Who were they?

[rjpalmer]

Let me get my correction in now - academics such as Martin Fido had a strong vested interest in being on the side of inauthenticity because that was the safest side to be on, however this does not therefore preclude the possibility that Martin was more 'on the fence' than he let on. It doesn't mean that I think he was 'on the fence', merely that he may have been more on the fence privately than he would ever express publicly.

What a cowardly and self-deluded statement. I don't need to hunt down your previous slur, Tom, because the above will suffice, and you've filled the forums with so much ill-considered bombast that it might take me a few days to locate it.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty and integrity can go into the archives and see what Martin Fido thought about the Maybrick Hoax--that it was an obviously fake. At one point Martin even wrote that he "agreed" with nearly everything Melvin Harris had written about it. He concluded that the phrase 'tin match box empty' signaled the diary was a post-1987 fake. On one occasion, Martin even publicly called for Anne Graham to take a polygraph test. There is not one ounce of doubt about where Martin stood.

In the face of this, how can it be anything other than sleazy for you to suggest--without a scrap of evidence--that Fido 'may' have been 'more on the fence privately' than he let on? What possible reason do you have to draw this conclusion, other than your own self-deluded desires?

It is a cowardly and mealy-mouth way to imply that Martin was intellectually dishonest when addressing this forum, motivated by secret self-protection.

Be better, Tom. If you can't see how cowardly this is, drink more coffee, or go speak with your pastor.

Don't try to hoist your own delusions onto someone who is no longer around to clarify his position---not that Fido would need to do so, since he made his beliefs so patently obvious.

[Iconoclast]

P.S. Seeing that Ike has KS within earshot, this would be a handy time to confirm what evidence there is that Martin Fido was secretly on the fence about the diary's authenticity but didn't reveal this out of fear of reprisal from the academic community. I trust Ike's readers will be eager to gauge the accuracy of this allegation.

Rather than ignore difficult questions as so many others do, I'm happy to address them if I can but I was genuinely struggling to remember what I had said that led RJ to think I was accusing Martin Fido of being secretly on the fence. I have no doubt that RJ will now remind us (using direct quotations from me on the actual subject or else mud quotations designed to imply something without saying anything).

In the meantime, I had thought that my view may have been influenced by something Keith Skinner had said ages ago about Martin which I had potentially misunderstood. This is what Keith said this morning when I asked him to clarify it:

Here's what Martin was concerned about...

The revised edition of The Jack The Ripper A To Z was commissioned and published very quickly in 1994 as a result of the diary. Martin's view was that we should not give any weight to the theory of JM being JTR as the diary had a suspect provenance - and the whole notion was ludicrous. Martin was worried that we would lose our credibility in the eyes of people like Don Rumbelow and Richard Whittington-Egan. Paul and I argued vehemently against this and I personally didn't much care if I lost my credibility as I didn't consider I had any in the first place, not being an academic or historian. So I suggested the approach to that particular entry should be just to summarise the facts as we knew them and not to offer any opinion.

This view from Keith is not exactly how I remembered the original version (for example, I don't recall thinking that Martin thought 'the whole thing was ludicrous', but I could have misremembered, of course), but that doesn't matter as it's effectively the same. Martin Fido was concerned about his academic reputation and therefore his actions reflected someone who would not entertain the possibility of authenticity regardless of any other mitigating circumstances therefore it would be difficult to be certain that Martin was completely against the possibility of authenticity which is what I feel I posted way back when.

Now, RJ will soon show us whether I literally said that Martin was secretly on the fence (which was wrong if I stated this) or whether he had inferred this from the sort of comments I just made above. Let me get my correction in now - academics such as Martin Fido had a strong vested interest in being on the side of inauthenticity because that was the safest side to be on, however this does not therefore preclude the possibility that Martin was more 'on the fence' than he let on. It doesn't mean that I think he was 'on the fence', merely that he may have been more on the fence privately than he would ever express publicly.

[erobitha]

Imagine a world where one or both of you posted something actually constructive on the subject of James Maybrick?

This pops into my head when I see either of them post.

[FISHY1118]

Imagine a world where one or both of you posted something actually constructive on the subject of James Maybrick?

Were still waiting that from you.

I.E something else other than the diary and watch that would elevate JM as a legitimate suspect.

[Iconoclast]

So I guess it wasn't James Maybrick then after all .

Imagine a world where one or both of you posted something actually constructive on the subject of James Maybrick?

[Iconoclast]

Okay, my emails are still sticking with me so here is another one from Keith which poses interesting questions and offers insights from someone who was actually there in person during the traumatic 1990s:

What Al does not seem to appreciate is that there are no interviews, written or taped, between March 9th 1992 and April 13th 1992. The first time we get a glimpse into what occurred in Doreen's office when Mike went to London with the diary on April 13th 1992 is what Shirley writes in the first edition of her book published in October 1993. That is why it is essential for Al B to understand the true chronology of events and the time span in which they occurred. Also to take on board the relationship between Mike and Anne. Now Al B might, like RJ, have no interest in the people involved beyond seeing them as one dimensional figures who only exist to be moulded into whatever personalities RJ wants them to be in order to make his theories work?

We don't know if Mike panicked. What we do know is Mike's original story about being given the diary by TD in the Spring of 1991 and then starting to investigate it sometime after TD's death in August 1991. The only supporting evidence for this are the research notes which I was not aware of until April 1994 and tried to ascertain from Shirley when they had come into her possession.

The first reference we have to the little red diary is in Mike's affidavit of January 5th 1995 which I am assuming Al B has read? Subsequent research proved there was a little red diary and that enquiries about the availability of a Victorian diary were made by Mike in those few days after March 9th 1992. This led to my discovery of the advertisement in December 2004 whilst I was working for Bruce - so the information was his property and not for me to reveal. Had I known about the advertisement in April 1999 when I interviewed Mike at the C&D then I obviously would have asked Mike about it.

None of this about the red diary or the advertisement was known in April 1992. Had it been disclosed at the time then we would obviously have had a very different story unfolding and I doubt very much if Doreen would have proceeded with the project. In fact, I wonder if Robert would have gone ahead and published the book had he been aware of the advertisement? It's a question I will ask him.

I suppose the pertinent question to have asked Anne at the time is why did Mike wait until May 1992 to see what a Victorian diary looked like. - when the publication rights of the 'scrapbook' had been bought by Robert? I say 'May' 1992 because that was my understanding of when Mike purchased the little red diary. It was not until June 1999 that Shirley and I learned the little red diary had been sent to Mike at the end of March 1992. Two weeks later on April 13th 1992, Mike went to London with the 'scrapbook'. In fact I seem to recall I did ask Anne the question but her standard answer was that she just let Mike get on with it.

I think, in response to Keith's questions about Doreen and Robert, is that both would have preceded with the investigation but only once they were satisfied with Mike's explanation for why he was seeking a Victorian diary and not until they were satisfied. If Mike could have given a convincing reason, then their concerns may have been assuaged. Obviously, at that time, they knew nothing of what Mike would later bring to the whole debate (including contradictory stories of how he hoaxed the scrapbook text and then how he didn't and then how he did and then how he didn't). It will be interesting to hear Robert's thoughts on this but I can't imagine he would have walked away from the scrapbook without first reassuring himself that Mike's purchase of the tiny 1891 diary was not utterly innocent.

Ike

[John Wheat]

So I guess it wasn't James Maybrick then after all .

Maybrick wrote the diary only in the fantasies of a few.

[FISHY1118]

I think you'll find that the Barretts wrote the diary.

So I guess it wasn't James Maybrick then after all .

[Iconoclast]

Okay, I have got access to my Inbox long enough to grab this email from Keith. It's clear from his first line that it prompted me earlier (before it disappeared) to ask the questions I did in my post above (#561):

Scottie and Abe may find answers to some of their questions in Inside Story which gives a detailed factual chronology of the sequence of events from March 9th 1992 to the beginning of 2003 as the authors understood it. That was the reason the book was written so there was an historical record of what had occurred. I approached Melvin Harris on a couple of occasions, (via the good offices of Peter Birchwood if I recall correctly), because we considered it extremely important to hear Mr Harris's voice. We also promised Mr Harris that we would show him what we had written, for his observations and comments, before publication as we wanted to represent his position fairly and accurately. Mr Harris declined the invitation which was a great shame as it would have given balance to our interview with Paul Feldman.

I don't know whether Scottie or Abe have read Inside Story as neither appear to be aware that Shirley and Sally went to Paul Dodd's house (Battlecrease) in 1992 asking him whether he knew anything about a diary James Maybrick had written? The name of JTR was not mentioned. There had also been a newspaper article in the Liverpool newspaper in (from memory) October 1992 with sections from the diary printed (non Ripper related) asking for information about some of the names - 'Mrs Hammersmith' was one I seem to remember. It was not until early 1993 when Paul Feldman became involved with the project and went to Battlecrease House asking about renovation work that Paul Dodd's curiosity was piqued about James Maybrick's diary.

What has to be remembered is that Mike's story was that he had been given the diary in Spring 1991 from Tony Devereux without any explanation from Tony of how it came into his possession. Tony then died unexpectedly from a heart attack in August 1991. That was the story Mike went to London with on April 13th 1992. The only corroboration we have for Mike's story is from Anne who said she gave it to TD to give to Mike. Like it or not, that story still stands and the only person who can disprove it is Anne. If her story is accepted then it has to be weighed against the electricians' evidence, plus other evidence not yet in the public domain, but will be once it has been objectively assessed, tested and evaluated.

If the diary came into Mike's possession via EL between March 9th 1992 and April 13th 1992, then there is no evidence that EL told Mike of its origins? Where we do have some eye witness testimony is from Paul Begg, Martin Howells and Paul Feldman who reported how noticably stunned Mike was when they all went to Battlecrease House in early 1993 making their own enquiries and learned that electrical work had recently been done in the house.

Best Wishes

Keith

I have often wondered how stunned Mike would have been (I think he physically staggered back even with this limited information) if he had known that the work had been carried out on the morning of the day he rang Rupert Crew for their potential interest in what he thought might be the diary of Jack the Ripper?

Ike

[John Wheat]

I think you'll find that the Barretts wrote the diary.

[Iconoclast]

As a matter of interest, Abe, do you have a copy of Inside Story? Have you read it? If you have, would you say that you remember it or has your memory faded?

I only ask because many of the facts are actually available already but it's very easy to forget them when you haven't read certain works recently and you are left with a story built around only those facts that you can remember rather than the sum of all of those available to us. I find this myself. I ask myself a question and then realise the answer was always there, in print ...

[Iconoclast]

Hi Abe,

(By the way, dear readers, AOL is playing silly buggers with my Inbox - it keeps spontaneously emptying the contents and telling me I'm up-to-date for the day which is incredibly frustrating, especially when I'm in the middle of a reply and AOL decides I didn't want to send it and deletes it so if you've been emailing me, my apologies but I maybe get 30 seconds to look at 10 new emails before they are whipped away from me, and then the sum of them builds up when they briefly reappear.)

Bear in mind at all times that there are few actual facts in this case. I know you aren't asking for facts (if you were, I'd just direct you to Inside Story) - you are asking for my opinion about what I think was most plausible, and that's what I've given you, but I wasn't there, and neither were you, so my opinion is not going to advance the facts though it might alter your opinion (one day).

In your theory, only Eddie knows about the book. Why would Mike think anyone was coming round, and why would he need to pass off an alternative, rather than just deny all knowledge, which he incidentally later did?

To answer these questions, you need someone who was actually there, and none of us were. You also need someone who had access to Mike's state of mind, and none of us did. It's not critical to my opinion that only Eddie knew of the scrapbook. For all I know, Mike may have known or suspected that others knew about the scrapbook. There are no facts left so we can't know (right now, at least). Turn your questions around, Abe. Why would Mike NOT think anyone was coming 'round? Why would he NOT want to pass off an alternative rather than just denying all knowledge? Perhaps he knew or suspected that more than Eddie knew so he felt that simply denying all knowledge would not be enough to protect his new acquisition? Remember, we are talking about Mike's state of mind in the first few days after the acquisition of this document. Don't worry about questions after, say, March 12. Think only of Mike's reasoning between March 9 and 12 (which, IIRC, was the period during which he must have requested the diary). His state of mind after he had requested the diary is then utterly irrelevant, although his accepting an impossible diary from 1891 on or about March 29 suggests that his state of mind had relaxed somewhat in the intervening three weeks.

I don't believe Mike forgot about sourcing and acquiring the diary, neither did Anne. I believe they kept mum about it.

Well, here you have formed an opinion where at least two opposing opinions can exist so I'd be interested to know how confident you feel you are in the choice you have made. Because it's only a fairly random choice between two opposing opinions unless you can produce some evidence of why Mike purchased a tiny, date-filled 1891 diary and then didn't pay for it.

The muds hard to avoid in this saga, unfortunately every player seems to have told different versions at different times to different people ...

That's because the facts in the case (especially of that first few days) are so scarce. We have to fill in the many gaps with our suppositions and they are generally-speaking based upon our deeply-held prejudices.

... and without access to all the interviews, the Barrett / Grey recording, and the transcript it's near impossible to get out of it.

Yes, I understand your frustrations, but imagine if you were reading the thoughts of someone who has access to pretty much every word written and spoken - would that persuade you that perhaps certain opinions might hold more water than others?

Or would you still go with your own opinions?

Ike

[erobitha]

Hi Ike,

Much like I've said to RJ, it's the nature of Mike's panicking I struggle with. In your theory, only Eddie knows about the book. Why would Mike think anyone was coming round, and why would he need to pass off an alternative, rather than just deny all knowledge, which he incidentally later did?

I don't believe Mike forgot about sourcing and acquiring the diary, neither did Anne. I believe they kept mum about it.

The muds hard to avoid in this saga, unfortunately every player seems to have told different versions at different times to different people, and without access to all the interviews, the Barrett / Grey recording, and the transcript it's near impossible to get out of it.

I think Al you are trying to to attack this rationally and I applaud you for that.

My question is simple. Why would Mike source a a Victorian diary around the exact time Eddie was at Battlecrease for a provenance he never used?

If you follow RJ’s line of reasoning it’s because Eddie somehow alerted Mike in a pub 8 miles from Battlecrease that he had been working in Maybrick’s old house that morning.

What coincidental luck that is for Mike. He a gifted writer of note (not) and established hoaxer (not) can now kick into action the diary idea he and Anne had been concocting. In fact he was so excited by this coincidence he called Doreen immediately to test the waters of a buyer in London. What luck.

Except at no point did Mike ever allude to the Battlecrease provenance. So why wait until that one day in March when Eddie was at Battlecrease to do anything if you don’t even use that fact that supposedly triggered your desire to finish the hoax in a matter of days. Why does the timing of Eddie at Battlecrease even matter in that scenario?

Therefore, to me, the only logical thing is Mike thought he should get himself some kind of insurance policy in case this thing proves to be nicked. Either he himself will use it or potentially he might give it to Eddie to protect both of their own interests. I doubt Eddie even knew Mike bought the 1891 diary.

If the evidence was that Mike tried sourcing a Victorian diary weeks or even months before I would agree it would be pretty damning. He tried sourcing it around the 9th of March so it had to be connected to an event that day that triggered his desire to get one.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Abe,



During these first few days, what does Mike know about the origins of the diary? Presumably very little and very possibly nothing except that he doesn't want to lose possession of it. He had never heard of Paul Dodd. He fears someone might take the scrapbook off him but he had no idea who. He is simply panicking that that might happen. So - rationally or irrationally (it doesn't matter which) - one idea is to seek a surrogate he could potentially use to pass off as the 'thing' he has recently acquired (which he suspects was 'liberated' from a job Lyons was on).

And that's the end of the 1891 diary story. Mike doesn't 'hide' his purchase away for 2.5 years. He just forgets all about it because it was so very obviously irrelevant.

Don't overthink it, mate. And watch out for the mud being slung around.

Hi Ike,

Much like I've said to RJ, it's the nature of Mike's panicking I struggle with. In your theory, only Eddie knows about the book. Why would Mike think anyone was coming round, and why would he need to pass off an alternative, rather than just deny all knowledge, which he incidentally later did?

I don't believe Mike forgot about sourcing and acquiring the diary, neither did Anne. I believe they kept mum about it.

The muds hard to avoid in this saga, unfortunately every player seems to have told different versions at different times to different people, and without access to all the interviews, the Barrett / Grey recording, and the transcript it's near impossible to get out of it.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Mr. Bundy, sir.

Let's recall that someone did come knocking, eventually: Paul Dodd--in the guise of Paul Feldman and Robert Smith, who got wind of the 'Battlecrease Caper" and began asking questions about it, including questions to Mike Barrett.



Rather, my only purpose here is to offer constructive criticism to Tom as he prepares a new edition of his masterwork.

Hi RJ,

It's the 'eventually' that's point I feel. For the red diary surrogacy theory to have any legs, it can only work in that short window between Mike's phone call and his presenting the diary. And we'd have to assume that Mike reasonably believed that in that short window he could be identified as the recipient of stolen goods.

That's what we're being asked to work with. Eddie sells the book to Mike, doesn't tell Mike it was taken from Dodd or anyone else specifically, but Mike fears that he can be identified as the receiver. Why would he?

The whole reference / example of a Victorian diary idea that I've seen knocked about a few times seems to have been ruled out, so the only other explanation on the table is this surrogacy idea, and for me it's not standing up to scrutiny. As it stands, I'll stick with Mike buying it in an attempt to source materials to create a hoax, unless something new comes up.