Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[caz]

...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.'...

In addition to the above, I have a timeline entry for Wednesday January 18th 1995, which includes the following:

'MB says he didn't take diary seriously at first. Never heard of 'Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' before SH mentioned it to him.'

Nothing much wrong with Mike's memory, just 13 days after his affidavit of January 5th, if he could recall precisely what he had claimed about Ryan's book 9 months previously, before he came out with his first forgery claim. Or was it the truth for once?

In the same entry, I also noted this, regarding the Sphere volumes:

'Also says he found same volumes, "piles of them", in an out-of-print bookshop.'

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi R.J,

I’ve tried to come up with a partly documented, partly hypothetical chronology of events from mid-1994 to early 1995, which most closely reflects your own belief that Mike and Anne were ‘in it together’ to create the Maybrick diary. Where I have included details which may challenge or conflict with that belief, you can take it these come strictly from the documented record, not the hypothetical elements. I’d be very interested in any observations or changes – however major or minor - you would make, so here we go:

In the summer of 1994, before Mike’s first confession, his Sphere volumes are taking up space and he sees no need to hang onto any of them, despite having decided back in November 1993 that enough was enough and making it clear from that time that the diary was a forgery. [Mike only recalls this later, in January 1995, but doesn’t say how he made it ‘clear’ at that early stage or to whom.] Anyway, he takes all the volumes to his new friend Jenny, for her son. His Crashaw evidence is out of sight, out of mind – for the time being.

Then in late June, he decides to come clean and confesses to forging the diary. He thinks he can produce the evidence, if and when necessary, to prove it.

Despite this setback, and just a month later, towards the end of July, Anne claims the diary has been in her family for years. Shirley is relieved, but disappointed that Anne said nothing before, and has now chosen to reveal all to Feldman.

‘Disappointed’ doesn’t come close to describing how Mike feels about it, and he could not be less relieved. Hacked off, jealous and resentful, he is now determined to put an end to the diary, and with it Anne and Feldman’s scheming.

August goes by and at some point in September, Mike remembers Shirley asking him to see if he can track down a source for the quote in the diary. Knowing he can identify it because he put it there himself, Mike can have a little fun at both Shirley’s and Feldman’s expense. He leaves a decent interval of about a week, in which he can pretend to search for it in the library. He doesn’t need to go there, because he thinks he can remember the volume in question without retrieving it from Jenny, and only needs to phone the library to check that they have the same set of volumes on their shelves.

Getting a positive response, Mike is now ready to spring the ‘good’ news on Shirley and the ‘bad’ on Feldman. From what Mike tells Shirley about the book [after first giving her the wrong volume number: Volume 6 – The Victorians, and pretending to return to the library to find the right one and make a note of it this time] she is able to phone the library herself and confirm that they have a copy, but there is no mention of a man with a Liverpool accent having very recently made an almost identical enquiry, so different staff members presumably dealt with Mike’s.

Mike then decides it is Shirley’s turn for some more bad news, so he tells her about the books he took round to Jenny in the summer, and the volume in particular which contains the Crashaw quote. The volumes were sent to him, brand new, back in 1989, in connection with the Hillsborough Appeal. The plan was to auction them to raise money for the appeal, but that failed so he hung onto them instead.

On October 12^th 1994, he tells Shirley he is seeing his solicitor that very afternoon and will take the Sphere volume with him. But the following day he phones Liz Winter, his solicitor’s assistant, and tells her he has found the phrase “O sweet intercourse of death” [sic] in the library. She makes a note that it’s in ‘Vol 2 P 184’. There is no record of the actual book being lodged at any time with the solicitor or later withdrawn, but he knows he can access it whenever it suits him.

At around this time, Mike is telling Alan Gray as much as he can remember about the forgery. He no longer has the two hard back discs which the diary was on when he finished it, nor any of the writing materials, because they were taken by his sister to her home and later destroyed to protect him after she read an article in the Daily Post. But he does have access to his Sphere volume, and in his possession is the little red 1891 diary, plus receipt. He also has the ticket from the O&L auction where he obtained the scrapbook used for the diary.

Mike presumably has his reasons for not showing Gray any of this evidence at the earliest opportunity. Instead, he gets Gray to drive him to O&L, where they remain outside. Mike does his best to recall when he attended the auction, or even whether it may have been Anne, and Gray struggles to make sense of what he’s hearing and to get enough details to make the appropriate enquiries. Mike could simply show Gray the auction ticket, or give him a photocopy, so he can keep hold of the original, but that would be too easy.

On December 6^th 1994, however, Mike decides to give Gray a break and hands him the same Sphere volume he was sent brand new in 1989, which he has retrieved at some point from Jenny. The smoking gun that is the auction ticket can wait.

Between then and Mike’s sworn affidavit of January 5^th 1995, he goes to see Anne at her home address, where she asks him for the red diary, remembering that it is evidence of her participation in the forgery. Mike, having temporarily forgotten it is evidence of her participation in the forgery, and therefore not particularly curious to know why Anne suddenly wants it, digs it out and gives it to her the next time they meet. He realises his mistake just in time to mention the red diary in the affidavit, and of course he still has the receipt for it. No doubt he also recalls cursing when the tiny diary was delivered, on a sale or return basis. Mike really should have paid more attention when Martin Earl was talking the item through with him, as he did as a matter of course with all his customers, to get their agreement before purchasing it from his supplier. “It’s a small diary for the year 1891, Mr Barrett, X by Y inches, with the dates printed on every page. Are you happy for me to go ahead and order it for you?” But his words must have fallen on deaf ears, leaving Mike eagerly awaiting the arrival of something that was no bloody use at all for faking James Maybrick’s diary for 1888/9. But finally the 1891 diary can serve a purpose, and take Anne down with him. Thank goodness he hadn’t returned it within the standard settlement time, and Anne agreed to pay for it by cheque when Martin Earl phoned Mike to chase it up.

Something else Mike remembers by January 1995 is the fact that the scrapbook was not sold singly, as he had recalled in the summer of 1994, but as part of a lot. It was probably Shirley who jogged his memory because she writes in her 1994 paperback that O&L said no unremarkable empty album such as Mike’s would have been sold singly. In fact, it appears on the very same page where she so upset him by mentioning that his drinking had led to ‘confabulation’ and suggested he was an alcoholic. So in his January 5^th affidavit, Mike is able to recall that it was part of lot no. 126, up for auction with a brass compass. He remembers it was about 11.30 in the morning when he went there, although he feels sure this was the end of January 1990 – so he is only out by 2 years and 2 months. The compass went the way of the discs and writing materials, destroyed by Mike’s sister.

On January 18^th, 13 days later, Mike repeats the claim he made back in April 1994, that he had never heard of Ryan’s book before Shirley mentioned it to him. Funny how the memory can play such mean tricks on Mike when he is trying to tell the truth, as in his affidavit, yet he can have perfect recall of a lie he told a year ago about one of the sources he used to forge the diary.

Meanwhile Mike has left the indefatigable Alan Gray to check and worry the life out of O&L, checking this date and that date – nothing. By April 1995, Mike’s lot 112 has changed to lot 53 [it was lot 126 on January 5^th] and Gray can’t reconcile this with whichever date Mike has finally settled on for the auction. It’s not clear what years Gray has covered by this point, but he has been given so many different dates that his frustration is showing.

I expect, R.J, that you will have recognised instantly where I have filled some gaps in the documentation to try and make your forgery hypothesis work as best I can. So I would very much like to know how close this all is to what you actually believe.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

'MB says he...never heard of 'Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' before SH mentioned it to him.'

As Mandy Rice-Davies said when she was told that Lord Aston had denied sleeping with her, or even knowing her.

"Well he would, wouldn't he?"

* * *

Hi Caz, I do have a quick question (actually several, but I will limit it to one). You write that

Keith "retained the spelling throughout" in his transcription of Mike's undated letter of October 1994. Are the upper and lower cases of the lettering also retained?

The first thing that strikes me is that Barrett appears to be able to correctly spell the word IDENTITY...when he wants. And only a few lines after botching it badly.

I find this somewhat suspicious, kind of like the illiterate 'Lusk Letter' correspondent being familiar with the silent 'k' of knife.

[StevenOwl]

In the summer of 1994, before Mike’s first confession, his Sphere volumes are taking up space and he sees no need to hang onto any of them, despite having decided back in November 1993 that enough was enough and making it clear from that time that the diary was a forgery. [Mike only recalls this later, in January 1995, but doesn’t say how he made it ‘clear’ at that early stage or to whom.] Anyway, he takes all the volumes to his new friend Jenny, for her son. His Crashaw evidence is out of sight, out of mind – for the time being.

How much is known about Jenny Morrison, Caz? Seems to me if you take her out of the equation there's no corroboration for Mike already owning a copy of the Sphere volume. Did anyone other than SH ever get the chance to question her?

[Observer]

Hi Caz, I do have a quick question (actually several, but I will limit it to one). You write that

Keith "retained the spelling throughout" in his transcription of Mike's undated letter of October 1994. Are the upper and lower cases of the lettering also retained?

The first thing that strikes me is that Barrett appears to be able to correctly spell the word IDENTITY...when he wants. And only a few lines after botching it badly.

I find this somewhat suspicious, kind of like the illiterate 'Lusk Letter' correspondent being familiar with the silent 'k' of knife.

Mike Barrett's "confessions" are strewn with such inconsistencies. The one that tickled me the most was his spelling of always as all ways, whilst in the same breath there are several fairly difficult words spelt correctly.

Also take a look at this from his 1995 confession

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out"

No spelling mistakes here. examined spelled correctly, absorbed, compass, you get the idea.

A couple of paragraphs down we have this

We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.

I think what Barrett is doing here is to emphasie in a disstintive way he's no good at spelling.

[rjpalmer]

One other thing, Caz. I’ll study what you’ve written—and thanks, for it must have taken quite a lot of effort to compile these notes--but, to be honest, I’m disinclined to contribute any further to this conversation. A couple of recent posts have disheartened me to the point of tossing in my chap book. They’ve shown the utter futility of my evangelical efforts: there is no hope of converting the wayward believer. As Anne Graham once said, “people will believe what they want to believe.”

In one recent post, ‘Erobitha’ denies that money could have been a motive for hoaxing the Maybrick watch, because “no money came.” O really? Robbie Johnson fetched a cool £15,000 and Albert took in at least £2,000 by selling the visual rights to Feldman. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a total of around £29,000 in today’s currency. This doesn’t prove that either of the Johnsons faked the watch, but it certainly blows apart the claim that money couldn’t have been a motivator. Yet Erobitha’s misinformation went entirely unchallenged.

Next up we have Iconoclast, now claiming that Kevin Whay of O & L checked the dates around 31 March 1992 for Barrett’s purchase of a black ledger. Dear Gawd. This has been discussed so many times that Ike is either being utterly careless in his claims or is simply making things up. What evidence can he show to back this up? As documented by Harrison, Whay was asked to check the date(s) given in Barrett’s sworn affidavit, which were January/February 1990. This would have been a full 25 MONTHS before March 1992—the logical date of Barrett having visited O & L! Yet Ike claims, ridiculously, that Whay would have checked this date also. Again--no one bothered to correct or challenge Ike’s statement. Why is that?

I am not in contact with David B., but I trust he won’t mind me reprinting a statement from his article “A Man in A Pub” [see Orsam Books website] which is highly relevant, and should put the question of Barrett’s missing auction slip to bed once and for all:

“In a statement made by Kevin Whay to Shirley Harrison on 16 January 1995, which was, for some unexplained reason, omitted from inclusion in 'Inside Story', and is thus not very well known, Whay said that, 'Between 1990-1991 they [O&L] held about 300 or more auctions and items such as an old photo album would have been in a job lot marked "miscellaneous items".' Consequently, even a search of the records in the correct year would not have revealed the sale of the photo album (or ledger or scrapbook). Those records would, according to Whay, only have recorded it as a 'miscellaneous' item.”

Thus, even if Barrett had produced the auction slip, and Whay had been asked to check the logical dates, it is very unlikely that any record of the purchase would have been recognizable in O & L's records. What would an entry reading “miscellaneous” tell Keith that cannot already be discerned in Martin Earl’s advertisement? In short, I think it's time to forget Barrett's auction slip. It's irrelevant.

Finally, a minor point. Keith quotes Whay’s statement of having checked on ‘either side of the date’ given by Barrett. [See 38:09 in the tape of the Cloak and Dagger meeting]. In Harrison’s 1998 book she writes that Whay checked on ‘either side of the dates’ (plural) given by Barrett. Which was it? Date or dates? )(I am assuming Harrison is mistaken, but I am not suggesting it was deliberate). And is anyone prepared to back-up Iconoclast’s statement that Whay checked March 1992? (Not that it necessarily matters anymore, based on the statement reproduced by David B). If such claims are to go unchallenged, then I can only assume I have wandered into an enclave of true believers, and any further efforts are futile. The natives are sharpening their knives and getting ready to boil my flesh. Time to head back to the continent.

[rjpalmer]

In Harrison’s 1998 book she writes that Whay checked on ‘either side of the dates’ (plural) given by Barrett. Which was it? Date or dates? )(I am assuming Harrison is mistaken, but I am not suggesting it was deliberate).

I should say that this is in the 2010 reprint of Harrison's book, available in snippet view format on Google Books. My copy of her 1998 book is in storage.

[Graham]

In one recent post, ‘Erobitha’ denies that money could have been a motive for hoaxing the Maybrick watch, because “no money came.” O really? Robbie Johnson fetched a cool £15,000 and Albert took in at least £2,000 by selling the visual rights to Feldman. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a total of around £29,000 in today’s currency. This doesn’t prove that either of the Johnsons faked the watch, but it certainly blows apart the claim that money couldn’t have been a motivator. Yet Erobitha’s misinformation went entirely unchallenged

I don't really wish to get involved in a debate which has become tedious in the extreme, but didn't Albert Johnson turn down a much larger sum than £2000 offered to him by that collector in Texas? $50000 or something like that, was it?

Graham

[c.d.]

I don't really wish to get involved in a debate which has become tedious in the extreme,

What makes you say that?

c.d.

[Graham]

I don't really wish to get involved in a debate which has become tedious in the extreme,

What makes you say that?

c.d.

I read it every night to get off to sleep, and it invariably w...o......o.....r....k....................s. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Next up we have Iconoclast, now claiming that Kevin Whay of O & L checked the dates around 31 March 1992 for Barrett’s purchase of a black ledger. Dear Gawd. This has been discussed so many times that Ike is either being utterly careless in his claims or is simply making things up. What evidence can he show to back this up? As documented by Harrison, Whay was asked to check the date(s) given in Barrett’s sworn affidavit, which were January/February 1990. This would have been a full 25 MONTHS before March 1992—the logical date of Barrett having visited O & L! Yet Ike claims, ridiculously, that Whay would have checked this date also. Again--no one bothered to correct or challenge Ike’s statement. Why is that?

In this thread, Roger? Fair enough if it was, but could you be clearer about what I said as I plain don't recall it?

[erobitha]

I don't really wish to get involved in a debate which has become tedious in the extreme, but didn't Albert Johnson turn down a much larger sum than £2000 offered to him by that collector in Texas? $50000 or something like that, was it?

Graham

rjpalmer Thanks for this "In one recent post, ‘Erobitha’ denies that money could have been a motive for hoaxing the Maybrick watch, because “no money came.” O really? Robbie Johnson fetched a cool £15,000 and Albert took in at least £2,000 by selling the visual rights to Feldman. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a total of around £29,000 in today’s currency. This doesn’t prove that either of the Johnsons faked the watch, but it certainly blows apart the claim that money couldn’t have been a motivator. Yet Erobitha’s misinformation went entirely unchallenged."

Albert retained the watch despite some considerable offers. Taken from The Independent 24th Nov 2004:
"The Manchester findings delighted the watch's owner, Albert Johnson, a college caretaker, who spotted the piece, dated 1846, in a Liverpool jeweller's window and paid £225 for it in 1992. He now considers the watch's importance to the case to be inconclusive. "We could go on for for ever getting the watch tested but it wouldn't make any difference to some people," he said. "In my own mind, I have no doubt who the Ripper was."

Indeed, neither do I.

[Graham]

I've just checked, and Albert Johnson, whom RJP would have us believe was interested in making money from the Watch, turned down an offer of 'between $30 - 40000' for the Watch, made by a Texan called Robert E Davis. He was, it seems, a keen collector of historical artefacts associated with crime. Of course, as is pointed out in 'Ripper Diary', Albert and Robbie could have been trying to up the ante by turning down Davis' hopefully starter-offer. But I do genuinely feel that Albert wasn't doing that.

Anyway.

Graham

[rjpalmer]

Originally posted by Graham:

"whom RJP would have us believe was interested in making money from the Watch"
...

Hello Graham.

I think if you check the archives, I have always consistently said that Robbie Johnson was the one pushing the sale of the watch for financial gain, so please don't twist my words. I am willing to accept that Albert Johnson was generally honest.

Riddle me this. What exactly is Albert Johnson's refusal to sell the watch supposed to prove??? Are you suggesting that by NOT selling the watch for $40,000 this proves Albert believed the watch to be real? Sounds like backwards logic to me!

If anything, it tells me that Albert got cold feet. When push came to shove, and Mr. Davis’s offer was on the table, Honest Albert started to think things over and began to worry that his brother Robbie had been pulling a fast one—that there was something seriously wrong with the whole business--so he refused to sell it, not wanting to get involved in a possible fraud. In other words, Albert thought better of the whole thing, and pulled the plug! That's how I read it.

Not wanting to sell the watch at an enormous profit because he believes it is real doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, now does it? But that is what is being argued!

Anyway, I'm out of here, but since you asked me a couple of weeks ago for a citation, here it is. Here is Paul Feldman describing how Robbie had lied to him.

Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, p. 32. (Emphasis added).

“Robbie Johnson telephoned me to say that Dr. Turgoose was convinced the watch was old, but he could not get the back off it. ‘We don’t know what’s scratched at 8 o’clock,’ said Robbie. I listened and told him to get me a copy of the report as soon as I could. I put down the phone and reflected on what I had been told. Robbie had lied. Turgoose might not know what was scratched at the position of 8 o’clock in the back of the watch, but Robbie and Albert did.”

“On the very first day I had met the Johnsons they had brought with them a diagram, which I’ve reproduced opposite. They had already seen what was scratched in that position and from their diagram Keith Skinner, Robert Smith and I, at the very least, also knew. They did not need Turgoose to tell them.”

It sounds as if Feldman caught Robbie “playing dumb,” having momentarily forgot the fact that he had already supplied a diagram of the watch’s scratches.

There is an old saying in my neck of the woods: if a person is going to lie, they better have a good memory.

Cheers, RJP.

PS to Ike. "Incontrovertible" thread, Post #5100. You said it was "inconceivable" that Kevin Whay didn't check the date 31 March 1992 in the O & L records. Yes it IS inconceivable that he wasn't asked to check that date ---but he wasn't, and by all appearances he didn't.

I'll be back if there's ever anything new, but I certainly don't wish to be tedious, so carry on without me.

[Graham]

Mr Palmer,

I am not trying to twist your words. You quite plainly inferred that Albert, by making £2000 in selling the rights to Feldman, had made money from the Watch, so therefore per se was interested in making money from the Watch. H

I never inferred that Albert, by turning down the $40000, was satisfied that the Watch was genuine. You are suggesting that. He either believed it was, or it wasn't. I don't really care.

Enough.

Graham