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

[Iconoclast]

Oh I see, so Harris is a viper because he was a Ripperologist who shouldn't have been allowed to publish any Ripper suspect books while claiming that the Ripper diary was a forgery. He should have kept his mouth shut, should he, like a good little boy?
That, if I may say so, is kind of ridiculous Ike.
But why is Stewart Evans not also a viper for publishing a suspect book about Tumblety while expressing similar doubts about the Ripper diary?

Because I decide who I think is a viper and who is still on the subs bench. I think Alice Yapp was a viper. That's my prerogative.

[Iconoclast]

When Barrett told the story of the forgery at the 1999 meeting there was no suggestion from him that Devereux was involved in writing the manuscript, was there?

Forget the affidavit. It was obviously authored by Alan Gray who didn't fully understand what he was being told and couldn't get a grasp of the chronology.

Forget the Eleven-Day Evangelism?

If you insist!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you quite sure you're remembering correctly what Martin Earl told you, Caz?

I appreciate there was no obligation on the customer to accept any item located as a result of their request, but how is that relevant? Barrett did accept an item and had it sent to him.

As for the return policy, can I remind you that you posted this in the thread "One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary" in #5701 on August 4, 2020, based on what Martin Earl appears to have told you, with my bold highlighting:

"Normally he would have asked for payment with the order, so it is likely that Mr Barrett specifically asked to see it before sending payment. Given the time taken before the cheque was sent [by Anne] it is highly likely Martin had to chase it, probably by phone. From memory, he says normal settlement time was the standard 30 days so he would have chased it up after that period. Customers could always return items if they were not as described."

So there are two problems here had Mike attempted to return the diary in May 1995.

The first is that the normal settlement time of 30 days had passed. You're not saying that Mike had unlimited time to return the diary are you? As a postal book selling business, Earl would surely have gone out of business fast if people could return books to him after a year and receive a full refund.

The fact that the standard 30 days for settlement had passed would surely, by itself, be an end of the matter. So we don't really need to consider whether Mike was or was not happy with the diary. But as to that, Earl said that customers could return items "if they were not as described" which, as a matter of English construction, means they could not be returned if they were as described. That makes perfect sense for a postal book service because otherwise buyers could read the books they'd received and return them even if they were in the exact condition that had been described to them. And Earl would have had to pay the person he bought the diary from who would also not have refunded if the diary was in the condition that had been described to Earl. I think the diary was exactly as had been described to Mike by Earl.

I appreciate that this post was made nearly five years ago so your memory may be rusty but, based on what you posted in 2020, there was no way Mike could have returned the diary in May 1995 and received his money back, was there?

Sorry Caz.

Just another quick correction. When I typed "May 1995" on both occasions I meant "May 1992" which was when Mike asked Anne to pay for the diary.

So the relevant lines should read:

"So there are two problems here had Mike attempted to return the diary in May 1992".

and

"I appreciate that this post was made nearly five years ago so your memory may be rusty but, based on what you posted in 2020, there was no way Mike could have returned the diary in May 1992 and received his money back, was there?"

[Iconoclast]

If you want to seriously consider Barrett's story, you surely must look at what he said himself, not what was written on his behalf by another person who might well have got the story muddled up, and, in fact, when compared with what Barrett said in 1999, quite clearly did.

Just for clarity, are you actually telling us all that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details and that we should ignore it all because what Barrett said in 1999 just made so much more sense?

He was a private detective with a business reputation to maintain, but you're okay with "He just cobbled together whichever bits he could remember from Mike's endless drivel over the previous few months and he presented that to be signed under oath as a true account of what happened in Mike's terribly terrible life in 1994".

I have to tell you, Lord Orsam will be turning 'round in his retirement at the mere thought of it.

Seriously, it's sacrilege to the old boy - he's probably having palpitations and ringing 999 as I type!

You've just told us that Mike Barrett did not claim that the text was written into the scrapbook by Anne in the eleven days before April 13, 1992. It seems it was all a figment of Alan Gray's imagination!

This is sensational stuff!

You missed my birthday by a few days but you've more than made up for it with this gem ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you weren't such a Johnny-Come-Lately, you'd already know that it has been argued. Find it yourself!

You might have missed the fact that I'm disputing it's ever been said.

We know that you're memory isn't, ahem, the most reliable, so without actual evidence we're going to have to assume that you were mistaken.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;n847807]

My favourite post of yours for some time. I've even given it a thumbs-up.

Shame, then, that you messed up the quote function and made it appear that it was you who posted in error,

[Herlock Sholmes]

Forget the Eleven-Day Evangelism?

If you insist!

If it helps, Barrett also mentioned an eleven day period for writing the diary during the 1999 meeting. So you don't need the affidavit for that

[Iconoclast]

Correction: I meant to say: "He then tried to claim that Gray had said on tape that Harris wanted to see Barrett's affidavit but when I asked him for the quote he couldn't do it."

The point is the same.

The point is, you were wrong, mate. Seems to be catching at the minute ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just for clarity, are you actually telling us all that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details and that we should ignore it all because what Barrett said in 1999 just made so much more sense?

He was a private detective with a business reputation to maintain, but you're okay with "He just cobbled together whichever bits he could remember from Mike's endless drivel over the previous few months and he presented that to be signed under oath as a true account of what happened in Mike's terribly terrible life in 1994".

I have to tell you, Lord Orsam will be turning 'round in his retirement at the mere thought of it.

Seriously, it's sacrilege to the old boy - he's probably having palpitations and ringing 999 as I type!

You've just told us that Mike Barrett did not claim that the text was written into the scrapbook by Anne in the eleven days before April 13, 1992. It seems it was all a figment of Alan Gray's imagination!

This is sensational stuff!

You missed my birthday by a few days but you've more than made up for it with this gem ...

For clarity, yes, I am telling you that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details. I'm not saying you should ignore it all, only that it needs to be read in the context of what Barrett said in 1999. Going on about the affidavit without taking the 1999 meeting into account is a huge mistake, whether Barrett was the forger or not.

We know for a fact that Gray did get muddled over dates because the date of Devereux's death is wrong for one thing. That messes up the rest of the chronology. Wasn't there a discussion between Gray and Barrett shortly after the affidavit when Barrett suddenly works out, or thinks he's worked out, that he first came to London with the diary in April 1991? Gray thinks that is correct. So you can tell that the entire sequence of events had become hopelessly muddled up. Gray was learning something new after the affidavit had been signed! It shouldn't even be controversial. I've listened to a number of the tapes now. The conversations between the two men, to the extent we can hear what they're saying, are garbled and confused. The fact that Gray was a private detective "with a business reputation to maintain" means absolutely nothing. He wasn't a lawyer. He shouldn't have been drafting an affidavit for Barrett. He obviously didn't know what he was doing.

And, of course, I didn't say that anything in the affidavit was "a figment of Gray's imagination". I said he got muddled up with what he was being told due to a wrong chronology of events allied with Barrett's poor memory and inability to communicate

[Scott Nelson]

Wow, you're really into this diary thing now, aren't you Michael? It's almost as if someone in the background could be pulling your strings.

[Iconoclast]

For clarity, yes, I am telling you that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details.

And you know this how? It's Mike Barrett's affidavit, it's in his name, and the evidence of November 5 1994 is that Gray was a willing typist for him, but that doesn't mean he wrote the affidavit (although he almost certainly guided its contents), he typed it almost certainly but almost certainly with Mike's agreement. Any errors - dates or details - were Barrett's to own not Gray's.

I'm not saying you should ignore it all, only that it needs to be read in the context of what Barrett said in 1999.

And if I find you those occasions where Barrett - if he did - contradicted what he said in 1999 (apart from his affidavit of January 5, 1995, of course!) and if Barrett spoke the words, which would you align yourself to?

Going on about the affidavit without taking the 1999 meeting into account is a huge mistake, whether Barrett was the forger or not.

Do you think Barrett only spoke in April 1999? What is so precious about the C&D Club meeting that Barrett's other spoken claims don't have the benefit of?

We know for a fact that Gray did get muddled over dates because the date of Devereux's death is wrong for one thing.

We know no such thing! For that to be true, you would have to prove conclusively that Gray wrote the affidavit rather than simply typed it and/or guided it. There is no way I am accepting your suggestion that Gray simply punted some dates into the affidavit and got them so badly wrong. You are not meeting your own standards now, never mind mine.

That messes up the rest of the chronology.

Yes, it totally buggered up the chronology but that was Barrett's crappy memory not Gray's attempts at being psychic.

Wasn't there a discussion between Gray and Barrett shortly after the affidavit when Barrett suddenly works out, or thinks he's worked out, that he first came to London with the diary in April 1991? Gray thinks that is correct.

I do not know of which you speak. I would need to research this one. As Caz has pointed-out many many times, Barrett never got the April 13, 1992 wrong, but I for one am willing to be corrected on her behalf.

So you can tell that the entire sequence of events had become hopelessly muddled up.

Steady on, Tiger. Let's check your story first.

Gray was learning something new after the affidavit had been signed!

A small hint re your source would make the world of difference to me and my dear readers here ...

He shouldn't have been drafting an affidavit for Barrett. He obviously didn't know what he was doing.

For once, I couldn't agree more.

And, of course, I didn't say that anything in the affidavit was "a figment of Gray's imagination". I said he got muddled up with what he was being told due to a wrong chronology of events allied with Barrett's poor memory and inability to communicate

Was Barrett feeding this guy information or not? At the very start of this fantasy, you said:

For clarity, yes, I am telling you that Alan Gray wrote Mike Barrett's affidavit of January 5, 1995 and got muddled up over dates and details.

Who is getting muddled up - Gray or Barrett or both?

It's not two minutes ago that you were crowing at how much of the affidavit has been confirmed (RJ's word, as I recall). "Care to revise your bullshit story?" [thank you Sam Gerard [Mrs Iconoclast thinks it was the woman detective but I could be wrong!!!!]].

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wow, you're really into this diary thing now, aren't you Michael? It's almost as if someone in the background could be pulling your strings.

Scott, before you say insulting things as if I'm not capable of posting without having my strings pulled by some unidentified person, consider that I've had about 100 posts addressed to me by Ike and Caz (and, indirectly, Lombro) on all sorts of matters since I started posting about the dairy even though all I wanted to do when I started posting was inform Ike that if he can see "FM" on the wall in the photograph then surely so could the forger. You hardly need to be a diary expert to express that point. One thing then led to another and post after post is now being addressed to me as if I am some sort of leading Barrett theorist. Other threads are quiet so over the last few days I’ve done a bit of reading up (yes, I’m quite capable of that) and I’ll add that I’m pretty certain that I own all books written on the subject of the diary and I’ve also been reading through some of David Orsam’s articles. I’m still a million miles from being an expert and make no claim to expertise but I’m capable of thought. My only position is that I can't see why the Barretts couldn't have forged the diary. That's bizarrely led me on to having to discuss the affidavit, the 1999 meeting, the tape recordings, Melvin Harris, the 1891 diary etc. etc. Not subjects I wanted to talk about at all. I’ve ended up being sucked into this. No one is pulling my strings, thank you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you know this how? It's Mike Barrett's affidavit, it's in his name, and the evidence of November 5 1994 is that Gray was a willing typist for him, but that doesn't mean he wrote the affidavit (although he almost certainly guided its contents), he typed it almost certainly but almost certainly with Mike's agreement. Any errors - dates or details - were Barrett's to own not Gray's.



And if I find you those occasions where Barrett - if he did - contradicted what he said in 1999 (apart from his affidavit of January 5, 1995, of course!) and if Barrett spoke the words, which would you align yourself to?



Do you think Barrett only spoke in April 1999? What is so precious about the C&D Club meeting that Barrett's other spoken claims don't have the benefit of?



We know no such thing! For that to be true, you would have to prove conclusively that Gray wrote the affidavit rather than simply typed it and/or guided it. There is no way I am accepting your suggestion that Gray simply punted some dates into the affidavit and got them so badly wrong. You are not meeting your own standards now, never mind mine.



Yes, it totally buggered up the chronology but that was Barrett's crappy memory not Gray's attempts at being psychic.



I do not know of which you speak. I would need to research this one. As Caz has pointed-out many many times, Barrett never got the April 13, 1992 wrong, but I for one am willing to be corrected on her behalf.



Steady on, Tiger. Let's check your story first.



A small hint re your source would make the world of difference to me and my dear readers here ...



For once, I couldn't agree more.



Was Barrett feeding this guy information or not? At the very start of this fantasy, you said:



Who is getting muddled up - Gray or Barrett or both?

It's not two minutes ago that you were crowing at how much of the affidavit has been confirmed (RJ's word, as I recall). "Care to revise your bullshit story?" [thank you Sam Gerard [Mrs Iconoclast thinks it was the woman detective but I could be wrong!!!!]].

Ike, one minute you're telling me that Barrett's affidavit was created like the November 5th statement which involved Gray simultaneously writing and typing it out while Barrett stood and watched. Now you're saying it was done differently. Make your mind up!

And you just posted a letter from Gray in which he wanted to make clear that the affidavit had been read out loud to Barrett. Why would he have needed to say and do that if Barrett had written it himself?

Let's be real. Barrett was too drunk during this period to speak properly, let alone write an affidavit. It's obvious that Gray drafted it based on his conversations with Barrett and then typed it out. Any other suggestion is away with the fairies.

Don't ask me hypotheticals about what I would "align myself to". If you're finding contradictions between the affidavit and 1999 account identify them. The only question is surely…can we see a coherent story amongst Barrett's accounts that makes sense. Because, once again, I'm not trying to prove that Barrett was the forger. Only that it can't be ruled out and that there may be a credible story of how he did it in there somewhere.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Gray "simply punted some dates into the affidavit". He was obviously told by Barrett that Devereux died in 1990 and put that in the affidavit. So we do know for a fact that Gray got muddled over dates.

Yes, of course it was Barrett's crappy memory that buggered up Gray's understanding of what happened. What else did you think I was suggesting? But I'm glad you've finally accepted it was a "crappy memory" on Barrett's part, not necessarily lies.

I don't think it's correct that Barrett "never got the April 13 1992 [date] wrong". Surely he thought he came to London in April 1991 and confused Gray in the process. But this was after the affidavit. Beforehand he must have thought he came down in April 1990.

Please do go ahead and check this Ike.

To be clear, I'm suggesting what is perfectly obvious. Alan Gray wrote Barrett's affidavit based on what Barret told him during their conversations. So Barrett being muddled up meant Gray got muddled up. It can’t be unrealistic for a guy who was almost permanently p***ed.

And, finally, no-one, not one person, was crowing over "how much of the affidavit has been confirmed". It's interesting how you twist these things in your mind because you think Roger and myself are saying things we're not saying. I remember very well that all Roger said was that elements of Mike's affidavit have been confirmed. It should a have been left there but you decided to ask what elements, as if none had been confirmed. Then you posted the entire affidavit in colour coded form which showed that elements of Mike's affidavit have indeed been confirmed. If you thought anyone was "crowing" you must have mistaken crowing for laughter at such an own goal.

[Iconoclast]

That's bizarrely led me on to having to discuss the affidavit, the 1999 meeting, the tape recordings, Melvin Harris, the 1891 diary etc. etc. Not subjects I wanted to talk about at all. I’ve ended up being sucked into this. No one is pulling my strings, thank you.

Stick at it for nigh on twenty years in the face of almost universal opprobrium, hostility, and insults and I might buy you a pint.

[Iconoclast]

Other threads are quiet so over the last few days ...

People finally bored of discussing the colour of Mrs Puddleduck's socks, are they?