Who were they?

[rjpalmer]

Let's not go over again, Caz. I don't accept your analysis of these events and never have.

I am not 'forgetting' my own narrative--I am rejecting yours.

Circumstances FORCED Graham to turn over the stub for the red diary. She never mentioned this suspicious purchase in two years. She could hardly have simply denied the purchase once Barrett leaked it, because she would have known that Barrett might have remembered getting it from a bookseller in Cambridge and the possibility of someone tracing that bookseller and his paperwork was a very real one.

There is no mystery as to why she cooperated--she had to.

What is abundantly clear is that statements later made by both Harrison and Skinner show that Anne must have convinced them that the order for the red diary was made in May 1992 (that's what the cheque showed) and thus could not have been relevant to the creation of the diary. That's where matters stood until it was learned that this was a false impression and the Barretts were late payers. That she may have muttered something about 'pre-Doreen' was just covering her tracks in case the March order was proven. The false impression remained.

We've gone over it two dozen times.

We've gone over EVERYTHING two dozen times. And I do not give a rat's behind whether Mike's affidavit said this suspicious purchase was made in 1066 or 1993. The man was an alcoholic. We have the receipts.

Time to pull the plug, I'd say. We disagree and always will disagree. It's not the end of the world.

I'll leave you alone with the hecklers, as you seem to have little more than contempt for anyone who is actually willing to discuss the nuts and the bolts of the saga--that is, if they can see the holes in your 'narrative' or have drawn different conclusions.

Enjoy the hecklers and the silliness.

There is literally no one else who cares to discuss the diary, beyond a rare post from Bundy. Those that do discuss it and believe it to be a modern hoax are 'insane,' mudlarks, dissemblers, delusional, underread, and/or members of Orsam's clown car.

Why would you care to discuss a hoax with madmen and clowns?

[Iconoclast]

Another little problem for RJ's narrative is that he has included the suggestion that Anne deliberately held back paying for the red diary until May 1992, when the hoaxed one had already been seen in London, so it would not look like a suspicious purchase if it came to light. But this would only make her decision, three years later, to give Keith the payee's name - and with it the means to learn that it was requested back in the March - all the more difficult to understand.

Yes, Caz, it has always struck me as bizarre that on the one hand Anne and Mike are accused of being master hoaxers but that neither of them thought to hide the evidence of their attempts to source a suitable artefact for the hoax. Mike was indiscreet when he ordered the 1891 diary, surreally stupid when he accepted it even though he knew by then it was plastered with 1891 all over every page (plus it was little bigger than a book of stamps), but then Mike and Anne were both incredibly foolish and indiscreet for 1) Mike handing it over to Anne when he could have used it to 'prove' the hoax he'd been apparently trying since December 1993 to unmask, and 2) Anne handing it casually over to Keith as though it were no more consequential or incriminating than a shopping list for SuperBuy.

It just feels overwhelmingly as if neither had anything to hide?

[caz]

Anne made up her 'in the family provenance tale' to take the narrative away from Mike.

And what was Mike's 'narrative'?

That he and Anne wrote it!

Well done that man! Except that a narrative doesn't actually prove anything. Anyone can dream up a narrative, and Mike had a different one for every occasion. Narratives require supporting evidence, and Anne could not have taken that away from Mike, if he had any and was determined to use it.

The irony is that the little red 1891 diary is meant to be a damning piece of physical evidence for the Barretts trying to source the raw materials for a Battlecrease hoax as late as March 1992. Yet Mike not only falsely claimed in his affidavit of 5th January 1995 that Anne had purchased this red diary back in January 1990, but he also tried to claim that he still had this incriminating item in his own possession until very recently, when Anne had allegedly asked him for it and - quite incredibly - he handed it over! Anne was divorcing Mike after suffering his emotional and physical abuse, which had supposedly included bullying her into co-operating with him in a blatant act of fraud. He began spilling beans back in June, and he was primed to spill them all when Anne came out with a very different story, effectively emasculating him.

So what on earth did Anne do to make Mike hand over the red diary so meekly? Did she hold a gun to his head? Or was she now the bully and Mike her helpless, submissive victim? She could so easily have destroyed it, along with her old cheque book, and the means to trace the actual cheque, the transaction and all the details.

Don't let RJ tell you that Anne had to keep both the red diary and her cheque book from 1992, and was then obliged to supply Keith and Shirley with the means to track down her payment, the payee and therefore when the supplier received Mike's request, the nature of that request and when the diary was located and supplied. RJ needs to explain why Anne thought, in July 1995, that it would be safer for her to volunteer the documentary evidence that could unlock all these details, which only she possessed at that time, than to risk the remote chance of Mike or anyone else being able to get there under their own steam.

RJ sometimes appears to forget his own narrative, which is that Anne knew where, when and - crucially - why Mike obtained the scrapbook: it was for creating their hoax in time to be shown off in London on 13th April 1992. Well she certainly knew about the red diary by the time she supplied the cheque for it in the May, so it follows that if RJ's narrative is the correct one, she'd have worked out that if it represented an earlier failed attempt by Mike to get hold of something suitable, it was likely to be highly incriminating, because it would have been requested, ordered, supplied and rejected before March was out. How is it that between then and 1995, Anne never once wondered what incriminating details may have survived from Mike's hopelessly inept attempt - details that were just waiting for her to expose, by giving Keith the payee's name and the means to learn what Mike had asked for and when?

Another little problem for RJ's narrative is that he has included the suggestion that Anne deliberately held back paying for the red diary until May 1992, when the hoaxed one had already been seen in London, so it would not look like a suspicious purchase if it came to light. But this would only make her decision, three years later, to give Keith the payee's name - and with it the means to learn that it was requested back in the March - all the more difficult to understand.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

Welcome back! Hope your "vacation" was a restful one and you are tan, fit and ready to take on the world (or just certain posters as the case may be).

By the way, I am reading The Man from the Train. Amazing story and quite good.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is reported that substantially the same description was published in the Police Gazette.

I think Swanson's version is more reliable than the others because it describes the man's build, his jacket, mentions the neckerchief being tied in a knot, and mentions his having the appearance of a sailor.

Response to 498 and 499

I go by the evidence.

Someone here suggested that Lawende's suspect may have been wearing Jewish religious garb and that Lawende did not notice it.

Naturally, his suspect is Jewish.


This isn’t evidence. It’s someone’s opinion.


If the man seen by Lawende had a fair moustache then he is much more likely to have been German than Jewish.


And he was just as likely to have been Swedish. Or a man with a brown moustache which looked lighter under a street lamp.


If he was a sailor, then he is much, much more likely to have been German than Jewish.


But there’s no evidence that he was a sailor. He might have been or he might not have been.


If the writer of the graffito was Jewish, he could reasonably be expected to spell 'Jews' correctly.


We have no way of deducing the nationality of the writer.


If he were German, he might have been influenced by the German spelling, which begins 'Ju'.


So an unknown person might have done something if happened to have been German?

We do not have certainty but we do have evidence.


It’s a pity that only you can see it PI.



I think Swanson's version is more reliable than the others because it describes the man's build, his jacket, mentions the neckerchief being tied in a knot, and mentions his having the appearance of a sailor.

So when it suits you Swanson is reliable, but when he wrote “Kosminski was the suspect” in the marginalia he was a fantasist?

[erobitha]

Psychological subtly, my man, nuance and subtly.

Donald John Trump might also have a different bedroom from Malaria --excuse me, Melania, I have swampy Norfolk, Virginia on my mind-- but that doesn't drive him into the arms of a bag lady in the seedier parts of Model City (a district of Miami)

We are just joking around, of course, since the diary is an obvious enough fake, but I imagine Sir Jim's tastes might have been a wee bit more refined and bourgeoise. Not to put too fine a point on it, there was a rather large gulf between the nymphs who inhabited Mrs. Hogwood's brothel in Norfolk in the 1870s and the unfortunate bag ladies of SGE in the 1880s.

Of course, there is a 5,000,000,000,000 to 1 shot that you are correct, and Sir Jim did hang out in the Bricklayer's Arms, reciting Crashaw and Herrick and Marvel to the local ladies, but I rather think not. The diarist doesn't strike you as a lover, I trust?

And neither does Jack the Ripper, which is why I tend to discount the suspect named by Gardner and Best as even remotely plausible.

In a world of possibilities, anything can happen.

I don't think engaging in sex was on his mind, to be honest. The murders themselves were lust motivated. That is probably true. It was a different sensation he was seeking (I believe).

It was also raining, so I can only assume she caught his fancy due to lack of availability. We know the potential suspect, Best and Gardiner saw was either shaken off or he got what he wanted from Liz when the rain stopped. I believe he got frustrated and was concerned he had drawn too much attention to himself, so scurried off into the night. Only to bump into her again on the street a little later. He wouldn't miss a second opportunity.

Now that is what I also wrote in my book, and I like to think it could be true. I don't have enough evidence to declare it as fact, and probably never will.

It's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

[rjpalmer]

Pot kettle. Where is your explanation for Anne telling her story in July 1994, within a month of Mike's first 'confession', if she knows he can bring them both down whenever he chooses, by spilling all the beans about their roles in the diary's creation? How did that work out in practice? She must have been psychic to have had no worries on that score.

I have answered this question many, many times, and I find it naive and nonsensical.

Barrett was in the throes of alcoholism. He was also telling Team Diary something it didn't want to hear and something that would cost them money out of pocket. He also had little credibility because his stories kept shifting.

As such, it was all too easy for Anne Graham, the sympathetic partner of the two, to come forward and undermine Barrett's confession to a willing audience. And you admit that the story she told was bollocks. It wasn't always that way, was it?

Despite what you insinuate, as Mike's ex-wife and theoretical co-author, she was in a PERFECT position to know under what conditions the Diary was created and what 'evidence' Barrett could bring to bear. Clearly, she felt it would come down to "he said/she said" and she would have the upperhand. Anne was the one who held the purse strings and thus the paper trail. Further, it didn't matter what indications of inside knowledge Barrett HAS provided--you have just dismissed them anyway---the red diary, the Sphere Guide, the notes that avoid mentioning Bernard Ryan, etc. so I don't accept your premise. Not in the least. It doesn't interest me. What interests me is your inability to come up with a coherent reason why Anne would have thrown herself into the thick of the scrimmage if the diary was just something Barrett had brought home from the pub, when, by your own admission, she was "free and clear." If what you say is true, she had far more reason to fear Eddie and the other electricians than Barrett. Take your own advice: put your thinking cap on. She knew no one would come from the woodwork, because she knew they was no one IN the woodwork.

seeing your obsessive quest to reduce to a 'silly belief' on my part what is in fact a wealth of circumstantial evidence, coupled with much credible, consistent witness testimony, which Keith Skinner among many others are finding more and more compelling as the likeliest explanation for how Mike ended up with the diary in his possession on 13th April 1992.

I have no idea why Keith Skinner believes what he believes. He almost never engages with critics of the diary, and has never explained his dismissal of the many indications of the diary's modernity beyond vague indications that he doesn't believe them. He stopped communicating with David Barrat some years ago and hasn't shown any interest in answering the relevant questions Barrat posed. Perhaps someday he will.

In the meantime, we can only judge his "wealth of evidence" by what Robert Smith presented in his 2017 book and there was much monkey-business in those pages, coupled with arguments that are compelling to you, but not compelling to others. Such is life; that's why we disagree.

We are told, from time to time, that there is much more evidence not yet made publicly available, but you've been saying this since the days of John Omlor's purple dragon, and that's a good fifteen years ago.

As you say, there is little point in us discussing the matter yet again and boring everyone to tears, especially since the alleged evidence is still 'private.'

[Abby Normal]

Don't discount the effects of alcohol on male libido. As the old saying goes "I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few."

c.d.

now thats funny. Reminds me of the Churchill quote

Disgruntled woman: Youre drunk!
WC: Yes but in the morning Ill be sober, and youll still be ugly.

[caz]

One of the many problems with your silly belief that the diary came out of Battlecrease isn't the behavior of Mike Barrett so much as it is the behavior of Anne Graham.

Problems with my 'silly belief', RJ?

You sound like you have an intense personal aversion, and that's always a dangerous, less than clinical approach for any seeker of the truth to take.

If that sentence sounds familiar, it's because I stole your own words, addressed to a poster in 'the other place' concerning Druitt, but substituting 'any seeker of the truth' for 'a historian'. I thought they were good words and equally appropriate here, seeing your obsessive quest to reduce to a 'silly belief' on my part what is in fact a wealth of circumstantial evidence, coupled with much credible, consistent witness testimony, which Keith Skinner among many others are finding more and more compelling as the likeliest explanation for how Mike ended up with the diary in his possession on 13th April 1992.

Compared with your fixed auction belief, for which there is not the tiniest scrap of evidence, and relies totally on Mike's lies concerning when he is meant to have obtained the scrapbook and the procedures employed by the auction house, the Battlecrease diary being found in Battlecrease House is looking about as far from a silly belief as the sun setting in the west.

Neither you, nor anyone else, has ever given a coherent or believable reason why Anne would have come forward with her 'in the family' nonsense had the diary merely been something that Mike had brought home from the boozer, particularly considering she was 'free and clear' of him and wasn't cashing her royalty cheques. Never once, in all those years, did she see fit to whisper the simple truth in Feldman's ear? Or in Keith's?

Pot kettle. Where is your explanation for Anne telling her story in July 1994, within a month of Mike's first 'confession', if she knows he can bring them both down whenever he chooses, by spilling all the beans about their roles in the diary's creation? How did that work out in practice? She must have been psychic to have had no worries on that score.

By contrast, her story was far less susceptible to exposure as a lie if she suspected the diary had been stolen two years previously. Feldman wasn't going to poke that particular wasp nest again, and nobody too closely involved was ever likely to admit it now, with nothing to gain and plenty to lose. She knew how angrily Mike had reacted in 1993, to the very idea that his precious diary might rightfully belong to Paul Dodd. Better by far for him to pretend he wrote it himself, so he could take back control from all his perceived enemies. Knowledge of the diary back in 1992, and where it was found, was one thing; being willing and able to prove it would be quite another. Eddie was much more likely to use Anne's story to his own advantage in the future than to try and undermine it. Oddly, his denials have never been accompanied by the observation that Mike's admission to faking it proves he is innocent of taking it.

Anne must have thought she was relatively safe to tell her story in July 1994. Surely even you can see that. So was she quite mad? Why not make another reference to Broadmoor, if it helps? Your belief is that Mike had just begun to spill some criminal beans about the diary's creation, and Anne's reaction was to tell a story that was pretty much guaranteed to send him into a fury? What better way to provoke him into spilling the whole lot if he really had them to spill? Come on, RJ. Put that thinking cap on.

You talk circles around this glaring circumstance and compose and post ten paragraph word salads trying not to address it, but any intelligent viewer can see you have no legitimate explanation.

Pot kettle. Your distraction methods are becoming legendary. Whenever you are faced with the tougher questions, you turn the focus back onto questions like the one above, which have been argued back and forth many times over, with no fresh insights offered on your part, and no hope of reaching a resolution or agreement. Let's agree to disagree on this one, shall we, before our readers die of boredom?

[rjpalmer]

Is that the young American wife who was sleeping in a different bed to him?

Psychological subtly, my man, nuance and subtly.

Donald John Trump might also have a different bedroom from Malaria --excuse me, Melania, I have swampy Norfolk, Virginia on my mind-- but that doesn't drive him into the arms of a bag lady in the seedier parts of Model City (a district of Miami)

We are just joking around, of course, since the diary is an obvious enough fake, but I imagine Sir Jim's tastes might have been a wee bit more refined and bourgeoise. Not to put too fine a point on it, there was a rather large gulf between the nymphs who inhabited Mrs. Hogwood's brothel in Norfolk in the 1870s and the unfortunate bag ladies of SGE in the 1880s.

Of course, there is a 5,000,000,000,000 to 1 shot that you are correct, and Sir Jim did hang out in the Bricklayer's Arms, reciting Crashaw and Herrick and Marvel to the local ladies, but I rather think not. The diarist doesn't strike you as a lover, I trust?

And neither does Jack the Ripper, which is why I tend to discount the suspect named by Gardner and Best as even remotely plausible.

[erobitha]

Don't discount the effects of alcohol on male libido. As the old saying goes "I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few."

c.d.

Ha ha!

[c.d.]

Yes actually RJ, that is how I see it. Is that the young American wife who was sleeping in a different bed to him? A man known to frequent prostitutes?

Could not possibly happen.

Don't discount the effects of alcohol on male libido. As the old saying goes "I never went to bed with an ugly woman but I sure woke up with a few."

c.d.

[erobitha]

Yes, Gardner and Best reported seeing a man with a black moustache and 'weak eyes' slobbering all over Liz Stride in the Bricklayer's Arms, St. George in the East, on the night of the murder.

Is that how you see it? A middle-class cotton merchant with a young American wife at home, sliding his tongue down the throat of a street woman with no upper teeth?

(No disrespect meant to Liz Stride, of course)

Yes actually RJ, that is how I see it. Is that the young American wife who was sleeping in a different bed to him? A man known to frequent prostitutes?

Could not possibly happen.

[rjpalmer]

Also, were there some witness reports suggesting the suspect might have issues with their eyes?

Yes, Gardner and Best reported seeing a man with a black moustache and 'weak eyes' slobbering all over Liz Stride in the Bricklayer's Arms, St. George in the East, on the night of the murder.

Is that how you see it? A middle-class cotton merchant with a young American wife at home, sliding his tongue down the throat of a street woman with no upper teeth?

(No disrespect meant to Liz Stride, of course)

Or was that the composer of The Holy City?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

I've lived north of the border for the last thirty years and I have no idea what that means!!!

Bampot, yeah!

The rest of it, I've no idea.

East Coast maybe?

Dingies- BS, nonsense, said while making a gesture flicking your ear.

Hee Haw- Nothing. "You ken hee haw", you know nothing.

They're both fairly common expressions? Hee Haw is definitely Glaswegian, perhaps not so 'dingies'.