Didn't Ryan himself fail to recognise his own book as a likely source for the diary?
Hi Caz. Of course he did. And, if memory serves, Martin Fido also dismissed the possibility that his book could have supplied the necessary police inventory list, and the good folks at L & O quickly dismissed the possibility that their auction house could have supplied Barrett with the scrapbook, and Alec Voller dismissed Diamine as the ink used by the hoaxers. The lesson learned? No one wants to believe their own pride and joy could possibly be associated with a hoax. But that, in itself, doesn't change the facts. Ryan is all Barrett needed, so John G's strange suggestion that MB would have spent hours & hours down at the Liverpool Library with a blinking neon light over his head reading "Hey Everybody! Please take note! I'm researching a future hoax! Remember this if it should ever come up again' remains a rather strange line of investigation.
Barrett mentions his use of 'Ryan' in the Alan Gray tapes. Tape No. 1, to be specific. But Gray was no Ripperologist, and no student of the Maybrick case, so it sailed straight over the top of his head, which is a pity.
But, speaking of Mr. Gray, I am deeply grateful for something Keith has recently posted over on Howard's site.
For years, my dear Caz, you have been stating that Barrett hired Alan Gray "to help him prove he forged the Diary." And I think it is fair to say that Keith has sometimes left this same impression.
But here's Keith's comment on Feb 6, 2018th:
"Mike had intially employed Alan Gray to find the whereabouts of Anne and Caroline after they left him."
Thank you! Thank you, Keith, for confirming the point I've been trying to make for 15 years! Barrett did not hire Gray to help him prove he forged the Diary, he hired him to find the whereabouts of his family, and the rest developed from there. Do you think the distinction might be important?
I want to reprint something I wrote years ago:
"Please refer to Shirley's Blake edition; there you'll find reprinted a letter from [Alan] Gray to Barrett. One can glean from this letter that Gray was attempting to secure a publisher in order to sell Barrett's confession. This puts things in an entirely different light. In other words, Barrett's genuine [complete and full] confession could have been contingent on finding a paying publisher."
Hi Keith, I'm wondering if you could help me with my math. In regards to Gray, you also recently wrote:
"After 4 years of achieving nothing except an unpaid bill for over £3000, Alan Gray concluded that Mike Barrett did not write the diary but that it was probably the joint endeavour of Tony Devereux and Anne Graham. "
Let's tread carefully.
As the political pundits like to say, the first time Barrett "went off message" was in late June, 1994, when he confessed to the Liverpool Daily Post. "How I Faked the Ripper Diary" is published on June 27, 1994. No details are given.
Barrett's subsequent sworn affidavit popularly known as his "confession" was signed on January 5, 1995.
Six months later. During much of those six months Barrett was incapacitated.
So, couldn't we argue that your "four year" time span is a little misleading, and that the Gray's efforts really only amounted to six months, during a time that Barrett was going thru rehab, alcohol treatment, and other personal challenges? 6 months seems like a fairly brief window to unravel the great mystery compared to the 25 years invested by other investigators, so I don't quite follow what you are attempting to imply with this statement.
I've also did a brief look at the current prices of hiring a private investigator in the UK. I'm seeing quotes of £150-£200 an hour. What the 1995 rates were I have no idea, but to make the math easy let's knock it all the way down to £30/hr. That means Barrett's £3000 would have got him 100 hours of investigation. Yes, I heard the tapes, or at least some of them, and I don't think Gray would have gotten too far in 100 hours. He would have needed to make several runs the corner shop for something for his headache. But let's say a gumshoe works 50 hours a week, so, two weeks work in total equals the £3000, does it not?
And whether Gray "achieved nothing" depends on who you ask. That he ended up still believing it was a recent hoax is not exactly a ringing endorsement for your provenance. Best wishes.
In an attempt to go round and round in circles, the point was made in another thread earlier today that Anne (if she had participated in the forgery) didn't have to tell Keith Skinner in or around 1995 that her cheque paid for the small Victorian diary. I say we go round in circles because this is a repeat argument and I have already pointed out that there was absolutely no danger to Anne by this because she could explain to Keith Skinner, as she did, that Mike simply wanted to see what a Victorian diary of the period looked like for comparison purposes with the scrapbook.
Ha ha. That's really quite funny, David. And of course, there was absolutely no danger to Anne that anyone might not believe her explanation, but prefer to believe Mike's, that he was trying to obtain a diary for Anne to use for their forgery.
This explanation is now known to be false. But we only know it is false because nine whole years after Mike revealed the story of the purchase Victorian diary in his Jan 1995 affidavit (and yes he WAS telling the truth about this!) Keith Skinner found the advertisement in Bookdealer placed by Martin Earl which showed that Mike was only interested in a diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages, thus disproving the explanation put forward by Anne.
That's still quite funny, but less so. Firstly, Mike didn't say when the red diary was purchased [in the Spring of 1992] because that would have made a nonsense of his claim to have acquired the guardbook after rejecting it; completing the writing out of the diary in 11 days; then leaving it for a while because Tony Devereux was severely ill at the time!
Secondly, I suppose there was absolutely no danger to Anne that by handing over the red diary and the details of the purchase to Keith, he would be able to track down that advert, note the blank pages request, and thus disprove her explanation?
If that explanation had been true, Mike would not have required there to be blank pages in the diary.
He might have, if the only reason for wanting to compare the Maybrick diary with a real one from the right period was because he suspected someone was pulling his leg and wondered how easy it would have been for a prankster to find a diary with sufficient blank pages for the job.
The requirement for blank pages can only mean one thing. Mike wanted something to be written in that Victorian diary. What could it have been? Does one seriously need to ask?
Well clearly yes, because otherwise you wouldn't have needed your 'one off instance', if 'one' accepted without question that Mike could only have wanted that diary so that Anne would have something to use for their forgery.
As for Anne back in 1995, if she had denied any knowledge of the purchase of the Victorian diary it would have been the most foolish course she could possibly have taken. Mike was then still alive and could easily have remembered that Martin Earl was the dealer, resulting in a cheque being produced for £25 in Anne's own name. Imagine the outcry at that! Anne would have been proven to have been a liar.
Ironic, considering the same thing would have happened, immediately following Anne's 'in the family revelation' in July 1994, had Mike been able to produce anything that could prove his own or anyone else's inside knowledge of the forgery itself. By telling her story, she was already denying any knowledge of a forgery, or the purchase of anything in connection with one. On its own, the red diary is small beer compared with what damage Mike should have been able to do to Anne's denials and character, if she knew that his January 1995 affidavit contained a basic truth and he had the means to substantiate it.
It's almost certain that Anne had no idea that Martin Earl placed an advertisement in Bookdealer and a good chance that she didn't even know what instructions her husband had given to Earl.
Is it? I agree she may have known nothing about it until Mike had to ask her to pay for the diary he was sent, but surely she'd have worked it out later, if she'd been waiting for Mike to produce something suitable for her to use for writing out the diary, so he could take it to London on April 13th 1992. What did she think the little red diary for 1891 was in aid of? Did she write out the cheque without asking why on earth Mike had been sent this particular item?
That being so, she would have felt there was no danger in freely admitting to the purchase of the diary. As I've said, she had an explanation and, up to 2003, it was a convincing explanation which seemed to satisfy everyone. It was only when the advertisement was discovered that it suddenly became apparent that the explanation was false, although it seems to have taken a number of years for this realisation to filter through, possibly because no-one outside of a small number of people had actually seen the advertisement until it was posted in this thread.
The wording of that advert was first posted several years before you arrived and began this thread, David. At the time, far more people were posting on the subject than today, with the majority being modern hoax believers [just like today], so it is indeed taking a long time for 'this realisation to filter through', but not because only a small number of people had actually seen it back in the day. Maybe they didn't, or don't, give it the enormous significance that you evidently do.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Everything continuing to go to plan at Stamford Bridge. Conte, true sportsman to the last, just wanting to give a little bit of edge and excitement to the top of the premier league, (plus a little encouragement and hope to Spurs), by easing back on Chelsea’s position – otherwise it all just becomes too easy and monotonous if they keep on winning game after game. It’s why they didn’t really make a big issue out of Morata’s disallowed goal yesterday when he was clearly onside.
Your question not forgotten about – as with all others. Over the last few days I’ve been slowly trawling through all 1200 posts in this thread, making notes of points which require clarification plus questions asked of me to which I need to respond. Some of them I have been able to immediately reply to because my reference material and relevant files are to hand but I don’t want to spin away from posts like, for example, R.J’s, where he has opened up discussion areas that need drilling into and resolved – otherwise they remain unfinished business.
Out of interest, what is the discussion area opened up by RJ which needs drilling into? I was under the impression that was pretty much concluded.
As it happens, I take priority over RJ for any answers because this is my thread. He he!
I'm actually building up a long list of questions for you Keith (none of which, you may be relieved to know, relate to the whereabouts of Chelsea's missing defence) but I won't post them until you have started posting here properly. When do you think you will be able to get access to your reference material and files?
Well, I must confess, I don't always use the Queen's English when speaking to people!
I'm prepared to bet you have never used the expression "I seen".
Originally Posted by John G
But seriously, surely she must have had reasonable written skills, otherwise how was she able to hold down a job as a secretary for several years?
You obviously don't understand the job of a secretary. In most cases, it's to type up what other people have written (with any errors they make in typing corrected by that person from the first typed draft). Unless you are saying that no secretary in the country could possibly have misused the word "frequented" it's a complete non-point.
Originally Posted by John G
Not to mention the tidying- up of Mike's articles!
We know practically nothing about how Anne tidied up his articles and whether this simply involved correcting spelling mistakes or errors of punctuation or, indeed, whether the articles needed further tidying up by the magazine's editor. So again it tells us precisely nothing about whether Anne could have misused the word "frequented".
By the way, is there any evidence that Mike actually wrote the Diary, apart from the fact that he said he did? Is there any evidence that he purchased the guardbook, apart from tge fact that he said he did?
As you well know John, there is no evidence that anyone wrote the diary but we don't, on that basis, say that no-one wrote it. Equally there's no evidence that anyone bought the guardbook but we don't say that, therefore, no-one bought it.
I've explained many times that the basis of my thinking is that Mike was seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages shortly before he produced a Victorian diary of Jack the Ripper. That's it. Either that is a compelling reason to think he wrote the diary or it isn't. But I can't think of any other reason why he sought to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages so I conclude that he did so because he (or an acquaintance) wanted to forge a Victorian diary. That being so I conclude that he was probably involved in forging the Jack the Ripper diary.
Just to repeat for those who are slow on the uptake. I have never claimed that Mike did research in any library so I don't have to use any speculation to put him there. I'm not trying to put him there. All I have said is that is utterly utterly ridiculous to use the absence of evidence to suggest that he never did any research when there has never been any investigation, especially in circumstances where one is virtually anonymous or invisible, as one is when going to a library - the notion that he asked "all sorts of related questions" is a fantasy - and for all we know thousands of people saw Mike Barrett there, out of which some may even have known who he was but, unless they've ever been tracked down and asked, we are not realistically going to know about it. The idea that a member of the public, knowing that Mike Barrett produced the diary (and subsequently admitted to forging it), having once seen him in a public library, would even think that this was an important sighting worth mentioning to someone (but who, I have no idea) is just plain daft.
So we come back to the central point that the absence of evidence in this situation is meaningless and should never have been put forward as a reason against Mike being involved in the forgery of the diary.