Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[rjpalmer]

am I not right in thinking that the 'J. Maybrick' signature - unlike the handwriting of the scrapbook - was a very good approximation of Maybrick's known signature (i.e., on his Will)

Priceless, Ike. The allegedly forged will is used to prove the authenticity of the non-forged watch. Only in Ripperology can such pretzels of consciousness exist and flourish and reproduce.

For you, my friend: re: the ultra-tiny brass particle found by Dr. Turgoose in the ‘M.K.’ markings on the watch.

This on-going campaign about the hoaxer needing great technical ability, a neutron microscope, etc., to ‘implant’ this particle has always struck me as a bizarre, desperate, and misleading suggestion.

No one is claiming, or has ever claimed, that the particle was deliberately implanted. I can only imagine that Turgoose must have been responding to a question that some innocent soul had posed at some point: ‘Could a hoaxer have implanted it’? Obviously, the answer would be no—or at least the (correct) assumption would be that it is wildly wildly unlikely.

So, I think we can all agree: there is no doubt whatsoever that the particle found by Turgoose had been left behind by the etching tool. No sane person would suggest otherwise.

Now, using simple logic, if the scratches were made by an etching tool in 1889, they could have been made by an etching tool in 1910, or in 1955, or in 1992. At some point, the etching tool left behind the particle. There is no dispute.

The only real question is whether the brass particle was already dark when it had been left behind by the tool or whether it had darkened ‘in situ,’ and, if the latter, whether this darkening took place over decades, or whether it took place instantaneously by the introduction of some corrosive and darkening solvent, such as vinegar, etc., that one might have naturally and innocently used during a cleaning regime.

You appear to be using Feldman’s technique of suggesting a wildly improbably scenario (that no one has ever suggested) in order to dismiss the plausibility of a modern hoax. Isn’t this generally referred to as a ‘straw argument’?

I remain yours, &tc.,

The Great Unpersuaded

[erobitha]

Now, using simple logic, if the scratches were made by an etching tool in 1889, they could have been made by an etching tool in 1910, or in 1955, or in 1992. At some point, the etching tool left behind the particle. There is no dispute.

The only real question is whether the brass particle was already dark when it had been left behind by the tool or whether it had darkened ‘in situ,’ and, if the latter, whether this darkening took place over decades, or whether it took place instantaneously by the introduction of some corrosive and darkening solvent, such as vinegar, etc., that one might have naturally and innocently used during a cleaning regime.

...and so the cycle continues. https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...tml?showpage=4

Firstly, read the exact words written Turgoose in the report. He does not say a forgery could be achieved in the way you suggested, but rather through a multi-stage process with considerable scientific awareness and knowledge. I think we are beyond vinegar and an old etching tool here. But somehow your scientific knowledge is greater than this expert. If so perhaops you could burden me with the qualifications in which you possess in which to over rule this expert's advice, then perhaps you would have grounds for me to consider your expert testimony over his. Does your expertise also exceed that of Bristol University? http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2004/573.html

Secondly, motive dear boy, motive. If we may overlook your expertise on how it could be forged and go with the good Doctor's suggestion - why? Why would someone go to all the trouble and expert knowledge to do such a thing? More importantly who? Robbie Johnson and hios school microspcope kit? No-one disputes Robbie's character was questionable. But it wasn't his watch. It was Albert's. And he never sold it.

The watch remains an incovenient truth.

[Iconoclast]

I think we are beyond vinegar and an old etching tool here.

Neither Roger nor you mention the sticky-backed plastic, Ero, but we’ll take it as read that it was also required.

For all non-Brits and Brits of a very modern ilk, sticky-backed plastic was once the pre-requisite of every hair-brained plan, including building rockets from washing-up bottles and wallets from old socks. Still, it got me a full set of badges so what do I care?

[rjpalmer]

Secondly, motive dear boy, motive...No-one disputes Robbie's character was questionable. But it wasn't his watch. It was Albert's. And he never sold it.

Thanks, but you might want to alert Linder, Brown, and Skinner to this fact, for on page 100 of Ripper Diary they write…

“accompanied by locally based researcher Carol Emmas and co-owner of the watch Robbie Johnson….”


In the beginning the watch was Albert’s.

Before the dust cleared it was only 25% Albert’s. Which leaves three other owner/suspects, two of whom I think we can safely eliminate from our enquiries.

At some point the watch must have been appraised at £60,000 (Robbie’s quarter share represents twenty-five percent of £60,000) which is a significantly larger figure than the $40,000 US offered by the Texas collector Robert E. Davis, which could suggest an alternative reason why his offer was rejected.

The pound was worth more to the dollar in 1995 than now, but, even without doing all the math, Davis must have low-balled the Johnsons with a counteroffer of less than 50% of the appraisal, if we assume that Robbie’s eventual £15,000 share was 25% of the original asking price. (Which also assumes that Feldman, if he was the buyer of Robbie’s share, paid the full price).

Ironically, in the end, Robbie made off with more money by the Johnsons NOT selling the watch to Davis; if the sale had taken place, his share only would have been £10,000. But Robbie cleared £15,000, despite no apparent investment and no original claim to anything.

Surely you must find these circumstances curious and worrying? But obviously we are of two different minds.

Anyway, someone might alert KS to Post #491, in case he wants to investigate it.

[rjpalmer]

There is an extraordinary character witness for Robbie Johnson on pg. 259 of Ripper Diary.

His name is Charlie Pulford.

“[Pulford] also claims that, had [Robbie] been considering a forgery, Robbie would have asked Pulford to do the scratchings for him and says that, as the brothers were so close, it would have been unthinkable anyway for Robbie to have done such a thing behind Albert’s back.”

What in the blazes is this?

Imagine going before the magistrate with that argument:

“Your honor, sir, I know Mick couldn’t have robbed the bank, because if he had, he would have asked me to stand lookout!”

Only in Liverpool! It’s like a line out of a comedy routine...

[caz]

No, Caz. I'm afraid you're wrong, and you misunderstood my point. You might want to follow your own advice and go back and re-read my post again...SLOWLY.

I have fully "digested" what you're saying. But all the above notes about the discussions between Harrison and Barrett were recorded in OCTOBER 1994.

I AGREE that she sent Barrett "back" [sic?] to the Library to get the page number at that time. (Whether Mike had gone in the first place might be debatable, so it may only be "back" from Shirley's perspective; she believes Mike's account of having been at the library, but that doesn’t prove that he was telling the truth).

To repeat: Shirley's claim that she had sent Barrett to the CLL in the first place, to discover the quote, is nowhere to be found in these October 1994 notes; it was a claim not recorded until her letter to Keith Skinner on 14 September 1995, which is 11 months after these events. (See below. Taken from your post #472).

So to repeat: the notes dating to Oct 1994 don't really explicitly state that Barrett had been sent to the library (the "first" time) on Shirley's orders. All they state is that Barrett told her he found the quote at the library (he could have been lying) and she told him to "go back" some three days later, because he didn't give the page number. This is entirely different from the claim that Barrett had been specifically asked to search the CLL by Shirley. Indeed, we are elsewhere told that Barrett went on his own volition because he had been humiliated due to his drink problem.

Now do you get it? I am only trying to establish that Barrett was telling two different sets of people two different tales on or around 30 September 1994. Sheesh! RP

- - - -
Thursday 14^th September 1995....

KS adds note: MB told SH and Sally on 22^nd June 1994 that he was going to say he forged diary – then, after Brough article and prior to paperback coming out, MB calmed down and SH told him to do something constructive – ie. source 'O costly…' quote.

RJP comments: This shows Harrison's memory of having Barrett 'do something constructive' (find the quote) dates to 14 September 1995, unless she has a CONTEMPORARY note from 22 June 1994 proving that Mike had been given this task. Indeed, her contemporary notes (from Oct 1994) indicated Barrett found it 'by chance.' How hard is this, Caz? What is there to dispute? I am only adhering to a strict analysis of the original sources. Isn’t this what we are supposed to do?

I am suggesting that on 14 Sept 1995 Shirley could have been remembering having asked Barrett to go to the library to find the quote (because SHE DID), but this was on 3 Oct 1994 and not in June 1994. I only say this because that is all that Keith's documentation shows.

Ciao.

PPS. My guess is only 3 people in the entire world would bother to analyze the tedium written above: me, Keith Skinner, and David B.

Afternoon RJ,

You wrote [and I quote]:

...it seems obvious that she is misremembering sending Mike to the CLL to get a photocopy of the correct page AFTER he had already revealed the correct citation over the phone.

That's what I was responding to, with my repeated timeline entries, showing that Shirley was NOT misremembering, because she DID send Mike to the library to find the correct details, and this was AFTER he had already told her over the phone that he'd found the quote there, but thought it was in volume 6. If you meant she was misremembering sending Mike to look for the quote in the first place, perhaps it would have been better to write that, instead of the above, and I would not have misunderstood you.

I don't know where you got the idea that he was sent to get a photocopy of the correct page, because you won't find that in my recent posts. Anne was later asked to take a photocopy of the page in the library. But that's beside the point. If Mike had been able to give Shirley the correct page of the correct volume over the phone, she wouldn't have needed to send him to the library to find the book containing the quote, so she would know what to ask for when she phoned the library. And if Mike had already phoned the library to check they had a copy, he wouldn't have needed to go at all, would he?

NOW do you get it? Sheesh back to you! This all came about because YOU suspected that Mike never went to the library AT ALL, because he only needed to phone them to check if they had the SAME volume he had allegedly lent to Jenny's son, before phoning Shirley with his bombshell. Do you see now that this doesn't work, because he gave Shirley the wrong volume number, which is why she sent him to the library to identify the right one?

STILL no evidence that Mike ever had a volume 2 until he managed to find the used copy he handed to Alan Gray in the December.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don’t think my suggestion is outlandish at all; I think that it is what the notes suggest. I admit that it is only my interpretation.

I’m fairly certain that I had asked Harrison about this some 15 years ago, but her recollection of the chronology was not clear, which is entirely understandable considering everything that had gone on.

I’m open to persuasion if further documentation suggests otherwise.
[Note to self: when did the paperback come out?]

I don't have the actual date to hand, for when the 1994 paperback hit the shops, but Mike was sent his contractual copies on Thursday 15th September 1994:

Thursday 15^th September 1994
SH94 delivered to Smith Gryphon by printers.
Source: copy of letter from Robert Smith to KS, 16^th June 1995 (CAM/KS/1995)

Thursday 15^th September 1994
Covering letter from Robert Smith to MB, to enclose six contractual copies of SH94 paperback.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1994)

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Previously posted...

Tuesday 11^th October 1994
KS conversation with SH:
MB v. upset (w/b Sept 26^th 1994) by remarks in p/back about him being alcoholic…determined to do something serious about this he spends week in L’pool library trying to find source of O Costly Intercourse (p231 of Shirley’s p/back)…
Finds it but does not make a note of it. Phones Duocrave on Fri 30^th Sept…
Around this time his mother has read p/back – upset – throws MB out of house
Mon Oct 3^rd – MB phones Shirley – Shirley tells MB to go back to library and find the reference… By Oct 6^th Shirley has reference.
Source: copy of notes by KS, 3^rd - 12^th October 1994 (CAM/KS/1994)


Could this help to explain Shirley's 'quite by chance' remark to Keith, in the phone message he picked up on Monday 3rd October 1994?

If Shirley had suggested to Mike, in the immediate wake of his decision to confess, back in the June, that he do something constructive, such as look for a source of 'O costly...', then heard nothing more about it until three months later, because it was only after he had received and read the paperback, that he became determined to show everyone that he was not a useless drunk, then Shirley would not have been expecting it when he suddenly revealed that he had found the quote in the library. She'd have been extremely surprised, considering that nobody else had managed to track it down. And of course, we don't know exactly how Mike described it to Shirley over the phone. He could have told her he'd found it "quite by chance" during that initial call, and only later added that he'd spent that whole week specifically looking for it. If he didn't tell her beforehand that he was finally going to start looking, how would she have known that it was not 'quite by chance' that he'd found it, but as a direct consequence of the suggestion she had made three months previously?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To those who so casually dismiss the Maybrick watch with the thoroughly cavalier and wholly unjustified notion that Robbie Johnson did the aged-particle embedding in Albert's back bedroom with a handily-placed aged implement, etc., am I not right in thinking that the 'J. Maybrick' signature - unlike the handwriting of the scrapbook - was a very good approximation of Maybrick's known signature (i.e., on his Will)?

If this were so, I can't help but wonder at the remarkable depths of Robbie's research before doing his clever metallurgy magic.

It was a very good approximation of Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence, Ike.

More fun and games tomorrow, if I finally get round to responding in full to #441 on this thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Priceless, Ike. The allegedly forged will is used to prove the authenticity of the non-forged watch. Only in Ripperology can such pretzels of consciousness exist and flourish and reproduce.

See my latest post, R.J.

I don't dispute that the will was signed by Maybrick, incidentally, or that the diary is not in his handwriting. Just saying...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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...

Well now, R.J, I sincerely hope you will study that hypothesis I lovingly prepared just for you. See #437. Yes, it did take a lot of effort as well as time – which I’d prefer to have spent with someone more appreciative, frankly. But instead of studying it and coming back to me to say whether it works for you and, if not, what you would change to make it work, you changed the subject – a habit that is more revealing than you may realise - and had a pop at me for leaving you with the relatively simple task of challenging a couple of observations that erobitha and Ike made, which I missed while giving you my undivided attention.

What about the utter futility of my own efforts, R.J, to try and reconcile for you Mike’s various claims with the entrenched beliefs you and David B. hold? In Mike’s affidavit he felt ‘sure’ the O&L auction was at the end of January 1990, but because that didn’t work with those entrenched beliefs, it had to be substituted for a completely new, and very specific claim – an auction date of March 31^st 1992 - which Mike himself never even hinted at, and this somehow became the new and improved truth. It demonstrates that you and David see no need to examine and question your own reasoning, when you can simply change an inconvenient date or detail that challenges it. How desperately do you both need Mike to have known all the right notes, even though he made an art form out of getting them in totally the wrong order?

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).

You seem to have forgotten that Shirley didn’t know about Mike’s affidavit of 5^th January 1995 until two years later, on 22^nd January 1997, when he finally sent a copy to her. On the same day, Shirley faxed Kevin Whay the actual page dealing with Outhwaite and Litherland, and asked him to check what Mike himself had claimed against his records.

Mike had originally told Harold Brough of the Liverpool Daily Post on Sunday 26^th June 1994 that he had bought the photo album at O&L. If he gave Brough any other details they were not reported. There was nothing reported at the time about any ‘miscellaneous items’, nor would Shirley have been able to tell Whay, in January 1995, that the album had allegedly contained over a hundred highly collectible WWI photographs and was sold with a brass compass, nor that Mike felt sure the auction was held at the end of January 1990. All she could tell Whay AT THAT TIME was that Mike had allegedly bid for ‘an old photo album’. In her 1994 paperback she had described it as ‘an unremarkable empty album’, which ‘the auctioneers’ had said would not have been sold ‘singly’. Sure enough, that is what Whay confirmed on 16^th January, that it would have been in a job lot marked ‘miscellaneous items’. They didn’t know any different then, because Mike’s affidavit was not yet known about. But Melvin Harris, or at least Alan Gray, who had typed it up, could have given O&L in confidence – or Shirley for that matter - the full monty on the photographs and compass, but it appears they didn’t do so. On the very day before Mike swore his affidavit, Melvin wrote to Shirley, ending his letter with: ‘I, and my colleagues on the committee, are prepared to cooperate fully and freely, without prejudice, in order to make known the real facts in this case.’ How quickly that was forgotten – unless Melvin knew perfectly well that Mike’s affidavit and ‘the real facts’ had very little in common. Shirley was also prevented from seeing the Sphere volume then in Gray’s hands, and it became pretty obvious why, when Keith finally obtained it. According to Melvin, in a post to the message boards in 2000, Shirley had tried to get access to Mike’s volume 2 on 19^th January 1995, but Gray ‘refused to play ball’. On the same day, Shirley received a typed note from Gray: ‘I am sorry I cannot meet you today, but I am advised there is a conflict of interest here’. I don’t know who advised him not to play ball, but I’ll give you three guesses.

Fast forward 2 years to 27^th January 1997, when Shirley wrote to Kevin Whay, asking him to email Doreen with his reactions to Mike’s auction experience, as described in his affidavit, which she had only seen for the first time five days earlier. This is my timeline entry for Whay’s response:

Thursday 30^th January 1997
Letter to Doreen Montgomery from Kevin Whay (of Outhwaite & Litherland):
Confirms that no description or lot number corresponding with details in MB’s affidavit exists, and that sales have never been conducted in the manner MB describes. (Refers to a search made on either side of the alleged sale dates for the photo album MB claimed to have bought for the diary forgery.)
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1997)

You will note that it was Whay who referred to sale dates [plural], and he was working directly from Mike’s affidavit this time round. Shirley had originally asked Whay to check ‘between 1990-1991’, but it’s not clear what the extent of the renewed search was, or what he meant by ‘either side’ of the alleged sale ‘dates’.

What is clear, though, is that whoever did the searching this time would have been looking for two distinctive items [Mike didn’t mention any others, did he?], which were unlikely to have been in a lot marked ‘miscellaneous items’. I have recently been reliably informed that while an album and compass, such as Mike described, could have been sold together as a lot, they would have been itemised and described individually in the ‘relevant’ catalogue – that word again. I’m told this is because the alleged album of WWI photos alone would have been worth in excess of £100 back then. It was nobody’s fault but Mike’s, that nothing of the kind was found, whether this was because the items and lot number never existed or because, when it mattered most, it completely slipped his mind that the auction was held just 13 days before he took his precious album to London on 13^th April 1992, stripped of its valuable photos, but now boasting the freshly faked diary of Jack the Ripper. In other situations, he was able to rattle off that date as if it was deeply embedded in his soul.

But all this will be of no concern to you now, because the smoking gun that was Mike’s auction ticket suddenly became ‘irrelevant’, and you think it’s time to forget it. But just before we leave it there, do you know when David B. wrote his “Man in A Pub” article? I ask because Keith noticed that for some unexplained reason, neither of you have mentioned that in post #540 [which you replied to in #541] of the Acquiring A Victorian Diary thread, Keith posted the record of Shirley’s conversation with Kevin Whay, in response to David’s specific request. In the spirit of co-operation and wanting to be helpful, he reproduced in full the primary source fax, which Shirley had sent him, and highlighted in red the additional information, which had not been included either in Shirley’s book or Ripper Diary. Keith said he couldn’t remember why it was not reproduced in full in our book, but that it was not deliberately excluded. I will add here that if we had tried to include every single piece of information that had come our way by 2003, we’d still be writing it.

You reckoned it was game, set and match the other day, R.J. But no, it’s just new balls. I noted your change of focus – yet again – from O&L to Martin Earl, and what was ‘discerned’ in the advert he placed on Mike’s behalf. You must be getting dizzy, Miss Lizzy, with all these changes in direction, so I do hope you will indulge Martin Earl for a while before you decide he is also ‘irrelevant’ and it’s time to forget him too. It would be sad to watch you go down with Michael Gove, as someone who has had enough of experts. I mean, Alec Voller doesn’t know his Diamine from his Doo Dah. Drs Wild and Turgoose don’t know crude scratches made in gold in 1993 from Ye Hole in Ye Wall. So I fully expect Messrs Litherland and Earl to suffer a similar fate, with the former being accused of not knowing Outhwaite & Litherland’s antiques business from a Spitalfields flea market, and the latter not knowing his own bookfinding service from a bookbinding one. But we’ll have to see, won’t we?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hello Caz –

I’ll look over your latest, using all my appreciative charm. In the meantime, RE: Shirley sending Mike to the library…there are some interesting quotes from Harrison on page 134-135 of your book that seemingly date to around 8 August 1994. She complains that Paul Feldman’s investigative techniques are “utterly amateur.” On some level, she must be starting to realize the absurdity of Feldman welcoming Anne Graham, Carol Emmas, and Robbie Johnson into his fold, and even allowing them to carry on “research.” Harrison even uses the words “taint” and “contamination.” Given such an attitude, it seems strange that Shirley herself would assign a sensitive research project to Barrett--and AFTER he had already confessed to forgery. The world “taint” would seem highly appropriate. Yet, that is precisely what you are suggesting she did and perhaps you’re right. People like Barrett have a way of wearing down one’s immunity. But I do think we are wasting time with this. It’s a sidetrack. Whether or not Shirley asked Barrett to search at the CLL is not very material. It can’t tell us anything conclusive; it doesn’t even tell us if he actually hoofed it down there. Far more relevant is whether Barrett owned Sphere Vol. 2 prior to September 1994. That is the important point, but I notice you have no comment on Melvin’s claim that this had been confirmed by Barrett’s sister. I assume you think MH is lying or confused? Maybe, but he didn't strike me as a liar. Cheers, RP.

Perhaps the most fitting Little Richard song might be “You Better Stop.” Keith, David B., Caz, RJP: we are all immoveable objects, whether we admit it or not. Is there a point in continuing?

[caz]

Hello Caz –

I’ll look over your latest, using all my appreciative charm. In the meantime, RE: Shirley sending Mike to the library…there are some interesting quotes from Harrison on page 134-135 of your book that seemingly date to around 8 August 1994. She complains that Paul Feldman’s investigative techniques are “utterly amateur.” On some level, she must be starting to realize the absurdity of Feldman welcoming Anne Graham, Carol Emmas, and Robbie Johnson into his fold, and even allowing them to carry on “research.” Harrison even uses the words “taint” and “contamination.” Given such an attitude, it seems strange that Shirley herself would assign a sensitive research project to Barrett--and AFTER he had already confessed to forgery. The world “taint” would seem highly appropriate. Yet, that is precisely what you are suggesting she did and perhaps you’re right. People like Barrett have a way of wearing down one’s immunity. But I do think we are wasting time with this. It’s a sidetrack. Whether or not Shirley asked Barrett to search at the CLL is not very material. It can’t tell us anything conclusive; it doesn’t even tell us if he actually hoofed it down there. Far more relevant is whether Barrett owned Sphere Vol. 2 prior to September 1994. That is the important point, but I notice you have no comment on Melvin’s claim that this had been confirmed by Barrett’s sister. I assume you think MH is lying or confused? Maybe, but he didn't strike me as a liar. Cheers, RP.

Perhaps the most fitting Little Richard song might be “You Better Stop.” Keith, David B., Caz, RJP: we are all immoveable objects, whether we admit it or not. Is there a point in continuing?

I hope you will not only 'look over' my latest, R.J, but thoroughly digest the chronology, because it's so important to know who knew what and when, before you point another accusatory finger at investigators for not being psychic!

I'm amused that you describe looking for a source of the 'o costly...' quote as 'a sensitive research project'. Everyone had been looking for it in vain, and Mike had been contracted to help Shirley with the diary research since the early days in 1992, before anyone knew he would become such a liability. I have no doubt that Shirley didn't - and doesn't - believe for one second that Mike had what it took to create the diary, with over two years of hands-on experience of his capabilities, from April 1992 to June 1994, even if he had been drunk more than sober for the last 6 months since Anne left him.

I agree entirely that the important point is whether Mike had a Sphere Volume 2 before September 1994. But you did seem rather fixated on doubting Shirley ever suggested he look for the quote, so I figured that was just as important for you, although I wasn't quite sure why. It wouldn't prove he didn't have the right volume up his sleeve all along, waiting for the right moment to use it to his advantage. Time for you to let this aspect go, perhaps? I will return to it, however, as I am already preparing another post on the subject of Mike's number 2s - if you'll pardon the expression. Seems quite apt to me.

I've been a busy girl, R.J, so I've not had time yet to read the post you mention, referring to that particular claim of Melvin's. I'll get there in the end, but I do have other things to do as well as to try and keep up with every post that has appeared since my last visit. Patience, my old friend. There is every point in continuing, as I am passionate about getting everything in its proper order. But it's up to you whether you want to keep coming back for more, or decide to disappear for good next time.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz -

Perhaps 'sensitive' wasn't the mot juste, but it was in the ballpark. Asking 'Mr. Williams' aka Barrett to hunt for the unknown quote would be like asking Peter Kurten to help search for the missing girl. If he found her, everyone would assume he knew where to look. Adieu.

[rjpalmer]

Oh, one other thing. My impression is that Barrett wasn't sophisticated enough to realize how damning his 'discovery' of the Crashaw quote was going to be until Shirley Harrison showed her amazement. To Barrett, it was just poetry and he had no inkling of its obscurity. Then it slowly started to sink in how difficult it would be to find an unidentified snippet through 'normal' research, so he 'weaponized' his ownership of the Sphere Vol. 2. I say this, because of the other pointless revelations Mike makes in his Jan 5 affidavit, which show that he didn't always 'get it.' For instance:

"Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN."

This is beyond stupid and proves nothing. I doubt even Gray knew enough to realize the full implications of the Crashaw discovery.