Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Observer]

So all Anne could do at that point was to make up a ****-and-bull story about Mike being an impulsive buyer of obscure artifacts and that he "wanted to know what a Victorian diary looked like." No real point in destroying a 25 pound diary, since Barrett had her over a barrel unless she wanted to take Mr. Earl for a long walk on a short pier.

I had an idea that was the case. It's certainly been pointed out by a anti-Barrett supporter in one of the Maybrick threads. It holds less water than Ike's "Barrett needed a copy of the original to take to London" scenario.

After a while Feldman was certainly pulling all the strings, he'd put a lot of money into the venture.

[Observer]

The criminal mind is odd. Many criminals hold on to evidence that later leads to their conviction. Maybe it's a fetish of some sort. I knew a woman who found a stash of ladies purses in her brother's room, complete with photo i.d.'s, etc. His horde of self-incriminating evidence would have made any prosecutor salivate.

So I can't wrap my mind around Ike's pretzel logic. "It is a coffin nail, a most obvious and damning coffin nail, which means it can't be a coffin nail, for if it was a coffin nail, it would have been tossed in the Mersey. Therefore it is not a coffin nail."

And yet, in almost the next breath, we are told that Barrett was an imbecile.

Very odd indeed. That's the reason why 99 percent of them get caught.

The Great Train Robbers left their fingerprints behind on a monopoly set at the hideout they were using, which lead to Ronnie Biggs being identified.

[rjpalmer]

Just to expand a little. I think I'm correct in saying that businesses in the UK were required to hold on to their records for 7 years (maybe it was 10 years) in case they were ever audited. We know Anne Graham paid for the red diary with a cheque, so, once she started to think it over, she must have known that Earl would still have a record of the transaction. Only 3 years or so had passed since the purchase. So if she denied all knowledge of the red diary to Keith, and then Earl's records were located, she would have been implicated in a very big way. Not only would she have been shown to have lied, but there would have been documented evidence of her lie, and in a most suspicious manner possible--her purchase of a blank Victorian diary.

An interesting aspect of the transaction is that Graham was put down as a late payer. She delayed paying for the diary for quite a long time. Does this mean that she was initially refusing to cooperate with Barrett's little scheme, or was she deliberately and rather cleverly trying to diminish the paper trail by making it look like the red diary hadn't been purchased until after the 'Maybrick' journal had already been made public?

[Observer]

Just to expand a little. I think I'm correct in saying that businesses in the UK were required to hold on to their records for 7 years (maybe it was 10 years) in case they were ever audited. We know Anne Graham paid for the red diary with a cheque, so, once she started to think it over, she must have known that Earl would still have a record of the transaction. Only 3 years or so had passed since the purchase. So if she denied all knowledge of the red diary to Keith, and then Earl's records were located, she would have been implicated in a very big way. Not only would she have been shown to have lied, but there would have been documented evidence of her lie, and in a most suspicious manner possible--her purchase of a blank Victorian diary.

An interesting aspect of the transaction is that Graham was put down as a late payer. She delayed paying for the diary for quite a long time. Does this mean that she was initially refusing to cooperate with Barrett's little scheme, or was she deliberately and rather cleverly trying to diminish the paper trail by making it look like the red diary hadn't been purchased until after the 'Maybrick' journal had already been made public?

All possible but more than likely they were skint.

You know, when news of the maroon diary emerged, I wonder what those who were involved with the production of "The Diary Of Jack The Ripper" thought? I doubt they were pleased.

[Iconoclast]

After a while Feldman was certainly pulling all the strings, he'd put a lot of money into the venture.

I'm not keeping up here (playing Yahtzee with the family via Zoom from Vail (Colorado) to Edinburgh to Lower Whottlington-on-the-Whottle) but it's worth adding here that it wasn't just Feldman doing the research - in fact, it was mainly his research team - so when we sit here idly questioning Feldman's integrity, we may be inadvertently offending innocent members of his research team who - for all we know - read these posts.

This maybe doesn't bother anyone, but it's worth reminding ourselves that - if we are going to question Feldman's adherence to the truth, we really should be providing some solid evidence for it as we aren't really questioning Feldman's integrity alone. Otherwise, we imply that the likes of Carol Emmas, etc., knew Feldman was lying or exaggerating and said nothing.

[Observer]

I'm not keeping up here (playing Yahtzee with the family via Zoom from Vail (Colorado) to Edinburgh to Lower Whottlington-on-the-Whottle) but it's worth adding here that it wasn't just Feldman doing the research - in fact, it was mainly his research team - so when we sit here idly questioning Feldman's integrity, we may be inadvertently offending innocent members of his research team who - for all we know - read these posts.

This maybe doesn't bother anyone, but it's worth reminding ourselves that - if we are going to question Feldman's adherence to the truth, we really should be providing some solid evidence for it as we aren't really questioning Feldman's integrity alone. Otherwise, we imply that the likes of Carol Emmas, etc., knew Feldman was lying or exaggerating and said nothing.

Hey Ike, have you ever thought about the possibility that members of the Maybrick family might also read these posts?

[Iconoclast]

Hey Ike, have you ever thought about the possibility that members of the Maybrick family might also read these posts?

I should imagine they do. For all we know, Anne Graham reads them.

[rjpalmer]

This maybe doesn't bother anyone, but it's worth reminding ourselves that - if we are going to question Feldman's adherence to the truth, we really should be providing some solid evidence for it as we aren't really questioning Feldman's integrity alone. Otherwise, we imply that the likes of Carol Emmas, etc., knew Feldman was lying or exaggerating and said nothing.

Ike - No one is accusing the members of Feldman's team of any wrong doing. It was Keith Skinner himself who revealed that Feldman gave Barrett instructions to lie to the police. And when Feldman met with Anne Graham in the Moat House bar for 4+ hours, none of the 'team' members were present, so they don't know any more about what transpired at that extraordinary gathering than you and I do. Yet, in Easter-like fashion, it was from that mysterious meeting that a dead diary rose from its tomb to live again, and save Feldman's project from eternal damnation. Enjoy your day and your Yahtzee.

[Observer]

I should imagine they do. For all we know, Anne Graham reads them.

She might well do. The thing is it's the nature of the site, everyone of us is capable of upsetting some relative (or researcher in the example you mentioned) when we post here

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Them poor scrap metal dealers have been getting a right slating. It's running the risk of them boycotting the site. Last thing we need is a protest from a bunch of surly scrap thieves, sorry, dealers!, definitely dealers. And their oily dogs.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That said, with this lockdown boredom, a flutter on an illegal bare knuckle boxing match wouldn't go amiss.

[caz]

With regard to the diary. When do you think it was created? I know you have expressed your thoughts on the this issue before, but could you just refresh our memories.

Hi Observer,

My best guess is some time before Monday March 9th, 1992. Not fussed how long before, really.

I just don't buy the 'coincidence' of an electrician working in Battlecrease, Aigburth, that morning, and Mike Barrett making the earliest confirmed reference to the diary's existence that same afternoon, when telephoning the literary agency about his find. On top of that, the electrician concerned happened to use the same pub as Mike, in a different part of Liverpool, and was living on the same street as the then deceased Tony Devereux.

I also don't buy the 'eleven day wonder', between the end of March and April 13th 1992, during which Anne Barrett is charged with writing out the diary in a handwriting that has yet to be identified as her own, by any professional and reputable forensic examiner. On top of that, she is charged with handing it over to her unpredictable, excitable and thoroughly mendacious husband, to take to London and try passing it off as a diary written more than 100 years previously.

I have also seen enough of Mike's handwritten correspondence to last me a lifetime, and if I believed there was any way the diary could be in his hand, or indeed Anne's, I'd have walked away long ago and taken up a hobby that was less likely to attract such a lot of criticism and ridicule for simply offering my opinions.

Hope you had a pleasant Easter.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Hi Observer,

My best guess is some time before Monday March 9th, 1992. Not fussed how long before, really.

I just don't buy the 'coincidence' of an electrician working in Battlecrease, Aigburth, that morning, and Mike Barrett making the earliest confirmed reference to the diary's existence that same afternoon, when telephoning the literary agency about his find. On top of that, the electrician concerned happened to use the same pub as Mike, in a different part of Liverpool, and was living on the same street as the then deceased Tony Devereux.

I also don't buy the 'eleven day wonder', between the end of March and April 13th 1992, during which Anne Barrett is charged with writing out the diary in a handwriting that has yet to be identified as her own, by any professional and reputable forensic examiner. On top of that, she is charged with handing it over to her unpredictable, excitable and thoroughly mendacious husband, to take to London and try passing it off as a diary written more than 100 years previously.

I have also seen enough of Mike's handwritten correspondence to last me a lifetime, and if I believed there was any way the diary could be in his hand, or indeed Anne's, I'd have walked away long ago and taken up a hobby that was less likely to attract such a lot of criticism and ridicule for simply offering my opinions.

Hope you had a pleasant Easter.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I was thinking last evening along similar lines - that, to make a case for the hoax, March 9 1992 is a pivotal day. On that day, I also figured, some magic dust happened in The Saddle. An electrician mentions to Mike Barrett that he'd been working at Battlecrease House and the floorboards had been raised for the first time in a century. "They were in good nick for their age, mind", he says innocently. Mike Barrett has been compiling the Maybrick hoax since the centenary year (1989) and has it all typed-up on his PC at home. Suddenly, he realises that he has just been handed a smoking gun which would 'confirm' his hoax as real. So he races home, contacts Pan Books, they recommend Doreen Montgomery, so he 'phones her and says "Are you interested in the diary of Jack the Ripper?" and she says "Yes, how about you come to London with it on April 13 (?)". "Not a problem" replies Mike, slightly disingenuously.

Mike then has a month to source a Victorian document for Anne (or some other) to transcribe the typed-up text into. It doesn't matter how he gets his hands on the Victorian scrapbook, he just does. It doesn't matter if they have 30 days or 11 days to write the hoaxed account into the scrapbook, they just do.

And off Mike goes to London with his suitcase and his diary, and the rest is history. He has instantly become the greatest actor and greatest forger in history, and boy is the world about to know it.

Now, obviously I don't believe this account to be the truth of the matter. But - in deference to those who do - what possible argument against it is there?

Ike
Devil's Advocate Ltd.

[Graham]

Good posts both, Caz and Ike. As has been said in the distant past, Mike Barrett couldn't forge a sick-note.

Caz, as someone who knew her, can you tell us if Anne has ever made any public comment regarding the Diary since she started her new life? I suppose I mean her life after she co-authored with Shirley Harrison.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Good posts both, Caz and Ike. As has been said in the distant past, Mike Barrett couldn't forge a sick-note.

Caz, as someone who knew her, can you tell us if Anne has ever made any public comment regarding the Diary since she started her new life? I suppose I mean her life after she co-authored with Shirley Harrison.

Graham

I think you mean co-authored with Carol Emmas, Graham - but good question nevertheless!