The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

Well Mike's handwriting must have gone to pot after May 1992 because that cheque looks to me like it's in the same handwriting as the stub.

That was Martin Fido's suggestion: that the M.J. Barrett of 1995 may have been a shadow of the 1992 Mike.

It would be quite a turn of events if Barrett had the ability to simulate someone else's handwriting. Is that your suggestion?

[rjpalmer]

According to Herlock, Barrett's affidavit was the creation of Alan Gray.

What is your point? It was drafted by Gray based on conversations with Barrett. The quote in the affidavit is from Barrett.

There is no contradiction. Stay focused, Ike!

Here is another entry from the same Skinner/Harrison 1999 timeline:

"Around that date (March 9th 1992) a well established secondhand book company had a call from a Mr Barrett who asked them to find him a Victorian Diary. We contacted the company who advertise in Yellow Pages (not in The Writers' and Artists' Yearbook). They cannot recall if he asked for an unused diary but they confirm that the request was extremely unusual and that it would have taken them two or three weeks to fulfill. They found an 1891 diary and it was sent to Mr Barrett on Thursday March 26th 1992, reaching him presumably for the weekend March 28th/29th 1992.

Thus, seven years after Barrett ordered the diary, Mr. Earl could no longer even remember if Mike had specifically asked for a blank diary.

I think that puts to rest any suggestion that in 2020 Mr. Earl would recall making any specific desciptions of the blank pages. So we can happily agree that he was just passing along his general policies and business model.

No one is denying that Barrett received a 1891 diary, Ike.

Regards.

[rjpalmer]

Well Mike's handwriting must have gone to pot after May 1992 because that cheque looks to me like it's in the same handwriting as the stub. Plus, there are no Mike-related strangenesses about the spelling.

Feel free to upload the image to this site.

The quote I supplied was written by Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison and he or they had clearly asked Anne about the two different handwritings and Anne apparently confirmed it was Barrett who filled out the main cheque.

It would, of course, be of general interest to your readers to see a sample of Barrett's handwriting pre-1994 (when he began to confess).

Mike's signature on the receipt for the word processor was quite fluid and confident.

[Iconoclast]

So Ike, Mike got the invoice for £25 and then paid Eddy £25?

I'm going to have to work hard to come up with a seamless narrative to compete with you for these Barrett Believers who don't want to help because it's so bloody "obvious" what took place. (Then they complain to me and demand a seamless narrative for Mary Jane Wilson)... I guess they're afraid you'll pick it apart at the seams if their story even has any seams to been picked.

So far they just turn to the affidavit and say it has the ring of truth to it, like the George Damon affidavits for Carrie Brown. Yup. In a world of Diaries with No Dates but a lot of Sugar Lumps.

Their narrative is seamless because they are self-imposed emperors wearing no clothes ...

[Iconoclast]

As always, Ike, I'm surprised that you are unaware of the important minutia, but I suppose that being so laser-focused on Maybrick's guilt you've never given the Barrett/Graham hypothesis the attention it deserves.

From a timeline created by Shirley Harrison & Keith Skinner in 1999:

"The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in by Michael.

Anne's explanation of this is, that when Michael asked her for the money, she was so "bloody mad" at such extravagence, when they were so broke, that she signed her name and threw the cheque across the floor for him to complete. This is probably why the cheque stub merely has written on it "book - £25".

Notice also the reference to the Barretts being broke.

Wasn't your argument that the Barretts had no money motive?

Regards.

Well Mike's handwriting must have gone to pot after May 1992 because that cheque looks to me like it's in the same handwriting as the stub. Plus, there are no Mike-related strangenesses about the spelling.

[Iconoclast]

A gentleman named Keith Skinner.

I have a copy of that cheque and it is very obviously in Anne's handwriting. I think you have misunderstood something Keith must have said in the past?

Or just made a horrendous mistake when you posted?

[Lombro2]

So Ike, Mike got the invoice for £25 and then paid Eddy £25?

I'm going to have to work hard to come up with a seamless narrative to compete with you for these Barrett Believers who don't want to help because it's so bloody "obvious" what took place. (Then they complain to me and demand a seamless narrative for Mary Jane Wilson)... I guess they're afraid you'll pick it apart at the seams if their story even has any seams to been picked.

So far they just turn to the affidavit and say it has the ring of truth to it, like the George Damon affidavits for Carrie Brown. Yup. In a world of Diaries with No Dates but a lot of Sugar Lumps.

[Iconoclast]

I point out the 'blindingly obvious,' Ike, for the simple reason that the Floorboard Fundamentalist have a history of implying that, based on an email received twenty-eight years after-the-fact, Mr. Earl would have lovingly described each and every page to Barrett in exquisite detail worthy of a Russian novelist, when the fact is he gave a general outline of his business policies.

It was in an email, yes. It was a simple question, very direct, and it was answered emphatically with a 'No'. There was no equivocation and - of course - there couldn't be regarding something so utterly fundamental to the survival of his business. I think you and I both know this.

The diary being from 1891 wouldn't bother the jury, I suspect, if Barrett was in the dock. Book covers can be removed or doctored. No matter how much you deny it, what would bother the jury is Earl's original advertisement which shows what Barrett wanted to obtain. What he received is a different question.

You're trying far too hard here, RJ, and far too easily swayed by your own argument - so much so that I will be asking my elder friend from the park if he would say a prayer for me that I never end up in the dock and - if I do - that you are not a member of the jury. The notion that the jury would not be influenced by what Barrett accepted is a strange one - I think an even average lawyer could drill home to them the implications! And let's not talk about covers on diaries when we know that the date 1891 was printed numerous times on every page.

If we turn to Barrett's secret confessional affidavit ...

Sorry, you guys can't keep having it every which way you want. According to Herlock, Barrett's affidavit was the creation of Alan Gray. I hope my dear readers are taking note here, though, as I am the lawyer and they the jury here.

... what he states is:
"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary ..."
Now, you might argue that Mr. Barrett is lying, but the fact is, the red diary IS very small, so it being of 'no use' is entirely plausible. Mike's secret affidavit does have the ring of truth on this score, and it also sounds like a man who hadn't really known what to expect until he tore off the wrapper and realized his own carelessness.

What I would say is that you Diary Debonkers need to get your stories aligned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

the above is Ike's comment and not yours, but from what you've managed to hear, do you recall any mention of the "affair of the red diary" in the Gray/Barrett tapes?

Hi Roger,

I didn't hear any mention of the red diary on any of the tapes I listened to. I did hear the the name 'Outhwaite and Litherland' on the tape said to be dated 8th November 1994 but I'm pretty sure it's been labelled with the wrong date because I heard Gray saying at about 39;58 that he's at Mike Barrett's house on Monday, 7th November 1994 and then later at about 48:15 he states the time and again says the date is 7th November.

[rjpalmer]

As always, Ike, I'm surprised that you are unaware of the important minutia, but I suppose that being so laser-focused on Maybrick's guilt you've never given the Barrett/Graham hypothesis the attention it deserves.

From a timeline created by Shirley Harrison & Keith Skinner in 1999:

"The cheque was not paid until May 18th 1992 and the bookseller has Mr Barrett marked as a "late payer". The cheque was signed by Anne Barrett but the rest was filled in by Michael.

Anne's explanation of this is, that when Michael asked her for the money, she was so "bloody mad" at such extravagence, when they were so broke, that she signed her name and threw the cheque across the floor for him to complete. This is probably why the cheque stub merely has written on it "book - £25".

Notice also the reference to the Barretts being broke.

Wasn't your argument that the Barretts had no money motive?

Regards.

[rjpalmer]

Where on earth did you get that little corker from?

A gentleman named Keith Skinner.

[rjpalmer]

I absolutely could not agree with you more, RJ - thank you for reinforcing the blindingly obvious.

I point out the 'blindingly obvious,' Ike, for the simple reason that the Floorboard Fundamentalist have a history of implying that, based on an email received twenty-eight years after-the-fact, Mr. Earl would have lovingly described each and every page to Barrett in exquisite detail worthy of a Russian novelist, when the fact is he gave a general outline of his business policies.

The diary being from 1891 wouldn't bother the jury, I suspect, if Barrett was in the dock. Book covers can be removed or doctored. No matter how much you deny it, what would bother the jury is Earl's original advertisement which shows what Barrett wanted to obtain. What he received is a different question.

If we turn to Barrett's secret confessional affidavit, what he states is:

"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary ..."

Now, you might argue that Mr. Barrett is lying, but the fact is, the red diary IS very small, so it being of 'no use' is entirely plausible. Mike's secret affidavit does have the ring of truth on this score, and it also sounds like a man who hadn't really known what to expect until he tore off the wrapper and realized his own carelessness.

Regards.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock,

the above is Ike's comment and not yours, but from what you've managed to hear, do you recall any mention of the "affair of the red diary" in the Gray/Barrett tapes?

I think I am right in saying that none of the November 4-7 tapes mention a red diary.

Could be wrong.

[Iconoclast]

I agree that it looks more like oil damage than water damage. I have 20+ years of experience as a librarian, mostly in "technical services" which includes caring for damaged books. Water damage tends to wrinkle pages and cover boards, and may lead to mold. The album wasn't in a box that got wet, to judge from the stain evidence. But it could have been subjected to deliberate "spot cleaning" as described by its owner.

I think that we can all accept that the staining is almost certainly not from water ingress and almost certainly from the application of some form of oily substance.

[Iconoclast]

I think it is somewhat interesting that Anne Graham only signed the cheque and Barrett filled out all the other details.

Where on earth did you get that little corker from?

I can't imagine it would have been normal for Anne to give blank, signed cheques to an impetuous alcoholic, but unless Keith Skinner obtained any other cancelled cheques from Anne, it remains speculation.

It's only speculation if you actually believe that Barrett wrote that cheque and Anne signed it.

Did she not like what Mike was doing and wanted plausible deniability by not writing down Earl's name? Or were there other blank cheques cancelled by art shops and auction houses?

So much despairing inference, so little fact.