Special Announcement

[Columbo]

Glad to hear it, because I can assure you, no offence was intended on my part.

Onwards and downwards?

Love,

Caz
X

Absolutely! this will be very interesting I think.

[Kattrup]

Read my previous post again for the clues. Who else knew about the affidavit when it was first sworn, apart from Mike, Alan Gray, the solicitor concerned, Melvin Harris and maybe some of his cronies?

I noticed some time ago David Barrat’s comment to your claim that the affidavit remained unknown for a long time. It would seem that on page 170 of Inside Story a meeting is mentioned during which Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison discuss it in January 1995.

I don’t have the book at hand but given that he quotes the passage, it seems relevant. Perhaps you could read it and comment?

It’s this page, section “Shock fake (?) news”

[Harry D]

I DON'T KNOW WHO WROTE IT.

NOBODY KNOWS.

IF THEY DID WE WOULDN'T STILL BE HERE - NOW WOULD WE?

Good grief, how hard can this be, people???

If The Baron has cracked it and will be identifying the diary's handwriting in three days from now, I will be full of admiration and looking forward to reading more of those unread books on the shelf, finally sort out the mess of old family photos and what have you currently under the bed, and even start a new hobby. Lobster extraction is looking like a definite possibility.

Love,

Caz
X

Sheesh. Take a chill pill, lady.

[Trevor Marriott]

For a former actual real life murder squad detective Trevor, I am a little surprised on your approach to this. If Mike Barrett wrote this as a confession to say Murder, would it be enough to convict him of it? Would he not need to provide hard evidence like giving murder details only he would know or even perhaps the lcoation of a body.? When such evidence is then recovered does the CPS not then feel there is a much better chance of a conviction? No court in the land would see this confession as being a safe one. No shred of evidence was provided to substantiate any of his claims - and thereby his confession is worthless.

If the police felt someone was making a false confession do they then find the hard evidence to prove that it's a false confession? Or look for a alternate suspect?

I can tell you that in the past written and signed confessions are admissible even when the police have no other evidence other than mere suspicion.

In the interests of justice though anyone making a confession would be asked probing questions around the commission of the crime to satisfy the police that the confession was the truth and the admission not given under any duress, threats, or favors.

The question would be why would Barrett make a false affidavit so that it would perhaps incriminate him to the extent he might be facing a prison sentence. Of course if it were the case that Barrett having mentioned a number of potential co conspirators in that first affidavit and then was forced to make the second affidavit as a result of duress and threats being made against him or his family by the other co conspirators he had named in the first affidavit.

Now nobody seems to want to answer my question I posted previous on proving or disproving what Barrett put in his first affidavit, surely someone must have bothered to check all of these points out?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

Now nobody seems to want to answer my question I posted previous on proving or disproving what Barrett put in his first affidavit, surely someone must have bothered to check all of these points out?
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

The points which point towards Barratt having completely confabulated his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and also in most of the scrapbook's published works.

The points which point towards Barratt having written the scrapbook but 'confused' the specific details in his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and on Lord Orsam's blog.

In sum, the former camp point out that none of the specific details Barratt gave were correct or verifiable, whilst the latter camp point out that - if you assume that Barratt got his dates wrong and the processes wrong, then the timeline at least still allows for him (or someone in his 'group') to have written the scrapbook in as little as eleven days in March and April 1992 as he claimed. I would personally go further and say that - if it already existed on his PC - it could have been transcribed into the scrapbook in as little as one or two days, but for some reason it took the Barratt 'group' a whopping eleven days to do so. Proponents of this theory (quite understandably) refer to Barratt's request for a Victorian diary from 1880-1890 which had at least twenty blank pages in it as clear evidence that the latter theory is the correct one. Proponents of the former theory highlight the fact that this request included an impossible year (1890) and that the eventual diary procured was from 1891, extremely small, covered in dates on each diary page, and only having around 3-5 truly blank pages to write in, all of which Barratt knew before he authorised Martin Earl to acquire it for him and yet he still chose to go ahead with the purchase.



I note on Lord Orsam's website that he has (quite rightly) questioned the evidence for the claim that Barratt knew what he was being offered and yet still went ahead with the purchase. He has specifically cited Caroline Brown (Caroline Morris as was, or 'Caz' of course here on the Casebook) as the source of this claim and asked the (again quite reasonable) question why she has not produced the evidence to back up her clams. I would suggest that - given that Caroline is a published researcher and author and given that the Victorian scrapbook is still debated today, twenty-eight years after it first came to light - that it is a) highly unlikely that she would make up this (or any other claim) without having the evidence to back it up, and b) is perhaps unwilling or unable to do so currently for commercial reasons (for all we know - and I don't by the way - she, Keith Skinner, and Seth Linder could be working on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story and the Latest Twenty Years). I'm sure, in time, the evidence will be made available, in the same way people doubted Keith Skinner's mysterious 'evidence' regarding the Battlecrease House provenance (because it wasn't his evidence to publish - it was Bruce Robinson's), and everyone will understand why Caroline has made those claims and on what evidence she made them.

I don't know this for certain, obviously, and perhaps Caroline wouldn't want to admit it if it were true (I don't know - perhaps she'd be happy to), but I am willing to believe that what turned-out to be true about Keith Skinner's claim of the early 2000s will eventually turn out to be true of Caroline's in 2020.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The points which point towards Barratt having completely confabulated his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and also in most of the scrapbook's published works.

The points which point towards Barratt having written the scrapbook but 'confused' the specific details in his Jan 5 1995 affidavit have been mangled over many times before here on the Casebook and on Lord Orsam's blog.

In sum, the former camp point out that none of the specific details Barratt gave were correct or verifiable, whilst the latter camp point out that - if you assume that Barratt got his dates wrong and the processes wrong, then the timeline at least still allows for him (or someone in his 'group') to have written the scrapbook in as little as eleven days in March and April 1992 as he claimed. I would personally go further and say that - if it already existed on his PC - it could have been transcribed into the scrapbook in as little as one or two days, but for some reason it took the Barratt 'group' a whopping eleven days to do so. Proponents of this theory (quite understandably) refer to Barratt's request for a Victorian diary from 1880-1890 which had at least twenty blank pages in it as clear evidence that the latter theory is the correct one. Proponents of the former theory highlight the fact that this request included an impossible year (1890) and that the eventual diary procured was from 1891, extremely small, covered in dates on each diary page, and only having around 3-5 truly blank pages to write in, all of which Barratt knew before he authorised Martin Earl to acquire it for him and yet he still chose to go ahead with the purchase.



I note on Lord Orsam's website that he has (quite rightly) questioned the evidence for the claim that Barratt knew what he was being offered and yet still went ahead with the purchase. He has specifically cited Caroline Brown (Caroline Morris as was, or 'Caz' of course here on the Casebook) as the source of this claim and asked the (again quite reasonable) question why she has not produced the evidence to back up her clams. I would suggest that - given that Caroline is a published researcher and author and given that the Victorian scrapbook is still debated today, twenty-eight years after it first came to light - that it is a) highly unlikely that she would make up this (or any other claim) without having the evidence to back it up, and b) is perhaps unwilling or unable to do so currently for commercial reasons (for all we know - and I don't by the way - she, Keith Skinner, and Seth Linder could be working on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story and the Latest Twenty Years). I'm sure, in time, the evidence will be made available, in the same way people doubted Keith Skinner's mysterious 'evidence' regarding the Battlecrease House provenance (because it wasn't his evidence to publish - it was Bruce Robinson's), and everyone will understand why Caroline has made those claims and on what evidence she made them.

I don't know this for certain, obviously, and perhaps Caroline wouldn't want to admit it if it were true (I don't know - perhaps she'd be happy to), but I am willing to believe that what turned-out to be true about Keith Skinner's claim of the early 2000s will eventually turn out to be true of Caroline's in 2020.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Ike

Thank you for your detailed reply but that still doesn't satisfy my line of questioning in post #215 in which what I was trying to establish whether those specific points from the affidavit have been :

proved to be correct in their entirety
proved to be correct in some form
proved to be false
or unproven

Because there is so much detail about them and I wonder whether someone simply making them up would not have known that they would be checked.

I also wonder why after all those years had passed Barrett felt compelled to make those admissions?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

Thank you for your detailed reply but that still doesn't satisfy my line of questioning in post #215 in which what I was trying to establish whether those specific points from the affidavit have been :

proved to be correct in their entirety
proved to be correct in some form
proved to be false
or unproven

Because there is so much detail about them and I wonder whether someone simply making them up would not have known that they would be checked.

I also wonder why after all those years had passed Barrett felt compelled to make those admissions?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm willing to have a crack at this Trevor, but I doubt I'll do as good a job as others would do.

I can't do it right now - but signalling that it's on my list.

Cheers,

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm willing to have a crack at this Trevor, but I doubt I'll do as good a job as others would do.

I can't do it right now - but signalling that it's on my list.

Cheers,

Ike

thanks perhaps those who oppose the conspiracy might like to contribute? After all it’s a simple yes or no answers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Sheesh. Take a chill pill, lady.

None needed, Harry.

Just thought the large print might help the message finally sink in.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thank you for your detailed reply but that still doesn't satisfy my line of questioning in post #215 in which what I was trying to establish whether those specific points from the affidavit have been :

proved to be correct in their entirety
proved to be correct in some form
proved to be false
or unproven

Because there is so much detail about them and I wonder whether someone simply making them up would not have known that they would be checked.

I also wonder why after all those years had passed Barrett felt compelled to make those admissions?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Off the top of my head, Trev, I would say that it's a combination of 'proved to be false and unproven'.

If anyone can point us both to where any of this dog's breakfast has 'proved to be correct' in a form which demonstrates genuine knowledge on Mike's part about the diary's true origins, I would be much obliged.

It's no good simply saying, for example, that Anne's purchase by cheque of a red diary was 'proved to be correct in some form', when Mike falsely backdated its purchase to early 1990 to make it fit with a later date - but still allegedly in early 1990 - for acquiring the photo album from O&L.

'Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

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.'

Mike not only has Devereux, their alleged co-conspirator, dying over a year too soon [he actually died in August 1991], but he also dates the 11 day creation and completion of the diary to before May 1990. Even allowing for Mike forgetting when Devereux died, this would put the creation and completion before August 1991.

For any of this to have a chance of being credible, you either have to rule out the red diary as irrelevant [it was not sent to Mike until 26th March 1992], and have the diary created between 1990 and 1991 while Devereux was still alive and able to help, or you rule out the timing of Devereux's death as irrelevant, but include the red diary as crucial, and then put the diary's 11 day creation and completion forward to April 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

In answer to Trevor's request here is my tuppence worth. I have rated each piece of information based on my understanding of present outcomes from Mikes 1995 affidavit - with no commentary other than the results. This is simply my intepretation.

- Name - TRUE
- Address - TRUE
- Personal Injury - FALSE
- Diary idea - UNPROVEN
- Timeline of starting said idea - UNPROVEN
- Funds withdrawn on dates described - UNPROVEN
- Funds provided by William Graham - UNPROVEN
- Auction date and event - UNPROVEN
- Military man at auction - UNPROVEN
- Auction items purchased - UNPROVEN
- Auction process described - UNPROVEN
- Soaking scrapbook in linseed oil - UNPROVEN
- Drying the scrapbook in the oven - UNPROVEN
- Kidney-shape carving in scrapbook - TRUE
- Purchase of nibs and pens on Bold Street - UNPROVEN
- Purchase of Diamine Ink from Bluecoat Chambers - UNPROVEN
- Dictation of "diary" to Anne - UNPROVEN
- Footage of such pose - TRUE
- Timeline on Tony Devereux death - TRUE
- Ink blot covering the word James - UNPROVEN
- Page 226 Punch Magazine Quote - TRUE
- Page 228 ink blot covering S - UNPROVEN
- Page 250 quote from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE - UNPROVEN

23 pieces of information

TRUTHS = 6 (26%)
UNPROVEN = 16 (70%)
FALSE = 1 (4%)

So UNPROVEN/FALSE scores 74% for me.

[caz]

I note on Lord Orsam's website that he has (quite rightly) questioned the evidence for the claim that Barratt knew what he was being offered and yet still went ahead with the purchase. He has specifically cited Caroline Brown (Caroline Morris as was, or 'Caz' of course here on the Casebook) as the source of this claim and asked the (again quite reasonable) question why she has not produced the evidence to back up her clams. I would suggest that - given that Caroline is a published researcher and author and given that the Victorian scrapbook is still debated today, twenty-eight years after it first came to light - that it is a) highly unlikely that she would make up this (or any other claim) without having the evidence to back it up, and b) is perhaps unwilling or unable to do so currently for commercial reasons (for all we know - and I don't by the way - she, Keith Skinner, and Seth Linder could be working on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story and the Latest Twenty Years). I'm sure, in time, the evidence will be made available, in the same way people doubted Keith Skinner's mysterious 'evidence' regarding the Battlecrease House provenance (because it wasn't his evidence to publish - it was Bruce Robinson's), and everyone will understand why Caroline has made those claims and on what evidence she made them.

I don't know this for certain, obviously, and perhaps Caroline wouldn't want to admit it if it were true (I don't know - perhaps she'd be happy to), but I am willing to believe that what turned-out to be true about Keith Skinner's claim of the early 2000s will eventually turn out to be true of Caroline's in 2020.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Ike

Hi Ikeypoo,

No, I'm not working on a new book on the diary, for which I'm hugely thankful, given that after Saturday it would need a bit of a rewrite.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would be worried about the new evidence concerning Mike's red diary if the Maybrick diary is going to be proved a Barrett production in just two days from now.

But I'm happy to report that the emails Martin Earl kindly sent in May, that most pleasant of months, explaining in great detail the way he ran his bookfinding business, were not just sent to me, but to other recipients, so it would be rather awkward to explain if I had made anything up, misrepresented his position or over-egged the pudding in relation to Mike's order specifically.

As the bloody red diary has clearly rattled Lord O [but not the bloody red Baron of course, who is another character altogether], and RJ Palmer appeared to be hoping that Martin Earl had made an exception for just one of his customers - 'Mr Barrett' - and had deviated from his standard business practice on this one occasion, I might just consult those emails again and return with a little more detail - if I think it might be helpful to anyone not yet 100% confident that the evidence to back up my clams will be rendered redundant on LOBSTER Day. [Just read your post again and saw your shellfish reference, Ike. Please tell me it was accidental - too delicious either way.]

I can almost hear it now, the sirens wailing somewhere on Merseyside as they go to arrest Anne Graham, and me wailing in utter despair, with Roy Orbison's 'It's Over' playing inside my head, as the final whistle blows and Arsenal win the FA Cup.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In answer to Trevor's request here is my tuppence worth. I have rated each piece of information based on my understanding of present outcomes from Mikes 1995 affidavit - with no commentary other than the results. This is simply my intepretation.

- Name - TRUE
- Address - TRUE
- Personal Injury - FALSE
- Diary idea - UNPROVEN
- Timeline of starting said idea - UNPROVEN
- Funds withdrawn on dates described - UNPROVEN
- Funds provided by William Graham - UNPROVEN
- Auction date and event - UNPROVEN
- Military man at auction - UNPROVEN
- Auction items purchased - UNPROVEN
- Auction process described - UNPROVEN
- Soaking scrapbook in linseed oil - UNPROVEN
- Drying the scrapbook in the oven - UNPROVEN
- Kidney-shape carving in scrapbook - TRUE
- Purchase of nibs and pens on Bold Street - UNPROVEN
- Purchase of Diamine Ink from Bluecoat Chambers - UNPROVEN
- Dictation of "diary" to Anne - UNPROVEN
- Footage of such pose - TRUE
- Timeline on Tony Devereux death - TRUE
- Ink blot covering the word James - UNPROVEN
- Page 226 Punch Magazine Quote - TRUE
- Page 228 ink blot covering S - UNPROVEN
- Page 250 quote from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE - UNPROVEN

23 pieces of information

TRUTHS = 6 (26%)
UNPROVEN = 16 (70%)
FALSE = 1 (4%)

So UNPROVEN/FALSE scores 74% for me.

Hi Erobitha,

I'd switch around the two I have highlighted above.

Mike did sustain a nasty injury to his hand. He lacerated it in late 1994 IIRC, and claimed it was a result of breaking one of Anne's windows - something like that.

But I think he lied about being told, on the same day he swore the affidavit, that he might lose two fingers as a result.

Devereux was housebound in 1991, but not severely ill, and his death from a heart attack in August 1991 was unexpected, and happened while the Barretts were away on holiday.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Hi Erobitha,

I'd switch around the two I have highlighted above.

Mike did sustain a nasty injury to his hand. He lacerated it in late 1994 IIRC, and claimed it was a result of breaking one of Anne's windows - something like that.

But I think he lied about being told, on the same day he swore the affidavit, that he might lose two fingers as a result.

Devereux was housebound in 1991, but not severely ill, and his death from a heart attack in August 1991 was unexpected, and happened while the Barretts were away on holiday.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks for clarifying Caz.

Which means my own 74% UNPROVEN/FALSE score stands. Handy.

[erobitha]

As a keen student of this whole debacle, Michael Barrett to me was a man with the world on his shoulders and much of it self-inflicted. The line between fiction and truth was blurred in his mind a long time before the "diary" surfaced. His self-pity for failing as an author (which he claimed was his profession on his 1995 affadavit - a detail I chose to skip over), he always wanted the be the driving force behind a bestseller. With money run out, wife gone, kid gone, health worsening - I can see why it was attractive for him to spin another yarn in the hope he can cling on to some kind of relevance - even within his own life. He was bitter, angry, bemused, confused, sad, insecure, arrogant, stubborn, aggressive, pitiful and at times could be charming and disarming. A complex human no doubt, but does that include an ability to mastermind this "hoax"? The evidence we do have thus far shows that to be both highly unlikely and highly improbable.

To answer Trevor's question why would he sign an oath that to me is 74% UNPROVEN/FALSE, I have not the foggiest - but that 1995 statement is not proof of anything.