New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I notice you haven't commented on Shirley Harrison's statement, Ike.

"I hope you all have better luck like than I did with... Oathwaite...."

Doesn't really inspire confidence, does it?

[rjpalmer]

Hello again, Ike.

I'm not sure how that extra word creeped in. The correct quote is:

"I hope you all have better luck than I did with...Oathwaite."

One detail that if often ignored is that it is something of misnomer to call it "Mike's affidavit."

It might be more accurate to call it Alan Gray's affidavit (written for and signed by Mike) which would explain some of the glitches and contradictions.

Of course, on hearing this you'll hold the yellow card high in the air and announce an infraction.

[Iconoclast]

One detail that if often ignored is that it is something of misnomer to call it "Mike's affidavit." It might be more accurate to call it Alan Gray's affidavit (written for and signed by Mike) which would explain some of the glitches and contradictions. Of course, on hearing this you'll hold the yellow card high in the air and announce an infraction.

I'm afraid that one would not even need to go to a VAR review - it would be a straight red and you'd be off the pitch. One of the things I learned during my self-imposed absence from the first team is that too much is said on the Casebook which is fundamentally reliant upon inference. Herlock's amazing Lord Orsam impersonations have reminded me that we must be ultra-circumspect in our claims: only the evidence really makes any difference. One can infer from the evidence, but not too far, nor too wide, nor too long. Keep the ball on the pitch but - yes - spray it around a bit, get it down the flanks then play through the channels, regain possession with the high press and defend what you've got with the low block. But keep the ball on the pitch, lads and lasses! Oh, and don't mark Big Dan Burn from Blyth with a 5-feet-zero lightweight midfield maestro - it's always going to end in tears. Yes, tears of joy!

If you accept that 'Mike's affidavit' is actually Alan Gray's affidavit then you mustn't call it evidence because it is - for obvious reasons - littered with errors. How did Big Dan Burn score that towering opening goal on the hallowed, mainly unfortunate turf? Well, it depends if you ask him or if you ask the hapless Mac Allister who - in a surreal moment of optimism - thought no-one could score from beyond the penalty spot. If Alan Gray struggled to get Mike to write his own affidavit and resorted to writing one from what he felt Mike had said previously then it is no wonder that what we got was a confused smorgasbord of inconsistency and downright error and absolutely no-one should be calling it evidence and no-one should be building new castles on such dry sand.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank goodness - for the pursuit and defence of the truth - the breweries have run dry and I have finally sobered-up ...

And not a day too soon, it appears, as someone has to point out that you cannot say categorically that 'they checked the wrong dates' unless you are seeking to mislead people.

The bit that you rely on is where Barrett claimed in his January 5, 1995 affidavit:


We know the red diary was ordered in March 1992 (and paid for in May 1992) so you want everyone to believe that the only possibility based upon Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit is that he misremembered the events of 1992 for two years earlier.

But you intentionally (because you have an angle to spin here) disregard the bit that buggers up your argument:


Tony Devereux sadly died on August 8, 1991, as well you know. So Barrett could not have been remembering 1992 at all when he went to O&L so the red diary could not have been required for the 1992 'hoax' you cling so desperately to. Barrett's affidavit is very clear that the O&L scrapbook came after the failed red diary and both came before Tony's sad demise which totally buggers up your argument that the purchase of the red diary is evidence that he was seeking a vehicle for a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper in the run-up to the only O&L auction that month (the 31st). He already had the scrapbook, didn't he (according to Barrett)? It had already been completed and there was a delay in operations due to the unexpected passing of co-conspirator Tony on August 8, 1991. The dates can all be ignored. All we need to understand is that the affidavit you place such faith in clearly states the following timeline: the red diary is ordered, it is too small, so Barrett gets the scrapbook from an O&L auction, the scrapbook is completed, Tony D sadly dies, and you and your lot are jolly rogered up the arse by man's inability so far to travel back and forth through time.

The red diary theory doesn't work, does it? Unless you argue that Tony D was still alive in March 1992 which can obviously be firmly contradicted by the sad evidence. And you can't believe some bits of the affidavit which you like and which work for the angle you're aiming for here and simultaneously skip over the awkward bits which make the 'key' bit of your theory simply incorrect, can you? I'm sure you can't. After all, as I understand it, your sort are almost bunged-up with all that integrity inside you.

Nope, 'they' didn't check the wrong dates. They checked the right dates - the ones the affidavit tell us must be the true ones. Ha ha.

It's all in black and white, Roger - Howe your team's strategy falls apart before it ever got started. Puts me in mind of a game of football I saw recently ...

Hi Ike,

With regard to your statement: "Barrett's affidavit is very clear that the O&L scrapbook came after the failed red diary and both came before Tony's sad demise", I don't think it's "very clear" at all. It may be your interpretation, and perhaps it is what Alan Gray thought had occurred, but it's by no means clear that Michael Barrett was saying this.

I assume you're referring to the sentence:

"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."

Taken on its own, this could simply be a reference to the writing of the diary's text, in draft form, during 1991, prior to the purchase of the photograph album, while Tony was alive. Different from Anne (if she was the scribe) writing out the same text in 1992.

It seems to me that it's only because the previous sentence says that "Anne and I started to write the diary in all it took us 11 days" that you are linking the writing done while Tony was alive with the writing that Mike said was being done by him and Anne in 11 days. So it could just be Gray having got muddled by what Mike was had told him and mixing up "drafting" with "writing" when he typed Mike's affidavit. It's just not a good enough basis for saying "the red diary theory doesn't work".

[Iconoclast]

... and perhaps it is what Alan Gray thought had occurred, but it's by no means clear that Michael Barrett was saying this.

In itself, the Mike Barrett affidavit which was written for him by someone else is not ambiguous. It details the purchase of the little red diary by Anne Barrett (as was) for £25.00 and it clarifies that that diary - when it arrived - was deemed to be too small by Mike Barrett for what he had evidently imagined would be his final product. The next thing that happened in the affidavit was that Barrett went to O&L where he found that a 'photograph album' was for sale and he successfully bid for it. Having butchered the diary for his purposes, he and Anne went to the Bluecoat Chambers and purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. At this point, according to someone else's interpretation of what the Barretts did, they "were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust. I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript." Clearly, then, at this point, the actual writing in the scrapbook is occurring. No amount of appealing to the vagaries of ambiguity can contradict this. Mike worked on the text on his word processor and Anne "wrote it down in the photograph album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper". This took them eleven days - the affidavit is very clear about this. The whole production occurred in just those eleven days. No more work is needed, the scrapbook is complete. The affidavit is absolutely unequivocal on this point and there is no room for interpretation based on the vagaries of ambiguity.

During these eleven days, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill "and in fact after we completed the Diary [remember, it has been created on the word processor and written in the scrapbook in just eleven days at this point and Tony is not yet deceased] we left it for a while ... and in fact he died ...". The word processor original was fully typed-up and the scrapbook fully-written in those eleven days and after those eleven days, Tony died. Tony died on August 8, 1991.

I assume you're referring to the sentence: "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." Taken on its own, this could simply be a reference to the writing of the diary's text, in draft form, during 1991, prior to the purchase of the photograph album, while Tony was alive. Different from Anne (if she was the scribe) writing out the same text in 1992.

No, this is not possible. The affidavit is very clear: the eleven days occurred before Tony died and both the original text and the scrapbook text had been completed by then. There is simply no room whatsoever for ambiguity on this point so please don't attempt to find any.

It seems to me that it's only because the previous sentence says that "Anne and I started to write the diary in all it took us 11 days" that you are linking the writing done while Tony was alive with the writing that Mike said was being done by him and Anne in 11 days. So it could just be Gray having got muddled by what Mike was had told him and mixing up "drafting" with "writing" when he typed Mike's affidavit. It's just not a good enough basis for saying "the red diary theory doesn't work".

Any fair-minded reader of Barrett's affidavit will see that his affidavit is incorrect because it claims that the purchase and production of the entire scrapbook and its text occurred prior to Tony Devereux's sad death on August 8, 1991. There is absolutely no room for interpretation on this point. None whatsoever, so please don't attempt to imply there is any.

The conclusion which must be drawn from the contents of the affidavit and the knowledge that we have (which Alan Gray may not have known in January 1995) that the red diary was ordered (by Mike Barrett) in mid-March 1992 is that the January 5, 1995, affidavit which was signed by Barrett but written for him by someone with insufficient knowledge of the evidence which would later emerge is a wholly unreliable account of a process which could not have taken place. It is not ambiguous: it is incorrect and it is impossible.

Any fair-minded person would conclude from this that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever - not even ambiguous evidence - that the scrapbook text was written after mid-March 1992. That is not to say that it wasn't nor that it could not have been but it categorically is to say that it could not possibly have happened in any way resembling the way it was described by Alan Gray in the affidavit which Mike Barrett signed.

Any fair-minded person would therefore not attempt to do so and - if they thus wished to continue claiming it was possible - they would need to find for their evidence something other than the purchase of the little red diary. Personally, I am unaware of any evidence that the scrapbook text was written after mid-March 1992 (and that includes my knowledge of Barrett's affidavit and the purchase of the little red diary).

The only 'evidence' I can think of off the top of my head is the comment in the Baxendale report of July 1992 which stated that the ink of the scrapbook text was 'freely soluble' but that is a different discussion altogether to that of the impossible account born of the January 5, 1995, affidavit.

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

In itself, the Mike Barrett affidavit which was written for him by someone else is not ambiguous. It details the purchase of the little red diary by Anne Barrett (as was) for £25.00 and it clarifies that that diary - when it arrived - was deemed to be too small by Mike Barrett for what he had evidently imagined would be his final product. The next thing that happened in the affidavit was that Barrett went to O&L where he found that a 'photograph album' was for sale and he successfully bid for it. Having butchered the diary for his purposes, he and Anne went to the Bluecoat Chambers and purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. At this point, according to someone else's interpretation of what the Barretts did, they "were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust. I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript." Clearly, then, at this point, the actual writing in the scrapbook is occurring. No amount of appealing to the vagaries of ambiguity can contradict this. Mike worked on the text on his word processor and Anne "wrote it down in the photograph album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper". This took them eleven days - the affidavit is very clear about this. The whole production occurred in just those eleven days. No more work is needed, the scrapbook is complete. The affidavit is absolutely unequivocal on this point and there is no room for interpretation based on the vagaries of ambiguity.

During these eleven days, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill "and in fact after we completed the Diary [remember, it has been created on the word processor and written in the scrapbook in just eleven days at this point and Tony is not yet deceased] we left it for a while ... and in fact he died ...". The word processor original was fully typed-up and the scrapbook fully-written in those eleven days and after those eleven days, Tony died. Tony died on August 8, 1991.



No, this is not possible. The affidavit is very clear: the eleven days occurred before Tony died and both the original text and the scrapbook text had been completed by then. There is simply no room whatsoever for ambiguity on this point so please don't attempt to find any.



Any fair-minded reader of Barrett's affidavit will see that his affidavit is incorrect because it claims that the purchase and production of the entire scrapbook and its text occurred prior to Tony Devereux's sad death on August 8, 1991. There is absolutely no room for interpretation on this point. None whatsoever, so please don't attempt to imply there is any.

The conclusion which must be drawn from the contents of the affidavit and the knowledge that we have (which Alan Gray may not have known in January 1995) that the red diary was ordered (by Mike Barrett) in mid-March 1992 is that the January 5, 1995, affidavit which was signed by Barrett but written for him by someone with insufficient knowledge of the evidence which would later emerge is a wholly unreliable account of a process which could not have taken place. It is not ambiguous: it is incorrect and it is impossible.

Any fair-minded person would conclude from this that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever - not even ambiguous evidence - that the scrapbook text was written after mid-March 1992. That is not to say that it wasn't nor that it could not have been but it categorically is to say that it could not possibly have happened in any way resembling the way it was described by Alan Gray in the affidavit which Mike Barrett signed.

Any fair-minded person would therefore not attempt to do so and - if they thus wished to continue claiming it was possible - they would need to find for their evidence something other than the purchase of the little red diary. Personally, I am unaware of any evidence that the scrapbook text was written after mid-March 1992 (and that includes my knowledge of Barrett's affidavit and the purchase of the little red diary).

The only 'evidence' I can think of off the top of my head is the comment in the Baxendale report of July 1992 which stated that the ink of the scrapbook text was 'freely soluble' but that is a different discussion altogether to that of the impossible account born of the January 5, 1995, affidavit.

Ike

All you've done in that long post, Ike, is essentially repeat in a convoluted way what I said in much shorter form when I talked about why it's not very clear what Mike was saying through the middle-man medium of Alan Gray. You're using the context of the affidavit to try to explain one sentence which, if Gray didn't fully understand the context himself, would be a significant mistake.

What you are, of course, totally ignoring, as usual, is what Michael Barrett said, out of his own mouth, in May 1999, from which it WAS very clear that that the idea to create a fake diary occurred to him as early as 1988, while Tony Devereux was alive, but the purchase of the photograph album, and the physical writing of the diary, only took place after he spoke to Doreen on March 9th 1992. That chronology is as clear as crystal. Any fair-minded person trying to get to the truth of the matter would surely want to take that very important fact into account if they want to understand Barrett's account, rather than ignore it.

[Iconoclast]

All you've done in that long post, Ike, is essentially repeat in a convoluted way what I said in much shorter form when I talked about why it's not very clear what Mike was saying through the middle-man medium of Alan Gray. You're using the context of the affidavit to try to explain one sentence which, if Gray didn't fully understand the context himself, would be a significant mistake.

What you are, of course, totally ignoring, as usual, is what Michael Barrett said, out of his own mouth, in May 1999, from which it WAS very clear that that the idea to create a fake diary occurred to him as early as 1988, while Tony Devereux was alive, but the purchase of the photograph album, and the physical writing of the diary, only took place after he spoke to Doreen on March 9th 1992. That chronology is as clear as crystal. Any fair-minded person trying to get to the truth of the matter would surely want to take that very important fact into account if they want to understand Barrett's account, rather than ignore it.

I am not interested in doing that tit-for-tat stuff, Herlock. Two things are true and these two things no-one can deny:

1) The January 5, 1995, affidavit is provably incorrect (not ambiguous, but incorrect) so it cannot be used as evidence for anything; and
2) Mike Barrett may very well have made yet more claims (of the many) in May 1999 (I think you mean April 1999) but it's all completely irrelevant because he didn't provide one iota of supporting evidence for his claims. Just like every other occasion he made claims. These are truths and they cannot be contradicted.

I don't think you or anyone else could dispute these two truths.

Cheers,

Ike

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not interested in doing that tit-for-tat stuff, Herlock. Two things are true and these two things no-one can deny:

1) The January 5, 1995, affidavit is provably incorrect (not ambiguous, but incorrect) so it cannot be used as evidence for anything; and
2) Mike Barrett may very well have made yet more claims (of the many) in May 1999 (I think you mean April 1999) but it's all completely irrelevant because he didn't provide one iota of supporting evidence for his claims. Just like every other occasion he made claims. These are truths and they cannot be contradicted.

I don't think you or anyone else could dispute these two truths.

Cheers,

Ike

You're doing a bit of wriggling there Ike. Your original claim was that "the red diary theory does not work" because of what was said in Mike's affidavit. That's fallen apart. Of course it works (assuming that by "the red diary theory" you mean the idea that Mike was intending to forge the diary of Jack the Ripper in a diary from the 1880s with blank pages sourced from Martin Earl).

Now you just want to go back to square one, which we've covered ad nauseam, by saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to support Barrett's claim. Firstly, it's not true that there isn't "one iota of supporting evidence" for his claims because it's been proven that he did attempt to acquire a diary from the decade of the Ripper murders with blank pages and that his wife paid for it, as stated in both the affidavit and at the April 1999 meeting. For some baffling reason this is discarded by you as being an iota of supporting evidence even though it clearly does support part of what is stated in the affidavit. But it's a silly statement because there's no evidence that Mike's account isn't true. And, if there's no evidence of the Barretts forging the diary, there's certainly no evidence of it coming from anywhere else, including and especially Battlecrease.

Yes, there are certainly errors in Mike's affidavit, mainly errors of dating and chronology, and it's poorly written, but the evidence points to Alan Gray having drafted and typed it on Mike's behalf, taking on the role of a solicitor, which he wasn't qualified to do, and making a mess of it. If we're assessing Mike's account, surely the best thing to do is look at what he said in his own words, which you seem amazingly reluctant to do.

Ultimately, when it comes to evidence there is only one solid, incontrovertible and irrefutable piece of evidence in this case which is that the diary is a modern fake due to the inclusion of the expression "a one off instance". That's all that really matters. Everything else is unnecessary waffle.

[Iconoclast]

So now we can say with certainty that the January 1995 affidavit is utterly worthless because it is flawed. To have value, it has to be without flaw.

We can also say with certainty that Barrett’s ordering a diary in March 1992 has at least four plausible reasons, only one of which is even remotely suspicious.

As I say, I’m not interested in the back-and-forth, tit-for-tat. I’m interested in actual evidence and I see none emerging from these two artefacts. What evidence are we left with? Is it really just that ambiguous claim that hitting Florie was a one ‘off’ instance?

No, no, no: it has to be unambiguous if you want to claim it is proof positive of a hoax. Can you actually provide anything proof positives of a hoax? Can anyone?

We need evidence not conjecture. We’ll never have 100% certainty after 130+ years but what evidence we have needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t think we’re there yet on the hoax theory but the case for authenticity is teasingly close to being so, I’d say.

[John Wheat]

There is zero evidence whatsoever that Maybrick wrote the diary and plenty of circumstantial evidence the Barretts wrote the diary.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, there are certainly errors in Mike's affidavit ...

At this point, you should be running a mile from any document within which you freely admit that there are errors, Herlock. No apologising, twisting, turning, re-inventing, re-positioning, suppositionalising, just running away from.

... mainly errors of dating and chronology ...

Errors of dating we might make some allowances for but errors of episodic memory are less forgivable. Generally speaking, we do not confuse whether A came before B when B is as memorable and significant as someone dying.

... and it's poorly written ...

Of no evidential consequence.

... but the evidence points to Alan Gray having drafted and typed it on Mike's behalf, taking on the role of a solicitor, which he wasn't qualified to do, and making a mess of it.

Which makes the affidavit utterly worthless to us (and which you appear to have conceded at last).

If we're assessing Mike's account, surely the best thing to do is look at what he said in his own words ...

I think most people would agree with you if the person speaking those words was inherently unwavering. From time to time saying his wife wrote the text into the diary whilst periodically claiming it was authentic (sometimes in the course of the same thought process) whilst having a clear motive for lying (seeking to get his wife's attention) is no platform for you or anyone else to be building an argument upon.

... which you seem amazingly reluctant to do.

Actually, not so 'amazing', I'd say.

The only amazing psychological event here is that you are quite undiscerning regarding an established liar's claims for which he provided not a single shred of credible or unambiguous evidence, Herlock. You are absolutely correct, I will always be reluctant to take someone's words as proof or evidence of anything when they have an established track record of lying to me.

I know a liar when I see or hear one and I'm concerned for you that you do not appear to be as discerning as I. I had a friend once (forty years ago) who lied in order to get me to do what he wanted. He used lying as a means of control. When I realised what he was doing, I challenged his lies, and all he could do was throw a hissy fit (because the control had gone). He wasn't my friend for long after that.

Let's not keep doing the tit-for-tat, though, Herlock - let's try to stick only to the evidence before us. You have invested your faith into the spoken claims of a known and proven liar, and I have declined to take anything he said seriously because he was a known and proven liar. That - at least - is evidence of the standards we are prepared to operate to as we address this issue.

Ike
Ike

[Iconoclast]

There is zero evidence whatsoever that Maybrick wrote the diary and plenty of circumstantial evidence the Barretts wrote the diary.

I am happy to respond to this as it at least attempts to make an argument.

There is a significant amount of actual and circumstantial evidence supporting the notion that Maybrick wrote the scrapbook (see SocPill25 when it is finished) and absolutely zero evidence of any nature - circumstantial or otherwise - which suggests the Barretts wrote it unless you resort to believing the words you want to hear from a known and proven liar and ignore those which don't work for your belief system.

[Iconoclast]

Just to give an example of a self-evidently relevant piece of circumstantial detail which points towards authenticity (or, at least, increases the likelihood of it), it remains an astonishing coincidence that it was Martin Howells who put the idea of floorboards into Feldman's mind at the beginning of 1993 and it then turned out that floorboards were lifted* on March 9, 1992, in the very room JM usually slept in in 1889 (Ryan implies that Maybrick actually died in Florie's bed not his own) and, on March 9, 1992, Mike Barrett - calling himself 'Mr. Williams' - telephoned Doreen Montgomery to ask her whether she would be interested in seeing the diary of JtR.

Those are all hard facts.

* Implied by the listing of floorboard protectors on the timesheet.

[rjpalmer]

* Implied by the listing of floorboard protectors on the timesheet.

Didn't Keith Skinner once remark that he planned to investigate the meaning of 'floorboard protectors' and report back to the forum?

At least one commentator has asked whether floorboard protectors have sod-all to do with lifting floorboards, and as far as I know, it's an excellent question that has not yet been answered.

In my limited experience, what one needs to lift floorboards is a claw hammer and a pry par.

On this side of the pond, at least, the only thing called a 'floorboard protector' is a sheet of plastic to set objects on to protect the floorboards from being scuffed up. Hence the name: floorboard protectors. Not lifters: protectors. I've seen the suggestion that felt pads underneath the legs of certain objects might also be considered 'floorboard protectors.'

As such, Ike, I wouldn't get overly excited about the mere word 'floorboard.'

And Mr. Dodd told Shirley Harrison decades ago that he did the prep-work for the electricians, and I've seen no evidence that his direct statement of this 'fact' has been debunked.

Regards,

RP

[rjpalmer]

Note also, Ike, that the confessional photo album does not mention floorboards. You and others dismiss this as a mere technicality, but it is not.

If the text read "I place this now under the floorboards, having removed the long brass nails with a crowbar while Alice Yapp is preparing my meat juice," I think even Lord Orsam and the late Melvin Harris, along with Nick Warren, Kenneth Rendell, and other 'viperous' people would have to admit that the coincidence was a great one and would have to further consider the likelihood that the authoress or author of the hoax must have gained entry to Mr. Dodd's home. Perhaps even Mr. Dodd himself would have to be considered a suspect.

Instead, all we really have is Barrett calling a literary agent on the same day that Mr. Dodd had workmen in. That's it. How often did Mr. Dodd have people in? I have no idea, but it seems like he is the sort of chap that had a lot of renovations done.

Regards.