fall into that category? Of course, Lord O suggests that the reference to a police officer sitting in the audience may have had a chilling effect on Barrett's cooperation that evening. Who knows? Ciao.

Come on, R.J. You can do better than this. If I didn't respect you more, I'd think you'd become Lord Orsam's puppet.

We all know that by 1999 Mike had been insisting he was a forger since June 1994, and the police had not taken a blind bit of notice since the end of 1993, when they completed their investigation. Mike could not even reignite their interest with his copy of the Sphere book. How chilling would the effect have been on him in April 1999, if he had been told there were a dozen police officers present, after claiming he had that auction ticket on him? Two years previously, in 1997, he had faced a far more serious charge, by sending a written death threat to his ex wife. He narrowly got away with that one by claiming he was drunk at the time and never meant it.

I absolutely agree with you that Mike was just yanking everyone's chain. He claimed his sister destroyed the incriminating writing materials, so if he didn't have the auction ticket on him in 1999, he was lying, but he could have simply claimed she had destroyed that too, saving him the embarrassment of finding yet another excuse for not producing it at any time from his first 'confession' in June 1994.

In short, you would sooner brand Mike's sister a liar, for denying she ever received anything of the sort from Mike, than admit to yourself that he may have yanked your chain and been lying about ever having that auction ticket. That is something you have invested in so heavily, not financially but personally - far more hurtful in the long run - that there is no cure, no vaccine, no nothing that can alter your way of thinking.

Bye bye.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yawn.

Hi Caz - your posts admirably demonstrate why it is pointless to discuss the Maybrick hoax with you or Keith Skinner. Pretending that Keith's integrity has been challenged has always been the most useful way to duck the hard, cold facts, and to avoid the tough questions. That game has grown old and stale, however, so I'll be off.

But let me first spell out the relevance of the above to you, since you seem to be confused. To repeat, Keith stated in his Cloak and Dagger interview with Barrett, ""I’ve got the apology to make because I’ve got the red diary. What I’ve also got and I got it from Anne, because she sent it to me, Christ knows why because it just incriminates her, but she sent it to me. She sent me the red diary. She sent me the cheque book with the stub."

I am not accusing Keith of anything. I am trying to understand his thinking at this point in time, and what it might tell me.

Note the line in bold. What is Keith saying? Are we supposed to draw a conclusion from Anne's cooperation., as if it is proof of her integrity and fair-mindedness? She cooperated with Keith, we are told--against her own best interests, "Christ knows,"---and since she handed over the red diary willingly, it must have been an innocent purchase. In other words, "Move along, nothing to see here, folks."

Isn't that what is being implied? I mean, Anne's behavior IS pretty impressive isn't it? She boldly hands over potentially the most damning piece of evidence, and, along with it, even the cheque stub for its purchase!

Impressive. But wait a minute.

WHY would the purchase incriminate her?? Why did Keith say it would? If it was ordered and purchased in May 1992--after Doreen Montgomery had already seen the "Maybrick" diary, then it WOULDN'T HAVE INCRIMINATED HER, would it? Her purchase was odd, yes, but it couldn't have been connected with any attempt to purchase the raw materials for a forgery, because it was bought two months too late, after an independent party (Doreen) had already seen the Maybrick document.

So, OBVIOUSLY, whether Anne was truly cooperating or whether she was being evasive would entirely depend on what she had told Keith: whether she had admitted it was actually purchased in March 1992, or whether she had left Keith with the false impression that it wasn't purchased until May 1992. In other words, it would be highly RELEVENT if she FAILED to make it clear that the red diary was actually ordered BEFORE Doreen laid eyes on the Maybrick diary, and, further, it would also be highly RELEVANT if she failed to tell Keith that Barrett had been put down as a late payer.


And all I am saying is this: judging by Keith's line of questioning, as already detailed above, it certainly appears to me that Anne HAD left him with a false perception. Hence Keith's following question:

Keith to Barrett:

'What I don’t understand (RJP's emphasis) is that the statement that Anne sent me which backs your story beautifully is dated May 1992. May 1992 by which time you’ve been to see Doreen Montgomery with the Diary.'


Why would Keith want to boil my head for pointing out this question?? I think it goes to the heart of the matter, but, like I say, outrage has it's usefulness.

No, Caz, sorry to disappoint, but I am not suggesting Keith is being deceptive to the audience. I am suggesting that he is genuinely confused over the May purchase date. To me, he is behaving as if he has caught Barrett in a lie--as if he has caught Barrett with his pants down. Mike had been telling everyone he bought the red diary before contacting Doreen, but--voila!--Anne's cheque stub disproves this. It wasn't bought until May! And Keith isn't wrong. It WASN'T BOUGHT until May, and how would he know any differently? Unless Anne told him. I am NOT saying she did---in fact, I am suggesting the opposite. I am suggesting his question shows that SHE DIDN'T give him all the relevant facts, and he eventually had to figure it out on his own.

Do you think I'm mistaken? If so, what DO YOU think the question implies???

If you can't see the relevance of what Anne Graham may have told Keith, then I don't know what to tell you. Boil my head away, but it's an entirely fair question. By your answers above, I can only conclude that Anne's conversation with Keith wasn't recorded, nor her letters on the subject kept, so all we really have to go on is this indirect confirmation that Anne had left the early diary researchers with a false impression that was later debunked. FINIS.

Hi R.J,

You really could have saved yourself an awful lot of time and trouble by reading carefully the letter which Keith sent on April 27th 1999 for the June 1999 issue of Ripperologist, which you can find again here at #54:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-media/audio-visual/rippercast/714049-rippercast-audio-archives-the-maybrick-diary/page4

It all seems clear enough to me now, that as far back as August 1995 Anne had told Keith over the phone that she thought Mike had 'bought' the little red diary by 'phoning' Yellow Pages and thought that this had been "pre-Doreen".

That would appear to clear up the little matter of whether she had deliberately delayed paying for the red diary until May, in order to leave the false impression that the purchase was only made after the Maybrick diary had already been seen in London.

It is also clear that the actual date the red diary was sent to Mike - March 26th 1992 - had not yet been established in April 1999.

At the risk of boring everyone else stupid by repeating myself, Mike had claimed back in January 1995 that Anne had purchased the red diary in early 1990, while Tony Devereux was alive, followed by the scrapbook, putting both purchases, and the eleven-day creation of the diary itself, two whole bloody years before he first contacted Doreen. So yes, just as you wrote above, Keith was 'behaving as if he has caught Barrett in a lie--as if he has caught Barrett with his pants down', for very good reason. Mike had claimed the red diary was bought two whole bloody years before contacting Doreen, so of course Anne's cheque stub disproved this. It wasn't bought until 1992. At the time, Keith didn't know whether Mike had actually taken delivery of it before or after his meeting with Doreen on April 13th, which he also makes clear in his letter. So you could say Anne had effectively incriminated herself by admitting to Keith that she thought Mike had 'bought' it, or at least ordered it, "pre-Doreen", as well as confirming his claim that she had paid £25 for it. But nobody at that time had any reason to think that a Victorian diary acquired as late as 1992, whether in March, April or May, could have been the intended recipient of the Maybrick diary.

In April 1999, Martin Earl had yet to be traced, along with the advert and its timing, and the fact that the red diary was sent to Mike 18 days before Doreen saw 'the' diary, and just 13 days before the letter confirming that meeting was sent to Mike. Much of it was still unknown in 2003, when Ripper Diary was published. Keith still has all his documentation and if you were to check back to the email he sent you on July 30th 2004 outlining the sequence of events between June 3rd and June 23rd 1999, based on the notes he transcribed for you, you would see this is the case.

Here again is what Mike said about those infamous eleven days:

'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.'

Mike puts this activity back to early 1990, but he says nothing about being under any pressure at the time, which I suppose is understandable as he gives himself two whole bloody years before contacting Doreen to say he has the diary. And of course it conflicts with an auction date of 1992.

Is it totally out of the question that Mike's eleven days was actually taken up with making the transcript of the diary? Anne said she had to take over the word processor because Mike was not very good with it and his spelling was hopeless, so he read to Anne from the diary and she did the typing. She told Keith that she checked back with the original to make sure she was spelling it the same way. Naturally, Caroline could have witnessed this without anyone being concerned about it, and it would have been done after school, when Anne was home from work. If they began, say, on the evening of Monday March 30th, it could have been completed around the same time Mike got his letter to confirm the meeting on April 13th. The letter was dated April 8th, so it would have been received around the 10th.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

P.S.

"May 1992 by which time you’ve been to see Doreen Montgomery with the Diary."

It's not really a question, of course, so much a simple statement of fact, but that makes it all the more relevant. Clearly, the interviewer believes this to be true, based on what Anne Graham had revealed to him, and he's throwing it in Mike's face. And Mike doesn't understand the implication, and thus (as Lord O points out) simply thought that Anne must have lied to Keith about it. (This could also mean that Barrett didn't know/didn't recall that the purchaser had been put down as a 'late payer').

As for Barrett's auction ticket, I always kind of figured Mike was just yanking everyone's chain. He states in his Jan 1995 confession that his sister destroyed the physical evidence and why wouldn't the ticket fall into that category? Of course, Lord O suggests that the reference to a police officer sitting in the audience may have had a chilling effect on Barrett's cooperation that evening. Who knows? Ciao.

[rjpalmer]

Relevance to what, exactly? Are you suggesting that Keith is in possession of evidence of Anne's involvement in the diary's creation?

Yawn.

Hi Caz - your posts admirably demonstrate why it is pointless to discuss the Maybrick hoax with you or Keith Skinner. Pretending that Keith's integrity has been challenged has always been the most useful way to duck the hard, cold facts, and to avoid the tough questions. That game has grown old and stale, however, so I'll be off.

But let me first spell out the relevance of the above to you, since you seem to be confused. To repeat, Keith stated in his Cloak and Dagger interview with Barrett, ""I’ve got the apology to make because I’ve got the red diary. What I’ve also got and I got it from Anne, because she sent it to me, Christ knows why because it just incriminates her, but she sent it to me. She sent me the red diary. She sent me the cheque book with the stub."

I am not accusing Keith of anything. I am trying to understand his thinking at this point in time, and what it might tell me.

Note the line in bold. What is Keith saying? Are we supposed to draw a conclusion from Anne's cooperation., as if it is proof of her integrity and fair-mindedness? She cooperated with Keith, we are told--against her own best interests, "Christ knows,"---and since she handed over the red diary willingly, it must have been an innocent purchase. In other words, "Move along, nothing to see here, folks."

Isn't that what is being implied? I mean, Anne's behavior IS pretty impressive isn't it? She boldly hands over potentially the most damning piece of evidence, and, along with it, even the cheque stub for its purchase!

Impressive. But wait a minute.

WHY would the purchase incriminate her?? Why did Keith say it would? If it was ordered and purchased in May 1992--after Doreen Montgomery had already seen the "Maybrick" diary, then it WOULDN'T HAVE INCRIMINATED HER, would it? Her purchase was odd, yes, but it couldn't have been connected with any attempt to purchase the raw materials for a forgery, because it was bought two months too late, after an independent party (Doreen) had already seen the Maybrick document.

So, OBVIOUSLY, whether Anne was truly cooperating or whether she was being evasive would entirely depend on what she had told Keith: whether she had admitted it was actually purchased in March 1992, or whether she had left Keith with the false impression that it wasn't purchased until May 1992. In other words, it would be highly RELEVENT if she FAILED to make it clear that the red diary was actually ordered BEFORE Doreen laid eyes on the Maybrick diary, and, further, it would also be highly RELEVANT if she failed to tell Keith that Barrett had been put down as a late payer.


And all I am saying is this: judging by Keith's line of questioning, as already detailed above, it certainly appears to me that Anne HAD left him with a false perception. Hence Keith's following question:

Keith to Barrett:

'What I don’t understand (RJP's emphasis) is that the statement that Anne sent me which backs your story beautifully is dated May 1992. May 1992 by which time you’ve been to see Doreen Montgomery with the Diary.'


Why would Keith want to boil my head for pointing out this question?? I think it goes to the heart of the matter, but, like I say, outrage has it's usefulness.

No, Caz, sorry to disappoint, but I am not suggesting Keith is being deceptive to the audience. I am suggesting that he is genuinely confused over the May purchase date. To me, he is behaving as if he has caught Barrett in a lie--as if he has caught Barrett with his pants down. Mike had been telling everyone he bought the red diary before contacting Doreen, but--voila!--Anne's cheque stub disproves this. It wasn't bought until May! And Keith isn't wrong. It WASN'T BOUGHT until May, and how would he know any differently? Unless Anne told him. I am NOT saying she did---in fact, I am suggesting the opposite. I am suggesting his question shows that SHE DIDN'T give him all the relevant facts, and he eventually had to figure it out on his own.

Do you think I'm mistaken? If so, what DO YOU think the question implies???

If you can't see the relevance of what Anne Graham may have told Keith, then I don't know what to tell you. Boil my head away, but it's an entirely fair question. By your answers above, I can only conclude that Anne's conversation with Keith wasn't recorded, nor her letters on the subject kept, so all we really have to go on is this indirect confirmation that Anne had left the early diary researchers with a false impression that was later debunked. FINIS.

[caz]

In Post #323:

"I don’t know the answer, but considering that O & L was never contacted about an auction held in March 1992, I can only assume that the hard dates for the arrival of the red diary and Earl’s advertisement were not really worked out until considerably later. Evidently after April 1992."

For "April 1992," read "April 1999"--the date of Keith's interview with Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger. I am forced to speculate, but it doesn't appear to me that Keith S is aware that Barrett was down as a late payer at this point (or why else would he be confused about the May 1992 purchase date and cancelled check?) which I find curious, since he evidently obtained his information from Martin Earl shortly after Nov 1995.

This is not to nitpick, nor to insinuate anything. It's just puzzling.

At this point, R.J, if I were in Keith's shoes, I might be tempted to tell you to go boil your head.

But here in my own fluffy slippers, I would merely ask how you decide when seeing is believing, and when you won’t believe without seeing.

Compare and contrast:

You appear to have taken the unsupported word of Mike Barrett, a man who lied compulsively, that he had in his possession, as late as 1999, an auction ticket from O&L, proving where and when he obtained the scrapbook used to forge the diary. As we know, Mike never produced it, even when he wrote Anne a death threat in 1997, for apparently allowing their daughter to be labelled a Maybrick who was related to Jack the Ripper. Had Mike lost the ticket by then, or just the plot?

You now want to see all the documentation in Keith Skinner’s possession, related to the order and purchase of the little 1891 diary. It appears that Keith’s word, unlike Mike’s, is just not good enough, despite the fact that it was Keith, with Anne Graham’s help, who tracked down the advert for it and revealed its wording.

If you can believe without seeing, that Mike had that auction ticket, to name just a single example, would it make a blind bit of difference if Keith were to spend the rest of his life providing you with all the unpublished documentation in his possession? It wouldn’t alter the wording of the advert, and you'd still have a Barrett making the enquiry for a Victorian diary with blank pages, so what would it achieve?

I’ll throw you a lifeline here. As has already been speculated, Anne could still have made the initial enquiry. For all we know, she could have put on her best secretary voice and claimed it was on behalf of a Mr. Barrett, who had requested that the diary and bill be sent to him at his home address. If her object had been to make sure any paper trail would lead back to Mike, in the event that it produced an old book that was suitable for faking Maybrick’s diary, she could have made the call without giving her own name or her relationship to this Mr. Barrett. Her only proven, recorded input would be the cheque she eventually signed to pay for it - which is where we are today.

If this line of speculation is not ruled out by what has already been quoted from the related correspondence, how will it make any difference to see it for yourself?

If your honest answer is none at all, because the advert is sufficiently incriminating in its own right, then I would suggest you prepare a large pan of boiling water.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

P.S.

Caz - By holding the ‘purse strings’ I didn’t mean anything monetary, it was a clumsy metaphor; I meant Keith holds the relevant documentation—the data he obtained from Anne Barrett and presumably Martin Earl in and around August - November 1995, that led him to conclude it was Mike and not Anne that was the late payer. If you know this, why not just upload the relevant documentation?

Personally, I’m fine with everyone assuming it was Mike who ordered the red diary (he probably did) but this doesn’t really tell us the most relevant details: was he ordering it with or without Graham’s knowledge? If Barrett had no checking account of his own, then Anne would have had to ultimately cooperate, no? Nor do I know whether Anne deliberately waited two months to pay for the purchase, in order to leave a ‘paper trail’ that suggested a later, non-damning purchase date—as ultimately reported by Harrison in 2003 and --kind of, sort of-- implied by Keith at the C & D in 1999.

But, frankly, I'm more than willing to take Graham's advise (Graham, the poster, not Anne Graham) and remove myself from the conversation.

There is no documentation I have seen, which shows that Anne knew about the enquiry from 'a Mr. Barrett', when it was made, what was asked for, when 'Mr. Barrett' was sent the bill, or how long he was given to return the item or pay for it. No evidence that Anne was even aware that Mike was sitting on an unpaid bill until the day in May when he asked her for the cheque. I can't 'upload' documentation that doesn't exist, R.J. Nor can I prove Anne knew nothing about the red diary until after it was delivered to Mike and she gave him the cheque for it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

if Barrett didn't have a checking account in March-May 1992, and relied on Anne to write his checks for him, why is it inappropriate to call Anne Graham the late payer?

Because the diary was sent to Mr. Barrett, so it was down to Mr. Barrett to pay for it, and when payment wasn't received on time, it was Mr. Barrett whose name was put down as a late payer. The invoice presumably stated that payment had to be made within a certain number of days unless the diary was returned. Martin Earl wouldn't have known that only Mrs. Barrett had a bank account, or that she'd be the one to pay the bill when Mr. Barrett got a further demand.

You're splitting hairs, aren't you? She paid for the red diary and she paid for it late, ergo I call her a late payer, though I see now that you are insisting that Martin Earl had 'Mike Barrett' down as the late payer, and not 'Anne Barrett,' even though it was she who paid for the purchase. Mike gets the blame because there is evidently documented evidence showing that it was Mike who had placed the initial order? I'm fine with that, but may I ask: did Keith get this first-hand from HP Bookfinders, or did he get it from Alan Gray's statement about 'Mike' being the late payer?

Alan Gray? Read my post again, R.J. The information came from Martin Earl and his records.

You see, if Keith already knew Barrett was down as a late payer, I am confused about his line of questioning at the Cloak and Dagger meeting in April 1999, where he seems to still be trying to ascertain the exact details for the purchase of the red diary.

KS to Mike Barrett: "In fact, Anne purchased the Diary, a red leather backed diary, for £25"

Those are Keith words: Anne purchased. But what I assume he now means is that Mike purchased it (ordered it) and Anne only paid for it. Or was he still uncertain in 1999 as to who did what?

Are you sure Keith wasn't quoting Mike's words back to him from his January 1995 affidavit? It sounds very much like it to me.

And later:

KS: "I’ve got the apology to make because I’ve got the red diary. What I’ve also got and I got it from Anne, because she sent it to me, Christ knows why because it just incriminates her, but she sent it to me. She sent me the red diary. She sent me the cheque book with the stub. She sent me the account, a statement showing, as you say, money going through the account, £25."

And still later: 'What I don’t understand is that the statement that Anne sent me which backs your story beautifully is dated May 1992. May 1992 by which time you’ve been to see Doreen Montgomery with the Diary.'

This is curious. As David B. points out in his article “The Man in the Pub,” at Orsam Books, this exchange, (or a similar one made at some other time??), seems to have led to Shirley Harrison to write, three of four years later in “Jack the Ripper: The American Connection:

'The red diary was in fact purchased after the Diary had been brought to London.”

Technically true, but once again, the confusion between “ordered,” “obtained,” and “purchased” leaving a false impression that it all happened in May 1992,after the ‘Maybrick’ diary had made its way to Crew in London, thus rendering a potentially suspicious purchase irrelevant and harmless.

Now, I can’t imagine it was Keith’s intention to leave Shirley with a wrong impression, and at the C & D meeting Keith even alludes to the possibility of Mike ordering the red diary back in early March 1992—but, if Keith already had documentation showing that it WAS Mike who had made the initial call to HP Bookfinders, and further, that he had already obtained documentation showing that the red diary had reached Goldie Street by 28 March, then I am at a loss to understand his line of questioning and why Harrison and evidently others still believed Anne hadn’t purchased (ie., obtained) the red diary until May?

What I am really asking is this: did Anne deliberately mislead people about buying the diary in May 1992?

I'll let Keith get back to you about all this if I may. I suspect it's a case of when the various pieces of information were tracked down. The cheque Anne signed in May was found first, but when did Mike tell her about the bill he had received for the little red diary he was sent towards the end of March? Might he only have told her about it in May, when he received a final demand? Did she even see a bill, or know how long Mike had held onto it? She claimed she signed the cheque and threw it at Mike to fill in the payee details himself. She may only have learned the details of how and when Mike had set about trying to acquire the red diary when Keith learned them himself.

I don’t know the answer, but considering that O & L was never contacted about an auction held in March 1992, I can only assume that the hard dates for the arrival of the red diary and Earl’s advertisement were not really worked out until considerably later. Evidently after April 1992.

A bit difficult, considering Mike dated both back to 1990! It was only when Anne was asked about the red diary, at some point after Feldman et al had seen Mike's January 1995 affidavit, that she confirmed its existence and was able to date her payment for it to May 1992, because she kept her old cheque books. Mike could not reasonably have dated either the arrival of the red diary or the O&L auction to 1992, while at the same time claiming to have acquired the scrapbook while Tony Devereux was very much alive. In order to use the red diary to implicate Anne, Mike claimed it came first, but was obviously no good for the forgery, so he then had to find something that was. But what he couldn't then admit was that the red diary arrived months after Tony's death.

It also seems to me that any conversation/correspondence with Anne Graham in August-November 1995 would be of great relevance. Ditto HP Bookfinders.

Relevance to what, exactly? Are you suggesting that Keith is in possession of evidence of Anne's involvement in the diary's creation?

Judging by Keith’s questions, it seems to me that it must have been HP Bookfinders that revealed ‘Barrett’ was a late payer---Anne Graham never mentioned it. But I am willing to stand corrected if he has documentation that shows otherwise.

I have seen no evidence that Anne knew Mike had been put down as a late payer, until Keith learned about it himself.

Finally, why did Keith say that the red diary implicated Anne, if it he knew it was Mike who ordered it in March 1992?

Again, this would be for Keith to address. Mike certainly wanted it to implicate Anne, and it would have done if only there was any evidence that she paid for it, knowing it had been ordered for the purpose of forgery.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

In Post #323:

"I don’t know the answer, but considering that O & L was never contacted about an auction held in March 1992, I can only assume that the hard dates for the arrival of the red diary and Earl’s advertisement were not really worked out until considerably later. Evidently after April 1992."

For "April 1992," read "April 1999"--the date of Keith's interview with Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger. I am forced to speculate, but it doesn't appear to me that Keith S is aware that Barrett was down as a late payer at this point (or why else would he be confused about the May 1992 purchase date and cancelled check?) which I find curious, since he evidently obtained his information from Martin Earl shortly after Nov 1995.

This is not to nitpick, nor to insinuate anything. It's just puzzling.

[rjpalmer]

P.S.

Caz - By holding the ‘purse strings’ I didn’t mean anything monetary, it was a clumsy metaphor; I meant Keith holds the relevant documentation—the data he obtained from Anne Barrett and presumably Martin Earl in and around August - November 1995, that led him to conclude it was Mike and not Anne that was the late payer. If you know this, why not just upload the relevant documentation?

Personally, I’m fine with everyone assuming it was Mike who ordered the red diary (he probably did) but this doesn’t really tell us the most relevant details: was he ordering it with or without Graham’s knowledge? If Barrett had no checking account of his own, then Anne would have had to ultimately cooperate, no? Nor do I know whether Anne deliberately waited two months to pay for the purchase, in order to leave a ‘paper trail’ that suggested a later, non-damning purchase date—as ultimately reported by Harrison in 2003 and --kind of, sort of-- implied by Keith at the C & D in 1999.

But, frankly, I'm more than willing to take Graham's advise (Graham, the poster, not Anne Graham) and remove myself from the conversation.