Maybrick Diary Typescript 1992 (KS Ver.)

[rjpalmer]

[*]Was the book he gave to Ace Detective the same book Ace sold to Keith Skinner?.

As is often the case, your good friend David Barrat is several steps ahead of you and has posed these same questions.

Yes---how do we know?

You seem to be suggesting, or at least wondering about the possibility that when Keith approached Alan Gray with his desire to obtain what purported to be Barrett's copy of the Sphere History Volume II, Gray--by now disgruntled with Ripperologists--popped down to the local bookshop, found a dog-eared copy for £5, and sold it as the 'real McCoy,' pocketing £95 instant profit.

Do I have that right?

I would assume Keith would have attempt to receive some assurance from Gray that the book's provenance was legitimate, but I wasn't there; Barrat has made the interesting observation that the last known whereabouts of Mike's book was in the possession of Melvin Harris sometime around 2002.

Since Barrett and Gray had bitterly dissolved their association some years earlier, one would think that this would have also ended any casual contact between Gray and Harris. It's unclear to me. So how did Gray retrieve the book from Harris, if he did so?

It's all rather murky, but perhaps Keith has answers for you.

To the readers: The cassette is the one dated 6 December 1994, as has been stated twice. Why Tom now gratuitously refers to it as the 6 November tape, I do not know, other than business as usual.

It can be found here, but it's rough going.

Alan Gray & Michael Barrett Cassette Recordings 1994-1996 - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[caz]

I wonder about the accuracy of this statement. The audio tape for 6 December 1994 certainly sounds like Gray is describing, in real time, a visit to Barrett's solicitor. There is a short break in the tape and Gray then describes The Sphere History, Volume II, as he holds it in his hand.

I've now addressed this one on another thread, where Palmer was again posting off topic.

Just for clarification, the offices [plural] on Dale Street were housed in a large building, and were not exclusively for Mr Bark-Jones, who had the misfortune to count Mike Barrett among his clients. In my experience as a receptionist and telephonist for a group of solicitors, in the early 2000s, clients always needed a timed appointment in advance to see their own solicitor, whose personal assistant would collect them from reception on arrival and escort them to their own solicitor's office. While I had to record every phone call that came into the offices, with the time, date and name, actual appointments would have had to be recorded, for obvious reasons, in the diary of the assistant. Casual visitors or potential new clients could be seen briefly if one of the solicitors happened to be free at the time, but clients who already had their own solicitor and walked in off the street expecting to see him/her, would find they'd had a wasted journey.

The 'short break' in our comedy duo's tape, followed by the book being placed in Gray's hand, suggests that he did not accompany Mike into the building to see where he was actually going, much less that he went up to Bark-Jones's office, or that of his assistant, to check that Mike was either welcome or expected. If that had been the case, the tape could have been kept running to capture their footsteps and more of Mike's chatter, until the right door on the right floor was reached.

It took a while, but the scales eventually fell from Gray's eyes, when he woke up to the reality that he should never have trusted Mike Barrett as far as he could throw him. And yet here we have Mike's antics being held up as more trustworthy than the recollections and records of his solicitor. I just don't get it. How many other witnesses, who were in a position to see right through Mike over the years, have been considered less reliable than this liar because the alternative - that Mike never told the truth about the circumstances in which he acquired the "old book" - simply can't be contemplated?

[caz]

I would assume Keith would have attempt to receive some assurance from Gray that the book's provenance was legitimate, but I wasn't there; Barrat has made the interesting observation that the last known whereabouts of Mike's book was in the possession of Melvin Harris sometime around 2002.

Since Barrett and Gray had bitterly dissolved their association some years earlier, one would think that this would have also ended any casual contact between Gray and Harris. It's unclear to me. So how did Gray retrieve the book from Harris, if he did so?

The last 'known' whereabouts of the book handed over to Gray in December 1994 was 'in the possession of Melvin Harris sometime around 2002'?

This is 'known' by whom and how? Not just by inference, I hope?

If it's unclear to Palmer, it's as clear as mud to me. I had long understood that the book now in Keith's possession went directly from Mike to Alan Gray in December 1994 - with no support for a detour to Bark-Jones's office or Melvin Harris's bank vault. The latter's comments on the old message boards indicated that he knew of its condition, but he was kept well informed by Gray, so that would be no surprise. Did Harris provide any actual evidence that he and Gray ever met up in person, or that Mike's book left Gray's possession - even temporarily - before he sold it to Keith and finally got a little something out of his disastrous relationship with Mike?

I'm assuming Mike's book was not among Melvin's other diary-related material when he died, so why would he have had this supposedly vital evidence of a Barrett hoax in his grasp 'sometime around 2002', only to let it slip through his fingers?

I must say, if I had what I considered to be solid evidence of someone's fakery, I like to think I'd be a bit more careful with it.

[caz]

Returning to topic, has anyone found solid evidence of Barrett fakery in the typescript?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I'm assuming Mike's book was not among Melvin's other diary-related material when he died, so why would he have had this supposedly vital evidence of a Barrett hoax in his grasp 'sometime around 2002', only to let it slip through his fingers?

You can, of course, "assume" whatever you wish to assume, but it is often the case that the spouses of those interested in the Whitechapel Murders case, not to mention its more marginalized off-shoots, have no interest in the subject themselves, and Melvin was the sort of man who would have owned hundreds of books.

Melvin died suddenly, and unless his widow was 'up' up on the obscure and tedious details of the Maybrick Scam, she would not have recognized the book's significance. It would have been just another book on the history of English Literature on a shelf.

In other words, I doubt Melvin kept a 468-page hardbound book in a file folder titled 'Evidence of The Maybrick Hoax,' any more than Mike Barrett kept a copy the same 468-page book stuffed down his trousers on the odd chance that Alan Gray would offer him a lift to his solicitor's office.

[caz]

Well I'm glad I didn't rush to see what pearls of wisdom I might read on my return. Nothing, sadly, on the topic of this thread, but we can't have everything.

The question remains for Palmer: how does he think the book went from Alan Gray's possession to Keith's, if he imagines it was sitting unloved on Melvin's shelf when he died, to be disposed of by his widow?

This is the book which has all the hallmarks of being the same one Alan Gray was finally given by Mike Barrett in December 1994, six months after making his initial forgery claims, without a single item of supporting evidence to call his own.

The same book which was later described in some detail by Melvin Harris, while being a whole lot vaguer about when he first had sight of it, or for how long - assuming he wasn't just sent photographs by Gray, along with a copy of Mike's affidavit for good measure. By the December, Harris had assigned Gray the task of getting the goods on Barrett, from Barrett, and in January 1995 he'd have been able to contact Harris again with the good news that he had not only bagged Mike's Sphere book, but had got the daft bugger to swear a detailed, if largely unconvincing statement - in the form of a mean and spiteful affidavit that had nothing in common with the anxiety-driven one from April 1993, when his biggest fear was that Paul Dodd would claim ownership of his precious dAiRY if a light-fingered electrician, whose nearest boozer was the Saddle, was suspected of nicking it.

[rjpalmer]

The question remains for Palmer: how does he think the book went from Alan Gray's possession to Keith's, if he imagines it was sitting unloved on Melvin's shelf when he died, to be disposed of by his widow?.

Hi Caz,

this is a badly muddled question, I'm afraid. Do you care to rephrase it? The point David Barrat raised--and I have no real pony in this race--is whether it is known with certainty that the book Keith bought from Gray is the same book that Melvin spoke of as having been in his possession as late as 2002 or so.

Harris did give a detailed description of the book's binding defects--but he didn't describe the book as being marred by marginalia or highlighting, which seems like an odd omission, since Melvin was well aware of Barrett's claim of having received the whole set from a publisher and would have appreciated the importance of those characteristics.

So, it's not a question how the 'book went from Gray's possession to Keith's' --which is not in dispute--it's a question of how the book went from Harris's possession to Gray's if it is indeed the same book, and if Barrat's information about it being in Harris's possession in 2002 is correct. Do you not really understand what Barrat was asking?

Your theory, meanwhile, strikes me as self-defeating. You and Ike have the 'mental vegetable' Barrett pulling a scam slyer and more devious than anything that would have been required to fake the Maybrick Diary in the first place.

On the other hand, the idea of Mike having a 460-odd page hardback book shoved down his trousers while waddling into his solicitor's office is good for a chuckle, so I do thank you for that! You clearly must think that the ex-policeman Alan Gray was another "mental vegetable." Rather convenient for your theories, I suppose.

RP

[caz]

Hi Caz,

this is a badly muddled question, I'm afraid. Do you care to rephrase it? The point David Barrat raised--and I have no real pony in this race--is whether it is known with certainty that the book Keith bought from Gray is the same book that Melvin spoke of as having been in his possession as late as 2002 or so.

Harris did give a detailed description of the book's binding defects--but he didn't describe the book as being marred by marginalia or highlighting, which seems like an odd omission, since Melvin was well aware of Barrett's claim of having received the whole set from a publisher and would have appreciated the importance of those characteristics.

So, it's not a question how the 'book went from Gray's possession to Keith's' --which is not in dispute--it's a question of how the book went from Harris's possession to Gray's if it is indeed the same book, and if Barrat's information about it being in Harris's possession in 2002 is correct. Do you not really understand what Barrat was asking?

Your theory, meanwhile, strikes me as self-defeating. You and Ike have the 'mental vegetable' Barrett pulling a scam slyer and more devious than anything that would have been required to fake the Maybrick Diary in the first place.

On the other hand, the idea of Mike having a 460-odd page hardback book shoved down his trousers while waddling into his solicitor's office is good for a chuckle, so I do thank you for that! You clearly must think that the ex-policeman Alan Gray was another "mental vegetable." Rather convenient for your theories, I suppose.

RP

"There are no badly muddled questions; only badly muddled answers" - or something like that.

It's difficult for anyone to say whether the book handed to Gray by Mike in December 1994, which Gray handed to Keith ten years later, in 2004, was physically in Melvin's possession, as he allegedly claimed, 'as late as 2002'. I have seen no other evidence for it changing hands again, or being sent anywhere in the post, between 1994 and 2004, nor any evidence that Melvin and Alan Gray ever met up in person.

We do know that on 19th January 1995, Shirley Harrison was expecting to meet Alan Gray in Liverpool, but he sent her a note on the day with apologies for cancelling, as he was 'advised there is a conflict of interest here'. Three guesses who was advising him.

I have in my timeline an entry based on a casebook post by Melvin Harris dated 10th October 2000, in which he writes: 'Mrs Harrison tried to get possession of this book from Mr Gray but he refused to play ball.' The actual book has a note by Gray, stating: Mrs HARRISON THU 19 JAN 1995 TRIED TO GET HOLD OF BOOK.

That wasn't strictly true because Gray and Harris had evidently conspired to make sure Shirley didn't get anywhere near it. It's not hard to see that it was also Melvin pulling the strings where Gray's 'refusal to play ball' was concerned. If Melvin was so anxious to keep Mike's Sphere book well away from the 'opposition', so soon after this piece of hard evidence had been obtained, it does rather suggest that he had his reasons for not openly describing every characteristic at a later date. That doesn't answer the question of where the book was, between December 1994 and August 2004, but we can't have everything, and the only person or persons who would have known are no longer with us.

I wonder if Palmer has ever visited Liverpool's fair city in December? I should imagine a chancer like Mike, who seemed to walk everywhere or take a bus, would have had the nous to get himself a good thick overcoat, or sturdy raincoat, for those freezing winter days outdoors. I don't think he'd have had too much trouble secreting the book which Gray was fully expecting to be in the solicitor's office, awaiting collection.

The comparison Palmer seeks to make, between the Mike known by real people in the real Liverpool of the 1980s and 1990s, and an individual who could focus on ripper and Maybrick research for more than ten minutes at a time, keeping their trap shut all the while, until their fake diary was completed to their satisfaction, may sound simple enough in theory, but while some of those people in Liverpool would no doubt have thought it was "all a load of nonsense", because Mike Barrett was in the driving seat and everyone knew he was a proper scally, I have yet to hear of anyone who actually believed he had a literary hoax in him, waiting patiently to show its face.

[Iconoclast]

I have yet to hear of anyone who actually believed he had a literary hoax in him, waiting patiently to show its face.

Despite what Lord Orsam and RJ Palmer would love us all to believe, Mike may well have had a glittering - nay, stellar - career as an incisive, no nonsense journalist for Celebrity and Chat, but he does not appear to have fooled a single person, ever, not once, never, that he was the spiritual reincarnation of Hemingway. Not a single soul seems willing to stand up for Mike Barrett as any kind of author at all - of hoaxes, especially, nay, nay, and thrice nay the resounding silence seems to say.

I find that hard to reconcile with what O and P like to argue. I wonder why they try so hard to spin it so differently?

PS Oh - and don't forget those puzzles he submitted to Look-In magazine!

[caz]

Hello Ike,

But do they try hard to spin it so differently? Whenever it has been suggested that Mike might not have been up to certain tasks he has been accused of, or has claimed for himself, the solution has invariably been to allocate them to Anne instead - job done.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone [she said, bringing us deftly back on topic] because I'm a firm believer that Anne had to wear the transcript trousers in Goldie Street, or the result, as seen at the start of this thread, would have been an absolute shambles - much like the diary itself would have been, had Mike been in a position to contribute anything at all to its creation.

While I'm here, I have another admission to make. I completely forgot about the briefcase.

I previously suggested that Mike could have secreted his second hand Sphere book under an overcoat or raincoat without Alan Gray suspecting a thing but, for the perfect cover, we need look no further than the briefcase Mike liked to have with him when on diary business. Always looking for a chance to impress his audience, he would pull letters or documents out like rabbits from hats - on request or unsolicited as the fancy took him - or touch his nose in that "wouldn't you like to know?" way and keep 'em guessing what was or wasn't in there. He could be a real tease.

If someone believes that Mike could have faked the diary on the grounds that he was undoubtedly a con artist, and crafty with it, why would they want to argue that he could not have conned Alan Gray with the simple parlour trick of pulling a book out of his briefcase that was in there when he left home? Gray wanted paying for his services, so demanding to see what was in the case beforehand would not have been in his own interests, and afterwards was too late to prove he had just been stitched up - again - even if he suspected it.

The evidence indicates that no Sphere book was ever lodged with Mike's solicitor, in which case he had lied to Gray about this and needed him to believe that something was true. He could have just given the book to Gray at home, claiming to have retrieved it by himself, but it would look better to have Gray with him, and he could blame the unfeasibly long delay in handing it over on waiting for a solicitor's appointment.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz,

It's been over twenty years, so it is perhaps not surprising that you've forgotten, but once upon a time you were aware that Alan Gray had given Mike's copy of the Sphere History to Melvin Harris.

See the last part of your post of 9 July 2002, 12:07 pm at the following link:

Ten Year Reflection (casebook.org)

As Melvin stated on 16 February 2002:

Dear Robert Smith:

As for the Sphere book, it was given to Gray by Mike. Gray has now given it to me. Yes, you can certainly borrow it and show it to anyone you like. I will set out my terms, together with some extra details of this book's saga, as soon as I have some more free time.

--

Considering the above, I don't see how David Barrat's question to Keith Skinner is either out-of-line or absurd. If Gray had relinquished ownership to Harris, and Harris and Gray had parted ways, how could Alan Gray have subsequently sold the book to Keith? How did he get it back from Harris? How do we know with any certainty that it is the same book Harris took possession of in 2002? Keith was monitoring the boards back in 2002. Did he ask about this when he bought the book?

And did Robert Smith ever "agree to terms" and see Harris's copy? Was it the same book as the one later sold to Keith?

Personally, I have no problem with Barrett pulling a scam; why would I? I think Barrett was a scammer.

What I find inconsistent in your own thinking is that Barret supposedly couldn't concentrate on the Maybrick Hoax for "more than ten minutes at a time," as you put it, but you turn around and have him hunting-and-pecking through the thousands of volumes in the Liverpool Library during a forty-hour work week in search of a five-word phrase. You then have him successfully finding the phrase in a book of literary criticism. Barrett then scours various local bookstores to find a copy of the same book, and then somehow convinces his sister and girlfriend that they had seen the book in his possession previously and dreams up the supposedly tall tale of a Hillsborough Disaster book sale. Mike then further scams Alan Gray into believing he lodged the book with his solicitor.

It seems like an obvious enough contradiction. Your opinions about Barrett's abilities and ambition expand and contract depending on the theory you wish to currently wish to promote.

As far as I'm concerned, the scam you describe demonstrates more cunning and ambition from Mike than it would have taken to have simply hoaxed the diary in the first place with Anne's help.

Nor do I believe Barrett could have found the quote as described--and the only evidence you have for believing it is Barrett's own claim.

I'm not sure there's much point in discussing it further, though. If Anne Graham isn't willing to speak--and she's been silent for over two decades--we've reached the end of the line.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

It's been over twenty years, so it is perhaps not surprising that you've forgotten, but once upon a time you were aware that Alan Gray had given Mike's copy of the Sphere History to Melvin Harris.

See the last part of your post of 9 July 2002, 12:07 pm at the following link:

Ten Year Reflection (casebook.org)

As Melvin stated on 16 February 2002:

Dear Robert Smith:

As for the Sphere book, it was given to Gray by Mike. Gray has now given it to me. Yes, you can certainly borrow it and show it to anyone you like. I will set out my terms, together with some extra details of this book's saga, as soon as I have some more free time.

--

I don't think the above adds up to a definite awareness on my part that Gray did give Mike's book to Melvin. I was merely quoting from a post by Peter Birchwood dated 16 February 2002, who was acting as Melvin's postman. Birchwood quoted Melvin's claim to have the book and to set out his terms for lending it to Robert Smith as and when he had 'some more free time'.

Since Robert only got to see Mike's book - with Alan Gray's handwritten notes inside from January 1995 - when Keith bought it from Gray in 2004, I can only assume that Melvin never did have the time to set out his terms, or that Robert found them unacceptable.

Palmer now knows the perils of accepting all Melvin's claims as gospel, from the Goodwin Avenue saga over at 'the other place'. Melvin had claimed there was no evidence that Robbie and Albert Johnson had lived there in the 1960s, with the clear implication that Feldman had been given duff information by one of his researchers. Melvin had found an unrelated Johnson family living on the same street, and presumed that Team Feldman had misidentified them as Robbie's parents. They hadn't. Carol Emmas had accessed the relevant electoral register and found the correct Johnson family living further down the street - just as Robbie had told her.

Palmer's mistake was to run with Melvin's duff information with the aim of suggesting that Robbie Johnson had deliberately deceived first Emmas and then Feldman, by telling them he had lived in Goodwin Avenue in the 1960s. Feldman thought he had found a connection via Goodwin Avenue, from the Johnsons to the Maybricks, but admitted in his book that no such connection could be established. But Robbie knew nothing about this when he first told Emmas that he had lived there, so he was simply telling the truth and not trying to deceive anyone.

Considering the above, I don't see how David Barrat's question to Keith Skinner is either out-of-line or absurd. If Gray had relinquished ownership to Harris, and Harris and Gray had parted ways, how could Alan Gray have subsequently sold the book to Keith? How did he get it back from Harris? How do we know with any certainty that it is the same book Harris took possession of in 2002? Keith was monitoring the boards back in 2002. Did he ask about this when he bought the book?

I don't suppose Keith thought he needed to ask Alan Gray about any of this when he took possession of the book, which is clearly the copy Gray was given by Mike in December 1994, which he claimed on 19th January 1995 that Shirley was trying to get hold of - unless Palmer wants to accuse Gray of being a better forger than Mike could ever have been, and possessed of a far superior memory for dates and details.

What I find inconsistent in your own thinking is that Barret supposedly couldn't concentrate on the Maybrick Hoax for "more than ten minutes at a time," as you put it, but you turn around and have him hunting-and-pecking through the thousands of volumes in the Liverpool Library during a forty-hour work week in search of a five-word phrase. You then have him successfully finding the phrase in a book of literary criticism. Barrett then scours various local bookstores to find a copy of the same book, and then somehow convinces his sister and girlfriend that they had seen the book in his possession previously and dreams up the supposedly tall tale of a Hillsborough Disaster book sale. Mike then further scams Alan Gray into believing he lodged the book with his solicitor.

It would help Palmer to see the chain of events in context, in the correct order, which would then give a clearer picture of what led up to Mike finally handing over the used copy of Volume 2 to Alan Gray in December 1994, after first claiming to have written the diary himself back in the June but failing to produce anything remotely useful by way of evidence. Over the years, Mike mentioned his bookshop find several times to different people, and on at least one occasion on the record he spoke of seeing "piles" of the Sphere book series in a bookshop. What makes little sense is all Mike's faffing about with stories like this, and the library claims made to Shirley and again on the phone to his solicitor's office, if he really had put Crashaw in the diary because he found the quote in a book he had indoors. If his main object was to prove this, he went a very funny and convoluted way about it, undermining and polluting his case at every turn with lies and contradictory claims.

It seems like an obvious enough contradiction. Your opinions about Barrett's abilities and ambition expand and contract depending on the theory you wish to currently wish to promote.

To be fair, I wouldn't be the only one if that's the case. But I have to stick with the evidence we have of the known events and interpret them to give what I truly believe to be the most likely explanation of Mike's behaviour on the balance of probability.

As for Anne, if she ever does speak up about what she really knew about the diary affair, my guess is that it will not be to Palmer's liking and will be rejected as yet another false trail from the Barrett/Graham stable. Only if she says: "All right, damn you, I managed to disguise my handwriting, but it didn't fool everyone", will some people ever be satisfied.

[rjpalmer]

Palmer now knows the perils of accepting all Melvin's claims as gospel, from the Goodwin Avenue saga over at 'the other place'. Melvin had claimed there was no evidence that Robbie and Albert Johnson had lived there in the 1960s, with the clear implication that Feldman had been given duff information by one of his researchers. Melvin had found an unrelated Johnson family living on the same street, and presumed that Team Feldman had misidentified them as Robbie's parents. They hadn't. Carol Emmas had accessed the relevant electoral register and found the correct Johnson family living further down the street - just as Robbie had told her.

You really are incredibly careless in what you write, Caz.

Melvin didn't claim "there was no evidence that Robbie and Albert Johnson had lived there [Goodwin Avenue] in the 1960s."

Either your memory is flawed or you're imagining something he never wrote.

Below are Melvin's words is in their entirety. What Melvin determined is that there was no evidence that the Johnsons lived at 160 Goodwin Avenue (the relevant address in Olga Maybrick Ellison's birthday book).

And, of course Melvin was entirely correct. The family living at No. 160 were the Johnstones.

He never said anything about the Johnsons not living at a different address, and if anything, Melvin seems to have believed (wrongly) that Robbie and Albert Johnson's parent had been living at No. 37.

from THE MAYBRICK HOAX; A GUIDE THROUGH THE LABYRINTH

"I found the wording of that section more than curious. There was no confirmation that the family had ever lived at 160 Goodwin Avenue. Why was such important data missing? I checked first with 'Kelly's' directory for 1960. This showed that the family living at 160 Goodwin Avenue was named JOHNSTONE. But directories can sometimes err, so I consulted the Electoral Registers for the 1960's. These confirmed that 'Kelly's' was correct. The family at the crucial address was the Johnstone family; David, Margaret and George. No connection whatsoever with the Johnson family (Alfred and Margaret) who once lived at 37 Goodwin Avenue between 1962-1964..."

Clearly, Melvin did not claim that there was no evidence Robbie and Albert had lived in Goodwin Avenue. As I say, he seems to have associated them with Alfred and Margaret. Which, though wrong, is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

It was actually me who wondered if Robbie might have made the whole thing up, but pending confirmation that Carol Emmas's information from the 1962-64 electoral rolls is correct, I'm more than willing to admit that that was not the case. In fact, I'm delighted to do so and am glad that I made an issue of it, because it seems to point to an even more intriguing explanation for the birthday book "coincidence."

What you're accusing Melvin of is outright lying. Being mistaken about a name in an electoral roll is wildly different than telling a deliberate lie about having a book in one's possession. Personally, I don't think Melvin had it in him to lie outright. Melvin could be wrong, just as anyone can be wrong, but he wasn't a liar.

I am confident that both Melvin Harris and Keith Skinner were wrong in there different but strangely similar ways, and that Mike and Anne were not the handlers of a hoax created by others.

Will Anne ever come clean and leave you with egg on your face? I doubt it. If it was just a matter of saying she helped her husband with a hoax during a rough patch in her life, maybe she would. But she also spent eight years lying to her friends and fellow researchers, and it takes a very humble and brave person to admit to having betrayed one's own friends.

[rjpalmer]

Of course, that previous post should have read: "Melvin Harris and Keith Skinner were wrong in their different but strangely similar ways."

Palmer's mistake was to run with Melvin's duff information with the aim of suggesting that Robbie Johnson had deliberately deceived first Emmas and then Feldman, by telling them he had lived in Goodwin Avenue in the 1960s. Feldman thought he had found a connection via Goodwin Avenue, from the Johnsons to the Maybricks, but admitted in his book that no such connection could be established. But Robbie knew nothing about this when he first told Emmas that he had lived there, so he was simply telling the truth and not trying to deceive anyone.

To reiterate, I was not running with Melvin's "duff information" because Melvin never suggested it.

It was a theory that I was working on, and justifiably so, because Feldman admitted in his book that Robbie had told him lies, but unfortunately, he only identified one: Robbie professed not to know what the scratches on the watch read. And of course, there's the matter of Robbie secretly selling shares of the watch behind Albert's back, including one share for 15,000 pounds. How much money he made on other shares was never revealed.

You're getting us off topic (again) but if Carol Emmas is correct, and Robbie did live in Goodwin Avenue in the 1960s, then an explanation is in order why Olga Maybrick Ellison already knew by the mid-1980s (at the latest) that someone in Goodwin Avenue had had Maybrick's watch, when Albert, formerly of Goodwin Avenue, claims he didn’t buy the watch until 1992.

I have two explanations, and neither is good news for your theories.

1. Mrs. Meagher's memory was polluted by Feldman and his team, and she never actually mentioned Goodwin Avenue. The street name was inadvertently 'planted.'

2. Someone in Goodwin Avenue did have Maybrick's genuine watch in the 1960s, and unless you're willing to swallow an enormous coincidence, this was the inspiration for Robbie Johnson's later hoax.

Let's go with No. 1, since it seems to be your preferred explanation.

This would mean that on three known occasions Feldman and/or Feldman's team managed to elicit false information from the people they had interviewed, whether through 'pollution,' leading questions, or from people telling Feldman what he wanted to hear.

1. Mrs. Meagher.

2. Anne Graham.

3. Billy Graham.

Three strikes and one is usually out, but you're banking on Feldman eliciting genuine information from the electricians--not a great bet considering Feldman's track record for the other three--as well as the irony that with the electricians even Feldman himself believed that his own clumsy interviewing techniques had led to false leads, a rumor mill, and (ultimately) one of the electricians offering to the give the diary a bogus provenance "for the right price."

Considering all that, it's going to be a tough sell, Caz. Good luck with it!

[caz]

You really are incredibly careless in what you write, Caz.

Apologies. None of us is perfect, sadly.

However, my mistake was in not appreciating that Melvin Harris believed Feldman's theory was that Robbie and Albert had not only lived in Goodwin Avenue, but at No.160 - the same address as in Olga's birthday book entry for a Mrs Johnson [sic]. This is something Feldman would have cleared up in an instant with Robbie himself, when asking if he had indeed told Carol Emmas that he had lived in Goodwin Avenue in the 1960s. When Carol accessed the relevant electoral register [of which I have a copy on file - so the information is as 'correct' as it can be], the details emerged that it was Mrs Johnstone at No.160 and the Johnson brothers were confirmed to be living at No.134.

Feldman didn't suggest in his book that the brothers had actually lived at No.160, but anyone reading again what Melvin had to say about it could be forgiven for assuming he had done so. No direct or indirect link between the Johnstones and either of the Johnson families in Goodwin Avenue could be found, nor was one claimed in Feldman's book. He left it as an odd coincidence, but one that could be nothing other than a genuine one and a red herring, but Melvin still wanted his pound of flesh and got it because Feldman omitted to correct Olga's birthday book entry to read Johnstone.

What you're accusing Melvin of is outright lying. Being mistaken about a name in an electoral roll is wildly different than telling a deliberate lie about having a book in one's possession. Personally, I don't think Melvin had it in him to lie outright. Melvin could be wrong, just as anyone can be wrong, but he wasn't a liar.

I've missed something here. So Melvin pounced on the wrong Johnson family at No.37 Goodwin Avenue, assuming it was the right one, and concluded - somewhat redundantly - that there was no evidence of Robbie and Albert Johnson ever living at No.160 with the Johnstone family. I didn't accuse him of lying. I was merely mistaken about what he was actually mistaken about.

As for the book, I thought we were in agreement that there is still a mystery about Melvin's claim to have had it in his possession in 2002. That's not an accusation that he deliberately lied about this. I am simply at a loss to explain when and how it left Melvin's possession, only to reappear in Alan Gray's, before Gray finally handed it over to Keith, complete with the original explanatory notes made back in January 1995, detailing the handover by Mike in December 1994 followed by the refusal to meet with Shirley due to a conflict of interests - presumably the fear being that she would try to wrestle the book out of Gray's hands and destroy this hard evidence of the Barretts' guilt. If the provenance of the diary itself was dodgy from the start, in March 1992, the provenance of Keith's Sphere volume 2, from December 1994 when Mike handed it over to Alan Gray, cannot reasonably be faulted - regardless of Melvin's involvement.

Will Anne ever come clean and leave you with egg on your face? I doubt it.

I doubt it too. It's not in her handwriting, and if she can come clean and reveal whose handwriting it is, I'll start believing in a higher power. As for eggs on faces, I'll leave those images to people who dwell on such things and seem to get comfort from them.

If it was just a matter of saying she helped her husband with a hoax during a rough patch in her life, maybe she would. But she also spent eight years lying to her friends and fellow researchers, and it takes a very humble and brave person to admit to having betrayed one's own friends.

How unexpectedly touching.

Or just preparing the ground, for her inevitable failure to admit what you believe she knows about the diary's origins?

Her failure would also allow for her knowing sod all, wouldn't it?

So her failure will inevitably tell us sod all.

Is that a win-win or a dead heat?