Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Observer]

You are well fooled, sir.

Barrett claimed he had a brand new copy (from a Hillsborough disaster donation that no-one wanted to buy - clearly too erudite a freebie for even a Scouser to jump at) but the reality is that he purchased a second-hand version from a Liverpool book shop a few days after he found the quotation in the Liverpool Central Library.

I had an idea you'd trot out that lame duck again Ike. It doesn't work you know. Lets think, The Bard of Goldie Street has in his possesion the infamous "Hoax Of all time" as you like to title it (that's a joke in itself). He gives it the once over, and then decides to do a little research into it's content.

"Ere Anne look at this"

"What is it dearest" answers his beloved Judy

"This ere, look, I do believe this is a quote from one of those fancy poems"

"Gis a look. Oh aye, yer could be right Wack, although dear, there's verses all over the place in dat Diary, I've had a look " exclaims Anne.

"Aye, but this is different, those other verses are by the fella wot wrote der diary, this is different I reckon"

"Oh Mike you are clever" chirps Anne

And so without further ado, the thick as a Docker's butty( according to Ike et al) Mike Barrett alights upon Liverpool Central Library, the next day, and without any reference to the author of "O Costly Intercourse of Death" or indeed not even knowing if it's a passage from a poem, manages to find a book in the library, which includes said poem! Pretty impressive for a dullard don't you think? Yer right.

But it gets better. Within a few days Mike Barrett, again, the same fella, you know the one, if brains were dynamite he wouldn't have enough to blow his cap off, manages to find his own copy of a book with OCIOD sitting there center stage in all it's glory within. You couldn't make it up. Well I tell a lie, old Ike there has done just that.

No Sir Ike, it is you who are easily fooled.

Barrett had the Sphere book all along. It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Here is the passage from the Diary/Journal in question.

"I will go on, nothing will stop me nothing. Cut Sir Jim cut. Cut deep deep deep

Sir Jim will cut them all
Oh costly intercourse
of death"

Now then dear reader, considering that the Journal is littered with verse, would you be able to single out OCIOD, and reason that rather than it being a verse penned by the author of the Journal, that is Sir Jim, Sir Jim is actually quoting the poet Crawshaw? Ike would have us believe Mike Barrett did. Not bad for an imbecile I'd say.

And you are attempting to well fool your readers, sir.

The short piece of doggerel (tis love that spurred me so) which appears merely (and logically) indented on page 267 could never be described as 'a new line halfway across the page'. The line may end up in the centre of the page but it most certainly does not start there. You are either mistaken or you have attempted to deceive and we have too much of that on this Casebook - false reporting to make a point at the expense of honour and honesty.

Ike

Haha, to coin a Mike Barrett favourite. I attempt to decive? From a man who would have us believe that Maybrick was Jack The Ripper. That's a bit rich is it not?

I was merely offering a solution as to why Barret would want to start mid page with the letter S. Perhaps he intended a heading beginning with S. The thing is if there is an S under that blot, as Barrett implied, then it's game over.

[Observer]

I very much doubted that Keith had the receipt for Barrett's purchase of the dog-eared Sphere volume which Alan Gray sold him and I wasn't even vaguely concerned about that fact but - just to clarify it for you - I wrote to Keith last evening to ask him and he has confirmed that he doesn't have the receipt (indeed, again for clarity, never had the receipt). Unless Barrett had left it inside the book, it is unlikely that Gray would have had it. Barrett - for the record - was not present when Gray sold it to Keith (as I understand it).



Well I am genuinely surprised to find that Robert said that as I could have sworn (but may well be wrong or getting mixed-up with some other) that it had gone into print by Robert that a number of copies had been available around the time Barrett purchased his dog-eared one.

Just for clarity from you Roger - what sense do you make of Keith Skinner purchasing from Alan Gray a clearly-used copy of the Sphere text which Gray claimed he had received from Michael Barrett? I assume that you believe that Bongo had the copy all along and had turned to it for a single 'quotation' (it's not actually a quotation, as I explained to Observer yesterday - it's more of an 'inspiration') before putting it back on his shelf. Assuming that this is what you believe, do you also believe that Barrett received it from Sphere in pristine, saleable condition or do you think he made that bit up? If he made it up, did he buy the dog-eared copy intentionally (for poetic 'inspiration' for his hoax) or do you think he had it anyway on his bookshelves? If you think the latter, do you think there were many Liverpool working class households with just such a text within their walls?

The questions just go on and on (if you try to argue that there is some sort of mystery to this). Alternatively, if you reflect on what we know for a FACT (now always remember that, ladies and gentlemen), there is a Victorian scrapbook containing the ramblings of Jack the Ripper, a man who owns it, the same man who revealed where the quotation came from, the same man who got pissed-off, pissed-up and suddenly said it was part of a hoax he dreamed-up using a pristine copy of a text which was in his loft, the same man who employed a private detective who sold a dog-eared copy of that text to Keith Skinner saying it was the one Barrett owned.

Call me crazy, but it sounds to me like Michael Barrett came into possession of Jack the Ripper's scrapbook. He then researched it sufficiently to believe in it. He then sought to have it published. 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? In fact, why did he not show any of this forensic evidence to Harold Brough? Actually, he did show the book to Alan Gray but Gray might have been astute enough to realise that it didn’t quite look like it was part of an unused series sent to Mike by Sphere in order to raise funds for Hillsborough. Gray was keen to support Mike's tale, but not keen enough to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that the Sphere book he possessed looked nothing like Mike was claiming it to be.

Hmmm. Pots, kettles, black and white stripes, jumpers for goalposts, Saudis dancing on the sand at Titley Bay … it's not getting even vaguely old for me, Rog.

Ike

A fine example or pure waffle wouldn't you say dear readers?

[Iconoclast]

A fine example or pure waffle wouldn't you say dear readers?

I've just realised something rather profound about your posts, Observer - they are actually just click bait only without the irritating adverts.

[Observer]

I've just realised something rather profound about your posts, Observer - they are actually just click bait only without the irritating adverts.

Come now Ike, me, disinformation ? That's your department surely, I'm thinking of the FM smeared in blood on Mary Kelly's wall here. But as Mr Palmer states, this is turning into a pot kettle bonanza. Lets stick to good solid responsible reasoning, and let the good readers decide who has the more solid argument.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Some fair observations there, Observer. In a pre internet age, and working from an assumption that the diary is genuine, how did Mike pin down the poem cited? I mean, ok, he maybe could have read the passage and thought it seemed like a quote, but being able to identify the poem and obtain a copy of a book with it, for 'reference' purposes? Likewise, still assuming authenticity of said diary, say Mike recognises the line and knows it's a poem, and who it's author is, and is able to track down a copy, both scenarios show a level of knowledge and ability that is generally not credited to Mike. So, if he is the forger, we need to credit him with actually being alot more articulate than he certainly appeared in later years. And if he's not the forger, we need to credit him, well, you get the picture. Poor old Bongo. He really was his own worst enemy.

[Observer]

Some fair observations there, Observer. In a pre internet age, and working from an assumption that the diary is genuine, how did Mike pin down the poem cited? I mean, ok, he maybe could have read the passage and thought it seemed like a quote, but being able to identify the poem and obtain a copy of a book with it, for 'reference' purposes? Likewise, still assuming authenticity of said diary, say Mike recognises the line and knows it's a poem, and who it's author is, and is able to track down a copy, both scenarios show a level of knowledge and ability that is generally not credited to Mike. So, if he is the forger, we need to credit him with actually being alot more articulate than he certainly appeared in later years. And if he's not the forger, we need to credit him, well, you get the picture. Poor old Bongo. He really was his own worst enemy.

Yes Al, the Green Eyed God has a habit of causing mayhem, and that's what happened with the Diary saga. Looking at the section of the Diary in which OCIOD appears there's no way I would have picked it out as anything other than "Maybrick" waxing lyrical again, there's quite an abundance of verse displayed in the Diary. It beggars belief that Barrett picked up on it, there are no quotation marks. Even if he did, and he visited the library, where on Earth would you start? Barrett wanted to be a writer, and looking at the plethora of verse contained in the Diary I believe he fancied himself as a poet too. That's why he had that copy of the Sphere book, probably picked up second hand. I have no doubts but that he used the book as a reference when he penned the Diary of Jack The Ripper.

A quick word also with regard to Barrett's level of intelligence. Ike and his ilk tell us on the one hand that Barrett was as thick as a plank, not able to compose the signature on his own sick note. Yet they would have us believe he was capable of detailed research into the Diary's content. Of course recognising that OCIOD wasn't actually a Maybrick invention, and tracking it's author down to one Richard Crawshaw, an obscure 17th Century poet, is one example in point.

[caz]

I don't want to be accused of ducking this question, so let me quickly answer.

Your explanation is clever, Caz, and I can see why you consider it an attractive possibility. You only need to change Caroline's testimony slightly--turning 'Tony' into 'Eddy' and it conforms to the Battlecrease provenance.

But I would counter that we don't really have any evidence that Barrett knew Eddy, but we have an abundance amount of evidence that Barrett knew Tony. It's difficult to believe that Little Caroline wouldn't have heard of her father's friend during these months, especially since he died. Children remember death.

You probably consider Anne's question "did you nick it, Mike?" as evidence in support of your theory. Fair enough.

I consider Devereux lending his daughter Mike's copy of 'Tales of Liverpool' as evidence in support of my own.

But, like you, I am also guilty of slightly changing Caroline's testimony: substituting a phone discussion about a Jack the Ripper typescript in the Summer of 1991 for an alleged discussion of a black ledger in the Summer of 1991.

Others will say we're both wrong and Little Caroline was simply prompted.

Well, to be fair, R.J, Mike and Eddie need not have been more than acquaintances in March 1992, and they'd have had a vested interest in not being seen in the Saddle, being all chummy with one another after that, if neither wanted it known that one had sold on the diary to the other. Far better for Mike to claim that someone he had known well, who was now in a place where he couldn't contradict it, had given him the diary, swearing that nobody else knew about it. The fact remains that Eddie and Mike did both use the Saddle, and Eddie was not only one of the Battlecrease electricians, but was living in March 1992 on the same road as Tony had lived until his death in 1991.

Children can only remember death if they are told about it. Would Caroline have known about Tony's death? It was in August 1991, while the Barretts were away on holiday, so it wasn't as if Mike was still combining the school run with courtesy visits to Tony when he unexpectedly had his fatal heart attack. Might her parents not have spared her that knowledge at the time? Come the new school year in September, would she know any different if dad dropped her off as before but went straight home until his afternoon pint, because Tony was no longer in need of his daily sherry or what have you? One of my daughter's school friends was not told about her own grandmother's death for some considerable time, because her parents were so worried about upsetting her that they put off telling her. I knew before she did! The same happened when the dog died. It was "with the vet" for weeks before they had the courage to break the bad news.

Love,

Caz
X

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

(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]

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.