New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[caz]

Thanks for the answer, Caz, but Orsam posted on his website in 2020 an extract from a letter written to Mike by Anne dated 1 February 1995 in which she tells him that the decree absolute "will be through in a few weeks time and we will be divorced".

Out of interest, Herlock, did you think to ask Orsam if the whole letter to Mike from Anne was in his possession, or did he only have the 'extract' he posted, and which you have transcribed above?

I presume Anne must not have written anything along the lines of:

'Oh, and about that affidavit you posted through my door last month, Michael. Please don't do anything stupid with it or we will both be prosecuted. Writing that diary for you was the biggest mistake I ever made.'

Nor indeed along the lines of:

'What the hell were you playing at, Michael, telling all those stupid lies? One lie after another, from Devereux to this. I protected you from yourself at the beginning, knowing you only seen the diary the day you called Doreen.'

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Herlock,

speaking of Robert Smith, I heard that he is acting as Russell Edwards' literary agent--Edwards who has been all over the press recently, pushing the Eddowes' shawl scam and now the bogus 'Tilly' letter.

Those who preach the philosophy of 'caveat emptor' should seek employment with Elon Musk and D.O.G.E. This is the unelected and probably illegal department that recently defunded the Consumer Protection Agency under the principle that the unwitting public does not deserve to be protected from scammers.

So, in the same spirit, let the Ripper scams continue. Long live the scammers!

And don't worry if they are discrediting a field you're interested in. It doesn't matter. Nihilism walks hand in hand with the same philosophy. Nothing matters, least of all the truth.

Cheers.

I'll leave Palmer to his own problems in these strange times.

I'm all for protecting the vulnerable from scammers everywhere. But there's a line to be drawn when people who should know better - and claim to know better - fork out their cash for books, never for one moment being beguiled by the promises on the cover [True Face/Final Chapter/Case Closed/you name it], and then try to complain that they've been swindled. Who's scamming who?

[caz]

Hi Roger,

So he now supports two ‘solutions’ to the case. I’ve heard of hedging your bets but this is pushing it. After the Saddleworth Moor escapade I’m surprised that anyone will give Edwards the time of day. Then again…money talks.

Do you actually know what a literary agent does, Herlock?

They try to find publishers for the clients on their books.

They don't need to 'support' what every client writes, as long as they think a publisher will take it on.

[caz]

Thank you Caroline. Just a couple of questions. Couldn't Eddie Lyons have heard about early work at the house after late November 1991? Couldn't Devereux have given the diary to Mike before August 1991?

Hi Scotty,

Not impossible, of course, but there is no evidence to suggest any earlier work at the house that could fit the bill, if that's what you are asking.

The evidence for Devereux having had the diary at any time rests on the unsupported word of Mike and then Anne.

I could not reject all the evidence we do have, that points strongly in another direction, in favour of anything speculative that has little or nothing to support it presently.

I will always consider alternatives, but I have to weigh up each one on the basis of what is and isn't supported or supportable.

Of course, when any new information emerges, that has to be taken into account and everything can then be reassessed accordingly. Every mind should be capable of changing whenever there is a good reason for it.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I'm guessing that Herlock knows what a literary agent is. And no, a literary agent doesn't have to agree with a writer's thesis or hypothesis.

On the other hand, an agent doesn't have to take onboard a writer who is peddling highly dubious information. He could say 'this is garbage, Russ, find someone else.'

I image that for many it just boils down to how many units they think they can move--along with the useful 'buyer beware' ethos.

[rjpalmer]

Thank you Caroline. Just a couple of questions. Couldn't Eddie Lyons have heard about early work at the house after late November 1991? Couldn't Devereux have given the diary to Mike before August 1991?

Hi Scott --

[Should I call you Scotty, by the way?]

The following exchange from the archives might interest you.

01-10-2018, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by James_J

As a matter of fact, I did interview Vincent Dring, twice - on the 7th & 14th December 2015 respectively. Vincent's account was much the same as it's recounted in Shirley's book - and he remembered finding two books beneath some wall panelling at Battlecrease in 1982. As inticing as this sounded - when I sent Vincent a series of high-resolution photographs of the Maybrick journal, he said that the books he remembered finding were not of a similar appearance, and 'were too thin'. The books were then discarded into the skip - supplied by a company named Lockwoods. Unfortunately, Lockwoods did not keep records of what was disposed off in the skips. Vincent had no association with Portus & Rhodes and was then employed by a firm named J&T Joinery. Colin Rhodes was able to confirm that Dring had no association with his firm. Further to that - I could find no tangible connection between Vincent, Mike Barrett, Tony Devereux or The Saddle.

David Orsam's response:

Finally, some confirmation that workers, other than Portus & Rhodes electricians, carried out work in Battlecrease in the 1980s.

But J&T Joinery doesn't sound like a firm of electricians to me. Yet in Inside Story we are told that Dring was "one of the electricians who had worked in Battlecrease House during the renovation work". Was he an electrician or not?

What other work is known to have been carried out in Battlecrease prior to 9 March 1992 before (and even after) the involvement of Portus and Rhodes?

Interesting to know that discoveries could be made in Battlecrease in places other than under the floorboards. As I said in my article, Robert Smith and the Maybrick Diary: The False Facts Exposed!, "there is no necessary reason why the Diary, if it came from Battlecrease, had to have been hidden under the floorboards. It could have been hidden away in any nook or crevice in the house".

Furthermore, it's interesting to know that discoveries other than the Diary were being made in Battlecrease. We've previously been told about the discovery of a newspaper, now we find two books being discovered in the house. So a possible discovery recalled by electricians in 1992 did not need to be the Diary by any means yet it seems to be assumed that if a book was found by an electrician it must have been the diary.

Regards

P.S. Only to add that Paul Dodd confirmed there was no skip during the heater installation in March 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reading this post again, I'm still struggling with the point of your questions, Herlock, and how I am meant to answer them.

I have absolutely no clue where Mike got the idea about adding sugar to the diary ink, or why the first time he made that claim on record was in 1999. But would his understanding not have been entirely relevant if he had actually done so?

Would you, as a wannabe forger with no knowledge or previous experience, add anything to your selected ink and then use it, without any understanding of why you are adding it or what it might do? Why sugar? Why not salt, or baking powder, or flour?

What did you mean by the claims against Anne in particular not being in my 'chronology of events'? I was just highlighting a few of the more outlandish claims Mike made on various different occasions, whether they flatly contradicted a previous claim, or were introduced out of left field, or evolved along the way, or repeated in one form or another.

If you don't find the sugar claim outlandish or even surprising, that's up to you. But I'm not sure the audience at the 'Smoke & Stagger' were ready for that one.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I suppose that if Mike had been told or had heard or read that putting sugar into ink would assist when forging an old document he might have speculated in his mind as to why this might be. There is some literature online which suggests that adding sugar to ink will change the appearance of that ink. So, really, it doesn't matter what he believed, only whether he did or did not put sugar in the ink, as he insisted he did in 1999, assuming he was one of the forgers, of course. The fact that his reasoning might have been wonky can hardly be used as evidence that he didn't do it, or that he wasn't the forger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anne dated their divorce to 7th December 1994 in a recorded interview in April 1995, so presumably she was referring to the decree nisi.

As for everything else, you seem to have made up your own mind, and are again answering your own questions with guesses or statements, so we'll just have to agree to disagree about the significance of what Mike said or neglected to say, and to whom, about his previous attempts to make it as a writer not a fighter.

Obviously I am not at liberty to post every detail about everything in Keith Skinner's possession as a result of his own research, and can only post what has already been posted at least once before - if not done to death - which would all have been with Keith's blessing. But that leaves you free to believe whatever you like about what else Mike told Scotland Yard on record. I was just making you aware, if you were not already, that the police were well aware of it back in October 1993.

The old book the diary is written in was easily 90 years old - give or take - in 1995, so the age and nature of the glue/kidney/linseed oil/whatever-you-want-the-staining-to-be-from, have yet to be determined. I understand now why you would not be interested in tests that could resolve this, because you already 'know' there cannot possibly be any relevant 'one off' examples in existence anywhere, waiting to join all Gary Barnett's old 'bumbling' references, which have literally only become available online over the last few days. That was quite a coincidence for me, because I had been away from the forums for a few weeks and only just popped back in the other day, with no clue that something old, but brand new and definitely real, was in the process of emerging to greet me on my return. You couldn't make it up, but luckily we don't need to. This story continues to write itself.

Love,

Caz
X

I wasn't aware that there was any secrecy in what Mike told Scotland Yard in 1993, especially as you mentioned it in your post, and find it rather strange that the evidence to support your claim isn't publicly available. It's just that you phrased it in an unusual way referring to Mike's "creative writing ambitions and achievements", and it's not quite clear to me what that involved. But are you saying that Mike told the truth to Scotland Yard on this occasion? If so, does that demonstrate he was capable of telling the truth at times?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Out of interest, Herlock, did you think to ask Orsam if the whole letter to Mike from Anne was in his possession, or did he only have the 'extract' he posted, and which you have transcribed above?

I presume Anne must not have written anything along the lines of:

'Oh, and about that affidavit you posted through my door last month, Michael. Please don't do anything stupid with it or we will both be prosecuted. Writing that diary for you was the biggest mistake I ever made.'

Nor indeed along the lines of:

'What the hell were you playing at, Michael, telling all those stupid lies? One lie after another, from Devereux to this. I protected you from yourself at the beginning, knowing you only seen the diary the day you called Doreen.'

Love,

Caz
X

I haven't asked him that question, Caz, but I know he posted other extracts from the same letter on his old website which can still be viewed on the Wayback archive. It's the one in which Anne accuses Mike, mysteriously, of blackmailing her.

[rjpalmer]

Palmer is forgetting that his new best friends, Ron and Suzanne, were already down as dishonest in his book for claiming to have noticed the scratches and treated them with jeweller's rouge back in 1992, to improve the appearance of the timepiece and get it up to scratch before putting it in the shop window.

Caroline-- I don't read your nonsensical screed anymore, but I was alerted by email to the above statement.

Will you stop telling lies about me?

I challenge you--right here, right now--to produce a single instance where I have ever suggested or implied that the Murphys---honest shopkeepers--were dishonest.

Quit projecting your own unfounded suspicions onto me.

The casual readers of this thread should be made aware that it is YOU (along with Markus and Jay Hartley) who have accused the Murphys of lying about the watch.

I believe the exact opposite.

[rjpalmer]

The above shows the juvenile mentality of the Maybrick Diary crowd.

The Murphys inherited the watch from Suzanne's father, Mr. Stewart. He had never gotten around to repairing the watch before his retirement, but it stayed in the family's possession for years. There is no reason to doubt this, and Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman reported it without a whisper of skepticism, and even Albert Johnson's relatives went around to question Murphy and found him nothing other an honest, candid shopkeeper.

Even so, the Diary Crowd has now decided that the Murphys are liars who received stolen goods from Battlecrease in April 1992 and kept the true origins of the watch secret from a string of subsequent researchers, lying repeatedly.

There is not a jot of evidence that this happened, but instead of having the integrity or the spines to admit that they are the ones falsely accusing the Murphys, they hypocritically and falsely turn the tables and suggest that others are questioning their honesty--which I have never done.

And Caroline Brown does this knowingly. Is it any wonder that a long string of people has simply stopped communicating with the Maybrick crowd?

One grows weary of these gaslighting ghouls.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Glue?

Be careful what you wish for. If it is glue, it could have been upwards of 90 years old in 1995. Alec Voller observed a dot of diary ink beneath one particular glue stain.

Palmer should have Anne Graham 'tested' if he has the courage of his own convictions.

What are the odds? That Mike lied in June 1994? And again in January 1995 just after she got her divorce from him?

Or did he suddenly have a pressing need to tell the truth and ease his conscience, while attempting to throw Anne under that bus for having left him?

I may have missed it, but has anyone actually come up with a remotely convincing motive - or indeed any motive - for Mike to have changed the habit of a lifetime in January 1995, to become an honest and truthful witness?

Is a serial liar even capable of changing?

Now that we've established that the Barretts appear to have divorced in the spring of 1995, I don't think one can really talk about the odds being that Mike "lied" about Anne "just after she got her divorce from him" or that he was "attempting to throw Anne under the bus for having left him".

It's not only the decree absolute point It's that none of the dates work. Anne left Mike in January 1994, I believe, yet Mike didn't mention Anne in his confession of June 1994. Ike has pointed out to me in the "Hoax" thread that the reason behind the January 1995 affidavit was that Melvin Harris had suggested to Alan Gray in December 1994 that Mike put his story down in a written statement. I'm pretty sure that suggestion by Harris could have had nothing to do with the Barretts' divorce proceedings. As I've previously discussed with Ike, Mike had already told Gray multiple times in November 1994, long before the decree nisi, that Anne had written the manuscript. This was merely repeated in the January 1995 affidavit. Furthermore, Mike repeated this claim in 1999, five years after his divorce.

So, like I say, the dates just don't work. And I hope this post explains why I thought it was important earlier to mention that the November 1994 and April 1999 instances of Mike stating that his wife assisted him in the forgery weren't included in your brief chronology.