Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[rjpalmer]

You're missing the point. Anne Barrett could not deny the existence of the maroon diary, it's existence was in the public domain after Barretts confession. It doesn't matter if it was destroyed or not.

I agree, Ike is missing the point.

I believe Anne tried to suppress the evidence of the red diary (at Feldman's insistence?) but once Barrett confessed, she knew she had no choice but to admit to its existence, because Barrett could have chased down Martin Earl, who could have confirmed the purchase. It would have then been game, set, and match, because Skinner would have caught her in an out-and-out lie. 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 do disagree on one detail, however. I think the red diary was actually in Mike's possession from 1992-1994. He kept it.

Then, somehow, when the shite began to slap the fan, Anne Graham ended up with it.

From Barrett's confession:

“My wife is now in possession of this [red] Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

-- Mike Barrett, 5 January 1995

Later in the same sworn statement:

“It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of L20,000 before the end of the month. She was all over me and we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickley (sic) as she made love to me she threatened me and returned to her old self. She insisted Mr Feldman was a very nice Jewish man who was only trying to help her.”

The following is an ugly suggestion, but I think it is justified.

Keith Skinner admitted some months ago that Feldman had once instructed Barrett to lie to the police if they asked about the word processor. So what other strings did Feldy try to pull? Had he asked Anne Graham to retrieve the red diary from Barrett as an exercise in "damage control"?

Read between the lines. That's what Barrett seems to be suggesting.

[Observer]

Ok, before Barrett's confession there was no need to destroy the maroon diary, it cost them £25 why destroy it? They might of been considering selling it on to cut their losses. Anne Barrett then learns that Mike Barrett had revealed it's existence. What does she do? Destroy it? Whats the point, she knows that Barrett can prove it's existence. As I said, what did she say to Skinner et al to justify it's existence? That is, what was her version of events which justified the purchase of the maroon diary?

[Observer]

You're missing the point. Anne Barrett could not deny the existence of the maroon diary, it's existence was in the public domain after Barretts confession. It doesn't matter if it was destroyed or not. More to the point what was the excuse she used for it's existence when confronted by Keith Skinner et al?

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike

The revelation with regard to the maroon diary came about as you say during one of Barret't's drunken confessions. The holder of the diary Anne Graham was up the creek without a paddle at this point. She couldn't deny it's existence there was the advert in black and white for it's purchase. I believe the reason why The Bard of Goldie Street, and his complicit wife, did not not burn the diary was due to the fact that poor people don't destroy something which considering their meager income cost them an arm and a leg. Even if it was a smoking gun.

I can't find anything in any of the books where Anne Graham attempts to explain away this smoking gun, perhaps you can help. It would be interesting to hear what she said on the matter.

I get it - it's the old I'll-come-clean-that'll-really-throw-them-off-the-scent routine?

The maroon diary - if it had actually been evidence of a hoax - would have cost them a great deal more than £25. Which would you have destroyed, the then worthless 1891 diary or your entire future (including that of your precious daughter)?

Clearly Anne quickly decided on the latter, but you appear to be erring on the side of the former?

[Observer]

By the way, before you say anything with regard to the advert for the purchase of the maroon diary remember Barrett would have also known where it originated from.

[Observer]

Hi Ike

The revelation with regard to the maroon diary came about as you say during one of Barret't's drunken confessions. The holder of the diary Anne Graham was up the creek without a paddle at this point. She couldn't deny it's existence there was the advert in black and white for it's purchase. I believe the reason why The Bard of Goldie Street, and his complicit wife, did not not burn the diary was due to the fact that poor people don't destroy something which considering their meager income cost them an arm and a leg. Even if it was a smoking gun.

I can't find anything in any of the books where Anne Graham attempts to explain away this smoking gun, perhaps you can help. It would be interesting to hear what she said on the matter.