Who were they?

[caz]

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

RJ referred to the Battlecrease evidence, collectively, as my 'silly belief'.

I didn't suggest that RJ should accept it just because Keith Skinner continues to find it compelling. That would indeed be very silly. RJ is never, ever, ever, ever going to shift from his own, utterly baseless, evidence-free belief in the scrapbook being taken to London within two weeks of Mike finding it in an auction sale.

I was merely making the observation that if RJ insists on describing the ever growing body of evidence for it being found in Dodd's house, which I find as compelling as Keith does, as my 'silly belief' [RJ's words], he should at least be honest enough to call it Keith's 'silly belief' too.

The fact that he didn't do so would suggest that he was unwilling to go that far.

There have been more murmurs of late, complaining that all the evidence has not yet been made available, and therefore RJ and his one-liner chorus have no way of judging it for themselves and reaching a conclusion either way - which would be a really, really reasonable objection if only they had not already reached a conclusion that nothing on God's green earth is ever likely to shift them away from.

[caz]

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.

Utterly surreal!

Ike was responding to RJ's argument that if the Barretts had nothing to hide [which nobody was arguing] they would have mentioned the red diary. He asked a question:

Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
If The Barretts had nothing to hide, what purpose would telling Shirley about the little maroon diary serve?

RJ then turns this entirely reasonable question into a statement by Ike that the Barretts had nothing to hide!

Ike believes, as I do, that the evidence strongly indicates that the Battlecrease Diary came into Mike's life first, on 9th March 1992, followed swiftly by his request for the red diary.

Ergo, the Barretts were hiding this fact with the Tony Devereux story.

RJ cannot possibly be unaware of this, so whichever way he spins it, there is no real mystery over why the red diary was not mentioned between 9th March 1992 and 5th January 1995.

RJ's time might have been better spent on looking for some evidence - any evidence - for where he believes the scrapbook came from, that is wholly independent of the red diary business.

But I sense that he has gambled everything on the red diary not being a red herring dangled by Mike, because without it he has nothing else.

[caz]

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.

Mike told Feldman that Anne had bought the red diary, so Feldman told Keith, who then asked Anne about it, who said yes, she had paid for it and still had it.

[No mention of Mike's affidavit, or his claim that Anne had purchased it in January 1990, two years and four months before she wrote the cheque.]

Only Anne knows how much she knew about the red diary and whether Mike ever discussed his intentions for it. Now its existence had been 'leaked' by Mike, with only mischief in mind, I can see that it was in Anne's best interests to confirm the purchase itself, but there was no obligation on her to have kept either the diary or her 1992 cheque book or bank statements, let alone to hand anything over to Keith. If Mike had been able to supply the additional information, so what? What could she have done to stop him? But what she gave Keith enabled him, when he was in a position to revisit it after Ripper Diary was published, to trace the advert. There is nothing to suggest that Mike or anyone else could have done this without access to Anne's cheque, but in the end I'm not sure it matters. The advert is the best a Barrett hoax believer can get, and will ever have, on which to base their suspicions about Mike's intentions. No circumstances on earth could have forced Anne to cough up the only goods that matter: what she knew, if anything, about those intentions.

For RJ to be correct, Anne had to know all along what Mike's intentions for the red diary were, and how a timely auction sale came to their rescue. She also had to know by the summer of 1995 that now Mike had 'leaked' the existence of the red diary, there was nothing she could do about it if he had also 'leaked' the existence of the auction ticket, because - loud drum roll for the hard of hearing and thinking - he would only have to cough that up and it would all be over.

[caz]

It has possibly been noted at least a dozen times by David Barrat that in the handwritten draft of Mike's sworn affidavit the zero in the year 1990 had been crossed through and replaced with a 1. This means Barrett was only a few months off in his reckoning. Barrat also notes that Mike corrected this error during the infamous Cloak and Dagger interview. There is nothing here that should interest us. It's just more shuffling of the walnut shells.

Leaving aside the question of why this year change had to be noted 'at least a dozen times', I am curious to know where this handwritten draft came from and where it can be seen, now that RJ has 'leaked' its existence.

RJ's conclusion that, because the nought in the year 1990 had been crossed through and replaced by a one, this means that Mike 'was only a few months off in his reckoning' has to be one of the most desperate yet.

I don't recall ever seeing this alleged draft, but I doubt it was in Mike's appalling handwriting, which leaves Alan Gray as the obvious scribe, with Mike dictating the 'goods'. But as Alan was the one who typed up the affidavit, retaining the year 1990 throughout, this 'draft' could not have been corrected by anyone to read 1991 until a later date, when it was presumably too late for that person to correct the official document, sworn under oath. If it wasn't already a dodgy document to rely on, the late correction to the draft version makes it stink to high heaven.

If there is no indication of who made the correction, Mike may well have remembered later, or been reminded by someone with access to a typed copy, that Tony Devereux had died in 1991, and not 1990, requiring the diary's entire creative process as Mike had described it in the affidavit to be shifted forward a year, to make the narrative work with the one easily provable date. Melvin Harris would not have known in January 1995 that the red diary business had not begun until March 1992, but he'd have known very well when Tony Devereux had shuffled off, and would be trying to make sense of Mike's various claims in that context.

Now we know that the red diary was sent to Mike on 26th March 1992, just a few days before Doreen sent him the letter confirming their meeting for 13th April. So on what planet would a correction for its purchase from January 1990 to January 1991 show that Mike had ended up 'only a few months off' in his reckoning? Bearing in mind that he never, ever forgot the date that he took the diary to London: Monday 13th April 1992, it is simply not feasible to argue that correcting the year in which he and Anne had created the diary together, from 1990 to 1991, shows that Mike was telling the truth, because he was only a year and a bit out.

RJ is right about one thing, though: there is nothing here that should interest us, so I wonder why he was trying to make something of it. Shuffling actual walnut shells might have been more productive.

[caz]

The writer relates that he travelled down from Liverpool to London, rented a room in Middlesex Street, and then gives accounts of various happenings, including the murders.

Whether you want to call it a diary or not, there are no dates in it for any of the events related.

The only time that I can recall that he gives some indication of the passage of time is when he claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, which is clearly impossible as it would have resulted in Eddowes' body being discovered earlier than it was.

These are signs of a hoaxer at work.

The only joke is the diary/scrapbook, but it seems to be lost on you.

Whether Mike Barrett wanted to call it a diary or not - and that's precisely what he did call it - PI is correct. There are no dates in it for any of the events related.

So the suspected hoaxer called it a diary, without knowing there were no dates in it apart from on the last page of writing?

Interesting.

Anyone might suppose that Mike hadn't had the opportunity to check that out first, before calling London on 9th March 1992 to say he had JtR's diary.

[Iconoclast]

I was desperately trying to steer clear of this debate but I cannot allow someone to misrepresent the facts in a desperate attempt to make a point they are not entitled to make (and - let's face it - we get so many of those from scrapbook dilettantes, don't we?).

The only time that I can recall that he gives some indication of the passage of time is when he claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, which is clearly impossible as it would have resulted in Eddowes' body being discovered earlier than it was.

Can you please clarify for our dear readers where in the scrapbook James Maybrick claims that he killed Eddowes a quarter of an hour after Stride, please? You made such a big drama about your Big Reveal but you missed the bit where you actually provided the evidence for your amazing claim which no-one had ever spotted in the 30+ years this debate has raged.

I'm going to help you here as you don't know what's in the scrapbook: Maybrick claims, "Within the quarter of the hour I found another dirty bitch willing to sell her wares."

These are signs of a hoaxer at work.

Nope, these are signs of a dilettante at work.

The only joke is the diary/scrapbook, but it seems to be lost on you.

It is lost on me, that's for sure, if this is the substance of the wit you expect us to applaud you for ...

[caz]

Stay on point, please. You made the comment that "It is the only diary I have heard of that does not contain a single date.". In retrospect, I now realise that you did so in order to ingratiate yourself with Fishy, but in doing so you made an utter fool of yourself because you fell for the old "Hold on, it's called the diary of Jack the Ripper but it's got no dates in it so how can it be a diary - must be a hoax!" syndrome when - off course - those of us who have been around these parts for more than two minutes recognised that old canard from three decades ago. It was called a 'diary' by the original publisher, Robert Smith, who wanted to flog as many copies of the book as he could. It's called marketing, if you're interested.

The Victorian scrapbook makes no claims to be a diary. It's just a record of James Maybrick's thoughts and experiences. You can call it what you want but please don't mock that it is commonly referred to as a 'diary'. We all know it ain't.

We can go one better than that, Ike. It was called a 'diary' on 9th March 1992, by the same bloke who stands accused of faking it. Why did he call it a diary, if he already knew that the contents would not include a single date until the very end?

I think it's called having your diary cake and eating it. If it's not even a diary, why would the same person who was hoaxing it define it as a diary on the dog and bone to Doreen, and then ask Bookfinders over the dog and bone to find him a diary? He must surely have known what he was supposed to be creating - mustn't he?

Surely Mike hadn't just assumed the "old book" was a diary, from seeing that single date on the last page, before he'd had time to read it through from the beginning?

Surely the hoaxer would have known that the 'action' begins in early 1888, when Mike asked for 'a diary' from 1880-90?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The sentiments expressed by PI1, above, are a classic case of “X cannot be authentic because if I created X I’d have done it very differently”.

That made me chuckle, Ike, because it remains my firm belief that if Mike Barrett had tried to create such a 'diary' [his description on 9th March 1992], it could have had nothing remotely in common with the one we are still discussing - and that's with or without his wife's reluctant co-operation.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So Caroline, is the suggestion here that Mike may have ordered the maroon diary as a substitute to give to Dodd in case he came crying foul for theft?

I really don't know the answer to that, Scotty, but the timing of events during the week beginning 9th March 1992, concerning Dodd's floorboards and Mike's 'diary' phone calls to Doreen and Bookfinders, are highly suggestive of a connection between all three, which led directly to Mike being prepared, by 3rd April at the latest, to resume contact with Doreen - using his real name this time - and to let her go ahead with the arrangements for him to bring the "old book" to London, which he did on 13th.

I doubt he was told where it had come from or when, which would have been enough to make him wary when he first got his hands on it. As time passed he would have felt more confident that nobody was about to beat a path to his door, so by the time the 1891 diary arrived, on 27th or 28th March, it could have become an irrelevance, and the reason for requesting it no longer applicable.

The tiny maroon diary would already be a white elephant when Mike called Doreen again on his alleged return from York. He must surely have had something to show her by then, or there would have been nothing to tell her.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

That made me chuckle, Ike, because it remains my firm belief that if Mike Barrett had tried to create such a 'diary' [his description on 9th March 1992], it could have had nothing remotely in common with the one we are still discussing - and that's with or without his wife's reluctant co-operation.

Love,

Caz
X

It is my conviction (not simply belief) that if a newspaper ran a competition for 'Best Hoaxed Memoirs of Jack the Ripper 1992' and a million people entered it, that not a single one of those million versions would look even remotely like the one we got.

It's a one-off by anyone's standards ...

[Scott Nelson]

Caroline I still haven't read anything that invalidates my theory that Barrett got the scrapbook from Devereux like he originally said - even after going through your post #198 (thank you, btw). Lyons, knowing Barrett had a handwritten book by Maybrick, told him he had just come from Dodd's house where he heard that an old book was found by contractors months or years before, and gives Mike the idea of a source. This may not have been a coincidence if Eddie knew Tony D. and had also known Mike for some time prior to March 9, 1992.

The story of throwing a book into a skip was likely from one or these earlier dates of contract work that Eddie had heard from workmates - not Eddie himself throwing the book into a skip, even though he may have told this to Robert Smith.

[erobitha]

Caroline I still haven't read anything that invalidates my theory that Barrett got the scrapbook from Devereux like he originally said - even after going through your post #198 (thank you, btw). Lyons, knowing Barrett had a handwritten book by Maybrick, told him he had just come from Dodd's house where he heard that an old book was found by contractors months or years before, and gives Mike the idea of a source. This may not have been a coincidence if Eddie knew Tony D. and had also known Mike for some time prior to March 9, 1992.

The story of throwing a book into a skip was likely from one or these earlier dates of contract work that Eddie had heard from workmates - not Eddie himself throwing the book into a skip, even though he may have told this to Robert Smith.

Sorry Scott, still struggle with this. Gives Mike an idea for a source? A source he never used? So why did he need it?

[Scott Nelson]

Jay, all it did was give Mike the identity of the writer, Maybrick. Even though I think Mike had the scrapbook for some time before that date (via Devereux), he had no idea who or what was all about, save the name of Jack the Ripper. But he didn't need to say it came from Dodd's house once he knew, only that he got it from Devereux.

[caz]

It is my conviction (not simply belief) that if a newspaper ran a competition for 'Best Hoaxed Memoirs of Jack the Ripper 1992' and a million people entered it, that not a single one of those million versions would look even remotely like the one we got.

It's a one-off by anyone's standards ...

But Mike Barrett, without Anne being willing or able to do 100% of the work, would have come last, no question.

And Anne would sooner have thrown herself on the fire than to enter in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caroline I still haven't read anything that invalidates my theory that Barrett got the scrapbook from Devereux like he originally said - even after going through your post #198 (thank you, btw). Lyons, knowing Barrett had a handwritten book by Maybrick, told him he had just come from Dodd's house where he heard that an old book was found by contractors months or years before, and gives Mike the idea of a source. This may not have been a coincidence if Eddie knew Tony D. and had also known Mike for some time prior to March 9, 1992.

The story of throwing a book into a skip was likely from one or these earlier dates of contract work that Eddie had heard from workmates - not Eddie himself throwing the book into a skip, even though he may have told this to Robert Smith.

Hi Scotty,

Well it's leaps and bounds ahead of the evidence-free auction business, which depends on the scrapbook not even being a twinkle in Mike's eye before 31st March 1992. By 3rd April, Doreen was already writing to Shirley about their arrangements to see Mike's newborn babe, because he had now resumed telephone contact after his alleged trip to York and was ready to rumble. A bit premature, if you ask me, if he had spent the first two or three days of April bathing his precious offspring in linseed oil and drying it tenderly before Anne had even dipped her nib in the Diamine. But hey, he could always stand behind her with the cattle prod to make sure the stupid woman got a wiggle on. That's the thing about women. If they are sinful, they are likely to be stupid as well. That's what we can take away from anyone promoting the asinine April Fool's Day creation theory.

Anyway, back on planet earth, dear Scotty, I think you would need to start from a position of finding some evidence that Eddie and Mike had ever had occasion to meet, either in the Saddle or elsewhere, before Monday 9th March 1992. The evidence we do have shows that as far back as late November 1991, when Eddie was first taken on by Portus & Rhodes, he had been working all day, every day, Mondays to Saturdays, in a different part of town, right up to Saturday 7th March 1992. Mike was doing the school run Mondays to Fridays during term time, popping into the Saddle for his late lunchtime pint before collecting Caroline from school at 3.15. So Monday 9th March was the first working day that Eddie would have been free to slip away early and return to Anfield, after being sent to help out on the Battlecrease wiring job, which had been officially allocated to someone else, who put in the full eight hours. The coincidence therefore extends to the wiring job being fitted in that week by Colin Rhodes because another job had to be put on hold until the Friday, and one of his electricians at a loose end as a result just happening to live close to the Saddle over in Anfield. And that's before we get to the various independent witnesses who have all spoken of their awareness in 1992 that a book/diary had been found during a wiring job in Dodd's house and had changed hands in an Anfield pub. Were/are they all lying, mistaken or hallucinating?

In February 1993, Paul Feldman, Paul Begg and Martin Howells all remembered/remember Mike's unexpected reaction to being told by Paul Dodd that electrical work had been done on his house. Unless they were/are all lying, mistaken or hallucinating too, there was a reaction from Mike, which would not have made a whole lot of sense if he had known since March 1992 what you suggest he may have learned from Eddie before he made that first call to Doreen.

Hope that helps!

Love,

Caz
X