Who were they?

[rjpalmer]

Three eye and ear witnesses all remembering Mike's instant reaction to what was said, but describing it in a slightly different way? Perhaps it never happened. Maybe they were all hallucinating

Ear witnesses? Is Mike now supposed to have let out an audible gasp?

It will be interesting to see the public's reaction when this 'evidence' is finally brought before the 'court of history.'

"My Lord, we know that Barrett bought the Diary of Jack the Ripper from Eddie Lyons for twenty quid even though Mr. Lyons denies it and claims he didn't even know Barrett."

"On what do you base this startling claim?"

"My Lord, Barrett gave a funny look and stepped backwards off a step when he heard that some electrical work had been done on Mr. Dodd's house."

"Hmm. I see. I'm afraid I can't allow that into evidence, since it isn't evidence outside the hallowed halls of Ripperology."

Let's see. Martin Fido once related a story of having asked Barrett point-blank if he had faked the diary, and Martin said that Barrett smiled silently and gave him a wink. Do you consider Mike's reaction on that occasion also constitutes evidence?

I'm still trying to determine if Martin Howells and Paul Begg remember the same incident that Feldman did. And Feldman certainly undermines your own belief that this incident is meaningful because he rejected the Battlecrease Ballyhoo and believed Anne Graham's tale, so it must not have preyed too deeply on his mind. Do Howells and Begg consider it compelling evidence?

The only reason I brought it back up is that according to Jay Hartley, Howells is supposed to have said that Mike turned white as a sheet and had to go outdoors. Feldman says Barrett hadn't even entered the inside of the house yet.

I'm not sure I would consider such difference in eyewitness testimony "slight" if you're trying to argue that people's interpretations of the alleged reaction of the proven shyster Mike Barrett has evidentiary value--by hey--you do you.

[caz]

Now I wonder who could have brought it to RJ's attention that the existence of the letter dated 3rd April 1992 appeared to be new information?

Someone, perhaps, who has gambled everything on Mike not even finding anything to put his hoax in until 31st March 1992?

Am I getting warm?

Or is the climate changing even faster than I thought?

[caz]

I personally don't care to engage further, but it has been brought to my attention that the above correspondence dated 3 April 1992 was not included in what was purported to be a file of Doreen Montgomery's correspondence from March/April 1992, uploaded to these boards by Keith Skinner back in February 2018 which can be found here in Post #1133:


Acquiring A Victorian Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Through some error, did Keith not provide all of Doreen's correspondence, or has a new cache of correspondence emerged after all these years?

Not that it's of any great significance, but on 3rd August 2004 Keith sent me copies of some early diary correspondence he had obtained from Doreen's files, which I entered on my timeline and retained in my own files. This included the letter from Doreen to Shirley dated 3rd April 1992. When I posted the extract from this letter, Keith was baffled because he couldn't find a copy in his own files, so I took a photo of the letter with my phone and emailed it to him. It would be a rare event for Keith to misfile or misplace any letters, but it did show me he must be human after all.

I wonder what else might turn up?

[caz]

Hi Ero,

What if's indeed. I get the distinct impression you've got an idea about who this third party might be. The idea that the composition might not be the sole work of Barrett has been around since the diary came about, but perhaps Deveraux/ Kane was barking up the wrong tree. I don't think a fully formed ripper memoir came out from under Dodd's floorboards, but I also don't think it came out of Mike's head on a whim. How long the composition had been around, and who precisely constructed it, I couldn't hazard a guess, but I do think Mike was involved and tried to disguise that fact. Why though, didn't he just name them when he tried to expose the hoax, if that was the case? For that line of questioning, I have no idea.

Hi Al,

For me, Mike's angry denial in 1993 that the diary came from Dodd's house has to be significant. If he had been given it by Devereux in 1991, with no further information, he wouldn't have known where Devereux did or did not get it from or when. If Mike and Anne were behind the hoax, he clearly preferred his Devereux provenance to the Battlecrease variety.

You think Mike was involved somehow in the diary's creation but 'tried to disguise that fact', and you ask why he didn't 'just name' those who were involved with him. But in January 1995 that's precisely what he tried to do with his affidavit, describing in some detail who did what, and who witnessed this act of fraud. He named the wife who had just divorced him; he named the friend, Devereux, who had died after the diary had supposedly been created with his knowledge from a photo album; he named his wife's recently deceased father, who had supposedly coughed up the money for the album; and he named the daughter he had not been able to see since January 1994.

If we consider everything Anne, with her father's support, had told Feldman in July 1994, and her claim that she had persuaded Devereux to give the diary to Mike without saying it came from her; and if we then consider that Mike knew it was all rubbish, and that Anne must have roped in their daughter to the deceit, we can begin to get a sense of the utter humiliation and betrayal he must have felt at the hands of his wife, his father-in-law and his daughter, all three of them in league with the devil that was Paul Feldman.

Now look afresh at who Mike accuses in his affidavit and you will see that he spares none of these people, and takes Devereux down too, in revenge for Anne's expropriation of his original provenance story. Don't let anyone kid you that this is a man whose conscience has been pricking him since December 1993. This is personal and it is malicious.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

No evidence at all it was written by the Barretts at all.

Actual solid evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

No evidence it was written by Maybrick.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I'm not exactly sold on the Battlecrease provenance, but for it to have any legs I think it would need prior between Mike and Eddy. The idea of Eddy stealing something worth selling and offloading it sharpish to a stranger in the pub with some bond of silence is adding another level of convolution to a story that so far isn't that sound, in my opinion.

The trouble is, Al, the evidence is not in favour of Mike and Eddie knowing each other prior to floorboards day, although it's not impossible if they had both used the Saddle of an evening or at weekends.

Frankly, I might find it harder to believe that Eddie would have let Mike take the diary to show to potential buyers if he knew him well! But Mike did have the gift of the gab and was, after all, able to 'sell' his 1995 forgery claims to some reasonably intelligent people, who never knew him from Adam. So maybe he could have 'sold' Eddie the belief that he was a man with all the right contacts, who could be trusted not to rip him off or grass him up. If Mike also had to trust Eddie that the old book was not too hot to handle ["nobody alive knows about it"], there would have been mutual reasons to keep each other sweet while protecting their own interests.

All IMHO, naturally.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How do we reconcile this information with the Mike/Anne creation advocates, who claim nothing diary-related ever came out of Dodd's house? Was Eddie Lyons, Colin Rhodes, or Brian Rawes full of it, confused or misinformed?

You'd have to ask the Mike/Anne creation advocates, Scotty.

But there are many more individuals than just the three you name here, who must have been 'full of it, confused or misinformed', and several who still must be to this day.

Mind you, I don't think anyone has actually claimed that nothing diary-related ever came out of Dodd's house. It's more a need to believe it didn't, for reasons that are not entirely clear.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

{13 Miller's Court}


Inside a dirty room at Miller's court Between 2am and 8, it's thought
Mary Kelly was taken clean apart

Her body laying naked in the middle of the bed
Her face peeled down across her cold forehead
The surface of her abdomen, covering her guts
Removed, cut out, depleted, such elaborate cuts

Belly emptied of its viscera
Breasts cut off and put aside
The tissues of her neck were severed
A decapitation had been tried

The liver was found between her feet
Her intestines by her right-hand side
The uterus and kidneys beneath her head
Her stripped down legs both splayed out wide

What ever became of poor Mary Jane
Between the hours of 2 and 8
Walls and floor all splashed with gore
In a frenzy of unbridled hate

'Her body lying naked...', Mike. Not 'laying'.

Poor Mary Jane wasn't a hen.

Just saying.

[caz]

One could characterize Barrett as a fool to 'mould' this theory into something slightly more palatable, and we have seen a long and consistent campaign by Caroline Brown and Tom Mitchell to paint Barrett in this light, but would this not go against your own warning of painting the dramatis personae into 'one dimensional' figures for the sake of believing what one wants to believe?

Shirley Harrison has written that Barrett was 'far from stupid.' Nick Warren had the same impression, although I don't know on what he based this. Mike's old editor at Celebrity spoke well of him. Anne Graham is recorded saying that she found Mike 'intelligent' when they first courted. Chris Jones, who has also met Barrett, characterized him as a man of 'great imagination.' Why would Barrett have thought this would work? Why would he have even thought to do it? The idea fails to be plausible on multiple levels. But I will leave it at that.

This one was addressed to Keith, and referred to the 'surrogate' idea for the red diary, but I think we can usefully apply it to the plausibility of a 'far from stupid' Mike Barrett asking for an actual 'diary' dating from 1880-90, which could also be 'partly used', if he was hoping to get something he could use to create the one Doreen had just expressed an interest in seeing, which was currently sitting sans dates on his word processor, waiting for an unused old book to materialise.

This doesn't exactly make Mike look like a Brain of Britain contender, does it? And even his 'great imagination' couldn't help him when the 1891 diary materialised. So it was probably not a great argument by RJ to claim that others have painted Mike in a worse light than he deserves, when we know his request, featuring both dates and used pages, gave him next to no chance of obtaining anything fit for the suspected purpose. To apply RJ's words to the diary request: Why would Barrett have thought this would work? Why would he have even thought to do it? The idea fails to be plausible on multiple levels.

For the record, what is the source for Martin Howell's 'eyewitness' testimony? What did Paul Begg recall?

The reason I ask about Martin Howells specifically is the only claim I have seen is from Jay Hartley, who did not name his source, writing on the Jones/Dolgin thread on JTR Forums (Post #209) that Martin Howells said that Mike turned "as white as a sheet" and "had to go outside" on learning of the electrical work.

Can you confirm that Hartley is accurate? Or, if Hartley reads this, can he confirm this is accurately reported and not poetic fiction?

I ask because Paul Feldman, in his book, said nothing about Mike 'turning white.'

Indeed, Feldman reports that Mike was already outside Dodd's house (at the bottom of the front porch) so how could Mike have needed to go outside?

Feldman merely wrote that Mike 'staggered' at the news.



I think you'll realize the need to clear this up, since conflicting eyewitness testimony won't do your theory any favors, if indeed you have a theory.

Could Mike not have merely slipped off the porch? He was a drinker after all.

It was David Barrat who wondered if Mike just lost his footing and far too much is being read into it. It isn't much of a peg to hang a provenance on. I think the Phil Sugdens of the world will require something a little more substantial than a Scouser turning a whiter shade of pale.

That's almost certainly it from me. Regards.

Right, so Paul Begg, Paul Feldman and Martin Howells all mistook a temporary loss of footing for a lightning-quick reaction by Mike to the mention of electrical work, which played on their minds for months - and has never been forgotten? If this was 'poetic fiction' on Feldy's part [and not wishful thinking on RJ's], I'd have thought either Paul Begg or Martin Howells would have happily denied noticing any more than a drinker's coincidental slip, knowing what Feldy's imagination was like.

Three eye and ear witnesses all remembering Mike's instant reaction to what was said, but describing it in a slightly different way? Perhaps it never happened. Maybe they were all hallucinating.

If this is the standard of critical thinking employed, to keep the Barrett hoax conspiracy theory alive, then I'm surprised nobody has questioned the shooting of JFK, due to so many witnesses giving wildly different versions of the event and his reaction. Was too much read into it? Did JFK just have some minor seizure when a car happened to backfire?

[erobitha]

The bottom line is the Diary is not the real deal and in all likelihood was written by the Barretts.

No evidence at all it was written by the Barretts at all.

Actual solid evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

[John Wheat]

Firstly, PI, the diary is not a forgery, because no attempt was made to forge Maybrick's known handwriting.

Secondly, Mike could not have 100% forged it anyway if it was his wife who did the handwriting.

Thirdly, the writer you were quoting implies that Mike made both claims at the same time. The first was made in June 1994, while the second was made in January 1995, just after his wife divorced him.

A writer who can get this much wrong in the space of two short sentences is not one I would put too much faith in, frankly. But each to their own.



It is clear from the diary that 'Sir Jim' is supposed to have read all about his latest - the murder of Kelly - in his newspaper, and his thoughts about what he did while in that little room are also evidently coloured by whatever details he has seen in print, accurate or otherwise. The idea that whoever killed Kelly would have made detailed notes at the scene, or taken a camera with him, or had a photographic memory of everything he had done in the heat of the moment, to the extent that he could have corrected all the faulty reporting to produce a 100% picture perfect account of the scene he left behind, when he had cooled down and the adrenaline was no longer pumping, is just not very realistic. If reporters closest to the scene couldn't get their information right and had to rely on Chinese whispers, why would the unhinged killer be able to recall all that terrible carnage in forensic detail? Would it not have been a damned sight more suspicious if 'Sir Jim' had carefully corrected every last mistake and misunderstanding in the papers like a check list, with all the information that could be found in post-1987 ripper books? Isn't that precisely why the empty tin match box looks so iffy on the surface?

The bottom line is the Diary is not the real deal and in all likelihood was written by the Barretts.

[caz]

At some point, the man who brought Jack the Ripper’s diary to public attention, Michael Barrett, told writers at the Liverpool Post that he had 100% forged the diary. He said his wife did the writing while he dictated to her.

Firstly, PI, the diary is not a forgery, because no attempt was made to forge Maybrick's known handwriting.

Secondly, Mike could not have 100% forged it anyway if it was his wife who did the handwriting.

Thirdly, the writer you were quoting implies that Mike made both claims at the same time. The first was made in June 1994, while the second was made in January 1995, just after his wife divorced him.

A writer who can get this much wrong in the space of two short sentences is not one I would put too much faith in, frankly. But each to their own.

When investigated closely, the content of Jack the Ripper’s diary, many of the detailed descriptions of the five murders and the crime scenes were taken from press reports and later literature about Jack the Ripper murders. An example is the description of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, whose limbs and some organs were described by the press disturbingly as “hung around the walls like Christmas decorations”.

The diary of Jack the Ripper describes where and how he put her limbs and organs in places about the room and how he cut off her breasts and “kissed them for a while” before leaving them on the bedside table. The descriptions are incredibly graphic, but there is nothing here that couldn’t be drawn and embellished from the rumors about Kelly’s mutilation.

In reality, according to what police records survived the Blitz in the Second World War, and based on the crime scene photos, the diaries describe a different crime scene. Yes, she was disemboweled and had organs removed, but they weren’t strewn across the room like some kind of macabre confetti or Christmas decorations like the diary depicts.

Some of the removed organs were placed beneath her head, other organs and viscera were placed on the bed where she was found near her feet, thighs, and some material from her stomach and thighs was spread to a nearby bedside table. One breast was found under Kelly’s head, and the other was located underneath the body on the bed. Not on the bedside table like the diary said.

The inaccuracies in the description of the brutal slaying of Mary Jane Kelly casts a large shadow of doubt on the authenticity of Jack the Ripper’s diary. If it is supposed to be written by Jack the Ripper, it should have intimate knowledge of exactly how her body was left, and it would match how the police found and recorded the scene. There is a public house mentioned in one entry called the “Post House,” but the pub had a completely different name when Jack the Ripper was active.


https://www.historicmysteries.com/ripper-diary/

It is clear from the diary that 'Sir Jim' is supposed to have read all about his latest - the murder of Kelly - in his newspaper, and his thoughts about what he did while in that little room are also evidently coloured by whatever details he has seen in print, accurate or otherwise. The idea that whoever killed Kelly would have made detailed notes at the scene, or taken a camera with him, or had a photographic memory of everything he had done in the heat of the moment, to the extent that he could have corrected all the faulty reporting to produce a 100% picture perfect account of the scene he left behind, when he had cooled down and the adrenaline was no longer pumping, is just not very realistic. If reporters closest to the scene couldn't get their information right and had to rely on Chinese whispers, why would the unhinged killer be able to recall all that terrible carnage in forensic detail? Would it not have been a damned sight more suspicious if 'Sir Jim' had carefully corrected every last mistake and misunderstanding in the papers like a check list, with all the information that could be found in post-1987 ripper books? Isn't that precisely why the empty tin match box looks so iffy on the surface?

[erobitha]

Hi Ero,

What if's indeed. I get the distinct impression you've got an idea about who this third party might be. The idea that the composition might not be the sole work of Barrett has been around since the diary came about, but perhaps Deveraux/ Kane was barking up the wrong tree. I don't think a fully formed ripper memoir came out from under Dodd's floorboards, but I also don't think it came out of Mike's head on a whim. How long the composition had been around, and who precisely constructed it, I couldn't hazard a guess, but I do think Mike was involved and tried to disguise that fact. Why though, didn't he just name them when he tried to expose the hoax, if that was the case? For that line of questioning, I have no idea.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on "I don't think a fully formed ripper memoir came out from under Dodd's floorboards." I clearly do.

I suspect the answers are connected to people of The Saddle, but the evidence is not as strong as I would like. Just interesting, to me at least.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

What if a third party was the facilitator? Someone who knew both men and had strong links to The Saddle? Someone who heard all of Mike's yarns of being a successful journalist and may have believed some of it? What if this someone knew Eddie for many years? What if Eddie told the facilitator and the facilitator told Mike to get his opinion on it? What if that sparked this whole thing off?

Lots of what ifs, but what if?

Hi Ero,

What if's indeed. I get the distinct impression you've got an idea about who this third party might be. The idea that the composition might not be the sole work of Barrett has been around since the diary came about, but perhaps Deveraux/ Kane was barking up the wrong tree. I don't think a fully formed ripper memoir came out from under Dodd's floorboards, but I also don't think it came out of Mike's head on a whim. How long the composition had been around, and who precisely constructed it, I couldn't hazard a guess, but I do think Mike was involved and tried to disguise that fact. Why though, didn't he just name them when he tried to expose the hoax, if that was the case? For that line of questioning, I have no idea.

[erobitha]

Hi Caz,



I'm not exactly sold on the Battlecrease provenance, but for it to have any legs I think it would need prior between Mike and Eddy. The idea of Eddy stealing something worth selling and offloading it sharpish to a stranger in the pub with some bond of silence is adding another level of convolution to a story that so far isn't that sound, in my opinion.

What if a third party was the facilitator? Someone who knew both men and had strong links to The Saddle? Someone who heard all of Mike's yarns of being a successful journalist and may have believed some of it? What if this someone knew Eddie for many years? What if Eddie told the facilitator and the facilitator told Mike to get his opinion on it? What if that sparked this whole thing off?

Lots of what ifs, but what if?