Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Yes, Trev, the electricians could have said anything or nothing, and all those who have said something could have lied or told the truth. Whoever found it would have guessed it was an old book, yes. A few have referred to the diary as "the old book", while Shirley's book has been referred to as "the diary". The handwriting has been described as hard to read, so the finder didn't necessarily read enough of the content to know what it was all about, and the name Maybrick isn't mentioned at all, so the finder wouldn't automatically have connected 'Yours truly, Jack the Ripper' on the last page of writing, with the former occupant of the big house on Riversdale Road, even if he knew it was once called Battlecrease. Could have been a fictional account written at any time by anyone. Without taking the time and trouble to read more than the first page or two, it wouldn't be an obvious 'confession' to the murders in London, by someone from Aigburth signing themselves Jack the Ripper.

    Obviously the diary wasn't 'kept' or handed to their boss or the house owner, was it? And your other suggestion, that it was 'sold', is supported by all the evidence we have managed to obtain.

    No shi* Sherlock.


    Why does it cast doubt, Trev? Would you have got the finder to 'admit to theft' if you'd interviewed the electricians? Wouldn't they have been much more likely to deny all knowledge, whether that was the truth or not?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Caz
    Like I have said before I have no horse in this race but following the posts over the years as to whether Barrett was involved in a conspiracy with others to write the diary seems to me to becoming a case of both sides fighting their cause to the bitter end, when it is clear there is never after this length of time going to be a definitive answer that is going to satisfy one and all, and the truth is out there somewhere. By your posts you seem to favour Barrett not being concerned in any conspiracy.

    As an investigator with no horse in this race one has to look at all the evidence in an unbiased fashion. looking to prove or disprove the facts and that process starts with the confession made by Barrett in his first affidavit, where all that he has stated he did, and what took place can be proved, or disproved. If all of thee facts can be disproved then an inference can be drawn that he was lying. Alternatively, if they can be proved then a strong inference can be drawn that he is telling the truth.

    That first affidavit is in such great detail as to suggest he was telling the truth, too much detail included which he would have known would be carefully scrutinized not to mention the detailed research that would have to have been made to formulate the affidavit, and the solicitor making him aware of making a false sworn affadavit.

    I have set out below some of the relevant facts from his affidavit perhaps you and others who support the authenticity of the diary would care to show the evidence to prove or disprove these points or neither? The quote below are from Barretts first affadavit

    The idea of the Diary came from a discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself

    I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail".

    Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writers Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.

    At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me, its a good idea, if you can get away with it and in fact he gave me L50 towards expenses which I expected to pay at least for the appropriate paper should I find it.

    I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland,

    It was about 11.30am in the morning when I attended the Auctioneers. I found a photograph Album which contained approximately, approximately (sic) 125 pages of photographs. They were old photographs and they were all to do with the 1914/1918 1st World War. This Album was part of lot No.126 which was for auction with a 'brass compass', it looked to me like a 'seaman's Compass', it was round faced with a square encasement, all of which was brass, it was marked on the face, North South, East and West in heavy lettering. I particularly noticed that the compass had no 'fingers'.

    When the bidding stated (sic) I noticed another man who was interested in the itmes (sic) he was smartly dressed, I would say in his middle forties, he was interested in the photographs. I noticed that his collar and tie were immaculate and I think he was a Military man.

    This man bid up to L45 and then I bid L50 and the other man dropped out.

    At this stage I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid L50. This ticked was stamped. I woman, slim build, aged about 35/40 years dealt with me and she asked me my name, which I gave as P Williams, XXXXXXXXXXXXX I think I gave the number as 47. When I was asked for details about me the name Williams arose because I purchased my house from a Mr P Williams, the road name I used is in fact the next street to my mums address,

    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.


    I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.
    I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife.
    This last 64 pages inside the Album which Anne and I decided would be the Diary. Anne and I went to town in Liverpool and in Bold Street I bought three pens, that would hold fountain nibs, the little brass nibs. I bought 22 brass nibs at about 7p to 12p, a variety of small brass nibs, all from the 'Medice' art gallery.

    Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound.


    I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.
    Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

    Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.
    (I wonder what happened to Caroline?) is it a coincidence?

    During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

    During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot.

    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.

    Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake.

    Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Edited by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk











    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      Yes, Trev, the electricians could have said anything or nothing, and all those who have said something could have lied or told the truth. Whoever found it would have guessed it was an old book, yes. A few have referred to the diary as "the old book", while Shirley's book has been referred to as "the diary". The handwriting has been described as hard to read, so the finder didn't necessarily read enough of the content to know what it was all about, and the name Maybrick isn't mentioned at all, so the finder wouldn't automatically have connected 'Yours truly, Jack the Ripper' on the last page of writing, with the former occupant of the big house on Riversdale Road, even if he knew it was once called Battlecrease. Could have been a fictional account written at any time by anyone. Without taking the time and trouble to read more than the first page or two, it wouldn't be an obvious 'confession' to the murders in London, by someone from Aigburth signing themselves Jack the Ripper.

      Obviously the diary wasn't 'kept' or handed to their boss or the house owner, was it? And your other suggestion, that it was 'sold', is supported by all the evidence we have managed to obtain.



      No shi* Sherlock.



      Why does it cast doubt, Trev? Would you have got the finder to 'admit to theft' if you'd interviewed the electricians? Wouldn't they have been much more likely to deny all knowledge, whether that was the truth or not?

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      They would have had a legal right to not answer any questions which might have drawn an inference, but they chose to make their denials in interview.

      and what they said later would have been hearsay!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Your reply is somewhat pedantic with regards to the electricians

        Where is the corroboration to Eddie finding it, what you refer to is nothing more than hearsay?

        "Something of value" could mean anything. You are drawing an inference that it was the diary

        I am not as well versed in the diary as you and others but isn't it correct that there is no record of Eddie Lyons working at the house at the time the diary was purportedly found?

        So we have the electricians saying nothing was found, and nothing to show Eddie was at the house, and this is what you and the other diary believers seek to rely on to show i was found at the house, not very good is it?

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        What's 'not very good', Trev, is the fact that you admit to being 'not as well versed' in the diary as others, and then leap to a completely erroneous assumption that there is 'nothing to show Eddie was at the house' at the right time - when his boss confirmed it years ago and Eddie himself confirmed it much more recently.

        Why did Eddie do that? He did it because he knew nothing about the 9th March double event and didn't think anyone could connect his work on the floorboards job with Mike's DAiry, aside from the innocent 'coincidence' of them both having The Saddle as their local at the time.

        All Eddie had to say was that Mike Barrett had admitted to forging it more than twenty years ago, so how could he possibly have found it while working in the house?

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          They would have had a legal right to not answer any questions which might have drawn an inference, but they chose to make their denials in interview.

          and what they said later would have been hearsay!

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          So you know who was interviewed, what they were asked, and what exactly they denied, do you, Trev?

          If you can't share it with us, it's not very good, is it?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
            The Zerohour is approaching ladies and gentelmen, the point of no return in the whole history of the Scrapbook called "The Diary"

            On Saturday, first of August at 2pm UK time the fatal error will be revealed once and for all!

            Better for the diary defenders to start writing their own diaries by now!



            The Baron
            Right you are.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
              If you want to believe the diary is real, you're taking a leap of faith. Just like a religious believer, it doesn't matter how many historical inaccuracies, contradictions or errors are revealed in their sacred text, they will find some way to rationalize them to justify their belief. It doesn't matter that the author got details wrong, the provenance is a mess, the handwriting doesn't match, the owner admitted to a hoax and was looking to purchase a Victorian diary before the Maybrick diary surfaced.
              On the preponderance of evidence, the diary is a work of fiction, but there's no point arguing with anyone who disagrees with that. You can't argue with them, because if they were open to reason they wouldn't have swallowed the diary in the first place. Some people are so gullible they can't help but be hoodwinked by it. With the exception of Iconoclast, who is on an obvious pisstake and just uses the diary debate for shits and giggles.
              The diary has been swallowed?

              Is that how 'The Baron' [who joined our merry throng a few months after his favourite person in the world departed, leaving him bereft] intends to prove it's a fake? Not by the handwriting, which could have showed him years ago that it wasn't written by JM, but by some other means involving the swallower's digestive system?? Is this all about stomach acids and excrement, or just the usual piss and wind?

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                Well, I definitely agree about the can of worms, Caz!

                I'm not suprised about there being a great deal of anecdotal evidence out there. Shirley Harrison relates a story of an alarm systems shop assistant, who remembers being told in late 1991 by Alan Davies, an electrician, a story he'd heard about an electrician who'd found a leather bound- diary and a gold ring in a biscuit tin under some floorboards. Talk about Chinese whispers!
                You are so right about Chinese whispers, John. But there is no excuse for posters here, with an imperfect grasp of the evidence, the chronology, the context and the accounts given by all the individuals concerned, to mislead the readers with Chinese whispers of their own! Your post is brimming over with them! Where do I start?

                The documentary evidence we have to date shows this actually happened in late 1992. In addition, Davies had been on sick leave for the previous six months, since a nasty car accident on 13th June that year.

                Then the shop remembers it was sold "in a pub in Anfield." Very convenient!
                I don't believe in shops having powers of memory. Davies enquired about the diary he'd heard about before his accident, and was told it had been sold in a pub in Anfield and therefore no longer on the market.

                Meanwhile, Brian Rawes, "at the end of one day", recalls picking up two other employees from Battelecrease, one of whom says, "Ive found sonething under the floorboards. I think it could be important." (Harrison, 2010.) Note: no mention as to what was found.

                But here's the problem. Assuming for one moment that the Diary was found at Battelecrease on the 9th March, why would the electricians think that MB would be interested? I mean, did he stick something on the notice board at the Saddle?:

                "Wanted. One Jack the Ripper Dairy. Must be in good condition. Will pay a few quid, plus a pint of best and a packet of pork scratchings. PS: must be the real mccoy. No forgeries!"

                And how did they get in contact with him so quickly? Consider: assuming the Diary was found on the 9th March-and according to Brian Rawes, whatever was found was discovered at the end if the day- MB has to be contacted before the end of normal business hours, say, 5:00pm (it might already have been too late for this) in order for him yo have time to contact the literary agent, who presumably he had on speed dial, no doubt anticipating a quick response to his advert! And I'm sure you remember as well as I do that, in the Halcyon mobile phone-less/ social media-less times, it just wasn't that easy to contact someone at short notice. And the workman who supposedly discovered the Diary don't even seem to have had any transport; Brian Rawes was the driver. And he certainly doesn't recall driving frantically around half the pubs in Anfield, with a couple of sparkies in the back of the van, in a manic search for a scrap metal dealer and Jack the Ripper enthusiast.
                As I say, where do I start with this lot? Might it not have been simpler to wait for The Baron to prove the bloody thing could not possibly have come from the house at any time, presumably because it was Anne Graham who planned and executed the hoax?

                It was on a Friday afternoon - POETS day - 17th July 1992, to be exact, and Brian Rawes had one more job to do, with Arthur Rigby, before they could knock off. Brian had no 'employees' to pick up. He had been sent by the boss to pick up the firm's van, which was at Battlecrease and was needed for the two-man roofing job at Halewood police station. Brian didn't know the way to Riversdale Road as he had never been to the house before, so Arthur Rigby drove them both in his car, then drove himself back to the office to wait for Brian to return with the van, so they could load up and take the van together to Halewood.

                While Brian was reversing the van down the drive at Battlecrease, Eddie emerged - he was working on the ground floor with Graham Rhodes and used his own car for work - and told him he had found a book in the house under the floorboards and thought it could be important. Brian was in a rush, and knew the boss's son was inside, so he advised Eddie to mention it to the boss. I don't know where you got the idea that Brian ever suggested that 'whatever was found was discovered at the end of the day'. How would he know? Eddie didn't mention when he'd found it, and Brian simply assumed it was recently. He had no reason to think otherwise. The conversation was brief and not at the end of anyone's working day. Brian had no idea that Eddie might have been talking about a find on his previous visit to the house, back on 9th March. By the July, Mike was no doubt itching to brag down the pub about securing a publishing deal for the "old book", so if Eddie heard the latest gossip was that Bongo had an "important" book that was going to be published, the timing of his conversation with Brian that afternoon makes perfect sense. What if Bongo had mentioned Eddie's name to anyone? The connection would be made back to Battlecrease and he'd be buckled. "What did you tell 'em, Mike?" "Don't worry, lad. Would I split on a mate - er - while he's still alive and kicking and able to kick the crap out of me? Not bloody likely. I told 'em all I was given it a year ago, by that old boy who lived on your road and then died of a heart attack in the summer holidays. I said he never told me where it came from, which is the God's honest truth - technically speaking. And I still don't know because you haven't told me either."

                Eddie had helped out with his mate Jimmy B, back on Monday 9th March, when floorboards on the first floor had to be lifted. Arthur was there that day and did a full day's work, while the other named electrician, Jimmy C, put in just two hours. Eddie and Jimmy B were only "filling in", so were unlikely to have hung around for the whole day, considering the young lad was only needed for two hours. As I say, Eddie had his own wheels and his local was the Saddle, where Mike spent every weekday lunchtime while waiting to pick up his daughter from the school over the road at 3.15. Doreen Montgomery rarely arrived at her office in London until late morning, and often stayed late into the evening, so the end of 'normal business hours' was very flexible as far as she was concerned.

                Okay, say, they managed to phone him from a call box. You can just imagine how that might have gone:

                " 'Ere Mike, you never guess what. We've only gone and found Jack the Ripper's diary! Genuine article, guaranteed. It's yours for a tenner. Oh, and for an extra five quid we'll throw in Queen Victoria's secret memoirs. Some really racy stuff in there, I can tell you."

                Is Mike going to respond by saying, "Wow! That's incredible. I'd better phone a literary agent immediately, who I just happen to have on speed dial, just on the off chance that such an incredibly unlikely eventually should occur!"
                Yeah, it might have been funnier if I hadn't come to your rescue with a more realistic timeline of events.

                No, of course he isn't, even he's not going to be that insane, regardless of how impulsive he may have been. He might think it's a wind up. Or that the workman are drunk or just mentally ill. At the very least he's going to want to see the document, have time to read and evaluate it, perhaps get it authenticated. And how did they managed to get it round to him by 5:00pm? They're supposed to be working. Plus they only found it at the end of the day, and they have no transport.

                It's all deeply unsatisfactory.
                The way you tell it, it's more than that, John. Anyone can make up a deeply unsatisfactory scenario and then argue that it's deeply unsatisfactory.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Last edited by caz; 07-27-2020, 12:25 PM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                  Wow. This is like the World Record for Inaccurate Reporting Blatantly Intended to Influence the Feeble-Minded! I honestly don't know where to begin to pick through the twisted nature of the story you have just unfolded for us.

                  If ever there was a case of "playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order", this is definitely it.

                  Please, if the whole drama wasn't about to finally end at 2pm next Saturday, I'd advise you to read a book on the subject or ask someone who knows what they're talking about before you post.

                  I think you have maybe 30 bits of Maybrick-related information in your collection and you've just randomly picked-up 10-15 of them and thrown them equally-randomly into a post.

                  In that regard, it is a masterpiece of obfuscation.

                  Ike
                  To be fair, Ike, I'm not sure this was deliberate on John G's part, but you are right. It was certainly a masterpiece - on getting the wrong end of the stick. But who gave it to him?

                  I don't believe it was John G's deliberate obfuscation, but then I don't believe there was any deliberate 'collusion' between Anne Graham and Feldman either.

                  I believe that John G, just like Feldy back in July 1994, has simply been fed what his Anne Graham equivalent wants him to swallow. The difference in Feldy's case was that Anne's medicine went down a treat, but was actually a placebo. Poor John was given a toxic mixture that resulted in his evidently severe indigestion.

                  Quack quack.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    What's 'not very good', Trev, is the fact that you admit to being 'not as well versed' in the diary as others, and then leap to a completely erroneous assumption that there is 'nothing to show Eddie was at the house' at the right time - when his boss confirmed it years ago and Eddie himself confirmed it much more recently.

                    Why did Eddie do that? He did it because he knew nothing about the 9th March double event and didn't think anyone could connect his work on the floorboards job with Mike's DAiry, aside from the innocent 'coincidence' of them both having The Saddle as their local at the time.

                    All Eddie had to say was that Mike Barrett had admitted to forging it more than twenty years ago, so how could he possibly have found it while working in the house?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Is there anything physical evidence to show Eddie was at the house at the material time, forget about the hearsay that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

                    The question on when they both remembered is also contentious.

                    How was it possible for all of these persons to remember where they were, or what they did on specific dates years later.

                    Can you remember what you were doing this time last year on this specific date?

                    and Barrett makes no mention of having any contact with other persons in his first affadavit other than those mentioned.

                    As I see it, he has gone to a lot of un-neccessay trouble to avoid mentioning such a simple explantion for how you say he acquired the diary.

                    Disprove the first afafadavit content and you might be on more firmer ground

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-27-2020, 12:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Duplicated

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Caz
                        Like I have said before I have no horse in this race but following the posts over the years as to whether Barrett was involved in a conspiracy with others to write the diary seems to me to becoming a case of both sides fighting their cause to the bitter end, when it is clear there is never after this length of time going to be a definitive answer that is going to satisfy one and all, and the truth is out there somewhere. By your posts you seem to favour Barrett not being concerned in any conspiracy.

                        As an investigator with no horse in this race one has to look at all the evidence in an unbiased fashion. looking to prove or disprove the facts and that process starts with the confession made by Barrett in his first affidavit, where all that he has stated he did, and what took place can be proved, or disproved. If all of thee facts can be disproved then an inference can be drawn that he was lying. Alternatively, if they can be proved then a strong inference can be drawn that he is telling the truth.

                        That first affidavit is in such great detail as to suggest he was telling the truth, too much detail included which he would have known would be carefully scrutinized not to mention the detailed research that would have to have been made to formulate the affidavit, and the solicitor making him aware of making a false sworn affadavit.

                        I have set out below some of the relevant facts from his affidavit perhaps you and others who support the authenticity of the diary would care to show the evidence to prove or disprove these points or neither? The quote below are from Barretts first affadavit

                        The idea of the Diary came from a discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself

                        I told my wife Anne Barrett, I said, "Anne I'll write a best seller here, we can't fail".

                        Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writers Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool.

                        At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me, its a good idea, if you can get away with it and in fact he gave me L50 towards expenses which I expected to pay at least for the appropriate paper should I find it.

                        I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland,

                        It was about 11.30am in the morning when I attended the Auctioneers. I found a photograph Album which contained approximately, approximately (sic) 125 pages of photographs. They were old photographs and they were all to do with the 1914/1918 1st World War. This Album was part of lot No.126 which was for auction with a 'brass compass', it looked to me like a 'seaman's Compass', it was round faced with a square encasement, all of which was brass, it was marked on the face, North South, East and West in heavy lettering. I particularly noticed that the compass had no 'fingers'.

                        When the bidding stated (sic) I noticed another man who was interested in the itmes (sic) he was smartly dressed, I would say in his middle forties, he was interested in the photographs. I noticed that his collar and tie were immaculate and I think he was a Military man.

                        This man bid up to L45 and then I bid L50 and the other man dropped out.

                        At this stage I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid L50. This ticked was stamped. I woman, slim build, aged about 35/40 years dealt with me and she asked me my name, which I gave as P Williams, XXXXXXXXXXXXX I think I gave the number as 47. When I was asked for details about me the name Williams arose because I purchased my house from a Mr P Williams, the road name I used is in fact the next street to my mums address,

                        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.


                        I then removed the makers seal which was ready to fall off. I then took a 'Stanley Knife' and removed all the photographs, and quite a few pages.
                        I then made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife.
                        This last 64 pages inside the Album which Anne and I decided would be the Diary. Anne and I went to town in Liverpool and in Bold Street I bought three pens, that would hold fountain nibs, the little brass nibs. I bought 22 brass nibs at about 7p to 12p, a variety of small brass nibs, all from the 'Medice' art gallery.

                        Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound.


                        I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.
                        Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

                        Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.
                        (I wonder what happened to Caroline?) is it a coincidence?

                        During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

                        During the writing of the diary of Jack the Ripper, when I was dictating to Anne, mistakes occurred from time to time for example, Page 6 of the diary, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake when I told Anne to write down James instead of thomas. The mistake was covered by the Ink Blot.

                        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.

                        Page 228 of the book, page 22 Diary, centre top verse large ink blot which covers the letter 's' which Anne Barrett wrote down by mistake.

                        Page 250 book, page 44 Diary, centre page, quote: "OH COSTLY INTERCOURSE OF DEATH". This quotation I took from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE, Volume 2 English Poetry and Prose 1540-1671, Edited by Christopher Ricks, however, Anne Barrett made a mistake when she wrote it down, she should have written down 'O' not 'OH'.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trev,

                        I note that you missed out the beginning of Mike's affidavit, where he dictates to Alan Gray:

                        'I MICHAEL BARRETT, make oath and state as follows:-

                        That I am an Author by occupation and a former Scrap Metal Merchant. I reside alone at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and at this time I am incapacitated due to an accident., for which I am attending Hospital as an out-patient. I have this day been informed that it may be neccessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand.

                        Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary").

                        Nobody will believe me and in fact some very influential people in the Publishing and Film world have been doing everything to discredit me and in fact they have gone so far as to introduce a new and complete story of the original facts of the Diary and how it came to light.

                        The facts of this matter are outlined as follows:-

                        I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course.'

                        Do you not consider any of this to be relevant?
                        ​​​​​
                        And do you not think that December 1993 to January 1995 ought to have given Mike sufficient time to make sure he had all his ducks in a row, with accurate facts and dates, before putting together a half credible affidavit, given the solicitor would have made him aware of the consequences of swearing a false affidavit and would have advised him that all the details would be carefully scrutinised?

                        Even I am not smart enough to conjure up evidence in support of the details Mike gave if no such evidence exists, Trevor, so you flatter me. I'm also not smart enough to prove a negative - that is, that there never was any evidence. I think that might be why people are presumed innocent until the evidence proves otherwise. They do not have to prove they were elsewhere when the alleged 'crime' took place. If there is evidence out there, to prove that the details Mike gave about his own or any other named individual's involvement were truthful, I have yet to see it. If someone is holding back that proof, it's not me.

                        I don't understand your question about some Caroline 'coincidence'. There are at least three Carolines in the story, and I'm not one of them. Caroline Barrett was named after a friend of her mother's, while I believe Doreen Montgomery had a daughter called Caroline. There may be more. A popular name in Liverpool as you can't spend more than a couple of days in that fair city without hearing Neil Diamond's 'Sweet Caroline' blasting out of the pubs and live music venues.

                        I don't think Mike had to have those two fingers amputated in the end, so he would still have been able to use them to "say goodnight to the foreman" as they used to say.

                        Or to stick two fingers up at those awful people who did everything to 'discredit' him by not believing the diary was a fraud of his own making [??] and by 'introducing a new and complete story of the original facts' and 'how it came to light' [the 'original' story being that Mike got it from Tony D in 1991, and the new one being that Anne had given it to Tony D to give to Mike]. Mike doesn't explain how his affidavit has not just introduced yet another new and complete story of how it came to light.

                        Love,

                        Sweet Caroline
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 07-27-2020, 01:27 PM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          I have this day been informed that it may be neccessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand.
                          Hi Caz,

                          Do you think that it is in any way indicative of Mike's natural instinct to confabulate that he added this completely irrelevant detail (which turned out, like all the other conflabs in his life, to be untrue) to his Jan 1995 affy David?

                          I wonder if this tendency of Mike's was at work during the affy David when he described a large number of details - such as the fingerless compass - even though not a single note of his claim has ever been verified unless you change what he meant and change when he meant it?

                          Obviously, for a long time it was possible to blame the 'stroke' that Mike had 'had' and which only he appeared to have known about as the reason for his affy David being fundamentally true although the details were 'mashed-up' in his mind. Do you think the fact that Mike's medical records from his GP - Dr Khan - showed no reference to a stroke or any kind of mental condition was so awkward for those who want so deeply to believe his version of events that this is the reason why the 'stroke' never gets mentioned any more?

                          Do you think it is possible - on any level, however unintentional - that those who argue Mike's account gives a solid rendition of the construction and timeline of a forgery may just be a wee bit desperate?

                          Just throwing some ideas around in the countdown to Lord Orsam's Big Reveal (LOBR, as history will doubtless denote it).

                          PS Back at school, our English teacher told us that he could construct a meaningful sentence containing the word 'had' eleven times consecutively. Anyone care to offer a solution to this great conundrum?

                          Cheers,

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                            Remember when Swindon Town were IN the Premier League? I've yet to see a plausible explanation for that strange affair.
                            Yes, this reminiscencing malarkey is helping to bridge the long gap between Light and Dark - the Peaceful Now and the Turbulent, Unbearable Then - or, more accurately, the bit where there was no LOBR and then the bit after it.

                            It was that very season - when Newcastle were champions of the brand new Crapitronic First Division - that Swindon beat Leicester at Wemberley on 31 May 1993. The final scoreline of 4-3 suggests that the game was exciting but for long periods in was a walkover with Swindon leading 3-0. Leicester did a Leicester and got back to 3-3 and then a bloke who I always thought looked a bit like Jeremy Beadle popped-up with the winner. I think I'm remembering that correctly.

                            I've just looked it up and it wasn't he, so either I confabulated it due to my recent 'stroke' or else someone was a dead ringer for the comic genius.

                            Ike
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Is there anything physical evidence to show Eddie was at the house at the material time, forget about the hearsay that is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

                              The question on when they both remembered is also contentious.

                              How was it possible for all of these persons to remember where they were, or what they did on specific dates years later.

                              Can you remember what you were doing this time last year on this specific date?

                              and Barrett makes no mention of having any contact with other persons in his first affadavit other than those mentioned.

                              As I see it, he has gone to a lot of un-neccessay trouble to avoid mentioning such a simple explantion for how you say he acquired the diary.

                              Disprove the first afafadavit content and you might be on more firmer ground

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Not up to me to disprove anything, my old sport. Were you really a copper, or are you just codding, dear old boss?

                              No specific dates are needed by someone who simply remembers being at a certain place, why they were there and what they did. Doesn't mean there are no other ways or means of matching up a shared experience - such as a pop concert or sporting event - with the date when it actually took place.

                              The work sheets give us the specific date and what was happening in Battecrease on a certain occasion. The firm's boss, and the electricians involved, remembered the job itself; which members of the Portus & Rhodes crew were sent there; and where in the house it was being done, so nobody needed to work from memory to pin their individual experiences to an actual date, nor were they expected to do so. The wiring job for the first floor storage heaters was a one-off instance - ha ha - so they weren't all remembering another time or place. What nobody can do is to 'remember' back to an event that happened many years ago, including who else was there at the time and what they were doing, if they weren't actually there to experience it for themselves. Someone could pretend to have worked on the floorboard job in Maybrick's old bedroom, assuming he had a motive for doing so, but he'd still need to have learned all his facts in advance from those who were actually there at the time, and then hope they would not remember he was conspicuous by his absence. Do you think Eddie had a motive for saying he was there if he wasn't? And how did he have all the right answers prepared, when he didn't know what the questions were going to be?

                              I'm surprised you haven't seen and done all this kind of stuff before, Trev. It must have all been on The Bill at one time or other. My daughter appeared twice on The Bill quite by accident, when she happened to be in the right place at the right time. Once was in a cafe in Wimbledon, and the other time was somewhere in the Croydon area IIRC. She was asked if she'd like to be among the extras. 'Little Caz' has an excellent memory of both occasions, because something memorable happened, but I very much doubt she'd be able to date either. I couldn't even tell you which year or years she appeared.

                              Love,

                              Mama Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Interesting article below that highlights how the human brain is far better ar remembering events and activities than the specific dates and times on which they were done. Our brains are not perfect calendars but surprisingly nimble at remembering the acts of doing. Eddie Lyons remembered lifting the floorboards at Battlecrease House. The day they were lifted are on the timesheets. His name wasnt on the sheet but the event was. The very same day Mike rang Doreen. I need Ike's statistical analysis on the odds of that happening. My brain not so good these days.
                                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...membering-when
                                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X