Who were they?

[rjpalmer]

Anyways, here is the link to the conversation you had with David Barrett.

Or even David Barrat...

[caz]

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.

The difference is that what I am able to determine from my own extensive chronology of events is not determined for Palmer's benefit. He is guessing that I'm 'resistant' to determining the information he seeks, because I haven't stopped everything in order to provide it on demand.

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.

I don't 'think'; I know.

Anne told Harold Brough that all she knew was what Mike had told her, that he got the diary from Devereux in 1991.

Anne then told Paul Feldman that the diary had belonged to her father, and she had given it to Devereux to give to Mike in 1991.

Do the math.

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.

Palmer is confusing the fact that Ike and I have not leapt to do his bidding openly on the boards with a lack of curiosity.

Since I was 'only going by memory', and this was seven years ago, I can only assume Palmer has some pressing reason for asking about my 'source' now, and being so persistent about it. While my curiosity does not extend beyond the Barretts' motivations to Palmer's, I do think it would be good manners for him to explain for the benefit of our little community, if not for mine or Ike's, just what this sudden bee in his bonnet is all about. Generally speaking, if someone asks for a very specific favour, it's more likely to get a positive response if their reasons for asking are made clear and in the spirit of learning something that could actually make a difference.

As Palmer has so recently equated his belief in a Barrett hoax with the sun rising in the east, I'm not sure what more he needs from me, or why he is being quite so persistent. If Ike wants to quiz me carefully about York, or anything else for that matter, I'll keep an eye on my private messages, so the readers are spared being bored to tears with this. I suggest Palmer gives it a rest for now and leaves it to Ike.

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 Palmer does believe a wrestling match of sorts took place? If this was after Mike's return to London, Anne had already supplied Doreen with a typescript that had to look like the innocent transcript it was cracked up to be. Doreen had also suggested, in the letter to 'Michael Barrett' to confirm the meeting on 13th April 1992, that taking a photocopy of the diary itself in her office would avoid the original going into other hands.

How does Palmer think Mike would have reacted to Anne getting rid of his much wanted, long awaited baby, after coming home cockahoop from such a positive reception, if she was already the victim of his domestic abuse and had been intimidated enough to do his diary bidding in the first place? More importantly, how would Anne have expected Mike to react? By shrugging it off, getting over his disappointment with the help of a few jars and moving on?

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

Well it appears that Palmer doesn't. But I can't see how it would help his theory to know when. It might help to know why, but then again it might destroy his theory to know why.

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

And another account has Anne telling a reluctant Mike to attend the same book launch or else.

You pays yer money and what have you.

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.

Only 'rather doubtful'? I see it as a rather smart move by Anne, to ask Mike if he had nicked the diary in the presence of those highly curious strangers. It effectively protected her in the event that Mike went on to do what he had just implied he wouldn't, by asking: "Would you split on a mate?". After seventeen years of marriage, she knew how easily Mike could lie, change tack or contradict himself from one minute to the next, depending on his audience and any perceived benefit to himself. I suspect she was anticipating that one more probing question might catch him out or produce an admission, so she wanted to let his audience know in advance that she had no real idea if he had actually been given the diary or might have nicked it. The context was Martin Howells's sceptical observation that there must be more to it than a gift from a friend, who had died after refusing to answer any questions. Hard to see how Mike could have "split on a mate" who was not only dead but had told him nothing. Anne was smart enough to pick up on the contradiction implied by his question.

[rjpalmer]

Well, Caz, a simple "I don't know why I wrote what I wrote," or "I have no source for Anne saying this" would have sufficed, but three long posts later--filled with bitterness but no information---makes it clear that we aren't getting anywhere and won't get anywhere.

If you're reading along at home, Ike, my apologies. I tried.

There was no conspiracy. In truth, I was idly wondering about a different trip Mike and Anne allegedly took--to Oxford at Christmas 1993--and while trying to see if anything further had been written about it, I came across references to the alleged York trip(s) and noticed that I left your question about my source unanswered. It was no more conspiratorial than that.

Caz asks about the Barretts' financial situation. My source for the Barrett's money woes in March 1992 is an inference drawn from various statements made by both Mike and Anne, including Anne's claim that she was "desperate for money" in the summer of 1991 (which mirrors Mike's own desperation in his secret confessional affidavit due to mortgage payments) and how Mike would drink up all the grocery money. True--this dates to the summer of 1991, but Anne refers to Mike's drinking and his small disability allowance and otherwise unemployment and I've seen nothing to show their financial situation blossomed in the next few months so that they were now rolling in money in March 1992 and I doubt Caz can show otherwise. The former Ms. Barrett seemed quite peeved that Barrett blew 25 pounds on a useless little red doppelganger, so I would cite that along with Barrett's continued unemployment as circumstantial evidence.

Cheers.

[Fantomas]

I think, Trevor, it would be reasonable to assume that these were primarily the Ripperologists who were filmed debating the scrapbook for Feldman's video (so Messrs Begg, Howells, Fido, etc.).

The question I would ask is what was the actual 'evidence' in this instance (that is, how did whoever wrote the piece you cited know for certain that some or all of certain Ripperologists held differing views to that of the publisher?)? And what publicity statements of Smith were they objecting to? If it was the claim of established authenticity, then that proved to be a reasonable objection which Smith himself ended-up acknowledging by covering it over with a sticker during the launch of the first edition.

Ike

Fido would certainly be one of the mystery ripperologists, I agree.