Who were they?

[Iconoclast]

It is reported on page 237 of Ripper Diary: the Inside Story that Keith Skinner quizzed Anne Graham about the maroon memo book in August 1995.
Yet, Caroline Brown has reported (many times, I might add) that Keith first learned about Mike Barrett's affidavit on 22 January 1997. (If you doubt this, chase down the appropriate posts for yourself, or see the "Silence of Ann" at Orsam Books).
So, who leaked it? How did he find out about it?

So, what I read from this is that you claimed it had leaked and then you mentioned Mike's January 1995 affidavit which read for all the world that you were claiming the 'leak' happened before the affidavit and so I queried this and your rebuttal was to say that Keith asked Anne about the 1891 diary some six months AFTER Mike's affidavit.

I don't think my dear readers are entirely stupid, RJ. I think that they will see that there is no evidence of a 'leak' before January 1995 at all. Mike described the 1891 diary in his January 1995 affidavit and Keith quizzed Anne six months later so evidently he had been told about it (the diary) by then otherwise it would have been impossible for him to have discussed it with Anne. It wasn't a requirement for him to have known where the 'leak' came from, and whether he did or did not know where the 'leak' came from, AND ANYWAY the issue at hand is whether Anne was 'backed into a corner' and 'forced' to spill the beans with the implication that she had proactively chosen to hide the truth from the world until Mike let the truth out. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was compelled to 'confess all'. She did so perfectly willingly which utterly contradicts your one-theory view that it was a crucial part of the Barretts' planning to hoax the 'diary' of Jack the Ripper.

Just cutting through all the words, here, RJ, and the multiple sidetracks. Anne sang like a bird and appeared to lose no sleep over helping Keith to understand when she paid for the diary. She even provided the cheque-stub and a copy of her bank statement which she had to request from her bank. None of this smacks me as a broken criminal finally unburdening themselves because they have been forced to yield their secrets at last.

[rjpalmer]

Had it leaked? I'd have to check my notes but I don't recall the diary being mentioned until Mike's January 1995 affidavit?

Sorry, Thomas. I am withdrawing from the conversation. You're too slow on the uptake and are content with endlessly playing the three-shell game.

It is reported on page 237 of Ripper Diary: the Inside Story that Keith Skinner quizzed Anne Graham about the maroon memo book in August 1995.

Yet, Caroline Brown has reported (many times, I might add) that Keith first learned about Mike Barrett's affidavit on 22 January 1997. (If you doubt this, chase down the appropriate posts for yourself, or see the "Silence of Ann" at Orsam Books).

So, who leaked it? How did he find out about it?

Personally, I don't care all that much. The fact is, circumstances forced Anne to cough up the goods.

What I find particularly childish about your suggestion that I am challenging KS's "integrity" (I merely doubt his conclusions) is that you are the one who has challenged the integrity---repeatedly---of such diverse figures as Maurice Chittenden, Kenneth Rendell, Dr. David Baxendale, Stewart Evans, Melvin Harris, Nick Warren, and most recently, Martin Fido, who you claim was 'on the fence' about the hoax's authenticity but wouldn't say so publicly because he feared it would damage his academic standing. That's an allegation of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.

You've been requested to submit proof of this numerous times, and your silence has been duly noted. As such, I don't take any of your allegations seriously.

There have been enough games for one summer, Thomas, and as we're merely annoying the moderators, let's agree to pull the plug.

[jmenges]

This thread is starting to annoy. Clean it up.
And I don’t want to see any more substituting words with asterisks in ways that leaves me no choice but to see it as a personal attack.
I deleted the last post.

JM

[Iconoclast]

Sorry, Ike. You're simply too naive and slow-on-the-uptake to deal with any longer. This will have to be my final response for the day, if not the summer.

Just cut to the chase, RJ.

The existence of the red diary had obviously leaked.

Had it leaked? I'd have to check my notes but I don't recall the diary being mentioned until Mike's January 1995 affidavit?

We know Barrett would mention it in his 1995 affidavit.

And there it is! Man in terrible emotional state tells large porky about why he purchased an irrelevant 1891 diary. So, now the news about the diary has definitely leaked (almost three years after he first sought it) despite claiming he'd been trying to reveal the hoax since December 1993 in that very same January 1995 affidavit.

Setting aside your own well-rehearsed naiveté and lack of concern about its existence, others, including Keith, were evidently eager to learn the details of this extraordinary purchase. So somehow, having learned about the maroon memo book's existence (note: isn't that one of the questions your good friend Lord Orsam has addressed to Keith?) he quizzed Anne Graham about it.

So, yes SHE WAS FORCED BY CIRCUMSTANCES TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF IT. She hadn't brought up the purchase on her own.

And she willingly gave Keith her account. "Mike said he wanted to know what a genuine Victorian diary looked like. Would it help if I got you the original cheque stub and even a copy of the relevant statement from my bank, Keith? If I do, would you remove the nipple-crushers, please? You've forced everything out of me now."

Why was she forced? Well, as already explained at least 1,000 times, the red diary HAD been purchased by Mike and Anne, so if she simply denied it, she would run the risk of its existence being proven by another means--Barrett obviously being able to recall he received it from Martin Earl in Cambridge, as duly reported in his affidavit (which Keith had not yet known about).

But she wasn't 'forced'. She appears to have happily given Keith what he asked for. I get on a bus. Did the bus driver force me to get on the bus? Keith asked about the 1891 diary. Was he - by dint of Anne's helpful response - therefore forcing her to reveal what she knew? Or could she have just 'got off the bus' had she wanted to? "Sorry, Keith, I honestly don't recall that. I vaguely recall Mike ordering something and I ended up having to pay for it because he hadn't, and boy was I mad at him, but in all honesty if I ever knew what it was, I don't recall now". There you go, she's off the bus and waiting for a different one.

All of this should be abundantly obvious, but you instead like to play the three-shell game, over and over and over.

Saying that something should be abundantly obvious when it is not? Now that is forcing someone to do something!

It's old, Ike. It's stale.

Yawn.

Your arguments are loopy and unconvincing.

Oh God, he's talking to himself again.

I almost miss John Omlor's purple dragon

Jesus, he's having sexual fantasies!

--it seemed less childish by comparison

That'll be the pot texting the kettle again, there, then. Oh God, he's wet himself ...

From now on, I'm joining John Wheat and the other one-line hecklers. It saves time. "It's all ****."

I can give you their address, RJ, but also you could Google it under 'Carstairs'.

[rjpalmer]

That's your argument, is it?

No, my only argument, like John Wheat's, is that the diary is ****.

(And for the record, I always type out the asterisks, one character at a time).

[Iconoclast]

Similarly, with nothing to hide, there was no reason for Timoth McVeigh to mention renting a Ryder truck or his purchase of a ton of ammonium nitrate.
No one was accusing Tim of being a terrorist, so why bring it up? Must have slipped his mind.

And from this you deduce that every 'criminal' will spill every bean on every subject regardless of whether it helps their case or hinders it?

Is this honestly the best you've got? "Tim McVeigh did it, therefore someone else might have done it, therefore Mike Barrett did do it". That's your argument, is it?

[rjpalmer]

How exactly was she 'forced', RJ. You have now doubled-down on this claim and I'm now asking for the second time what causes you to think she was compelled to do anything at all.

Sorry, Ike. You're simply too naive and slow-on-the-uptake to deal with any longer. This will have to be my final response for the day, if not the summer.

The existence of the red diary had obviously leaked. We know Barrett would mention it in his 1995 affidavit.

Setting aside your own well-rehearsed naiveté and lack of concern about its existence, others, including Keith, were evidently eager to learn the details of this extraordinary purchase. So somehow, having learned about the maroon memo book's existence (note: isn't that one of the questions your good friend Lord Orsam has addressed to Keith?) he quizzed Anne Graham about it.

So, yes SHE WAS FORCED BY CIRCUMSTANCES TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT OF IT. She hadn't brought up the purchase on her own.

Why was she forced? Well, as already explained at least 1,000 times, the red diary HAD been purchased by Mike and Anne, so if she simply denied it, she would run the risk of its existence being proven by another means--Barrett obviously being able to recall he received it from Martin Earl in Cambridge, as duly reported in his affidavit (which Keith had not yet known about).

All of this should be abundantly obvious, but you instead like to play the three-shell game, over and over and over.

It's old, Ike. It's stale. Your arguments are loopy and unconvincing. I almost miss John Omlor's purple dragon--it seemed less childish by comparison.

From now on, I'm joining John Wheat and the other one-line hecklers. It saves time. "It's all ****."

[Iconoclast]

I am not challenging Keith Skinner's integrity, but I suspect you know this and are merely grandstanding.
Although he thinks very little of me, I have praised some of Keith's research in the past, as well as his habit--not one shared by Maureen or Shirley or Feldman--to keep notes of the saga as it unfolded. We are in his debt.
What I am challenging is Caz Brown's "appeal to authority."
She is arguing that I should accept that the diary came out of Battlecrease because Keith has apparently drawn this conclusion.
Does Kieth himself feel that way? Should I simply take his word for it? Would that be a reasonable thing for me to do, when I see major problems with this idea?
I repeat, the only evidence we've seen for accepting this provenance is what has already been presented in Robert Smith's 2017 book, and Smith's 'evidence' was singularly unimpressive.
Keith himself has not presented his case for believing this, and he has stated on this very forum that the two events that occurred on 9 March 1992 --Barrett successfully calling a literary agent and Paul Dodd having some work done on his house--could have been a 'coincidence.'
As far as I know, the faith that you, Caz, and Hartley put in this provenance could outweigh what Keith himself believes. How would I know otherwise?
RP

Well there's a lot to unpack there, RJ, except that we aren't Keith Skinner so unless he emails me with a comment, I can't answer for him. Nevertheless, he has famously stated that if we all knew what he knew (about the timesheets for March 9, 1992) that we would all draw the conclusion that the scrapbook came out of Battlecerease House. I can't see any reason why he would have changed his mind in the intervening years so I suspect (assume) that he does believe it came out of Battlecrease but - for it to have been the Jack the Ripper's authentic confessional - it would have had to miraculously come out of James Maybrick's old home but have been written by Monty Druitt so I take it as read that he thinks it came out of Battlecrease House on the morning of March 9, 1992, but that he doesn't believe it is the authentic work of Jack the Ripper (whoever Jack was).

All of that said, you said:

What I am challenging is Caz Brown's "appeal to authority."
She is arguing that I should accept that the diary came out of Battlecrease because Keith has apparently drawn this conclusion.

I cannot concur with this conclusion. I don't ever recall Caz making such a pronouncement. I'm sure that we can all agree that Keith Skinner is not God nor the Son of God nor even a sort of very distant relation on his mother's side and I don't ever recall Caz attempting to imply otherwise. What has she said that would cause you to think she was saying what Keith says goes?

[Iconoclast]

No mention of JM I’m afraid Ike.

There's always the second edition, Herlock!

[Iconoclast]

In the very statement you quote I wrote that "Keith still repeated [the May 1992 date]--apparently believing it to be true"
Which DOES NOT SUGGEST he knew it to be a deception. Good Gawd man, drink more coffee or take some no-doze. The same can be said of Shirley Harrison who also said the red diary had been purchased after Mike had brought the scrapbook to London.
That is not evidence that Shirley 'knew' it to be a deception.
Rather, it is evidence that Anne hadn't told the whole story.

As I recall, you wrote to the effect that the 'researchers' perpetuated the 'distortion'? I guess I must have misunderstood, eh?

And how in the Devil is it 'proactive' to be forced into coughing-up the check stub after Barrett revealed that he had purchased a red diary and she knew this was true?

How exactly was she 'forced', RJ. You have now doubled-down on this claim and I'm now asking for the second time what causes you to think she was compelled to do anything at all.

[rjpalmer]

If The Barretts had nothing to hide, what purpose would telling Shirley about the little maroon diary serve? .

Similarly, with nothing to hide, there was no reason for Timoth McVeigh to mention renting a Ryder truck or his purchase of a ton of ammonium nitrate.

No one was accusing Tim of being a terrorist, so why bring it up? Must have slipped his mind.

The Barretts had "nothing to hide," folks. You heard it here from Tom Mitchell.

They didn't hide the real purchase date of the word processor, nor the details of Mike's writing career, nor the true nature of the bogus research notes, etc.

They were entirely on the up & up.

Yet two hours from now, Caz will leap in and say they had EVERYTHING to hide--because the diary was bought off Eddie Lyons down the boozer.

It's just the three-shell game, over and over and over.

[Iconoclast]

Don't be so dense, Ike.

Unfortunately, you set me a high bar in that regard to emulate, RJ.

I never suggested Keith was deliberately distorting reality at the Cloak and Dagger meeting. Indeed, I said he 'apparently believed the May 1992 date was true.'

You did a super job of looking like you had done. I must have misread your subtle references to 'distortions'.

What I am suggesting is that Keith's impression of the purchase date is evidence that Anne had successfully bamboozled him.

What I am suggesting is that Keith's impression of the purchase date was May 1992 because that's when Anne purchased it. To make anything nefarious of any of that, you have to invoke the implication that Anne was proactively lying to Keith and there is absolutely no evidence - just very reaching inference from you - that that was the case.

What I do believe is that Anne herself knew this date was misleading.

And there it is! You 'believe' something to be true and you are - of course - an acknowledged objective observer of all things Barrett, aren't you? So everyone should just hang on your every fantastic stretch of what we know to be true!

She controlled the purse strings. She damn well knew Mike had been dunned as a late payer by Martin Earl.

Her controlling the purse strings is not the same as her demanding to know from Mike all the ins and outs of his ordering of the useless 1891 tiny diary. She paid for it in the middle of May, as I recall? Could Mike not have been a late payer by the end of April, or the middle of April? Why do you try to make it appear that she knew that he had attempted to acquire the diary in the March? (The answer to that, dear readers, is that she has to 'know' it was March to satisfy Orsam's March 30 auction purchase of the Victorian scrapbook we have today.)

What she didn't know is Martin Earl's methods, so she felt confident to give her bogus explanation for the purchase, not realizing that Martin Earl had placed an advertisement in Bookfinder that would make a mockery of that explanation. No one needs to have a minimum of 20 blank pages to see what a diary looks like.

But if that (that he was looking for what a Victorian diary looked like) was what Mike had told her, how would any other account by Anne be likely or expected?

Ergo, she lied.

Ergo, she reported back faithfully what Mike had told her were his reasons for ordering the totally irrelevant diary.

The weird thing--the Through the Looking Glass aspect of this discussion---is that at least some of you--particularly Caz--believe that Anne lied and lied through her teeth FOR YEARS to the researchers around her, yet you're still willing to argue that her dodgy behavior was on the up & up.

I can only answer for me but I would say that we still don't know with any certainty that Anne lied but - if she did (and it really does look like she did), there were blindingly obvious grounds for her to have done so. Doesn't make her the Aldridge Prior of Anfield. Doesn't mean that everything she ever said was - ipso facto - also lies.

[rjpalmer]

I would put it to all of my dear readers that his audience (of Ripperologists) offer a greater insight into the integrity of Keith Skinner than an obscure poster on the internet who self-evidently has a very rigid agenda to peddle.

I am not challenging Keith Skinner's integrity, but I suspect you know this and are merely grandstanding.

Although he thinks very little of me, I have praised some of Keith's research in the past, as well as his habit--not one shared by Maureen or Shirley or Feldman--to keep notes of the saga as it unfolded. We are in his debt.

What I am challenging is Caz Brown's "appeal to authority."

She is arguing that I should accept that the diary came out of Battlecrease because Keith has apparently drawn this conclusion.

Does Kieth himself feel that way? Should I simply take his word for it? Would that be a reasonable thing for me to do, when I see major problems with this idea?

I repeat, the only evidence we've seen for accepting this provenance is what has already been presented in Robert Smith's 2017 book, and Smith's 'evidence' was singularly unimpressive.

Keith himself has not presented his case for believing this, and he has stated on this very forum that the two events that occurred on 9 March 1992 --Barrett successfully calling a literary agent and Paul Dodd having some work done on his house--could have been a 'coincidence.'

As far as I know, the faith that you, Caz, and Hartley put in this provenance could outweigh what Keith himself believes. How would I know otherwise?

RP

[Iconoclast]

Revealing to Shirley the existence of the red diary at any time in 1992 or 1993 would not have been "defending themselves from the claim of having hoaxed the scrapbook." It would have been the most natural thing in the world.

Let me say clearly here that I utterly disagree with this proposition. If The Barretts had nothing to hide, what purpose would telling Shirley about the little maroon diary serve? Why would they even think to mention it? For them, it was something which Anne didn't understand and was angry about, and for Mike it was something he worried that he would need but soon realised he didn't. Out of sight, out of mind. No need to explain that something entirely irrelevant had occurred and that Shirley simply must be told about it.

Your suggestion is ridiculous and deliberately myopic. They could have revealed the existence of the red diary as part of any normal communication between two collaborators. Mike and Shirley were under contractual agreement to share research.

Mike was hardly the most reliable of researchers, RJ, and I think we ALL know that much about him. If he had nothing to hide, what sort of research would he be providing Shirley with. "I've investigated my own actions in March 1992, Shirl, and I've remembered that I bought a tiny 1891 diary?" to which Shirley would obviously reply, "Why the **** did you do that?" to which Barrett would have thought, "Oh, sugar lumps, of course I can't tell Shirl why I did that because I've told her I got the scrapbook from Tony D last year before he died and what have you".

There were attempts, both by Harrison and later by Skinner, to determine what research Barrett had previously conducted. Mike or Anne could have mentioned the red diary then. There were also attempts, by Shirley and others, to determine if the scrapbook was genuinely Victorian.

This is just ifs, buts, and maybes, RJ. Where are you going with this? Why would Mike or Anne feel that mentioning the little 1891 diary would be fruitful for Shirley's research?

Anne's own rationale for the purchase of the red diary is that Barrett wanted to know what a genuine Victorian diary looked like.

Well, whoopy-doo. Man who gets scrapbook off the back of Eddie Lyons' lorry fails to tell wife the truth. Hold the front pages!

What would have been more natural, then, to have mentioned this red diary there and then to Shirley Harrison, as she pondered these questions, and to show that they, too, had researched this?

Rarely have you EVER reached this far down in reaching for an argument, RJ. It is borderline pompous to ask us "what would have been more natural ...?". I cannot fathom for a moment why this irrelevant piece of information would be seen as contributing anything whatsoever to Shirley's research, and you have singularly failed to show that it could have done. You've just kept telling us it could and therefore what a super-duper deception was played by the Barretts and then perpetuated by everyone else connected with the scrapbook, keeping the money rolling in, I guess ...

Instead: nada. Not a peep.

Tell us why their silence would mean anything, RJ, before gloating about their silence!

...they failed to reveal the existence of the red diary and the strange circumstances of its purchase until AFTER Bongo started spilling the beans.

Exactly! Thank you. It was only ever mentioned by Mike Barrett when he was in full drunken confessional mode and he remembered about it and realised he could spin this as part of his master hoax.

The jury of history won't like that.

We don't need to look that far into the future, RJ. No-one's 'not liking it' the way you're not liking it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So I'll take it as read that they haven't tried to boost sales by suggesting the perpetrator was Jack himself?

I think I would, but then I am a marketing genius ...

No mention of JM I’m afraid Ike.