New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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]

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]

Thanks for the correction, Caz.

So does that mean the “man from Liverpool” Provenance came from Murphy, who supposedly heard it from Stewart who supposedly recalled, out of all the whole stock of watches he handed over to Murphy upon retirement, that that watch came from some unknown Liverpudlian. And Murphy “recalled” that too? Do we have a third and imaginary Verity to go along with the Johnson and the Dundas Verities?

This would appear, to me, to mean that Suzanne’s father played no real or actual part in the cover-up. He already had dementia, I assume. Is he then the Watch version of Devereau?

I see only the two watches in this saga: the one Albert bought from the Murphys; and the one Dundas described.

I've long wondered how it was determined that the watch old man Stewart allegedly bought from some chap who came in off the street was the same watch that was eventually sold to Albert in July 1992. No previous history, no paperwork - only the description to go on, and Dundas the Dunderhead even managed to screw that one up when trying to remember which watch was which.

I don't believe old man Stewart had anything to hide - or anything to say - and yes, I have made the observation before that he appears to have been the Devereux in this Merseyside Tale.

Love,

Caz
X

[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". You can find it on the Wayback archive if you're interested in seeing it. So you might want to amend your chronological timeline of events.

I'm surprised you ask me whether Mike actually claimed that his motive for confessing was because he never owned up to his years of paid journalism. You always tell us not to believe anything Mike said, so what would it matter if he claimed this or not? But I don't know if he was ever asked or if he explained why he had confessed at all. Didn't he say something about feeling under pressure? That would be consistent with the theory. Although I don't suppose you'd believe him if he did say that. But, no, that theory is one that has been put forward elsewhere which I read and I mentioned it to you to see what you thought about it. I'm surprised that you don't think it of significance. After all, Shirley had set out Barrett's life history in the book they had supposedly written together and there was not a word about his journalistic career in it, was there? You may not think it of importance today but I can't help feeling it would have been extremely important information back in 1994. A bombshell in fact. Wouldn't Shirley, Doreen, Smith, Feldman, Skinner and others asked him why he'd never mentioned it to them? After all, you would assume that he'd been pretty much eliminated as a suspect for having written the diary because he was a humble virtually illiterate scrap metal dealer. Isn't that right? Wouldn't news of his apparent writing ability have come as a massive shock to everyone at the time? Wasn't Barrett threatening to sue Nick Warren for libel if he published the article which contained this information?

Can you tell me what the evidence is that he told Scotland Yard of his journalistic career in October 1993? Where can I read a copy of this statement?

I'm not planning on writing to Robert Smith, and I guess your answer (or non answer) about Voller means that he wasn't able to positively determine there was any glue over any diary ink. The whole area of investigation is pointless anyway. The diary wasn't 90 years old in 1995. That's impossible due to the appearance of "one off instance" in the text.

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

[caz]

I can only conclude then Caz that I'm right in thinking that there is no scientific evidence which tells us that sugar was not added to the ink.?

Was that a question or a statement? You put a full stop then added a question mark as if it was an afterthought.

I'll take it as a statement, and leave you to answer your own questions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There's no need for me to do that, Caz. I already answered the question myself in the post which started this whole discussion. By way of reminder, I said:

"But in all these years neither he nor anyone else has taken that step. Why? Because they know what the answer would be. FAKE."

And still you post on the subject and ask your questions, when I could have left you to answer them yourself?

Good to know that, because it will save me time answering any more of them.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Apologies for intervening in a discussion you are having with Lombro but it's so rare to see what Mike said in 1999 even being mentioned that I wanted to ask you a question about it.

Is it fair to say that there is a very big difference between (a) Barrett, as the forger, adding sugar to the ink and (b) Barrett's understanding of what adding sugar might do to the ink?

Do you not think that (b) is somewhat irrelevant? As to (a) is there any scientific evidence which tells us that sugar was not added to the ink?

Isn't it also the case that Barrett said in 1999 that he forged the diary with his ex-wife who, he said wrote the manuscript, and that he also said this in November 1994? I only mention it because it's not in your chronology of events

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

[Scott Nelson]

You'd need some evidence that Eddie Lyons had any 'colleagues', or indeed knew anyone who had worked at that address previously. We know he was only taken on by Portus & Rhodes in late November 1991, along with Jim Bowling, for a lengthy contract in a different area.

This would have been a major reason for Feldman dismissing his Battlecrease contacts as liars, because he believed Tony Devereux had to be somewhere in the chain, but he was dead by August 1991. Feldman never knew about the double event of 9th March 1992, or he may not have been so hasty.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, I've heard of the expression caveat emptor, Caz, usually in the context of scam merchants and dodgy sellers of goods.

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.