google ngrams

[The Baron]

Accusing Lechmere of the Buck's Row murder is no better or worse than accusing Anne or Mike Barrett of putting a 'bumbling buffoon' in the diary. Without evidence both are exercises in futility.

Why couldn't the murder have been committed by someone else, before Charles 'Cross' alerted Robert Paul?

Why couldn't the diary have been written by someone else, before Mike 'Williams' alerted Doreen Montgomery?

Did Lechmere confess he killed Nicholes?!


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Did Lechmere confess he killed Nicholes?!


The Baron

Did Lechmere's wife suddenly reveal herself a year or two later, and run around telling a string of verifiable contradictions, claiming she had been in Buck's Row ten minutes before Lechmere and the body was already there?

If so, I'd tend to worry about Charlie and Charlie's wife.

[Iconoclast]

Did Lechmere confess he killed Nicholes?!
The Baron

You are absolutely correct. Lechmere did not confess to this, no.

And nor did Mike Barrett confess to creating the scrapbook text.

What Mike Barrett did was claim to have created the scrapbook text.

To be clear, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mike (or Anne) Barrett had anything at all to do with the creation of the scrapbook text and his attempt to purchase a Victorian diary in March 1992 is certainly not evidence of it despite lord Orsam's claims to the contrary so we mustn't say 'confessed', we must say 'claimed', thank you.

Ike

[caz]

Did Lechmere confess he killed Nicholes?!


The Baron

Did Anne Graham confess that she put the 'bumbling buffoon' in the diary?

Did Mike?

[caz]

The little red diary is in fact an obstacle to the theory that Anne Graham composed the words for Maybrick's diary and penned it herself in a disguised hand in early April 1992.

Think about it.

Anne did not request a Victorian diary in March 1992, nor did she order the 1891 diary which was sent to Goldie Street as a result. She only paid for it in May when Martin Earl chased Mike for payment.

Mike's claim in his affidavit was an exercise in misdirection, implying that Anne had purchased it - in early 1990 - intending it to be used for Maybrick's diary, but when it arrived it was too small.

It may have been one small red diary to Mike, but it would have been a giant red flag to Anne, had it been requested and ordered for the purpose of creating JtR's diary.

Are we being asked to believe that this woman was even more unhinged than her husband? When would the penny have dropped that he was not to be trusted with obtaining any of the raw materials? When would it have dawned on her that using anything obtained by Mike, from any source, was a really, really bad idea?

So the useless 1891 diary arrives and instead of taking one look and washing her hands of the whole crazy plan, on the grounds that she has not completely lost the plot, even if Mike has, she waves this walking liability off on his own to an auction sale on 31st March 1992 to have a second bash at it? And then she meekly sets about filling a doctored book with 63 pages of her own handiwork?

If anyone is totally okay with this scenario, I have a bridge to sell them.

[Iconoclast]

So the useless 1891 diary arrives and instead of taking one look and washing her hands of the whole crazy plan, on the grounds that she has not completely lost the plot, even if Mike has, she waves this walking liability off on his own to an auction sale on 31st March 1992 to have a second bash at it? And then she meekly sets about filling a doctored book with 63 pages of her own handiwork?

I have my brother-in-law and niece over from Colorado now for Christmas and am feeling as tired (too much late-night Tennessee Honey last evening) as I'm sure they are so this may be a stupid question or perhaps one I should just immediately know the answer to, but do we actually know when Anne became aware of the 1891 diary which Mike had ordered in March 1992? Obviously she knew by May 1992 because she had to pay for it, but I can't recall of the top of my head whether she knew much before that moment.

The notion that Anne was tricked into entering Barrett's possibly pre-prepared text into the possibly recently-acquired scrapbook is enough for me - I don't need her to be primed into doubt by the appearance of a totally impossible 1891 diary beforehand. I'm afraid the Anne-as-dumb-foil-for-Mike's-true-ambitions is one of those theories of RJ's which is a stretch of credulity too far for even my generous and forgiving mind.

Ike

[caz]

I have my brother-in-law and niece over from Colorado now for Christmas and am feeling as tired (too much late-night Tennessee Honey last evening) as I'm sure they are so this may be a stupid question or perhaps one I should just immediately know the answer to, but do we actually know when Anne became aware of the 1891 diary which Mike had ordered in March 1992? Obviously she knew by May 1992 because she had to pay for it, but I can't recall of the top of my head whether she knew much before that moment.

The notion that Anne was tricked into entering Barrett's possibly pre-prepared text into the possibly recently-acquired scrapbook is enough for me - I don't need her to be primed into doubt by the appearance of a totally impossible 1891 diary beforehand. I'm afraid the Anne-as-dumb-foil-for-Mike's-true-ambitions is one of those theories of RJ's which is a stretch of credulity too far for even my generous and forgiving mind.

Ike

Afternoon Ike,

It seems that the theory is undergoing a bit of a rejig, to give Anne more authority over this 'collaborative project', so while it's possible she had no awareness of Mike's stupid request and even more idiotic order, and didn't see the red diary, the red flag or the red mist until May, when it was all a tad too late, she did still allow the paper trail to be created by handing over that cheque, when she could have told Mike to return the item - while making him think it was his idea. She would also have known by then what an absolute tool he was, and that she'd been exceedingly unwise to trust him with sourcing the book they had gone on to use, and choosing the ink she had applied to the paper, and not to make as much of a mucking fuddle out of it all as he'd clearly made over his close encounter with Martin Earl's bookfinding business. She still had options, such as telling Doreen the whole thing had been her soft husband's idea of a joke - and then making him believe it. But no, the lady was not for turning. Balls of brass, nerves of steel and a knob of butter - for the jam butties.

There's a saying that if you need a job doing well, you will be infinitely better off doing it yourself than leaving it in the hands of someone you know to be a complete and utter twat. So it's mighty strange to me that Anne could have been married to Mike for so many years and not realised, when she was busy feeding him ideas on writing a story featuring James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, that if she wanted this project done well, she'd have to take care of the basics herself - and put Mike in a strait jacket for the duration.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

The notion that Anne was tricked into entering Barrett's possibly pre-prepared text into the possibly recently-acquired scrapbook is enough for me

I don't know if you have lived a sheltered life, Ike (for your sake I hope you have), but your use of the word "tricked" reveals that you have a very superficial understanding of both what I suggested, and how convoluted the emotional dynamics can be between an alcoholic and a codependent---which, from my reading, is how I perceive the relationship of the two individuals who marketed the Maybrick Diary.

I've seen this 'dynamic' up close and personal with family members, so I think I'm qualified to speak of it without being labeled a fantasist.

Is the person who humors a scheming alcoholic truly "tricked," or--not so deep down--do they realize it's all bosh but find a way to pretend to believe because it allows them to take the path of least resistance?

I think it's very often the latter.

My suggestion--and that's all it is---but it's a damn good one--is that Barrett could have told his missus that the physical photo album confessional was just a marketing gimmick for their joint novella (and I hate to tell you this, old boy, but back in the 1980s there was a mystery novel marketed along similar lines in the United States)--which allowed her to suspend just enough belief to go along with Barrett's mad scheme.

Of course, the real reason was to humor him and thus keep peace in the house.

Would she have believed him?

Probably not.

But that's where the other angle comes in.

As I've told Caz about a zillion times, look no further than Anne Graham's own words.

I think Anne helped Barrett for the very reason she said she did--she assumed that when Barrett got to London with the ridiculous Diary, the literary agent Doreen Montgomery would "just send Mike packing."

Her own words!

In other words, that once the diary was seen by a sensible person---the melodramatic confession of Jack the Ripper in a quite possibly Edwardian photo album with newish ink and missing pages and a silly text, no less--- the gig would be up.

No one was more shocked than Anne that it wasn't. Which is why she later admitted that the book launch was a "nightmare."

This, I suspect, was Anne's guiding assumption in the first three months of 1992--Mike's scheme wouldn't work, so there was "no harm, no foul" in helping him.

There is nothing the least bit implausible in that, Ike.

Of course, I can appreciate why you need to insist there is, despite its coherence.

Here's to a Happy and Maybrick-free 2025.

I hardly need to tell you this, but Newcastle is on an unholy reign of terror that rivals the Ripper's own -- 4-0; 3-1; 4-0; 3-0; 2-0.

You must be on Cloud Nine.

I only pray that Tottenham can stop the bleeding.

Finis.

[rjpalmer]

I think Anne helped Barrett for the very reason she said she did--she assumed that when Barrett got to London with the ridiculous Diary, the literary agent Doreen Montgomery would "just send Mike packing."

I should qualify this statement.

Anne claimed that she helped Barrett (with the notes, the typescript, etc.) because she thought it should be a professional job---despite saying elsewhere that she didn't want the diary published and also stating their marriage was such that she & Mike couldn't collaborate. One of many contradictions.

Her statement that she thought "Doreen would just send Mike packing" was her mindset when Barrett took the diary to London in April 1992.

[Mike J. G.]

I should qualify this statement.

Anne claimed that she helped Barrett (with the notes, the typescript, etc.) because she thought it should be a professional job---despite saying elsewhere that she didn't want the diary published and also stating their marriage was such that she & Mike couldn't collaborate. One of many contradictions.

Her statement that she thought "Doreen would just send Mike packing" was her mindset when Barrett took the diary to London in April 1992.

Allo, RJ, and an Appy January to you an yours.

These threads seem to be closing left and right!

You're right, the striped sock story did come from Dan Farson, in his review of Philip Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper.

It's included in Whittington Egan's Definitive Casebook, page 14, which is the only reason I'd ever come across it.

A boy had been riding on a cart going down Hambury street in the early hours of that Saturday morning in 1888 and had heard the cry of "murder!" He jumped off the cart and ran up the passage and into the backyard of No. 29...

"And there she was, all her entrails steamin' hot, and I'll never forget it because she had red and white stockings on."

Lovely!

[rjpalmer]

It's included in Whittington Egan's Definitive Casebook, page 14, which is the only reason I'd ever come across it.

Thanks, Mike. That explains it. I thought you were referring to Whittington Egan's first 'Ripper' book--A Casebook on Jack the Ripper (1975) instead of his more recent book.

Happy New Year to you, too.

[Geddy2112]

I hardly need to tell you this, but Newcastle is on an unholy reign of terror that rivals the Ripper's own -- 4-0; 3-1; 4-0; 3-0; 2-0.

Is Iconoclast a Mag!!!!

[Observer]

Is Iconoclast a Mag!!!!

Is it not obvious? The word deluded comes to mind here

[Observer]

The little red diary is in fact an obstacle to the theory that Anne Graham composed the words for Maybrick's diary and penned it herself in a disguised hand in early April 1992.

Think about it.

Anne did not request a Victorian diary in March 1992, nor did she order the 1891 diary which was sent to Goldie Street as a result. She only paid for it in May when Martin Earl chased Mike

It's been some time since the little red diary has been discussed. What's your latest theory as to the reason why Mike ordered it?