New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Iconoclast]

My approach is not to focus on anything Barrett said and look at the independent evidence.

As we say in Newcastle, hadaway and shite, man. I very nearly spilt me pint and dropped both me tabs reading that utter mince. Even me whippet passed wind. Your obsession with the April 1999 meeting is rather patently at odds with the above claim. I can't believe you typed that in any way seriously (which actually confirms my growing suspicion that your sudden Maybrick obsession is less than sincerely felt).

I'm not saying that he was definitely the forger but I'm just not seeing any reason why he and his wife couldn't have been. I keep asking for a reason but I'm not given one.

Now I know you're on the wind-up. Asked and answered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we say in Newcastle, hadaway and shite, man. I very nearly spilt me pint and dropped both me tabs reading that utter mince. Even me whippet passed wind. Your obsession with the April 1999 meeting is rather patently at odds with the above claim. I can't believe you typed that in any way seriously (which actually confirms my growing suspicion that your sudden Maybrick obsession is less than sincerely felt).



Now I know you're on the wind-up. Asked and answered.

If you spent a bit more time concentrating and a little less time drinking, Ike, you would surely have spotted that the only reason I mentioned the April 1999 meeting was because you were obsessing over the chronology of events set out in Barrett's affidavit. What I was saying to you was that if you truly want to understand Barrett's account you need to look at what he said in his own words at the April 1999 meeting rather than what Alan Gray thought his account was.

Where I have I ever made a positive point in favour of Barrett's authorship from something he said at the April 1999 meeting? I would literally never have mentioned it had it not been for you being determined to tell us that Barrett's account of the forgery is incoherent. As I've said, and you've not challenged, Barrett told a coherent story in 1999 which is consistent with the timing of the purchase of the red diary and the acquisition of a photograph album.

I've no idea why you think I might be winding you up when I make clear that I'm not saying Barrett was definitely the forger. It's something I've been saying day after day for the past three or four months. And I have been asking on an almost daily basis for a reason why they couldn't have been. The only thing you've come up with is Rod McNeil, about which you embarrassed yourself once again, claiming falsely that his test has been used by the US Secret Service and FBI, and ignoring that if the result of his test on the diary was correct it couldn't possibly have been written by James Maybrick.

[Scott Nelson]

I've no idea why you think I might be winding you up when I make clear that I'm not saying Barrett was definitely the forger. It's something I've been saying day after day for the past three or four months. And I have been asking on an almost daily basis for a reason why they couldn't have been.

The handwriting. If you think the handwriting is Anne's (and not Mike's).

[caz]

There is some bloke whose initials appear to be A.I. whose views are first up on a simple Google search and he says:

Floorboard protectors are products designed to shield flooring from damage during construction, renovation, or simply from everyday wear and tear. These protectors can be temporary sheets, films, or even permanent solutions like felt pads to prevent scratches, dents, and other issues.
Types of Floorboard Protectors:

• Correx Sheets:
  These are durable, fluted polypropylene sheets often used for temporary floor protection during construction or renovation, as they can be easily laid down and removed without leaving residue, says Sitepro Direct.
• Adhesive Films:
  These are thin, self-adhesive films that can be applied directly to the floor, offering a protective barrier against spills, scratches, and dust.
• Floor Cards:
  These are strong, heavy-duty cardboard sheets that can be rolled out and cut to size for floor protection, especially in high-traffic areas, according to Protecta Screen.
• Felt Pads:
  These are soft pads often used under furniture legs to prevent scratches on hard floors and provide a more comfortable and quieter experience.
• Rubber Matting:
  This is a more durable and robust option for protecting floors, particularly in areas with heavy foot traffic or where there's a risk of spills or accidents, says Protecta Screen.
• Dust Sheets:
  These are general-purpose coverings that can be used on floors, furniture, and other surfaces to prevent dust and dirt from settling during cleaning or renovation.

Now, this is April 14, 2025 and the above appears to be related to domestic use so I can't say with any certainty whether this is an appropriate answer to the question of whether commercial use in 1992 would have required some other purpose than protecting from table legs and what have you. It isn't instinctively obvious because domestic use would presumably be long-term and require some some of aesthetic effect (unless being installed in Biffa Bacon's house, of course, where the money would have been redirected into beer and tabs) whereas short-term commercial use could surely be served by old, re-usable blankets or even four pairs of your old underpants, RJ.

So I don't think we are any the wiser unless we have any Floorboard-Raising Technicians amongst us who were ideally floorboard-raising back in 1992?

Evening Ike,

Well it would have been Colin Rhodes who decided that the rewiring job on 9th and 10th March 1992, in preparation for the storage heaters to be installed [which was done three months later on 9th June 1992] required the floorboard protectors, which were included among the materials he charged to Paul Dodd according to that week's work sheet.

As Colin and Keith Skinner were consulting the work sheet together, when Keith recalled that 9th March 1992 was also the date of the first known reference on record to Mike's diary, I would have expected Colin to recall what the floorboard protectors were needed for and what they weren't, and that he would not have told Keith that any actual floorboards needed lifting in order to carry out the work, if that was not the case, or if he was aware that Paul Dodd may have done the lifting himself before going off to his day job, which would have put Colin's former employees in the clear if it had applied on this occasion. Perhaps Paul Dodd had asked Colin for floorboard protectors for some other reason, not directly connected with lifting actual floorboards, and Colin had forgotten or neglected to explain this to Keith.

Once again, we have a businessman who could have been expected to understand and interpret his own work sheets, and to have told Keith if the reference to 'floorboard protectors' was misleading and didn't automatically imply the lifting of any floorboards - except that in this case he said they were lifted. He also conceded the possibility of an employee finding hidden items that way, citing the example of a woman whose late husband had hidden cash under their floorboards, which was found by electricians - and returned to her on that occasion. IIRC Colin suggested it might have been different if their "boss" had not been present. Why mention such an incident at all to a diary researcher, if Colin had any doubts that floorboards had been lifted on 9th March 1992 by his own crew members?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Once again, we have a businessman who could have been expected to understand and interpret his own work sheets …

Yes, as I recall, Colin knew exactly what Keith was asking about and what he was asking it for and you just would have thought he would have thought to mention it if he suspected or realised that Keith was going down the wrong path. It feels a little bit like those expert metallurgists who forgot to mention that aged particles could be embedded in scratches using an old implement and that scratches could be aged by simply buffing them up a bit with a dirty old hanky. And that docment bloke (or whatever he was) who said that the scrapbook ink was ‘freely soluble’ and failed to say, “which means, of course, that it only went on the paper in the last few months”.

But who are we, Caz, to question the wisdom of Barrett-believers who know everything, all of the time, and are never wrong?

[caz]

The handwriting. If you think the handwriting is Anne's (and not Mike's).

Good point, Scotty.

Mike knew he couldn't claim it was his handwriting and hope that anyone with more than two brain cells would swallow it. If he was going to make his forgery claim credible he had to appoint a patsy - or an Anne - who in theory might have had the necessary skill, patience and doormat qualities to have disguised her handwriting over 63 pages, for a husband who was likely to reward her by pissing any proceeds up the wall and behaving like a complete arse.

What Herlock and other commentators lack is any evidence that this theory about Anne's character and capabilities could be true. It's all very well to ask why it couldn't, but that misses the point and avoids addressing the rather crucial question of why they believe it could, when they don't know the woman from a bar of soap. I didn't know her well enough to be sure of her true character and capabilities, but I do know Mike "Matilda" Barrett was capable of telling such dreadful lies, that his grudge against Anne was unlikely to have changed him for the better, and persuaded him to start telling the God's honest truth about her.

Mike could have picked on Tony Devereux instead - no libel implications as he was dead - but did he have the faintest idea how the diary handwriting might compare to that of his old "friend"? Melvin Harris had Citizen Kane in his sights, and if only Mike had known of this old boy's existence, and his association with Devereux as a witness to his Will, he would surely have enjoyed more success by naming him as the penman in his affidavit.

But by accusing his estranged wife, which seems to have taken off in October 1994, Mike was trying to kill two birds with one stone. He could get revenge for the humiliation he had felt when she left him, and had felt all over again when she cut off his balls by telling Feldman the diary was all about the Graham side of the family and she had kept Mike in the dark all along; and he could make impressionable people believe that the diary was in her handwriting - or at least 50-50 - and that it wasn't remotely illogical that she would have made herself the centre of attention from July 1994 if that had actually been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Tell me something, Ike. If the floorboards had been lifted on Friday 6th March 1992 (but not on Monday 9th March 1992) would this, in your view, be a stronger "circumstantial detail" pointing towards authenticity, a weaker one, or exactly the same?

Of course, if the floorboards had been lifted just a day later, on Tuesday 10th March 1992, we would all be back to pure speculation about when and how Mike may have obtained the scrapbook, with no credible evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would allow for a conclusion that was not based entirely on a liar's claims.

I wonder if Mike would still have tried to throw Anne under the handwriting bus if she had stayed silent and not got herself involved by giving Feldman a new provenance to sink his teeth into in July 1994. Would people have been so willing to believe she had penned the diary in that case? Up to that point Mike had not implicated her in his forgery claims, despite his documented anger with her for leaving him in the January. So we will never know how much of his affidavit the following January may have been a reaction to what she had told Feldman, as published by Shirley in her 1994 paperback. If Mike was punishing Anne for her treachery, might he have gone down a different path if only she had not spoken to Feldman and had not refused to speak to Mike?

So much of this sad story is bound up with the Barretts' personal relationship problems that they can't simply be dismissed as irrelevant to the potential difference between what Mike could have known about the diary prior to 9th March 1992, and what he later claimed to know when his life had turned upside down.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

The handwriting. If you think the handwriting is Anne's (and not Mike's).

There were two elements to the forgery Scott. One was the creative drafting of the the text, the other was the mechanical writing of the manuscript. My question about why Barrett couldn't have been the forger was obviously addressed to the creative drafting element of the forgery. As you must know, I've been asking for ages why the Barretts couldn't jointly have created the diary. I'm still waiting for an answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Evening Ike,

Well it would have been Colin Rhodes who decided that the rewiring job on 9th and 10th March 1992, in preparation for the storage heaters to be installed [which was done three months later on 9th June 1992] required the floorboard protectors, which were included among the materials he charged to Paul Dodd according to that week's work sheet.

As Colin and Keith Skinner were consulting the work sheet together, when Keith recalled that 9th March 1992 was also the date of the first known reference on record to Mike's diary, I would have expected Colin to recall what the floorboard protectors were needed for and what they weren't, and that he would not have told Keith that any actual floorboards needed lifting in order to carry out the work, if that was not the case, or if he was aware that Paul Dodd may have done the lifting himself before going off to his day job, which would have put Colin's former employees in the clear if it had applied on this occasion. Perhaps Paul Dodd had asked Colin for floorboard protectors for some other reason, not directly connected with lifting actual floorboards, and Colin had forgotten or neglected to explain this to Keith.

Once again, we have a businessman who could have been expected to understand and interpret his own work sheets, and to have told Keith if the reference to 'floorboard protectors' was misleading and didn't automatically imply the lifting of any floorboards - except that in this case he said they were lifted. He also conceded the possibility of an employee finding hidden items that way, citing the example of a woman whose late husband had hidden cash under their floorboards, which was found by electricians - and returned to her on that occasion. IIRC Colin suggested it might have been different if their "boss" had not been present. Why mention such an incident at all to a diary researcher, if Colin had any doubts that floorboards had been lifted on 9th March 1992 by his own crew members?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Why do we have to rely on your recollection (ie. "IIRC") on such an important issue? Did Keith Skinner not make a note of his discussion with Colin Rhodes? Can we not see it? If not, why not?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, as I recall, Colin knew exactly what Keith was asking about and what he was asking it for and you just would have thought he would have thought to mention it if he suspected or realised that Keith was going down the wrong path. It feels a little bit like those expert metallurgists who forgot to mention that aged particles could be embedded in scratches using an old implement and that scratches could be aged by simply buffing them up a bit with a dirty old hanky. And that docment bloke (or whatever he was) who said that the scrapbook ink was ‘freely soluble’ and failed to say, “which means, of course, that it only went on the paper in the last few months”.

But who are we, Caz, to question the wisdom of Barrett-believers who know everything, all of the time, and are never wrong?

When you say "as I recall", what exactly are you recalling? Were you present at the discussion between Colin Rhodes and Keith Skinner?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good point, Scotty.

Mike knew he couldn't claim it was his handwriting and hope that anyone with more than two brain cells would swallow it. If he was going to make his forgery claim credible he had to appoint a patsy - or an Anne - who in theory might have had the necessary skill, patience and doormat qualities to have disguised her handwriting over 63 pages, for a husband who was likely to reward her by pissing any proceeds up the wall and behaving like a complete arse.

What Herlock and other commentators lack is any evidence that this theory about Anne's character and capabilities could be true. It's all very well to ask why it couldn't, but that misses the point and avoids addressing the rather crucial question of why they believe it could, when they don't know the woman from a bar of soap. I didn't know her well enough to be sure of her true character and capabilities, but I do know Mike "Matilda" Barrett was capable of telling such dreadful lies, that his grudge against Anne was unlikely to have changed him for the better, and persuaded him to start telling the God's honest truth about her.

Mike could have picked on Tony Devereux instead - no libel implications as he was dead - but did he have the faintest idea how the diary handwriting might compare to that of his old "friend"? Melvin Harris had Citizen Kane in his sights, and if only Mike had known of this old boy's existence, and his association with Devereux as a witness to his Will, he would surely have enjoyed more success by naming him as the penman in his affidavit.

But by accusing his estranged wife, which seems to have taken off in October 1994, Mike was trying to kill two birds with one stone. He could get revenge for the humiliation he had felt when she left him, and had felt all over again when she cut off his balls by telling Feldman the diary was all about the Graham side of the family and she had kept Mike in the dark all along; and he could make impressionable people believe that the diary was in her handwriting - or at least 50-50 - and that it wasn't remotely illogical that she would have made herself the centre of attention from July 1994 if that had actually been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

It wasn't a good point by Scott at all, Caz, for the reason I've explained.

And don't you think it's quite remarkable that the handwriting of the person Mike randomly (in your view) attributed the writing of the manuscript to does share certain unmistakable characteristics in terms of letter formation with the writer of the manuscript?

But what do you think of Scott’s theory that Mike sought a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 because he wanted to write his own forged diary of Jack the Ripper by James Maybrick? Does he get a gold star for that one?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, if the floorboards had been lifted just a day later, on Tuesday 10th March 1992, we would all be back to pure speculation about when and how Mike may have obtained the scrapbook, with no credible evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would allow for a conclusion that was not based entirely on a liar's claims.

I wonder if Mike would still have tried to throw Anne under the handwriting bus if she had stayed silent and not got herself involved by giving Feldman a new provenance to sink his teeth into in July 1994. Would people have been so willing to believe she had penned the diary in that case? Up to that point Mike had not implicated her in his forgery claims, despite his documented anger with her for leaving him in the January. So we will never know how much of his affidavit the following January may have been a reaction to what she had told Feldman, as published by Shirley in her 1994 paperback. If Mike was punishing Anne for her treachery, might he have gone down a different path if only she had not spoken to Feldman and had not refused to speak to Mike?

So much of this sad story is bound up with the Barretts' personal relationship problems that they can't simply be dismissed as irrelevant to the potential difference between what Mike could have known about the diary prior to 9th March 1992, and what he later claimed to know when his life had turned upside down.

Love,

Caz
X

How do we know that the floorboards weren't lifted on Tuesday 10th March 1992?

[caz]

Because the rewire started first thing on Monday morning - floorboards up - and was finished by lunchtime on the Tuesday - floorboards back down.

Eddie Lyons went mysteriously absent after this and even his boss Colin Rhodes couldn't explain why when the ongoing contract over at Skem resumed on the Friday. He'd been taken on with Jim Bowling specially for that contract, which started back in December 1991, and the two of them had worked full-time six days a week, with other crew members doing a few hours here and there, right up until Saturday 7th March 1992, when the contract was put on hold and Paul Dodd's rewire was slotted in for the Monday and Tuesday. Jim Bowling went back to Skem on the Friday - without his mate Eddie.

Meanwhile, Mike Barrett told Doreen that he was going to York on the Thursday or Friday, and it was a case of "don't call me, I'll call you", saying he would contact her again on his return. The evidence on record suggests he didn't leave a phone number for Doreen to call him back.

Some would call this evidence that Mike would be tied up trying to find a book to copy the diary into.

Others would call it evidence that he knew eff all about the diary when he first called Doreen, and didn't want to be pestered with awkward questions while he was trying to work out what the hell he had - or trying to charm Eddie into letting him act as his go-between.

It's quite instructive that when Mike was talking to Alan Gray on 26th January 1995, he claimed he had put the scratches in the watch [ridiculous, I know you will agree] and a "friend" took it over to Wallasey to "plant" with Stewarts the Jewellers [a soupçon of fact, perhaps, mixed in with the fantasy?].

Alan naturally wanted to know this friend's name, but Mike was adamant that he would never "grass" on him. Tony Devereux was dead, and Mike's living "friends" could seemingly have been counted on the fingers of one badly mangled hand.

It makes me wonder if Mike learned at some point that his "friend" had known all about the watch that was bought by Albert Johnson around the same time as Mike had secured a publishing contract for the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because the rewire started first thing on Monday morning - floorboards up - and was finished by lunchtime on the Tuesday - floorboards back down.

Eddie Lyons went mysteriously absent after this and even his boss Colin Rhodes couldn't explain why when the ongoing contract over at Skem resumed on the Friday. He'd been taken on with Jim Bowling specially for that contract, which started back in December 1991, and the two of them had worked full-time six days a week, with other crew members doing a few hours here and there, right up until Saturday 7th March 1992, when the contract was put on hold and Paul Dodd's rewire was slotted in for the Monday and Tuesday. Jim Bowling went back to Skem on the Friday - without his mate Eddie.

Meanwhile, Mike Barrett told Doreen that he was going to York on the Thursday or Friday, and it was a case of "don't call me, I'll call you", saying he would contact her again on his return. The evidence on record suggests he didn't leave a phone number for Doreen to call him back.

Some would call this evidence that Mike would be tied up trying to find a book to copy the diary into.

Others would call it evidence that he knew eff all about the diary when he first called Doreen, and didn't want to be pestered with awkward questions while he was trying to work out what the hell he had - or trying to charm Eddie into letting him act as his go-between.

It's quite instructive that when Mike was talking to Alan Gray on 26th January 1995, he claimed he had put the scratches in the watch [ridiculous, I know you will agree] and a "friend" took it over to Wallasey to "plant" with Stewarts the Jewellers [a soupçon of fact, perhaps, mixed in with the fantasy?].

Alan naturally wanted to know this friend's name, but Mike was adamant that he would never "grass" on him. Tony Devereux was dead, and Mike's living "friends" could seemingly have been counted on the fingers of one badly mangled hand.

It makes me wonder if Mike learned at some point that his "friend" had known all about the watch that was bought by Albert Johnson around the same time as Mike had secured a publishing contract for the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

How do you know that the rewire started first thing on Monday morning with floorboards up and was finished by lunchtime on the Tuesday with floorboards back down? Is that speculation or a fact? If it's a fact, where does it come from Caz?

When you say "Eddie Lyons went mysteriously absent after this", do we have a record of where he was on 9th March 1992? Because, unless we do, it seems to me that one could equally say that he went mysteriously missing after Saturday 7th March 1992.

It's somewhat strange that you say that some would see Mike telling Doreen that he was going to York as him being "tied up trying to find a book to copy the diary into." As he was leaving the search for a diary to Martin Earl, I would have thought it was more like a delaying tactic rather than him being "tied up" with anything. But, yes, it could also be true that he didn't want to be peppered with awkward questions about a diary which didn't yet exist. He must have known what he "had", though, because he told Doreen he had the diary of Jack the Ripper, didn't he?

[caz]

You are demonstrating how nonsensical your statistical case is Ike because if the diary had been found three days earlier by Eddie Lyons that would have given him much more time to digest what he'd discovered and to seek out Mike Barrett in order to give or sell him the diary. The timescale for him to have been working at Battlecrease during the day but still finding time to travel immediately across Liverpool to meet Barrett in the Saddle pub before Barrett left to pick up his daughter at about 3.30, and hand over the diary, has never been properly established but would seem to be difficult if not downright impossible if (as seems to be part of "the Battlecrease theory") he first had to pay a visit to Liverpool University with Alan Rigby who, as we know from the timesheet, recorded a full eight hours work that day

Who is Alan Rigby? By coincidence, IIRC, David Barrat made the identical mistake over the name of the poor chap.

I don't know how many times this has been posted, Herlock, but the evidence tells us that the first occasion, since being taken on by Colin Rhodes in late 1991, that Eddie could have been free to pop into his local, the Saddle, on a Monday afternoon, was on - er - bear with me, I have the date on the tip of my tongue - ah yes, 9th March 1992. He was only helping out in Paul Dodd's house that morning on a casual basis with his mate Jim Bowling, so Dodd wasn't being charged by the hour for their labour - just the hours worked by the main man, Arthur, and an apprentice, JC, who did two hours. Mike Barrett would have been in the Saddle as usual, but this was not a usual day for Eddie, who was living very close to the pub and might have fancied a pint after knocking off for the day, in which case it would have been a chance meeting, with no need for the two men to have met before. Mike was everyone's friend and nobody's, and Eddie would have been a new face with a fresh pair of ears to bend. If this stranger had Jack the Ripper's diary with him, Mike's curiosity would have known no bounds. Collecting Caroline from the school just across the road at 3.15, they'd have been home before 3.45 - with or without the diary - with time for Mike to make a couple of phone calls. Tomorrow was another day.

There can be no rigid Battlecrease 'theory' until the pieces of the jigsaw all fit together perfectly to form a complete picture - as few gaps as humanly possible, and no pieces forced in where they don't belong. If and when that happens it won't be a theory any more. Any theory needs to be reasonably flexible and regularly tested, because by definition it is not yet a fully fledged truth and there will be more to learn. If a theory becomes fixed in the mind, where no new evidence in the world can penetrate and force a rethink, it will stagnate and forever be just an article of faith. That's clearly not the case with RJ Palmer's GBH - his Great Barrett Hoax conspiracy theory. His approach is flexible enough to allow for different 'creation' scenarios, playing with the individual roles that he thinks Anne and Mike may have played in the days, months and even years before the diary was seen in London on 13th April 1992. He may be fixed on Anne, and what he believes she could tell us, but then I'm still drawn to Eddie, and what was behind his strange behaviour if he knew nothing at all.

Love,

Caz
X