Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

Speaking of 'Have You Seen the Devil' have you noticed that it is Lord Orsam Day, and he has thrown a damper on Jay Hartley's excitement at learning that this was a song black field laborers sang in the American south?

He posts an example of a version of 'Have You Ever Seen the Devil' being sung in a London music hall on this very date in 1838---185 years ago today.

As always, we can assume that the Diary crowd will now sing a different tune, arguing that James Maybrick heard it in a Whitechapel music hall in the 1860s when he lived in the City.

Possible, but not proven, nor would it differentiate James Maybrick from thousands of other people throughout Britain who could have heard a version of this ditty, nor is it mentioned or referred to anywhere in Barrett's hoax scrapbook.

The '25 will provide absolute certainty where Jack got 'Have You Seen the Devil', RJ, which is all anyone can reasonably ask of The Greatest Ripperology Book of All.

I hadn't remembered it was Orsam Day today. Is it worth my while climbing up the drainpipes to see if I get a panning?

[rjpalmer]

The '25 will provide absolute certainty where Jack got 'Have You Seen the Devil', RJ, which is all anyone can reasonably ask of The Greatest Ripperology Book of All

Richard Wallace is coming out with a new edition of Jack the Ripper, Light-Hearted Friend in 2025? I wasn't aware of that.

[erobitha]

The '25 will provide absolute certainty where Jack got 'Have You Seen the Devil', RJ, which is all anyone can reasonably ask of The Greatest Ripperology Book of All.

I hadn't remembered it was Orsam Day today. Is it worth my while climbing up the drainpipes to see if I get a panning?

Had a quick shimmy down the drainpipe myself, and it's full of grime and vitriol.

Hard to wade through all that brown sludge to fish out anything worth examining in closer detail.

I will accept that I will need to look at the company law issue he raised in more detail. He raises a point of share capital I feel is worth further investigation.

The observation of the poem was by Martin Fido. I never claimed the book I referenced was where it was first found or the only place it could be found. Just there is a connection between that poem and that book.

Christ, if I had to do one of these rebuttals for every minor non-points he makes on his brown website, I'd never get anything done.

Still, if it makes him and RJ happy, who am I to judge how he spends his time?

[Iconoclast]

Message to Lord Orsam regarding his The Big Coincidence...Explained! article, I wasn't aware that I had ever disparaged it. On the contrary, I feel sure that I've recognised it as at very least a possibility, which is probably a great deal more largesse than he will grant me my own interpretation (you know, the one that does not require the Victorian scrapbook text to have been composed by the author of more one-page (note the hyphen!) epics than any other 'published' and 'professional' 'writer' in the history of literature).

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike,

Sadly, I have come to realize that you must be posting deliberate drivel to illicit a response, thus keeping the whole charade going as you try to reach the still obtainable 10,000 posts before the Grassy Knoll Gang gets there first.

Much of what you write can't possibly be written in good faith.

Take this:

(and then Anne tidied-up the mince he'd written so that it looked vaguely printable before being submitted to the editorial team for professional revision).

What evidence can you provide that Barrett and Graham handed in a wad of illiterate and poorly produced 'mince' to Celebrity Magazine that had to be revised by a professional editor?

Let's see it.

Are we to believe that after all these years—nearly four decades---you have chased down the editor of the magazine (he retired 13 years ago—I checked) who had a clear recollection of this, and passed on this information to you and/or Robert Smith, who also tried to pawn-off this piece of pork pie?

If so, let's see the correspondence.

It's moonshine. It’s based on nothing but wish-fulfillment. Desire--that lubrication that keeps the diary machine going round and round.

On page 150 of Ripper Diary (a book you claim to have read) we get the following account from Barrett's old editor, David Burness, as furnished to Shirley Harrison in 1994.

"Barrett's editor at D.C. Thomason, David Burness, confirmed that Barrett was a valued contributor: 'As I told you, Mike was always very reliable in the time he worked for me, I'm so sorry that his life seems to have gone so desperately wrong."

Not a whisper about an incapable lout who turned in a wad of complete shite that had to be re-written by the editorial staff, and we can all assure ourselves that Shirley Harrison would have been utterly delighted to report this had it been the case.

You--Tom--Thomas--Soothsayer--Ike--were not there and have no real information or insight to offer the forums on this topic.

And you are not only insulting Barrett--you are also insulting Anne Graham.

The lucky thing is that we have an opportunity to see for ourselves examples of the Barretts' professionalism before their work ever reached the awaiting hands of an eager editor. We can start by your kindly uploading of the Barretts' 29-page typescript of the diary to this website. While some might argue it is not evidence of their skill as writers, I think we can all agree that it would at least give us some inkling of their professionalism.

Also of interest would be the report on Victorian laundries that Anne wrote for Feldman in 1995. Martin Fido, on reading this, "declared himself 'flabbergasted' that this was not the work of a professional researcher" (Ripper Diary, p. 150).

That doesn't sound like someone who turned in a wad of unprofessional 'mince’ that had to be further corrected and rewritten by an editor.

Indeed, on seeing Anne's unedited work, Fido was convinced that Anne could have 'concocted' the Maybrick-as-Ripper idea with 'one hand tied behind her back.' (Ibid)

This from Martin Fido, Professor of Literature, writer, and broadcaster of Murder After Dark, who over his long career must have read hundreds of student papers.

Let Bruce Robinson stick that in his hash pipe and smoke it.

And ultimately, who gives a rat's fuzzy grey behind that the future co-author of The Final Victim might have 'tidied up' Mike's journalistic efforts--if indeed she did?

All that means is that there were two authors living in the small house on Goldie Street in 1992.

Yet, you'd think from reading your posts that in 1992 Anne was living on the Dark Side of the Moon with Roger, Dave, the long-lamented Syd, and the rest of the band.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drop some acid and meditate while in a yoga position.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike,
What evidence can you provide that Barrett and Graham handed in a wad of illiterate and poorly produced 'mince' to Celebrity Magazine that had to be revised by a professional editor? Let's see it.

What's with the weird font? It's kinda psychedelic, man!

Classic RJ, always one or two steps behind the rest of the gang. I didn't say they sent mince to the editor. Read my lips! I said that Anne tidied-up the mince Barrett had written. How do we know that? Well, read Bongo's lips, RJ - he said it himself!

On page 150 of Ripper Diary (a book you claim to have read) we get the following account from Barrett's old editor, David Burness, as furnished to Shirley Harrison in 1994.
"Barrett's editor at D.C. Thomason, David Burness, confirmed that Barrett was a valued contributor: 'As I told you, Mike was always very reliable in the time he worked for me, I'm so sorry that his life seems to have gone so desperately wrong."

Not a whisper about an incapable lout who turned in a wad of complete shite that had to be re-written by the editorial staff, and we can all assure ourselves that Shirley Harrison would have been utterly delighted to report this had it been the case.

This is very embarrassing, RJ - do please refer to my first answer.

Also of interest would be the report on Victorian laundries that Anne wrote for Feldman in 1995. Martin Fido, on reading this, "declared himself 'flabbergasted' that this was not the work of a professional researcher" (Ripper Diary, p. 150).

I do so hope you don't have an aneurism, RJ - your blood pressure seems to be off the roof. Please calm down and then re-red what I originally said not what you originally decided I had said.

That doesn't sound like someone who turned in a wad of unprofessional 'mince’ that had to be further corrected and rewritten by an editor.

Oh dear, this is very embarrassing, RJ. Surely you would not doubt that an editorial team would look over Anne's work and frame it to meet their requirements and expectations for that particular article? No harm no foul as you Yankee boys love to say. She wasn't being offended by them, they were just doing the job they were paid to do.

Indeed, on seeing Anne's unedited work, Fido was convinced that Anne could have 'concocted' the Maybrick-as-Ripper idea with 'one hand tied behind her back.' (Ibid)

Well good for her, but she couldn't have written any of it because Lord Orsam said himself that it was Barrett who did all the creative writing, she just put in the hard yards of actually writing it down. Are you not keeping up again, RJ? Take a seat, have a glass of water. Try to breathe.

And ultimately, who gives a rat's fuzzy grey behind that the future co-author of The Final Victim might have 'tidied up' Mike's journalistic efforts--if indeed she did? All that means is that there were two authors living in the small house on Goldie Street in 1992.

I have to say, RJ, that I think you are reaching. If one 'writer' has to tidy-up the work of the other 'writer', it doesn't sound much like one of them was much of a 'writer', wouldn't you say, old chap?

Yet, you'd think from reading your posts that in 1992 Anne was living on the Dark Side of the Moon with Roger, Dave, the long-lamented Syd, and the rest of the band.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drop some acid and meditate while in a yoga position.

Well I can't honestly say I wish you were here, RJ, but - if you were (and surely Syd wasn't a relation of Bongo's, was he?), I'd definitely advise a cold beer and a cheeky little namaste or two. I think you need it, mate.

[rjpalmer]

I have to say, RJ, that I think you are reaching. If one 'writer' has to tidy-up the work of the other 'writer', it doesn't sound much like one of them was much of a 'writer', wouldn't you say, old chap?

And so the Maybrick Dance continues.

I'm well aware of what you wrote, Ike. You wrote that Anne had to 'tidy up' Mike's 'mince' and then it awaited further revision or guidance or tidying up by a 'professional' (note that word, folks!) editor.

What you were implying was obvious enough to any intellectually honest soul: the manuscript they handed in was shite.

And what is further obvious is that you haven't the finest idea of what condition Mike and Anne's manuscripts were in (if indeed she played any role) when the said manuscripts showed up on the editor's desk.

It's all guesswork. Insinuation. Desire.

In reality, these manuscripts could have been so picture perfect that the editor, knowing the previous work of this "very reliable" (Burness's own phrase) contributor, he merely looked them over with a satisfied grin, never once lifting his pencil to add a missing comma or a misplaced apostrophe.

Of course, as already noted, one way we might be able to better gauge Mike and Anne's professionalism--or to disprove it--would be to see Anne's report on the Victorian Laundries. A copy must still be kicking around somewhere along with the 29-page typescript.

[rjpalmer]

How do we know that? Well, read Bongo's lips, RJ - he said it himself!

Ah, from the lips of Bongo Barrett, that most reliable of informants.

I don't actually remember Barrett ever saying this, though I can readily imagine he might have said something along similar lines during one of his many attempts to walk back his confession.

I know Anne claimed to have done so, and if she did it in the mid-1980s, she could have just as easily have corrected a manuscript 1992. A child could work that one out.

Yet the diary crowd, using dime store psychology, claim that she couldn't have. She was too honest, too sensible, or (the latest) too much of a good Roman Catholic lady and thus too squeamish and prim & proper to have written or helped write such a blood-thirsty narrative.

If I recall, Anne's first recorded words to Harold Brough were "This is bulls$%t."

And, according to Shirley Harrison, she described Feldman's genealogical theories as "bulls$%t." (She seems to have said something quite different to Paul Daniel of The Ripperologist).

Naughty language doesn't necessarily equate with morbidity, but it doesn't strike me as the language of a particularly squeamish lady, but who am I to question a creative use of dime store psychoanalysis?

[rjpalmer]

you haven't the finest idea

Damn, I hate Autocorrect. Someday I'm going to heave this iPhone in the Mersey and hope the Detectorists don't find it while looking for Maybrick's knife.

[mpriestnall]

If you want to get hired as consultant you don't nail your colours too firmly to the mast of any particular suspect.

As for Druitt, I think Howells and Skinner were half right: Druitt was murdered but not by the Cambridge Apostles but by those who helped out JTR and AMan.

[Iconoclast]

Ah, from the lips of Bongo Barrett, that most reliable of informants.

Well, RJ, all sarcasm aside, which way is it? Was Mike Barrett a reliable informant or an unreliable informant?

It's kind of key to the Barrett Believing gang's whole premise, is it not?

PS On that note (and iterating my own post, #49), Lord Orsam has reiterated his suggestion that the 'double event' of March 9, 1992, was no coincidence at all and that it was the result of the electricians talking in The Saddle that day about the work they were doing in Battlecrease House and Barrett had simply overheard them, triggering his idea for a hoax which led to the Victorian scrapbook that we have today. Strangely, Old Boresome (and he certainly does) claims that certain people - myself included I assume - are 'cowards' because we won't address this claim. Well, I'm sure that I have addressed it before and accepted that there is no evidence to contradict it; and I'm happy to do so again here if it gets me out of the custard. Could it have happened the way the Dark Lord suggests? I guess it could. Is there any actual evidence for it? Obviously not. The one thing I would say is that the Darkness and I are aligned in agreeing that it was in reality no coincidence at all. The two events were very definitely linked, and the evidence of the electricians themselves is that they were linked by the book Eddie Lyons told Brian Rawes he had found. You can get various flavours of this story from Rawes, but the core of it is as I have just described. What would Rawes' motivations have been to lie? But he has to have lied if the scrapbook did not come out of Battlecrease House, only the kernel of an idea for it ...

[Iconoclast]

And before we get sidetracked by someone saying that the conversation between Lyons and Rawes occurred on July 17, 1992, long after the scrapbook had been seen in London and a publishing agreement signed for it, please remember that Rawes did not say that Lyons had said he had found the book that day. Lyons has admitted (on record) to having been there on March 9, 1992, and we know he went back for the second time on July 17, 1992, by which time he must have heard about Bongo Barrett's publishing deal and feared that it was a deal to publish the 'interesting' book Lyons himself had liberated from Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992.

Again, why on earth would Rawes lie about this conversation with a clearly nervous Eddie Lyons? And why would Rawes tell Arthur Rigby about it when they got to their shared job on the afternoon of July 17, 1992? And - if he did lie about it - why did he keep on lying about it as recently as 2016?

The evidence points very strongly to Lyons liberating the scrapbook on March 9, 1992, selling it for £25 in a pub in Anfield (cf. Alan Davies), being sent back to Battlecrease on July 19, 1992, to complete the earlier work and then getting unnerved by the recollection of his earlier actions.

[Iconoclast]

I dont know have a horse in the diary race my own personal opinion is that it is a fake and was hoaxed in the way described in Barretts affidavit, which I am led to believe has never been conclusively disproved.During the course of my cold case review, I came across the following and I am curious to know who the ripperolgists were?

"Evidence came to light which showed that several well-known Ripperologists who were represented by Robert Smith had been initially asked by him to inspect the diary and had held views that were in direct conflict with the publicity statements being used by Robert Smith to promote the diary. However, all of these Ripperologists had signed confidentiality agreements, so they were forced to remain silent, as were the Sunday Times who were left in limbo having made initial payments to Robert Smith but were legally powerless to disclose their findings at that time after also having signed a confidentiality agreement"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just returning to the source of this discussion, I received an email from Keith Skinner bearing his views. On checking with him, he's okay with me posting his comments which I think are critical because he was there:

"In 1992 I was the only person represented by Robert Smith with some rudimentaryknowledge about the Whitechapel Murders as Robert had published a book in 1987 I co-authored with Martin Howells [The Ripper Legacy: The Life and Death of Jack the Ripper, Martin Howells & Keith Skinner, 1987, Sidgwick & Jackson Limited, in which Druitt is put forward as the most likely candidate for the crimes]. This was the only reason Robert asked me to go along with him to Doreen Montgomery's office on June 4th 1992 to meet Michael Barrett, Shirley Harrison and Sally Evemy and to examine the original diary. The only agreement I ever signed was a non-disclosure agreement in Doreen's office before I was allowed to see the Diary - as did Robert. I remember after leaving Doreen's office I suggested to Robert he call Martin Fido and talk to him in loose terms of what we had just seen without obviously disclosing the name of James Maybrick. As it was, Martin identified the author of the diary as James Maybrick (Martin later said he thought Robert was hoping he would) and immediately dismissed the idea as preposterous - a view he firmly held to the end of his life. At my suggestion - after Robert had secured publication rights on June 12th 1992 and commissioned me to be a consultant for the book, I recommended bringing in Paul Begg and Martin Fido as their knowledge of the Ripper case was far greater than my own and I considered I could be of more value helping Shirley and Sally research James Maybrick as neither of them had any experience in historical research. (This was pre-internet days and the availabity and accessibility of on line genealogical sources on information.) The dynamics of the Diary story dramatically changed when Paul Feldman became involved towards the end of 1992.

It's a shame that Trevor does not obtain a copy of Ripper Diary:The Inside Story as he would possibly find some of his questions answered and it would perhaps give him a greater understanding about the chronology and time frame of the investigation up until the beginning of 2003. I'll even send him a copy if he wishes."

On confirming that I could quote his email to me, Keith added:

"I think the problem is that people appear to have condensed events as if the story of the diary was all that was going on in peoples lives. The day to day occurences and why things might have happened when they did? The April 1993 affidavit is a good example. Why did Mike feel impelled to swear that? To me the obvious reason is because of what was kicking off in the press."

Keith makes an interesting point here which Caz has illustrated before when reminding us that Eddie Lyons' nervous discussion with Brian Rawes on July 17, 1992, came around the time that Barrett's publishing deal had potentially been bragged about for over a month and therefore may have been part of the reason why Eddie appeared to be rattled about something. This is all about context not abstraction - something which I have talked about a lot over the years (and especially in History vs. Maybrick and in my brilliant Society's Pillar and no doubt it will raise its head again in The '25).

Ike

[rjpalmer]

" As it was, Martin identified the author of the diary as James Maybrick (Martin later said he thought Robert was hoping he would) and immediately dismissed the idea as preposterous - a view he firmly held to the end of his life.."

Hi Thomas.

Excellent. So does this finally put an end to your ridiculous suggestion that Martin was a disingenuous coward--secretly harboring suspicions about the Diary's authenticity while pretending otherwise to protect his academic career?

[rjpalmer]

Well, RJ, all sarcasm aside, which way is it? Was Mike Barrett a reliable informant or an unreliable informant?

You tell me, Old Boy. You're the one who was relying on Mike's account of Graham 'tidying up' his journalistic efforts.

I'm curious if you or Keith or Caz noticed the excerpt from Kenneth Rendell: Forging History: The Detection of Fake Letters and Documents that David Barrat recently put up on his website, which dates to March 1994?

Rendell--and he was hardly alone--concluded the diary was a very recent fake by early 1994. (Similarly, so did Scotland Yard's Fraud Squad, who suggested the diary had been written in Liverpool sometime in the previous ten years).

The date of these conclusions is important because it predates any confession by Mike Barrett, let alone the circulation of his sworn affidavit of January 1995 which wouldn't circulate for several more years.

There's the rub.

"Barrett Belief" is just a silly catch phrase that Carolien Brown dreamed up.

We can take every sworn statement or affidavit that Barrett ever wrote or dictated, rip them to shreds, pour kerosene over them, light them on fire, and dismiss them utterly and it won't change anything. People will still believe the evidence overwhelming points to a modern hoax and this places the hoax firmly in the hands of Mike Barrett and Anne Graham whose behavior has been nothing but suspicious throughout, up to and including presenting Crew Literary Agency with what looks like bogus research notes that studiously avoid mentioning Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.

If Barrett never confessed, the skeptics would still have the same opinion, the same suspicions.

I hope that clears the air. Enjoy your weekend.