Special Announcement

[Fisherman]

You must be kidding

Leaving him for what exactly?! to read your one man's fantasies?! And that The man who killed Chapman and Jackson is one and the same beyond any reasonable doubt!





What a fishy advice!


The Baron

Baron, I wasn´t specifically suggesting that you tag along with me. It was a piece of advice more about going than coming.

As for Chapman and Jackson, that is for another thread, but no, in my mind there cannot be any reasonable doubt about a common originator. Fishy or not.

[Fisherman]

Nicely timed, Fish - post 666.

The devil´s in the details - well spotted!

I was mistaken, the subliminal message is at the beginning of episode 2. ;-)

There is some tapping going on there, I must admit. Not sure it´s coming from Foggy´s tapdancing on the grave of the idea of a carman killer of Tabram, though.

[The Baron]

As for Chapman and Jackson, that is for another thread, but no, in my mind there cannot be any reasonable doubt about a common originator. Fishy or not.

Then why don't you jump on your friend's throats when they are defending this hoax and say this?!

You know that a common originator for those two murders, Chapman and Jackson, proves that Maybrick was innocent and didn't write this Diary.


But you couldn't.

And that what makes Orsam different, he doesn't play politics.



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

You are incorrigible, Abby!

I should come clean: I think Charles Lechmere was the Ripper* and he forged the diary to throw suspicion onto Maybrick.

*He didn’t kill Tabram, of course. The ID of her murderer is blindingly obvious.

ooooo i like it! with maybricks wife and your blind guy just to get a conspiracy in there too!

[Fisherman]

Then why don't you jump on your friend's throats when they are defending this hoax and say this?!

You know that a common originator for those two murders, Chapman and Jackson, proves that Maybrick was innocent and didn't write this Diary.


But you couldn't.

And that what makes Orsam different, he doesn't play politics.



The Baron

Eeeehhh...? Which "friends" are we talking about? And what is it I "couldn´t"?

I thought I´d been very clear: I think the diary is bogus, but I am not willing to get drawn into the longwinded discussions about it, and so I stay away from it, by and large. Occasionally, when I see how people are not able to understand that we are allowed to point out flawed reasoning, regardless of which side of a discussion it comes from, I may contribute to the discussion by pointing such things out. Like when Gary Barnett pointed out that David Orsam was wrong if he thought that the aunt business was a singular blow to the diary theory that would bring it all tumbling down; it isn´t, and I agree fully with that.

That does however not make me a proponent for the diary being kosher. I don´t believe it is and I never did.

It is interesting that you should speak of how people abandon reason for politics, following it up by urging me on to "jump at the throats" of posters. If that´s not politics, I don´t know what is.

So, are we clear on things now?

[Iconoclast]

Eeeehhh...? Which "friends" are we talking about? And what is it I "couldn´t"?

I thought I´d been very clear: I think the diary is bogus, but I am not willing to get drawn into the longwinded discussions about it, and so I stay away from it, by and large. Occasionally, when I see how people are not able to understand that we are allowed to point out flawed reasoning, regardless of which side of a discussion it comes from, I may contribute to the discussion by pointing such things out. Like when Gary Barnett pointed out that David Orsam was wrong if he thought that the aunt business was a singular blow to the diary theory that would bring it all tumbling down; it isn´t, and I agree fully with that.

That does however not make me a proponent for the diary being kosher. I don´t believe it is and I never did.

It is interesting that you should speak of how people abandon reason for politics, following it up by urging me on to "jump at the throats" of posters. If that´s not politics, I don´t know what is.

So, are we clear on things now?

Well, Fisherman, me old friend, I think you have neatly summarised the surreal world we live in on the Maybrick element of the Casebook. Any comment whatsoever that does not damn the scrapbook to eternal Hell and ... erm ... damnation is to be 'jumped on' and the poster to be vilified as a fraud, someone perpetuating a hoax, an idiot, I think you know the rest ...

And 'jump at the throats' is what tends to happen. It's rarely much less vitriolic than that.

I don't give a **** - never have, currently don't, and never will; but I know that it bothers others (I get the occasional email to this effect) which causes them to hold their opinions to themselves so that the ones we tend to hear the most are the ones which people feel safest posting (i.e., those which support the hoax theory).

I admire you and MrBarnett and others who have the balls to post what is factually or logically correct in the face of the Billy Bollocks we have to tolerate so often from the dark matter.

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

I am going to deal just with Barrett not going to muddy the waters with all those you mentioned

In the affidavit, he admits to being concerned in hoaxing the diary.

Ah, but were Mike's admissions true or false, Trevor?

That has not been established.

It is a known fact that having hoaxed it he tried to palm it off as the genuine article and sought payment for the rights knowing it to be a hoax

You are now saying that the admission made by Mike makes it a 'known' fact that he did hoax the diary. If that were true, then it would follow - even in Bongo's world - that he knew it was a hoax when he took it to London to try and flog it.

None of that has been established.

In his police interview he stated he got it from Deveraux and in the meantime, it was established that after the rights had been sold it was a fake. No further action was taken by the police at that time because the main complainant the Sunday Times it seems after getting their money back from Smith did not wish to proceed with the complaint, so it was conveniently put to bed by the police.

Whatever you think has been 'established' about the diary's origins, it has not been established what precisely Mike knew about them. He may only have known how and when he acquired the "old book", and what state it was in at that time.

If the police had have picked it up when the affidavit came out they could have re-interviewed him based on the admissions he made in the affidavit, and also the fact that he had made a formal police statement knowing it to be false that amounts to perverting the course of justice. as well.

But this is it, Trevor. When exactly did the affidavit 'come out'? When were the police first made aware of its existence, and who told them? When did they get to read it in full? I don't know the answers to these questions. All I am certain of is that Shirley and Keith didn't get to read it until January 1997, two years after it was sworn. Even if the existence of a further signed statement had already been made public, and was doing the rounds, Shirley and Keith were not among the privileged few to be told about it or to receive copies. By the time Mike sent a copy to Shirley, a version of it was on the internet, so presumably if the police had been interested, and nobody had thought to mention it before, they could have re-interviewed him on the basis of what was now in the public domain.

On a secondary note, the solicitor who took the sworn affidavit from Barrett was later struck off for dishonesty !

I'm not sure how you think that makes Mike's affidavit any more likely to be a product of honesty, but there we are.

So the conspiracy among those involved was even more far-reaching into later years.

Er, no 'conspiracy' has been established, Trev.

Unless you want to go down the Battlecrease route and re-interview all the electricians who have known about the "old book" since 1992.

No, didn't think so.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As for Caz Brown's musings, here is a reminder about what Mike Barrett REALLY requested. None of our assembled scholars can explain--and will never be able to explain--- the Zen Mystery of why Mike needed to contemplate the meaning of at least 20 blank pages, unless, of course, it was to write something on them.

But isn't that like asking for 20 pieces of string?

"I must have at least 20 pieces of string."

"But how long do you want them?"

"I want to keep them, idiot."

...

"Did you find me those 20 pieces of string I asked for?"

"'Fraid not."

"I'll take it. How much will this frayed knot cost my wife?"

"Effing idiot."

As for "tight fits," Mike's 11 day transformation of the manuscript to the artifact is a leisurely stroll in the park compared to the whirlwind events that Keith Skinner wants us to believe transpired on March 8, 1992. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

No, RJ, you just proved that. Keith wants us to believe which 'whirlwind events' transpired on Sunday March 8th 1992?

If you meant Monday March 9th 1992, and were not just making it up, why would Keith want you to believe anything? You've made it perfectly clear that you no longer have the capacity - assuming you ever did - to believe anything other than what Mike Barrett wanted you to believe, when he was making his unsupported and contradictory forgery claims.

Have fun measuring 20 pieces of string for the next idiot.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I love this, Ike. Well done. "Challenged" by being forced to write microscopically on metal with a rusty pin, Maybrick is nonetheless able to make a fair representation of his 'public' hand, but while writing with an ordinary pen on paper in a ledger his handwriting for some inexplicable reason no longer resembles any known exemplar of his 'public' hand. The logic is obscure but unassailable, and you've got me convinced. However, it does make me wonder why we ever bother to employ document examiners...

As I said earlier, with Diary belief, "it's not damned if you do, and not damned if you don't." Anything goes! We simply have no tools at our disposal that allow us to conclude this is a hoax. "For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."

Fish - Here's my take on the aunt. No one has provided any historical evidence that Maybrick ever referred to his wife's European godmother as her auntie--or even that Florrie Maybrick was particularly close to this woman. Dr. Hopper's statement recounts Maybrick referring to her as Florrie's godmother. We are stuck in the shadowy world of he could have called the woman her aunt. Just as Maybrick could have hallucinated that a fried tennis ball tastes sweet and pleasurable. By contrast, there is good circumstantial evidence that Addison was thinking of James Baillie Knight’s aunt in his opening statement, and this "aunt" error was repeated in subsequent secondary sources--including the book Mike Barrett named as one of his primary sources. It's not a howitzer, perhaps, but it's another indication, among many, that there is no reason for me to take this hoax seriously.

Hi RJ,

So would it be fair to say that you at least recognise inside the watch a 'fair representation' [whether this was by Robbie Johnson or A.N Other] of the real J Maybrick's signature? Bearing in mind that there is no Maybrick signature in the diary itself, could you just set the record straight on what you believe about the one in the watch, and how many other styles could have been the result if it was down to pure guesswork on the hoaxer's part? Thank you.

Also, did you mean to write James and not John Baillie-Knight, whose aunt may have been confused by Addison as Florie's aunt? You see, it's all too easy to think one thing and write another, isn't it, whether you are writing as yourself, in public or in private, or as somebody else. We deal with a series of impossible questions here: who did Florie initially give James as the main purpose of her visit to London? Did she only mention one person or several? Was she lying? Did James always pay close attention to everything his wife was saying? Could he have got his wires crossed with a previous visit to Aunt M, for instance? The point is, nobody but Florie or James could have answered any of these questions because nobody else was privy to their private conversations. It's an exercise in futility, assuming this was an invented conversation which didn't actually happen, because it's anyone's guess why the diary author had 'Sir Jim' recording that Florie's excuse to him had been that she was going to see her aunt.

For balance, it's every bit as much an exercise in futility to suggest that if JM wrote the diary, he must have had a reason for the reference to Florie's aunt. It's something that could never be proven either way. I think Ike has acknowledged the difficulty he faces in this regard, because how could anyone ever prove that the diary contained anything only the real JM could have known - for example anything Florie said to him in a private conversation? It would have to come down to the balance of probabilities, as seen by the individual concerned, and that seems to be Ike's argument.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Who knew about it? Well, thousands of people? I don’t know how many listeners Radio Merseyside had in September 1995, but it must have been more than a handful.

Okay, so how many of those listeners would have immediately cottoned on to the fact that Mike had made a new and improved statement, detailing the creative process and who else was involved? How many individuals had actually been given sight of his 5th January 1995 affidavit by then, and who were these people? What criteria determined who got to see a copy and who didn't?

Who knew what it contained? The radio host mentioned copies of it about, so that alone makes it sound like quite a few more than just MB, Alan Gray and Melvin Harris. Keith Skinner suspects MB would have told various people about it, do you agree with that?

I wasn't around at the time, Kattrup, so I don't have an opinion on what Mike would have said about it, or to whom. All I know is the date he finally sent a copy Shirley's way, which she acted upon immediately with regard to his O&L claims, as well as passing on a copy to Keith. I'm struggling with how Shirley and Keith were meant to have obtained sight of the actual affidavit any sooner than January 1997, if it hadn't been offered to them by any of those with access to it. Did Mike tell all these people: "Don't worry, I've finally sent Shirley a copy now so you won't have to?" Or would access to the actual document have continued to be restricted to the privileged few, on a 'need to know' basis?

The criticism earlier this year was that Shirley and co had failed to investigate Mike's new claims sooner, and I was criticised for suggesting that Alan Gray and Melvin Harris had every opportunity to do so, the minute they knew what was in that affidavit, yet still failed to get any evidence for the auction business. I am still wondering how Shirley or Keith were expected to succeed in 1997, where Alan and Melvin had failed two years earlier. Are the expectations so much lower where Melvin and co were concerned?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The hand I write with privately to myself is completely different to the formal hand I wrote with when I wrote things (those days are for most of us long gone but they did once exist)...

While I obviously see the diary handwriting as a huge problem for you, Ike, I do recognise what you are saying here. When my French mistress - Miss Kershaw, with a Yorkshire accent - passed my desk one day, she was appalled by my handwriting and told the class I could be a doctor on the strength of its awfulness. I pointed out that as this was my rough book, which I hadn't intended for anyone else's eyes, her criticism seemed a trifle unfair. The homework I produced in my exercise book, however, was always very well presented because I wanted Miss Kershaw to read it and be suitably impressed, so I'd get good marks each time.

Yes, I was a real goody two shoes in those days. Who'd believe it now?

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

Okay, so how many of those listeners would have immediately cottoned on to the fact that Mike had made a new and improved statement, detailing the creative process and who else was involved? How many individuals had actually been given sight of his 5th January 1995 affidavit by then, and who were these people? What criteria determined who got to see a copy and who didn't?

You tell me, Caz - You're the one claiming virtually no-one knew about the affidavit, and that it was suppressed by Melvin Harris. Yet this radio host knew details of it and states there were copies of it around.

But now you seem to be saying that the listeners would not have understood what it meant, so they don't count, and that if we don't know exactly who had seen the affidavit, we shouldn't assume that anyone's seen it?

Why not start by showing how Melvin Harris suppressed the document, as you've stated he did?

I wasn't around at the time, Kattrup, so I don't have an opinion on what Mike would have said about it, or to whom.

Really? That seems highly unusual

All I know is the date he finally sent a copy Shirley's way, which she acted upon immediately with regard to his O&L claims, as well as passing on a copy to Keith. I'm struggling with how Shirley and Keith were meant to have obtained sight of the actual affidavit any sooner than January 1997, if it hadn't been offered to them by any of those with access to it. Did Mike tell all these people: "Don't worry, I've finally sent Shirley a copy now so you won't have to?" Or would access to the actual document have continued to be restricted to the privileged few, on a 'need to know' basis?

The criticism earlier this year was that Shirley and co had failed to investigate Mike's new claims sooner, and I was criticised for suggesting that Alan Gray and Melvin Harris had every opportunity to do so, the minute they knew what was in that affidavit, yet still failed to get any evidence for the auction business. I am still wondering how Shirley or Keith were expected to succeed in 1997, where Alan and Melvin had failed two years earlier. Are the expectations so much lower where Melvin and co were concerned?

Well, was access to the actual document restricted to the privileged few? You're stating it was, but on what grounds?

[caz]

Hi Kattrup,

Bottom line is that Shirley and Keith did not get to see Mike's January 5th 1995 affidavit until two years later, in January 1997, when he sent Shirley a copy. This was after a version of it had reached the internet without their knowledge.

You tell me how that makes sense if Melvin Harris and anyone else who had a copy of this statement had made it freely available back in 1995, to all those who had been investigating the diary and its origins since 1992?

Even if Shirley or Keith could, or should, have got wind of its existence before 1997, how were they meant to get access to it when nobody was offering it to them? How would they have known who was involved with Mike in producing the affidavit, or who was on the distribution list?

I can see you are gamely trying to defend Melvin Harris on this one for some reason, but for the life of me I can't see what is so difficult to grasp about the fact that he clearly neglected to distribute copies of this affidavit to the very people who were recently blamed for not having investigated the details when it was first sworn.

How do you explain Melvin's failure to inform Shirley and Keith about it, while circulating copies to an unknown number of selected recipients, who similarly never thought to mention it, either to Shirley or Keith?

How much investigating did Melvin Harris do, when he first saw the new claims Mike made about the creation process and who did what? Did he believe Mike's claim that it was Anne's handwriting in the diary, done over eleven days?

Keith tells me it was the Evans/Gainey newly released book The Lodger, [published circa August 1995], being discussed on Radio Merseyside and the authors' dismissal of the diary as a recent forgery, which was the trigger for Mike Barrett to contact Bob Azurdia. In the book, Evans and Gainey rest on Mike's confession to the Liverpool Daily Post and also reference Melvin Harris obtaining six ink samples from the diary and subjecting them to examination by Analysis For Industry [AFI]. They also reference Dr Diana Simpson's [AFI] report of October 19th 1994. The authors conclude the chapter by writing... 'Since then [October 19th 1994] Mike Barrett has made a full confession of his hoax in a sworn affidavit.' No other details are given about this affidavit, nor do the authors cite a source, or explain how they knew of its existence before most people, or why they didn't use it in their book.

Keith also confirms that Bob Azurdia referred specifically to Mike's affidavit by date and content, while Mike denied ever making it or signing it – or if he did he was drunk and didn't know what he was signing. Azurdia also assumed there were several copies of it floating about, but Keith didn't see one until January 1997 and doesn't know how Azurdia knew about it in such detail, but I think I can guess. By 2003, we included the affidavit in Inside Story, and summarised Mike's interviews briefly on page 205, when we wrote: 'He had, he claimed, been drunk when he made his previous confessions.'

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Seems a new article is in the pipeline, due 19th September. With new information regarding Barrett's affidavit. Should generate a bit of discussion, I hope.

[caz]

New information is always welcome here, Al, especially if all the sources are given.

Love,

Caz - not quite brain dead but working on it.
X