Special Announcement

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Caz, RJ

I think that although the idea of Mike making a confession had been about for a while, his actions that January probably convinced Anne and Harrison that he wasn't just talking through his hat. I think him behaving erratically, punching glass doors and producing a signed affidavit rattle cages. Personally, I think that's why Anne started talking publicly. Maybe the handwriting request is a coincidence, but it ties in with the need to neutralise the affidavit. Anne has talked about how close she was with Feldman and described him as her 'protector', so I'm suspicious that Feldman didn't know anything. If Keith genuinely didn't know or at least hadn't physically seen the affidavit in '95, then I agree RJ, that poses the question "why?". Why did Anne and Shirley intentionally keep him in the dark? That said, no one had an interest in crowing about Mike's affidavit (other than Mike), so maybe it was looked into? Anne holds all the keys though, and she wisely choose to keep quiet years ago.

Details of the affidavit were discussed on a public radio show in 1995. How did Keith miss this crucial piece of information for two years? Was he totally unaware, or had he just not handled an actual copy until 1997?

Maybe it's nothing, but I find it odd that Feldman and Anne appear at the C+D with this family history so soon after Mike produces something more substantial than an empty threat. Maybe I'm suspicious, but one of them had a lucrative film deal in the pipeline, the other, if Battlecrease is now the first choice provenance, a proven liar on a grand scale. They couldn't have been up to no good could they?

The affidavit is constantly ridiculed, but we've not got access to the recordings from the Gray meetings that led to it's formation. Why not destroy the affidavit's claims at the time, if it was so unreliable? But it did mention that little diary. And that was sat on by Anne for long enough, that diary is nothing short of damning for the Barretts.

That's enough Muppetry from me on the matter for now.

[caz]

Hi Caz, RJ

I think that although the idea of Mike making a confession had been about for a while, his actions that January probably convinced Anne and Harrison that he wasn't just talking through his hat.

But how is it known that Shirley knew Mike had sworn this particular affidavit, and also all the details it contained?

Personally, I think that's why Anne started talking publicly.

As I said previously, Al, she told her story in July 1994 and it was published in Shirley's paperback, months before 'his actions' in January 1995.

Maybe the handwriting request is a coincidence, but it ties in with the need to neutralise the affidavit.

I just told you that Keith decided to ask Anne for it on the spur of the moment, knowing nothing about Mike's affidavit for another two years, so how can you say 'it ties in with the need to neutralise the affidavit'? Whose need?

If Keith genuinely didn't know or at least hadn't physically seen the affidavit in '95...

Keith genuinely didn't know.

Why did Anne and Shirley intentionally keep him in the dark?

There is no evidence that Shirley was intentionally keeping Keith in the dark. If Anne said anything to her about Mike's latest claims, she was a big girl and could check them out for herself. I just can't see Anne doing that, though, if she knew his claims could be substantiated. Why would she mention them at all?

The fact is, Shirley's enquiry to the auction house in January 1995, and Kevin Whay's response, show no awareness that Mike's album was now supposedly stuffed with collectable WWI photos or had been sold with a compass. So if Shirley had wind from Anne about the supposed auction, she doesn't appear to have been armed with all the details when contacting O&L. When she finally received a copy of the actual affidavit, in January 1997, she immediately sent O&L his auction description so they could do a fresh search on that basis. What would be the point of repeating the same exercise, if she'd been able to pass on all the details first time round, in 1995?

Details of the affidavit were discussed on a public radio show in 1995. How did Keith miss this crucial piece of information for two years? Was he totally unaware, or had he just not handled an actual copy until 1997?

He was totally unaware, although to be fair Mike had made various sworn or signed statements to various effects by then, and I'm not sure how much detail the radio show went into, about this particular statement? Mike asked to take part in the show because he was incensed by the fact that he had heard Evans and Gainey rubbishing the diary as a modern hoax. Ironic, much? They knew about the affidavit, but like Anne, they didn't say anything to Keith about it. If they presumed someone else would have told him, they wouldn't have been the only ones!

Maybe it's nothing, but I find it odd that Feldman and Anne appear at the C+D with this family history so soon after Mike produces something more substantial than an empty threat.

But how much more 'substantial' was it, considering it still hasn't proved anything all these years later? What if Anne knew it was all a pack of lies? Feldman didn't need to know about it, to want Anne to appear at the Smoke & Stagger to validate his beliefs, but Anne might well have wanted to support herself in advance of Mike, reaching desperation point, deciding to go public with his false accusations against her.

The affidavit is constantly ridiculed, but we've not got access to the recordings from the Gray meetings that led to it's formation. Why not destroy the affidavit's claims at the time, if it was so unreliable? But it did mention that little diary. And that was sat on by Anne for long enough, that diary is nothing short of damning for the Barretts.

Oh dear, you're not under Barrat's spell are you, Al? Have we lost you, or are you still open to alternative interpretations?

We've not got access to the Barrett & Gray comedy box set because RJ made a mistake and gave his tapes away, and appears to think it's Keith's responsibility to put that mistake right, because he kept hold of his tapes for his own research purposes. If Keith is not considered a reliable source these days, then I can't say I blame him for waiting to see if RJ will make any attempt to retrieve his own tapes, from wherever he sent them.

I'm wondering just how Anne was meant to 'destroy' the claims made by Mike in that affidavit, even if she knew they were all false? For example, how could she prove he didn't attend any auction at any time under any name, and obtain the ledger used for the diary? How could she prove the little red diary wasn't ordered for the purpose of faking Maybrick's diary?

How did sitting on it 'for long enough' help her? She had proof of its purchase in May 1992, which was safe enough to admit, as it implied that it was bought too late to have had any sinister purpose. As she had plenty of time to think what she was going to say if asked, why did she then freely admit to Keith that she thought Mike's enquiry had been "pre-Doreen", effectively cancelling out her cunning plan and allowing for Mike's claim to be true, that the red diary was obtained and rejected before the finished product was seen in London on 13th April 1992? That makes no sense, so I assume David Barrat had even longer to come up with his own cunning plan to explain why she made such an admission. There was nothing to prove she had any prior knowledge of Mike's enquiry, or of his original intentions, until that day in May 1992 when he asked her to pay for the diary. She didn't need to say another word about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Caz,

I'm not stating anything as fact there, it's just my opinion, I'm certainly not foisting it upon anyone. I don't think they'd want it anyhow!

David makes some good points, which got me thinking about other things I've mentioned before, but really, it's a bit of a distraction in the grand scheme of things. I've mentioned my take on Mike's red diary, his transcript which he lied to Scotland Yard about, his T of L book he denied knowledge of, all things that don't bode well for his lack of involvement.

As for the author of the "diary", if Mike didn't do the hard work researching and drafting, he was still heavily involved. Devereux makes a good candidate, not that there's many to pick from. By the by, the diary's not authentic, the probability is that it was produced shortly before it's appearance in London. I don't buy into Mike being some kind of rube, buying a book in a pub. And even if he did, Anne, who we're told is an intelligent woman, was not in the least bit suspicious that her husband had been ripped off with a "diary" with pages cut out and crudely written? Did he bring home magic beans the week before? Or she believed his mate gave it to him? The origin of the diary is genuinely interesting, but I suspect Anne Graham is the only person who can provide all the facts, and she's not going to. And I know this is an anathema to Ike and Ero, but I've never criticised others for believing in the diary.

As for David Barrat, you don't have to like him for him to be right. I have alot of respect for the work he puts into his articles. Certainly, I respect him more than he does me, but it's a public platform, he's free to comment. And mutual respect isn't compulsory, nor should it be. There's so many people who's cumulative knowledge if combined could put a definitive answer to the whole saga. My opinions contribute little by comparison.

But, it's a toxic subject. As such, I'll follow RJ's lead and leave this one to others.

[caz]

Afternoon All,

Apologies for absence, I was busy enjoying myself before we're all locked down again, and this week I'm enjoying myself decorating the downstairs lav.

I have a few unanswered questions, which some kind soul may be able to answer.

Firstly, I'm having the greatest difficulty understanding how Anne, of all people, can be accused of being the true 'suppressor' of an affidavit typed up by Alan Gray and sworn by Mike, of which a copy was hand delivered to her. How was she meant to stop copies being sent to anyone of Mike's choosing? We know that certain individuals were in on the 'secret' by the summer of 1995, but it's far from clear to me how the news reached Evans and Gainey [but not Keith Skinner] except via Melvin Harris, and what dictated how much the authors were prepared to say or write about it publicly at that time. It's safe to say that Anne could have had no possible say in the matter, and would have had no idea that Stewart, or anyone else for that matter, had not given Keith all the information he needed to investigate Mike's claims without her knowledge.

Secondly, and these are for Al B to consider, what is the source for Mike lying to Scotland Yard about the transcript of the diary, and also denying any knowledge of his Tales of Liverpool? When asked by Bonesy if he had a copy, he said yes, but didn't know where it was. What he denied any knowledge of, when interviewed by Martin Howells in September 1993, was lending the book to Tony D, presumably because at some point after January 1991, when Janet D borrowed it, he had forgotten all about it, explaining why he never asked for it back and why Janet still had it in 1993, two years after her father's death.

What is the evidence that 'if Mike didn't do the hard work researching and drafting, he was still heavily involved'? Having that opinion is fine, but it's not a fact.

Why does Devereux make 'a good candidate'? Because he was chosen by Mike, as a conveniently deceased acquaintance, to explain where the diary came from, and was later named by Mike as a co-conspirator in a Barrett hoax when the story changed completely? What else is there to suggest Devereux had anything whatsoever to do with the diary's existence, never mind that he did any of 'the hard work researching or drafting' it?

What is it about Mike that makes it unlikely that he would have bought an old book in the Saddle, but likely that he would have thought of producing a literary hoax, identifying Maybrick of all people as Jack the Ripper? And how is it known that Anne wasn't 'the least bit suspicious' to see this old book 'with pages cut out and crudely written'? Did she not have a huge row with Mike, confirmed by him and witnessed by their daughter, when he insisted he was going to get it published? What was that all about, if she had spent 11 days, between 31st March and 12th April 1992, transferring the text of the diary into this old book, just so that Mike could make his appointment in London with her handiwork on the 13th? She may have been very suspicious about it, and more than a little worried, not knowing where Mike got it from or what its origins were, and her angry reaction supports that far more than it supports the idea that she was in on it from day one, back before Tony D's death, and was now just itching, by the end of March 1992, to be able to put pen to paper, the moment Mike finally found what they needed at the auction.

The origin of the diary is genuinely interesting, but I suspect Anne Graham is the only person who can provide all the facts, and she's not going to.

If she's not going to provide all the facts, it's going to be a bit difficult working out if she actually knows any facts about the diary's origins at all, beyond when she first set eyes on it.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

If she's not going to provide all the facts, it's going to be a bit difficult working out if she actually knows any facts about the diary's origins at all, beyond when she first set eyes on it.

The problem we have here is Anne is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If she admits that she does not actually know where the old book ultimately came from (which seems to me to be the truth) then she has lied about it being passed down in her family and therefore nothing she says will hold any credibility. The truth (as I see it) will be contaminated and untrustworthy, as she went ahead with the provenance angle of it being in her family for generations. She becomes no better than Mike in that respect.

I think stubbornness and pride runs in Anne as much as it does in Mike, and I believe she will maintain her version of events (which ironically also included Tony Devereux as a co-conspirator) until the day she dies. Her provenance story hangs on the word of her father who vouched for Anne's claim. I have two daughters and if I felt I could help one put the boot into an ex of theirs that I had very little time for, I'd do whatever she asked of me.

Where does Anne actually go from here?

[caz]

I think you're right, erobitha. There's nothing Anne can ever do now that will help her own situation or provide any clarity for others. She probably found herself in a no-win situation right from the day Mike first called Doreen to ask if she was interested in seeing Jack the Ripper's diary. There is no evidence that Anne knew about that initial phone call, or what Mike was up to, until the letters began arriving from Rupert Crew and it was almost a fait accompli. Yes, Doreen was fascinated to see what he had, and Mike seems to have given her the impression that Anne was onboard with it all, when he may not even have discussed it with her yet. If it was Mike who came up with the 'dead mate' idea, and fed it to Doreen before telling Anne, what could she have done about it if she thought it was madness? If she didn't have enough nerve to stop the rot before it went any further, she was stuck with going along with Mike's version of events, which could only end badly as it took hold of them both and dragged them down a rabbit hole of lies and fantasy.

Mike stalled Doreen initially, by telling her they were off to York [where the Barretts had been on holiday in August 1991 when Tony had his fatal heat attack] and he would contact her again on their return. A family trip to York in March - term time - strikes me as a little odd, considering Caroline's Easter holidays were not far off, and would in fact begin on Monday 13th April, when Mike was free from the school run to take the diary down to London. So was the York trip a lie, because he didn't yet have the "old book" and was in the process of trying to buy it from a certain electrician? Or was he still trying to find a suitable book in which Anne was going to physically write the diary? I don't find it remotely plausible that the Barretts wanted to find out if anyone would be interested before investing in the project itself. How much time and effort - if not expense - would already have been spent by then, on all the research and drafting of the text? Did they really plan to ditch it all if Pan Books or Doreen had laughed and told Mike to pull the other one?

Anne's biggest mistake in my view was to try and stop the rot two years too late, when Mike came out with his tallest story yet, in June 1994. Instead of coming out with a new but unprovable story of her own to keep Feldy happy, she'd have done far better to keep her head down and insist that all she knew was that Mike had brought the diary home one day in 1991 and said he'd got it from Tony Devereux. I can't explain why she didn't do that, but if she strongly suspected Feldy had been on the right track the previous year, when he investigated the electricians, might she have hoped that her 'in the family' story would stop him even thinking of returning to that line of enquiry, in case he eventually sniffed out the truth, that the diary was stolen from Battlecrease and only arrived in Goldie Street in March 1992, effectively making liars of them both? She had typed up his research notes, so she'd have known if they didn't date back further than March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

This has to be one of the more bizarre 'spins' I've seen in a good while.

'Orsam' acknowledges that Feldman and his research team must have seen this documentation. Indeed, it was one of the more disturbing aspects of his article...

The point, as I see it, is that Feldman didn't bother to inform his readers that the aunt was actually a godmother. He must have seen this 'anomaly,' as you call it (would a better word be 'error' or 'discrepancy'?) but never mentioned it.

So what 'credit' is due? Credit for suppressing data damaging to the Diary's supposed accuracy?

I suppose it is time once again to quote Howells and Skinner.

"Supporting evidence was only being investigated insofar as it was of value to the plot, and debilitating research was being omitted altogether."

It makes me appreciate Stephen Senise's honesty for quickly informing the community that he had the wrong George Hutchinson. Unfortunately, that attitude is rather rare in what some call "Ripperology."

And no matter what spin anyone puts to this, it certainly doesn't make Feldman look very good, and it make me wonder what else may have been churned up by his research, but was never reported.

RP

I second this, we are lucky to have some great researchers that can unearth these things out, the "Aunt" find was not only an ultimate proof that the diary is fake, but it highlights the problem with any suspect driven book, the authors there will frequently ignore and even hide anything that weakens their claims.



The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

What if Mike already had the scrapbook Tony D. had given him and was just trying to do "one better" (the red diary, the O&L auction) before giving up and turning over what Tony had given him in the first place?

[rjpalmer]

Katnip,

Melvin Harris was working with Alan Gray to get Bongo to sign an affy David that he hoaxed the scrapbook. Bongo had made the claim in the summer of 1994 and - by the December - Harris was desperate for his claim to be formalised in a detailed affy. We know about Harris's involvement with Gray because there is a tape recording of Gray talking to Bongo in Liverpool Royal [Infirmary?]

Ike - I am indeed taking a break, but can you clarify the above statement while I'm gone?

It is my understanding that the Liverpool Royal Infirmary had been closed for 16 years by 1994 and was in the middle of a massive renovation project in December 1994 and would not reopen until the end of the following year, 1995.

How confident can we be of the information you are posting to these boards, or is this another "shared grave" moment?

Or do you mean a different hospital? The Liverpool Royal University Hospital?

Below is Liverpool Echo, 6 November 1994. You will readily find articles announcing it's reopening one year later.

Why was Barrett in the hospital in December 1994 if indeed he was? Kidney disease by any chance?

Warmest regards, RP

[Iconoclast]

It is my understanding that the Liverpool Royal Infirmary had been closed for 16 years by 1994 and was in the middle of a massive renovation project in December 1994 and would not reopen until the end of the following year, 1995.

Or do you mean a different hospital? The Liverpool Royal University Hospital?

Below is Liverpool Echo, 6 November 1994. You will readily find articles announcing it's reopening one year later.

Hi RJ,

Great to see you come out of your recent retirement so swiftly - welcome back sir!

I have no idea which hospital I 'meant' as I was quoting from a source who may themselves have got confused with Liverpool Royal University Hospital for all I know (or indeed care). You'll need to wait until Alan Gray's report is fully-published, I suspect, but suffice it for now for me to note that this is a classic Lord Orsam & The Acolytes track - this particular one from their album "Never Mind the Bollocks, We're Always Right!" - in which they fail to address the major elements of a theme and focus instead on attempting to denigrate via the minor keys.

The important bit - dear readers - to note is how this meeting between a vulnerable Mike Barrett and a relentless Alan Gray (barking every time Melvin Harris threw him a biscuit at a 'work event') pressurised our dim scouser into making his January 5, 1995 affidavit - not of his own free will, note, but of that of those with a vested interest in Mike lying through his back teeth:

AG: What he [Melvin Harris] was saying to me was as soon as Mike comes out, it’s in the best interest of everyone to take a concise statement and all the newspapers will [take it] and at the end of it we go down together and swear it as an affidavit and that will be it nailed down, right. It will take a few hours.
MB: I’ll get nicked then.
AG: No, you won’t, because this statement will safeguard you is what Melvin tells me.
MB: Yeah, yeah.
AG: Just stay as you have been and let the others handle it. Let everyone get on with it and that’s it. You know the saying, ‘every dog has its day’...
Before the conversation concluded, Barrett informed Gray that he wished to meet Melvin Harris personally:
MB: As I say, one of the things I’m really concentrating on is Melvin Harris. I think that’s important, that I do get to see him.
AG: Well, he did impress me by his honesty [oops, underpants change for Ike, I fear], and you know Feldman’s been onto him too... You know what, when we get to write this affidavit, we’ll need a lot of detail you know [but don't worry about any of it being evidenced in any way whatsoever, we're so honest, we don't need to worry about that]. Then we’ll sign it and swear it before a solicitor. That’s what we’ll do.

This to me is like Greg Lake's I Believe in Father Christmas - the angriest Christmas song bar probably only the outstanding Fairytale of New York. When you're listening to the music, it's easy to get side-tracked by the soppy chorus. Understand the verses and you understand the message.

Ike

[caz]

Hi Ike,

My beer's getting warm!

The conversation took place on Monday 12th December 1994, when Alan Gray visited Mike at some hospital or other in Liverpool. If Gray or Mike mentioned the wrong one on the tape, I don't suppose there is much RJ can do about that now as both chaps are no longer with us. Gray is probably still chasing after Barrett, in full on Benny Hill fashion in the great beyond, shouting "Give us me f***ing money!"

Without bothering to look it up, because it's beside the point, I know Mike lacerated his hand/wrist badly around this time, trying to get to see Anne. It was still bandaged on January 18th, wasn't it?

But maybe he was having his regular dialysis while Gray was badgering him for the affidavit. I hope he brought grapes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Monday 24th April 1995
Filmed interview with Anne Graham.
Anne gives date for her divorce from Mike as 7th December 1994.

Allowing for Anne knowing when her own divorce came through, I suspect that may have been a reason for Mike's increasing sense of greivance over the following few days and weeks.

But what do I know? I've only divorced two husbands.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,

My beer's getting warm!

The conversation took place on Monday 12th December 1994, when Alan Gray visited Mike at some hospital or other in Liverpool. If Gray or Mike mentioned the wrong one on the tape, I don't suppose there is much RJ can do about that now as both chaps are no longer with us. Gray is probably still chasing after Barrett, in full on Benny Hill fashion in the great beyond, shouting "Give us me f***ing money!"

Without bothering to look it up, because it's beside the point, I know Mike lacerated his hand/wrist badly around this time, trying to get to see Anne. It was still bandaged on January 18th, wasn't it?

But maybe he was having his regular dialysis while Gray was badgering him for the affidavit. I hope he brought grapes.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I can only assume that he had his dialysis after he didn't have a stroke? Oh, and after he didn't have cancer?

Certainly, he doesn't appear to have had dialysis before he didn't have a stroke nor before he didn't have cancer?

Maybe he only had dialysis for, like, a weekend or something and then became completely free of renal failure?

Oh - I think I've got it - perhaps we have been confused by the fact that actually he had dialysis before he had renal failure!

Yes, it's oh-so clear now ... I wonder if his sick note got him that bigger house he was evidently after?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

But what do I know? I've only divorced two husbands.

What did you do with the other ones?

(Gulp!)

[caz]

If I told you, Ike, I'd have to do the same to you.

Love,

Caz
X