Who were they?

[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

[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]

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?

[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.

[rjpalmer]

Anyway, I only stopped by to respond to this question:

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

No, it wasn't anyone who has "gambled everything" on anything, it was actually Lord Orsam who mentioned it to me. In fact, he seemed remarkably satisfied that it supports his theory because it shows that Mike evidently avoided any contact with Doreen for the rest of March after his initial conversations with her, only to magically re-establish contact, almost immediately after acquiring an old photograph album at the end of the month, in order to check that she was still interested in seeing "Jack the Ripper's diary".

To be fair, Lord Orsam struck me as very smug - perhaps, you might think, too smug - when pointing out that this new correspondence clearly demonstrates that no date for a London meeting had been fixed as of 3rd April, so the misguided belief that Mike was under "intense time pressure" in late March to acquire a receptacle into which to write the hoaxed diary before a pre-scheduled meeting on 13th April simply didn't exist. As previously noted by Lord O, it looks like the meeting on 13th April wasn’t written in stone until the completion of the hoax was within the Barrett's grasp. I don't recall his exact words, and I'm not sure I would be allowed to quote them if I did remember them, but he made some kind of comment about how it's amazing that every new piece of evidence that's been revealed since 2016 seems to support his theory. There's no evidence of any communication between Doreen and Mike for the entire period between 10th March and 3rd April, so he hopes that you aren't too upset by this troubling fact.

I think that was awfully compassionate of him, don't you?

I'm also glad to see that you've finally abandoned your theory that Mike wanted to buy the little maroon doppelgänger in order to wave the invoice under Eddie's nose. The theory never really worked, did it? The idea that the impulsive Barrett was desperate to quickly obtain a doppelganger before Eddie could sell the Diary of Jack the Ripper to someone else, but then went through the necessarily laggardly and time-consuming process of putting in a request to a bookseller in far-off Oxford is simply not credible.

Anway, as Professor Omlor used to say, I'm seeing "nothing new, nothing real," so have fun in my absence.

[erobitha]

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?

Lord knows Caz.

[caz]

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

Does RJ misunderstand on purpose? Mike reacted visibly to what Paul Dodd was saying audibly.

That's kind of how it works with eye and ear witnesses who all notice a distinct cause and effect from the audible to the visible.

If nobody had heard anything, Mike could very well have lost his footing, but they all heard and they all saw.

None so deaf, eh?

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?

Oh yes, very clear evidence of Mike as a total bullshi..er, who must have loved the compliment implied by Martin's question. Unfortunately, I don't think a silent smile [is there any such thing in RJ's world as an audible smile?] and a wink were enough to fool Martin into actually believing that Mike had faked the diary.

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?

Well, RJ could always put in the semi-hard yards and ask the people concerned - if he was that concerned. But yes, I am sure Howells and Begg do recall the same incident and were both struck by Mike's instant WTF? reaction. I don't give two hoots about Feldman later convincing himself that there had been nothing to see here after all, despite writing that Mike's reaction had 'played on our minds for months'. He also eventually decided there had been nothing to 'hear' here either, when an electrician had mentioned the brown paper package. Feldman got the chronology wrong by thinking it was common knowledge by then that Devereux had given the diary to Mike wrapped in brown paper. He was doing his best to explain all his reasoning, from his initial belief that the diary came from Dodd's house, right up until this was discarded in favour of his absolute certainty that it came from the Graham family. RJ believes Feldman was utterly wrong on both counts, which suggests that he only made up for the one error of judgment by hurling himself head-first into an even bigger one when the next bus came along, with Anne Graham as the driver and Billy as her clippie. It's hardly a great way of arguing that Feldman was a good judge of where to get off and where to get on again.

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.

That doesn't mean we throw the whole incident under Anne's bus and put it down to misunderstandings on the part of all three witnesses to it. If we do that, we may as well suggest the possibility of three separate reactions by Mike, each seen by a different witness and each misinterpreted as a sign that he had just heard something he wasn't expecting.

I'm not sure RJ could cope with another three-event problem right now, but I'm happy to stick with the incident happening for reasons best judged by those who were actually present at the time.

[caz]

No, it wasn't anyone who has "gambled everything" on anything, it was actually Lord Orsam who mentioned it to me.

No sh.t Sherlock [with apologies to Herlock if he's following along].

In fact, he seemed remarkably satisfied that it supports his theory because it shows that Mike evidently avoided any contact with Doreen for the rest of March after his initial conversations with her, only to magically re-establish contact, almost immediately after acquiring an old photograph album at the end of the month, in order to check that she was still interested in seeing "Jack the Ripper's diary".

So he has gambled everything on his awesome auction theory. Who knew?

He is also gambling on Mike having re-established contact, using his real name this time, after this specific auction took place. If there is evidence that it was 'almost immediately' after, or even a day or two after, it can be manipulated to work - just - if nothing else comes along to rattle the drainpipes. But if there is evidence that shows it was even a second before the auctioneers opened their doors that day, watch out for burst pipes following an extreme climate event coming straight from Siberia.

To be fair, Lord Orsam struck me as very smug - perhaps, you might think, too smug - when pointing out that this new correspondence clearly demonstrates that no date for a London meeting had been fixed as of 3rd April, so the misguided belief that Mike was under "intense time pressure" in late March to acquire a receptacle into which to write the hoaxed diary before a pre-scheduled meeting on 13th April simply didn't exist.

Well I suspect others may have moved on from that specific argument. I am happy to be proved wrong, but I don't recall ever using the phrase 'intense time pressure' myself, to describe what the Barretts would have been under by the end of March, depending on what had to be done before Mike could show Doreen what he had claimed on 9th March to have in his possession. There would be little reason for me to do so, since I have enough of the early diary correspondence, either on file or entered on my timeline, to know that no date had been fixed as of Friday 3rd April. By that date, at the very latest, Mike was back in touch with Doreen in connection with the diary. She was either very quick to call Shirley about it, followed up by the letter that merely refers to Michael Barrett, without comment on the name change from Williams, which was presumably done over the phone, or it was part of a general pre-weekend tidying up of her diary, following Mike's 'green light' call earlier in the week. I'll let the gamblers put all their chips on this call coming in towards the end of the week, when the creation process was potentially into its second or third full day, and not being on the Monday or Tuesday afternoon, giving Doreen breathing space for other, more pressing matters before turning her attention once more to Jack the Ripper.

My own argument is that there would have been no need for Mike to put himself or Anne under any pressure at all, by re-establishing contact at any time if the diary was not yet in a fit state to be seen. Who in their right mind would have called Doreen and given her the green light to discuss the arrangements for a viewing unless they had not only managed to find an old book to put it in, but were already well on their way to completing the process of copying out the text into it by hand, without making any fatal errors? I mean, what could possibly go wrong? So many things in fact, which could have resulted in calling the whole thing off anyway, perhaps permanently. And that's without even considering all the questions Doreen could have been storing up for Mike's return from 'York', which she might now expect the answers to - concerning the book itself for starters, if she still knew nothing about it - before taking a leap into the unknown and issuing a formal invitation. There was only so much "wait and see" that a busy London agent could be expected to take from this gobby Liverpudlian, before concluding that he was full of it and calling it a day. So why call her again a moment too soon, and risk having to make excuses if she wants to know something Mike doesn't even know yet himself?

As previously noted by Lord O, it looks like the meeting on 13th April wasn’t written in stone until the completion of the hoax was within the Barrett's grasp. I don't recall his exact words, and I'm not sure I would be allowed to quote them if I did remember them, but he made some kind of comment about how it's amazing that every new piece of evidence that's been revealed since 2016 seems to support his theory. There's no evidence of any communication between Doreen and Mike for the entire period between 10th March and 3rd April, so he hopes that you aren't too upset by this troubling fact.

I think that was awfully compassionate of him, don't you?

So what he takes with his 'very smug' hand, he gives back with his 'awfully compassionate' one. Sweet.

And where there's a gamble, there's always a hope that it will pay off. So the fact that up until very recently there appeared to be no evidence for a diary communication from Doreen dated 3rd April is evidently not enough to deter the gambler from a wager that where there appears to be no evidence today, of any other communication from this period, there will be no evidence again tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or the day after that until hell freezes over in sympathy with the burst drainpipes.

I'm also glad to see that you've finally abandoned your theory that Mike wanted to buy the little maroon doppelgänger in order to wave the invoice under Eddie's nose.

I'm even gladder to see that RJ has finally given up his efforts to revive and remind everyone about a suggestion I once put forward, which I then had to state over and over and over and over and over again that I had moved on from. There is no 'finally' abandoned theory here, and if RJ had a shred of shame he would have stopped trying to score cheap points with this false claim a very long time ago. If he thinks it makes him look big and powerful to make me say the same thing so many times, it really doesn't. It's actually rather a pathetic way to argue and brings the tone down to the same level as the more abusive one-liner fans.

I wonder how RJ would like it if I said I was glad to see that he had 'finally abandoned' doing something, that had been a one-off instance from many moons ago, that he had shown no inclination to do again. I wouldn't call it cheating, but it's certainly not cricket.

[Mike J. G.]

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

Poor Mary Jane wasn't a hen.

Just saying.

Cheers, Caz, English is my third language behind scouse and bollocks.

[caz]

Note to self: must try harder in 2024 not to take the mickey out of Scousers called Mike!

My better half, originally from Barking in East London, freely admits to being 'fluent in idiot'.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I should have asked you this yesterday, RJ. Where exactly is it on the record that Mike said to Doreen, "I need to go to York"?

My Dear Iconoclast,

though my intention is to remove myself from this toxic discussion, I can't help noticing that I never answered your question, posed nearly a year ago, for which I apologize.

The source was posted some years ago by Keith Skinner--a memo from Doreen to Shirley, made on the suggestive date of 10 March 1992. "Our Ripper friend" is, of course, Mike Barrett aka Mr. Williams.


March 10th 1992 – Memo from Doreen Montgomery to Shirley Harrison

My dear Shirley

Our Ripper friend has phoned again today, having had further discourse with his wife (who apparently rules the roost!) and they have decided that we must be entrusted with the diary to check it out for ourselves!

Anyway, I have written him following this second call, and a copy of my letter is attached. I hope you feel it’s okay.

So we must wait and see what happens. He’s off to York on Thursday or Friday, and promises to make contact again, on his return. Meantime, he suggests, if you are [keen? KS] to do some back-ground reading, that you should look at JACK THE RIPPER – THE SUMMING UP AND THE VERDICT by Colin Wilson and Robin O’Dell [sic] in particular, and also MURDERERS’ WHOSS[sic] WHO and FAMOUS CRIMES. I didn’t catch the publishers.

----

The next known communication between Barrett and Montgomery isn't until April 8th, if I recall. So we have a long, unexplained delay, and I know for a fact that Shirley Harrison would later be puzzled and a little concerned over this long gap.

I would humbly suggest that it might be interesting and in your best interest to carefully quiz your colleague Caz on this next bit.

She wrote the following to your good friend, Lord Orsam, back in 2017, when he suggested this delay was so that Barrett could find the necessary materials and hoax the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

To which she responded:

"Unless he and Anne were in York for part of that time, which I seem to recall is what Anne claimed."

Time for housekeeping? Did Anne also claim this?

Is there a record of Anne confirming the Barretts' trip to York? Or at least claiming that it had occurred?

In rather contradictory tone, Caz elsewhere suggests that Barrett invented the trip in order to give him time to receive the diary from Eddie Lyons.

I'll leave you to it.

With all good wishes,

RP

[caz]

My Dear Iconoclast,

though my intention is to remove myself from this toxic discussion, I can't help noticing that I never answered your question, posed nearly a year ago, for which I apologize.

The source was posted some years ago by Keith Skinner--a memo from Doreen to Shirley, made on the suggestive date of 10 March 1992. "Our Ripper friend" is, of course, Mike Barrett aka Mr. Williams.


March 10th 1992 – Memo from Doreen Montgomery to Shirley Harrison

My dear Shirley

Our Ripper friend has phoned again today, having had further discourse with his wife (who apparently rules the roost!) and they have decided that we must be entrusted with the diary to check it out for ourselves!

Anyway, I have written him following this second call, and a copy of my letter is attached. I hope you feel it’s okay.

So we must wait and see what happens. He’s off to York on Thursday or Friday, and promises to make contact again, on his return. Meantime, he suggests, if you are [keen? KS] to do some back-ground reading, that you should look at JACK THE RIPPER – THE SUMMING UP AND THE VERDICT by Colin Wilson and Robin O’Dell [sic] in particular, and also MURDERERS’ WHOSS[sic] WHO and FAMOUS CRIMES. I didn’t catch the publishers.

----

The next known communication between Barrett and Montgomery isn't until April 8th, if I recall. So we have a long, unexplained delay, and I know for a fact that Shirley Harrison would later be puzzled and a little concerned over this long gap.

I would humbly suggest that it might be interesting and in your best interest to carefully quiz your colleague Caz on this next bit.

She wrote the following to your good friend, Lord Orsam, back in 2017, when he suggested this delay was so that Barrett could find the necessary materials and hoax the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

To which she responded:

"Unless he and Anne were in York for part of that time, which I seem to recall is what Anne claimed."

Time for housekeeping? Did Anne also claim this?

Is there a record of Anne confirming the Barretts' trip to York? Or at least claiming that it had occurred?

In rather contradictory tone, Caz elsewhere suggests that Barrett invented the trip in order to give him time to receive the diary from Eddie Lyons.

I'll leave you to it.

With all good wishes,

RP

I notice that Palmer has quoted directly from Ike's post, which would have been useful if he had included the date, as 'nearly a year ago' has not helped me to locate it and see the context, or any related comments made at the time. My recollection is of not being aware of any record that Mike had told Doreen he needed to go to York, although I knew, of course, what Doreen had written to Shirley in advance of this alleged trip.

What I also notice is that Palmer has not quoted from my post in 2017 directly, or given any indication of where I might find it, so I may also see this in context, in readiness for when Ike decides to 'carefully quiz' me on it.

At present, Ike and I can only carefully quiz Palmer on where we can find the posts he has chosen to dredge up.

I do wonder where Palmer thinks he's going with this one, however, because if the Barretts had no intention to go to York in March 1992, and Mike lied about this on 10th March to play for time, it wouldn't help to nail down his reasons, or what Anne knew at the time - if anything - about what was said during that call. If we don't accept Mike's Devereux story, we know that Anne went along with that absolutely pivotal claim, and has stuck with it ever since, in which case it would hardly be surprising if there were other instances to be found, somewhere on the record spanning so many years, where she would have gone along with another claim he had made during those very early days if it made her life easier. It would tell us precisely nothing more than we already knew about Anne.

It would not put the pen in her hand, but then I suspect Palmer knew that already or he wouldn't still be on fishing trips to over-fished waters.

[rjpalmer]

I notice that Palmer has quoted directly from Ike's post, which would have been useful if he had included the date, as 'nearly a year ago' has not helped me to locate it and see the context, or any related comments made at the time.

Sorry Caz, I thought using the search engine would be self-explanatory, but I'm always keen to help.

Just punch the term "York" into the engine, and "Iconoclast" into the Members box, being sure to click on his name until it makes an X.

You'll then come up with 3 results where Ike referred to York, two of them on this very thread, posted the same day, so you'll easily see the context.

But I already quoted his relevant post in its entirety--he just wanted to know my source and I supplied it to him now.

If you use the same procedure for your own posts, you'll find where you discussed this York trip with David Orsam back in 2017-2018 on a number of occasions (the search engine also allows you to narrow results by date).

Here's something interesting that you wrote:

"He [Tony Devereux] died in August 1991, during the school summer holidays, while the Barretts said they were on holiday in York, so that may or may not have had a bearing on what Caroline would have registered about his death and when it had happened."

York again! The Barretts went on holiday to York in August 1991, we are told, though as is so often the case, we are left wondering if this is something Mike said or Anne said or both of them said.

Considering their financial difficulties, isn't it odd--and perhaps a little suspicious--- that Barrett is traveling to York again in March?

Didn't you once argue that Anne wouldn't have had the time to help Barrett hoax the diary because she was working full-time in March and April 1992? And wouldn't this have been during the school term, so they would have to find someone to watch Caroline while Mike was away?

You can dream up any scenario you like, but coming from Mike, I tend to think this second trip to York is so much hot air, and if you have information that Anne confirmed it, I think it would be useful to know that for reasons I will now explain.

it wouldn't help to nail down his reasons, or what Anne knew at the time - if anything - about what was said during that call.

I'm not worried about the call; I'm wondering if she confirmed the trip to York because she was apparently asked about it at some point, unless you were mistaken in your memory.

As is so often the case, your curiousness about all things Diary seems to evaporate when Anne is brought up. I'm not sure why that is. Lift not the painted veil, I reckon.

If you are suggesting that Anne would simply confirm every story that Barrett told, without even knowing why he said or if he was lying, I think this would tell us something rather interesting about Anne's judgment and pliability.

Personally, I suspect there was no trip to York--and you speculated as much yourself. Barrett remembered the trip he had apparently taken the previous summer and recycled the 'York' excuse to buy more time.

I think Mike needed to buy more time to hoax the diary and in support of this we have him seeking 20 blank pages of genuine Victorian paper during the interim; you once suggested he bought more time to buy the diary from Eddie Lyons, and in support of this we have no evidence Mike even knew Eddie Lyons.

That Anne confirmed Barrett's trip to York is no problem for my theory; but if she confirmed his trip to York doesn't that suggest that she was in on Eddie Lyons scheme, which, for whatever reason, is an idea you seem to want to rubbish?

I was just mildly curious, but if you don't want to discuss it, that's okay too.

[caz]

Sorry Caz, I thought using the search engine would be self-explanatory, but I'm always keen to help.

Just punch the term "York" into the engine, and "Iconoclast" into the Members box, being sure to click on his name until it makes an X.

You'll then come up with 3 results where Ike referred to York, two of them on this very thread, posted the same day, so you'll easily see the context.

But I already quoted his relevant post in its entirety--he just wanted to know my source and I supplied it to him now.

If you use the same procedure for your own posts, you'll find where you discussed this York trip with David Orsam back in 2017-2018 on a number of occasions (the search engine also allows you to narrow results by date).

So Palmer quoted from both these posts but can't be bothered to post a link, a date or even a page number, so I'm meant to go searching?

Well I can't be bothered either. All together now: It won't put the pen in Anne's hand.

Here's something interesting that you wrote:

"He [Tony Devereux] died in August 1991, during the school summer holidays, while the Barretts said they were on holiday in York, so that may or may not have had a bearing on what Caroline would have registered about his death and when it had happened."

York again! The Barretts went on holiday to York in August 1991, we are told, though as is so often the case, we are left wondering if this is something Mike said or Anne said or both of them said.

Considering their financial difficulties, isn't it odd--and perhaps a little suspicious--- that Barrett is traveling to York again in March?

Where can I find a record of these 'financial difficulties' in March 1992?

If it's something only claimed by Mike, with or without Anne's input, it's the same as the York trip. I know of no hard evidence for such a trip, either during Caroline's summer holidays in 1991, or a crafty getaway in term time in March 1992. I have long suspected, and posted on numerous occasions, that if York did indeed welcome the Barretts, it was on the former occasion, and Mike simply used the experience to tell a whopper in March 1992 about a proposed return visit, thereby wrapping a kernel of truth in a blanket of fantasy.

If Anne did help him out with this excuse for being incommunicado for a while, and I wasn't just recalling that she had confirmed the previous summer's trip to the same City, what would that prove?

If Palmer enjoys trying to nail jelly to the wall in Goldie Street, using the various claims that were made, possibly made or not made, by a pair of confirmed liars between 1992 and 2016, I would find that a trifle sad, but each to their own. I'd have added a thick layer of vanilla custard and a good slosh of sherry. The proof of the pudding and what have you.

Didn't you once argue that Anne wouldn't have had the time to help Barrett hoax the diary because she was working full-time in March and April 1992? And wouldn't this have been during the school term, so they would have to find someone to watch Caroline while Mike was away?

You can dream up any scenario you like, but coming from Mike, I tend to think this second trip to York is so much hot air, and if you have information that Anne confirmed it, I think it would be useful to know that for reasons I will now explain.

Maybe Palmer misunderstood when he quoted me writing: 'I seem to recall...' at some point seven years ago. If I had searched through everything on record that came from Anne's lips before they clammed shut circa 2003, and found the 'information' Palmer has belatedly decided to seek, I would not have couched it in terms of some vague recollection of mine in the first instance. I'm not about to do that search now, just because Palmer has a sudden itch he wants me to scratch. He can soothe it with any scenario he would like to dream up. Why change the habit of a lifetime on these boards?

If you are suggesting that Anne would simply confirm every story that Barrett told...

Is that what I wrote? I seem to recall it wasn't. But Palmer is free to check my post from yesterday. Not too much searching required there.

Personally, I suspect there was no trip to York--and you speculated as much yourself. Barrett remembered the trip he had apparently taken the previous summer and recycled the 'York' excuse to buy more time.

Late to the party, but better late than never. Have a twiglet and a brown ale.

I think Mike needed to buy more time to hoax the diary and in support of this we have him seeking 20 blank pages of genuine Victorian paper during the interim; you once suggested he bought more time to buy the diary from Eddie Lyons, and in support of this we have no evidence Mike even knew Eddie Lyons.

I have also suggested that Mike would have needed some time to get acquainted with the diary's contents, given the evidence that he only saw it for the first time on 9th March 1992 and got straight on the blower to a literary agency, claiming to have had the damned thing for many months. This can be compared and contrasted with Palmer's total lack of independent evidence that the diary was even a twinkle in Mike's eye at any time prior to that date. As if this hasn't already been pointed out a dozen times, it isn't necessary that Mike 'knew' Eddie Lyons prior to that date either. Their eyes only had to meet across a bar that would have been as crowded on a Monday lunchtime as a Gary Glitter concert in 2023. The pair were chummy enough by June 1993 to team up for their failed attempt to pull the wool over Robert Smith's eyes, which is slightly strange if their only previous meeting had been an acrimonious incident on Eddie's doorstep.

That Anne confirmed Barrett's trip to York is no problem for my theory; but if she confirmed his trip to York doesn't that suggest that she was in on Eddie Lyons scheme, which, for whatever reason, is an idea you seem to want to rubbish?

I was just mildly curious, but if you don't want to discuss it, that's okay too.

No, it would only imply - IF Anne ever confirmed that March trip - that Mike told her what he'd said to Doreen, because he needed time to get his act together, and she was worried enough about where he may have got it from, and whether it would be missed, that she tried to stop him going public with it. If she had helped Mike create it, either willingly or under some duress, to the extent of holding the pen and making sure the typescript would not betray them both, is it not strange that she would then have tried to destroy her own handiwork? Would she not have been risking a whole new level of domestic abuse, if that had made her co-operative in the first place?

Palmer was 'just mildly curious'? I'm mildly curious to know why Chelsea are doing so badly this season, but I won't be expecting them to search through their records since 1992 for answers, only for me to ask them another twenty questions.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz.

If Palmer enjoys trying to nail jelly to the wall in Goldie Street, using the various claims that were made, possibly made or not made, by a pair of confirmed liars between 1992 and 2016, I would find that a trifle sad, but each to their own.

Really a strange attitude, Caz.

Over the past thirty years--judging by his own posts to these forums--your colleague Keith Skinner has stressed the importance of precisely chronicling, as much as possible, the various statements made by Mike and Anne and other figures at the center of our story: what they said, when they said it, and the precise wording they used.

You have also frequently dropped in with what you call "housekeeping"--referring to a timeline that you've compile ito study the chronology of events, with the obvious implication that you find this chronology significant.

As such, I'm at a loss to understand why you appear to be so resistant to determining what Anne Graham said and when she said it--or even if she said it.

You and I may think that Mike and Anne are "confirmed liars," but I recall Keith writing to me that "maybe Anne has already told the truth," and only a couple of weeks ago Tom Mitchell stated that he hasn't entirely discounted Anne's version of events.

Anyways, here is the link to the conversation you had with David Barrett. You refer to Anne confirming Mike's trip to York in March 1992--not the previous summer--and you even suggested that she accompanied him on it--though you admitted you were only going by memory.

See posts #3034 and #3069.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums


My original post was addressed to Tom (Iconoclast) and I suggest that he quiz you about your source; I never intended to get into a shouting match about it. Maybe Tom can get more out of you than I can---if he finds it worthwhile to know what Anne said and when she said it. The lack of curiosity is puzzling, but to each his own.

If she had helped Mike create it, either willingly or under some duress, to the extent of holding the pen and making sure the typescript would not betray them both, is it not strange that she would then have tried to destroy her own handiwork?

Not in the least, but it's interesting that you're now back to accepting the account of a "confirmed liar," or are you relying solely on little Caroline's version of the kitchen floor wrestling match?

As I've suggested about a million times, I think Anne humored Barrett because, to paraphrase her own words, Mike wouldn't accept the word "no" and was abusive. And again using Anne's own words, she thought Doreen would "just send Mike packing" anyway once she got one whiff of the dodgy diary.

I rather imagine the wrestling match took place after Mike returned to London and Anne finally realized that Doreen didn't send Mike packing.

So, you see, it depends on when this alleged fight took place, and we don't know that, do we?

From all accounts, Anne was extremely reluctant to attend the book launch and referred to it as a "nightmare."

Wonder why that is?

It seems rather doubtful it was because she feared Mike had nicked it--because she already willingly and spontaneously and somewhat humorously suggested that very scenario to a group of near strangers.

Cheers.