New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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).

[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.

[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]

Mike didn't move to Goldie Street until 1988, so he wouldn't have had occasion to meet Tony in 1987, let alone get to know him well enough to discuss a forgery scheme with him and get him to agree to total secrecy. This alone makes it a difficult 'concept' to accept with no supporting evidence. When Mike "ordered" [Martin Earl's word, not mine] the 1891 diary, it had been located very shortly after the advert had appeared. It was the only item on offer by that point, so Mike could have waited to see if anything might turn up that could actually have been used, if the purpose was to create Maybrick's diary, but he didn't. It's like ordering a kettle when you need a toaster, because the kettle is in stock and there is no indication of when the toaster you need will become available. Fine if Doreen is happy with tea, but not when she has been promised toast and jam.

The time pressure argument doesn't work, because Mike would have had to make excuses to put Doreen off in any case until he had found something suitable, and there were no guarantees that he would strike it lucky on 31st March 1992, or at any subsequent date, before Doreen concluded that he wasn't going to deliver. All that work, researching and creating the story, and selling the concept to Doreen, giving away the fact that he was claiming to have Jack the Ripper's diary - and all for what, if he had still failed to find what he needed by the same time next year?

I sometimes feel like I've walked into an episode of Michael Bentine's Potty Time, when I read some of the arguments in support of Mike Barrett's potty claims.

Love,

Caz
X

You should read my posts more carefully, Caz. I didn't say that Mike knew Tony in 1987. I simply said that the very end of 1987 or early 1988 is when Mike said that the idea to write a diary of Jack the Ripper first occurred to him. In fact, he seems to link it to moving to Goldie Street and taking on the mortgage. I didn't realize I needed to explain it to you but what he actually seems to be have been saying is that the origins of the diary can be traced back to New Year's Eve of 1987 when Maggie Graham died causing him and Anne to move to Goldie Street which required a relatively large mortgage causing him to start having financial difficulties causing him to want to write his way out of his problems. It's not exactly clear when he actually started preparatory work on the diary but the point I was making was that Tony was alive between 1988 and 1991 so could have participated in the forgery at any time before his death. Thus, the story set out in the affidavit could be true.

I also forgot to ask you to provide some evidence that Tony wasn't severely ill before his death in 1991. You tell me a lot of things but rarely if ever provide any supporting evidence.

As for the red diary, I thought that Mike agreed to purchase it some weeks after the advertisement had been placed, on about 26th March. Surely he wanted to take the diary to London to show Doreen as soon as possible. He didn't have plenty of time to wait around and hope. I have to repeat that the red diary was the only diary that was offered to him. It was that or nothing at that stage. It seems to me that your objections are now getting silly. They don't seem to be based on what Mike would have been thinking at the time. As at 26th March, Mike, if he was the forger, could have had no idea that he would find a suitable photograph album in a few days time. Sure he could have put Doreen off but he would equally have wanted to get the diary to Doreen A.S.A.P. Why turn down the red diary if there was a possibility he might be able to use it? You're honestly not making much sense to me, Caz. It's all much more simple than you seem to want to make it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't work with Mike's statement that Tony Devereux was alive, but severely ill, after the red diary had been rejected and the diary created from the photo album over eleven days. Tony wasn't known to be severely ill in any case. His fatal heart attack was sudden and unexpected, happening while the Barretts were away on holiday. Why would they have been waiting for Tony to recover, as Mike claimed, with the diary completed and ready to go? What difference did Tony's state of health make to their plans for unleashing it on the world? Quite a lot, apparently, if he had to die so that the diary would have a provenance that couldn't easily be disproved. One can almost hear the cogs turning in Mike's brain as he was dictating the guff about Tony to Alan Gray.

The other little problem with the little red diary is that Martin Earl's standard practice was to give his customers a full description of any item located, to save the time and expense involved in taking and fulfilling an order which didn't meet their requirements. Martin told us in no uncertain terms that he would not have taken Mike's order without telling him the diary located was for the year 1891. This seems all the more obvious, considering the date was outside the parameters set by his customer. It has been argued, somewhat desperately, that Martin may not have had a more detailed description from the supplier, and Mike may have placed his order without asking for more details - such as whether the diary on offer was the size of a cigarette case, or had 1891 printed on every damned page. A quick call by Martin to the supplier would have secured all the details a budding hoaxer could have needed to know in advance, and all three had a tongue in their head, so only a serious lack of communication between the parties involved could have resulted in Major Misunderstanding ordering something so completely useless, if its purpose had been to provide a home for Maybrick's Memoirs and the bestseller its new owner was already counting on.

Even if people want to argue that Mike was really that dim, or that Martin Earl was yet another irrational businessman who failed to give a straight account of how he ran his own business, or that I'm 'imagining' things that come from the same record that Keith Skinner and others have access to, nobody seems to want to explore what Anne thought she was doing, if she was trusting Mike "Liability" Barrett with the task of discreetly sourcing any of the raw materials for a fake diary. Is it because they are reluctant to come out and say that the woman could not have been right in the head?

Love,

Caz
X

The problem is that you read Mike's affidavit as if it's the Holy Bible. The affidavit doesn't say that Tony fell ill after the red diary had been rejected. There is a sentence which says "During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.". So what period is being referred to? Sure, from the context one could read it that the period is after the photograph album had been obtained but it doesn't expressly say that. Everything is in a single word, "this". If what Mike had actually told Alan Gray was that "During the period when we were writing the diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound etc." it's by no means impossible that Gray decided in his own mind that this must be the period after the photograph album had been obtained but what Barrett actually meant was the period when the diary was being drafted while Tony was alive.

You also love to look at the affidavit to the exclusion of what Mike said out of his own mouth in 1999. But, if I refer to what Mike said in 1999, you'll tell me that this is impermissible because Mike was a compulsive liar. So I can't ever win.

The point about Earl's description of the red diary has been done over and over but still you don't seem to understand it. Earl would certainly have told Mike that most of the pages in the red diary were blank because this is what Mike had asked for. He would undoubtedly have told him that it was a diary from 1891. He would most likely have told him the size specifications. But the year and the size would likely have meant nothing to Mike in the abstract without physically seeing it. The key piece of information was that he was being offered a diary from roughly the correct historical period in which most of the pages were blank. That is what he was looking for. Anything else he might have been told is speculation. There's no reason to think that Earl must have mentioned the dates being printed on each page because (a) not having seen the diary himself he possibly wouldn't have known it and (b) he wouldn't have known this was important to Mike. Sure Mike could, in theory, have asked Earl to go back to the supplier with a million questions but, if he didn't do so, and wanted the diary as soon as possible, that hypothetical possibility is of no assistance. Yes, with hindsight, having seen the diary, we all now know that it wasn't suitable for forging a Jack the Ripper diary. But where does that get us? The short point is that the red diary was the only Victorian diary with blank pages available to Mike at that time. It was that or nothing, wasn't it? What did he have to lose by saying "yes, please do send me that diary" other than £25 which, we know, he didn't even pay out of his own money.

It really is all far more simple than you choose to make it.

At the end of your post you ask another question about Anne that's impossible to answer. We don't know what her exact role was, do we? If we take Mike's account, which I know I'm not allowed to do, Anne was little more than his assistant, mainly doing the writing at his dictation. It was his project, and, if that's so, why are her views about the red diary relevant? Honestly, I'm surprised you never seem to ask why she married Mike in the first place if she thought he was such a useless loser. It always seems to me you're trying to over-complicate, demanding answers to every little detail that can't be known. It's the big picture which is important and the big picture leaves us with the strong possibility that the Barretts were involved in forging the diary. At least, I don't know of any reason why they couldn't have been. Unless you can give me such a reason, isn't it time to put an end to this sterile argument?

[rjpalmer]

No, the correct spelling is Outhwaite, so Palmer managed to misquote Shirley in this regard

Thanks, C.A.B.

It doesn't particularly worry me that I occasionally misspell a proper name while casually typing on an internet forum, but if my brain ever deteriorates to the point that I can convince myself that the well-known modern phrase "bumbling buffoon" is a reference to Mr. Bumble from Oliver Twist, I do hope you will alert me so I can schedule a much-needed checkup.

Shirley could have been quietly confident that she and her contacts at O & L had done enough to cast considerable doubt on Mike's auction claims, while challenging others - with the merest hint of sarcasm - to see if they would have 'better luck' in getting from the auction house the evidential equivalent of blood from a stone.

Challenging?? Your imagination is really something to behold.

Go back and re-read the quote. The 'Paul and John' in Shirley's 2001 post were Paul Begg and John Omlor who, at the time, were diary agnostics who were challenging the truth of Melvin Harris's claims as well as the truth Barrett's affidavit.

Why on earth would she have been 'sarcastic' to them? And then tell them to 'keep up the good work' in the next sentence?

That she was 'challenging' them with the 'merest hint of sarcasm' is entirely a product of your imagination.

[caz]

What I've never been able to get through to "the opposing team" (whoever they may be) is that Michael Barrett repeatedly said that the idea to write a fake diary first occurred to him at the very end of 1987/early 1988 when Tony Devereux was very much alive. For that reason, Devereux could have assisted in the drafting of the diary at any time before his death in 1991. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept for the team to handle nor why they keep insisting that Mike "ordered" an 1891 diary when it was the only diary, outside of his desired period to boot, that was offered to him.

Mike didn't move to Goldie Street until 1988, so he wouldn't have had occasion to meet Tony in 1987, let alone get to know him well enough to discuss a forgery scheme with him and get him to agree to total secrecy. This alone makes it a difficult 'concept' to accept with no supporting evidence. When Mike "ordered" [Martin Earl's word, not mine] the 1891 diary, it had been located very shortly after the advert had appeared. It was the only item on offer by that point, so Mike could have waited to see if anything might turn up that could actually have been used, if the purpose was to create Maybrick's diary, but he didn't. It's like ordering a kettle when you need a toaster, because the kettle is in stock and there is no indication of when the toaster you need will become available. Fine if Doreen is happy with tea, but not when she has been promised toast and jam.

The time pressure argument doesn't work, because Mike would have had to make excuses to put Doreen off in any case until he had found something suitable, and there were no guarantees that he would strike it lucky on 31st March 1992, or at any subsequent date, before Doreen concluded that he wasn't going to deliver. All that work, researching and creating the story, and selling the concept to Doreen, giving away the fact that he was claiming to have Jack the Ripper's diary - and all for what, if he had still failed to find what he needed by the same time next year?

I sometimes feel like I've walked into an episode of Michael Bentine's Potty Time, when I read some of the arguments in support of Mike Barrett's potty claims.

Love,

Caz
X