THE GASLIGHTING QUEEN
It was 'clearly my speculation' said Miss Information in #8493 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread, responding to RJ Palmer's post in which he said that she had claimed that Shirley Harrison had asked Mike Barrett about Bernard Ryan's book before Mike had turned his 'research notes' over to Shirley.
But no, you see, she had never made that claim, it was 'clearly my speculation'.
But wait, it wasn't that she had never made that claim. because her exact wording to RJ was:
'I don't recall making that claim'.
Terrible memory problems whereby she couldn't even remember what she'd said a few weeks earlier!
Indeed, she asked RJ for a direct quote to refresh her memory....and, when he provided one, she shut up!
But let's just remind ourselves how this all started. It was back on 22 January 2022, The Day After Orsam Day, when RJ Palmer had posted that, 'January 21, 2022 will be remembered as the day that any lingering doubts about Mike Barrett not knowing the truth about the origins of the Maybrick Hoax have withered and died' while Abby Normal had posted 'Lord Orsam does it again lol, poor diary defenders'.
Lord Orsam had, of course, demonstrated that Mike Barrett was fully aware of Ryan's book when creating his 'research notes' yet he had hidden this fact and disguised references to information from Ryan's book with fake citations to the Liverpool Echo.
It was now important for Miss Information to perform her usual trick of throwing dust into the eyes of the Forum members and creating clouds of confusion. So, on the the same day, 22 January, without posting any supporting evidence whatsoever, Miss Information told us categorically (in #8097) that, until Shirley mentioned it to him, 'Mike didn't know Ryan's book from a bar of soap'. Further, that, when he handed over his notes to Shirley in July or August 1992, 'Mike couldn't then name Ryan as his source for the Maybrick research, or Shirley would have instantly rumbled that his notes had not been compiled over several months, but only after she herself had made him aware of Ryan's book'.
We were clearly being told therefore (1) that Shirley had told Mike about Ryan's book before she received his research notes, (2) that Mike had denied knowing about Ryan's book before he handed over his research notes and (3) that this explained why Mike was unable to include any references to Ryan's book in his research notes.
The thing about Miss Information is that, because she has access to secret (and often suppressed) information, it was impossible to know whether she was making this claim based on hard evidence or was simply guessing.
As it happens, RJ Palmer put it directly to her later that same day in #8106 that she was speculating, hence:
'So, to be blunt, Caz, I am currently under the impression that you are merely guessing - for obvious reasons - that Barrett had already denied knowing anything about Ryan BEFORE he handed over those notes to Crew sometime around July/August 1992'.
Now here was Miss Information's opportunity to confirm to RJ that, yes, indeed, she had been 'clearly speculating', or guessing, about such a denial by Mike Barrett.
Did she bollocks!
She never actually responded to RJ's #8106 but, in #8160, on 25 January 2022, she posted:
'I'll keep this really simple. Shirley asks Mike if he's read Bernard Ryan's book on Maybrick. Mike tells her he's never heard of it, so he gets himself a copy to get more acquainted with the Maybrick story...Taking the easy route, he uses Shirley's tip and takes his Maybrick info from Ryan's book, but then can't name it for obvious reasons.'
This, of course, was the exact claim which, in March, she would deny being able to remember having made. But she'd now made it TWICE!
RJ tried again, pointing out in #8163 that Miss Information had now made this 'unsubstantiated claim' about a conversation between Mike and Shirley before July/August 1992 on more than one occasion and that she had so far failed to provide a source. He asked 'Why is that?'.
If there was no source, here was her chance once again to confirm to RJ that she was 'clearly speculating'. Once again she did not do so. When she eventually came to reply on 27 January, in #8189, she did no more than ask RJ Palmer some questions:
'Are you disputing the fact that Shirley asked Mike this question? Or that he replied that he'd never heard of it? Or that he got himself a copy from somewhere at some point?'
It was impossible for RJ Palmer to answer these questions because he didn't have access to any of the evidence about such a conversation but it's painfully apparent that Miss Information didn't here tell RJ Palmer that she had only ever been 'clearly speculating' about this conversation and that she wasn't claiming that it had actually happened at the time she said it did. Worse, she was deliberately avoiding making such an admission by asking bad faith questions which she knew RJ Palmer wasn't in a position to answer. RJ was seeking information about her source but she was hiding it.
It was a shocking display of distraction technique and avoidance.
Furthermore, on 26 January, before answering RJ, she had actually doubled down by insisting categorically that such a conversation between Mike and Shirley HAD taken place and that we had 'recorded conversations' confirming this. Hence, in #8166 we were told:
'We do have recorded conversations, between Mike, Shirley and Keith, on separate occasions, confirming that when Shirley first mentioned Ryan's book to Mike he said he'd not heard of it'.
Then in #8171 we got this from her:
'We do know from Shirley herself that she asked Mike if he had heard of Ryan's book and he said no'.
That's a categoric statement which, in fact, turned out to be quite wrong. When the evidence did finally come, it wasn't Shirley who said this at all, it was Mike saying it. But the key fact here is that, while withholding her source, she also omitted to state precisely when such a conversation was supposed to have occurred. If it was after July/August 1992, it wouldn't support her argument at all. The truth of the matter is that she knew that the date of the conversation couldn't be established but she withheld this information from RJ while giving the misleading impression that there was evidence that the conversation had occurred prior to July/August 1992.
By this time, Miss Information had obviously realized that she could not support, with evidence, her claim that a conversation between Mike and Shirley about Ryan's book occurred at any time prior to Mike handing over his research notes, hence she switched her focus to Mike having told Shirley that he'd spent time scouring microfilm copies of newspapers (another claim for which there was no evidence about WHEN such a conversation occurred).
And then the absolute proof that Miss Information was NOT claiming to be speculating on 27 January 2022 when she posted this:
'Just to clarify, in case RJ is still confused, we know Shirley asked Mike about Ryan's book, and we know he replied that he'd never heard of it:'
You see, we KNOW it happened, she said.
At last, she provided some information regarding these 'recorded conversations' and told us that it was something that Mike had said on 18 January 1995, hence:
'Mike says he didn't take the diary seriously at first and had never heard of 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' before Shirley mentioned it to him.'
Amazing ain't it, how Mike is suddenly accepted as a reliable source?
It wasn't something coming from 'Shirley herself' as Miss Information had previously claimed. It was something coming from Mike Barrett.
For the very first time she had to admit that:
'We don't have a written record of when exactly Shirley posed the question about Ryan to Mike'.
Oh right, which, funnily enough, was the KEY question here.
After all, if, having received Mike's notes in July or August 1992, Shirley, in response, asked Mike if he'd ever heard of Ryan's book, which he then denied, something which is entirely plausible, that would put an entirely different light on the matter.
It suddenly emerged that Miss Information had no evidence to suggest that this did not happen.
When she finally admitted this in #8493, on 10 March 2022, forty-eight entire fucking days after she had first made her claim about this conversation, she explained that it was:
'clearly my speculation...that Shirley didn't ask Mike if he'd ever heard of Ryan's book after looking through a whole series of notes taken from that very book!'
Please read that statement very carefully.
Have you ever seen or heard anything so stupid?
The first time anyone had even suspected that Mike had had taken a whole series of notes from Ryan's book was in January 2022, almost thirty years after Mike handed over his notes to Shirley, when I noticed it, having access to a digital search facility of the Liverpool Echo which wasn't available in 1992, and having gone through Mike's notes, according to Miss Information herself, with a 'fine-toothed comb'. Yet, in the above statement, Miss Information appears to be suggesting that Shirley Harrison would have immediately spotted, when she looked at Mike's research notes, that Mike had taken information from Ryan's book (and none other) and that his information hadn't come from the Liverpool Echo.
But how could Shirley Harrison in the summer of 1992 possibly have known what was or what was not in the Liverpool Echo? The answer is she wouldn't have had a fucking clue. There was no way on earth that she could have known that Mike had taken his information from Ryan's book. For that reason, it was perfectly possible that, having received Mike's research notes which merely referred to 'Tales of Liverpool' and the Liverpool Echo (and some probate records) as sources for the Maybrick information, Shirley asked Mike if he was aware of Ryan's book and, at that time, a guilty Mike denied knowing anything about it.
And why was Miss Information even conceding belatedly that she had been speculating?
It was because RJ Palmer had managed to locate his own 2001 summary of the recording of the 18 January 1995 meeting which didn't tally with what Miss Information had said about it, so now, suddenly, backed into a corner, she finally revealed what that recording actually said. It was this:
SH: And when did you start looking at other books? What other sourcebooks did you use for checking out the Diary’s history?
MB: After that, the only other books I used were after you mentioned – you mentioned, you mentioned, straight from the horse’s mouth, you mentioned ‘The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick’.
MB: Now, I didn’t know anything about that.
MB: You mentioned that and then obviously I went and got ‘The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick’, which even confirmed even more.
KS: This was after Tony’s death?
MB: Oh this was after I spoke to Shirley, this was well after.
MB: This was well after. I mean, I didn’t know ‘The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick’ even existed. It was only Shirley that told me about that.
Other than Mike suspiciously trying to distance himself from any knowledge of Ryan's book prior to him bringing the diary to London, all we get from that conversation is that Mike said that Shirley first mentioned Ryan's book to him 'well after' he had first spoken to her. That could easily have been after he handed the notes over in the summer of 1992.
Similarly, in the only other bit of evidence provided - a note of a meeting with Keith on 14 April 1994 - Mike said that the conversation occurred 'many months' after he first met Doreen in April 1992:
MB: Ehm going right back, you know the 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' I didn’t know that existed until after Shirley, until after I met Doreen. Many months afterwards Shirley Harrison said to me over the phone one day, “Have I ever heard of the book called The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick?” I said, “No I hadn’t.” So I went to the library and got it and read it then and what have you. I also read the ‘Fifteen Years’, which you can’t take out. So that was well after the research had actually commenced.'
So the actual evidence, when finally revealed 48 days later, when her back was against the wall, simply didn't support what she had claimed back on 22 January. But the clouds of dust had been thrown around and the waters had been sufficiently muddied. Now she gaslights and tries to pretend that she never said what she had actually said, but, if she did say it, she was only speculating!!!
How can anyone possibly have known that she was speculating in circumstances where she was withholding and suppressing the relevant evidence?
RJ had put it directly to her in January that she was guessing but she had point blank refused to admit to this.
What's so hilarious is that in #8495, on 10 March, after she had finally posted the source evidence, she said that:
'It would be interesting to know exactly when Shirley asked him about the book, but we can't have everything.'
LOL! That was the whole fucking point.
Miss Information continued:
'Clearly, if it was only after the notes were handed over, Mike told yet another of his stupid lies and got away with it, because Shirley could not have seen anything in those notes to suggest he had not only heard of Ryan's book but had got his information from it.'
She was fully aware, in other words, that Mike might well have denied knowing about Ryan's book after he handed over his research notes to Shirley. But, of course, that being so, she would term this as just 'another of his stupid lies' whereas the fact of the matter is that it would evidence him trying to distance himself from what I have demonstrated was the forger's primary source for the Maybrick material in the diary, just as he was clearly distancing himself from that source in his research notes.
Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, I invite you now to provide a generous round of applause for the Gaslighting Queen.
THE FAIRY TALE QUEEN
An extraordinary post from Miss Information on 14 March 2022 in #8510 of Incontrovertible about 'Tales from Liverpool'.
'if Tony's daughter thought she was doing her late father's memory a favour in October 1993, by associating the copy of ToL in her possession with "Bongo", she was mistaken, because an association was immediately and irrevocably made in people's minds between Tony and the diary, via Mike's ToL.'
What the fuck does that mean?
Is she suggesting that Tony's daughter was lying when she said that the book belonged to 'Bongo'? That would be a remarkable suggestion. And it's impossible to see how telling such a lie would have been doing her father's memory a favour.
But it gets worse, for she then says this:
'It might have been better for her to say nothing about it, as there was no name in it to prove Mike had ever discussed this book - and by inference the diary - with her father. She unwittingly put Tony in the frame before Mike did, the following year.'
I can only interpret this as Miss Information saying that Tony's daughter should have suppressed the fact that the book belonged to Mike Barrett! Sure, it's not helpful to her floorboards theory but Jesus Christ this is a blatant attempt by Miss Information to sweep inconvenient facts under the carpet.
To the extent that Miss Information is saying that Tony's daughter did lie for some bizarre reason about Mike owning the copy of 'Tales of Liverpool', it can only mean that she's forgotten or is unaware that BOTH of Tony's daughters, Janet and Nancy, independently stated that they heard their father say that Mike ('Bongo') owned the book.
There can be no doubt about it. Mike himself told the police that he did own a copy of the book which he had lent to someone but he'd forgotten to whom. The evidence is overwhelming, therefore, that he owned a copy of Tales of Liverpool and had lent it to Tony Devereux at some point before Tony's death.
I wrote about this in November 2020 in Tales of the Unexpected and, as usual, the golden rule of No Orsam, No Comment applies.
THE GULLIBLE QUEEN
The central theme of Miss Information's 2003 book, 'Inside Story', is that Mike kept changing his story about the diary. The key meeting in this respect was the 18th January 1995 meeting in which, having sworn an affidavit for the world just 13 days earlier, saying that he and his wife had forged the diary, Mike now changed his story and told everyone that he'd received it from Tony Devereux.
But, oopsie, just one teeny weeny factual error. As at 18th January 1995, despite the impression given in 'Inside Story', none of the participants of the meeting had been provided with a copy of Mike's affidavit.
But Miss Information can't let it go. So, after discussing Mike's inconsistent stories that he gave at the 18th January 1995 meeting about his ownership of 'Tales of Liverpool', she says in #8510:
'At that point Mike seemed to have forgotten that thirteen days earlier, on 5th January 1995, he had sworn an affidavit saying he had forged the diary with Tony's assistance.'
Durr! Of course Mike hadn't forgotten!
He was simply lying about 'Tales of Liverpool' to those at the meeting. He was trying to deceive them into thinking that the diary might be genuine.
I've already explained elsewhere why he had good reason to do this at the time, despite having sworn his affidavit in which he admitted to the forgery (which itself appears to have been for the benefit of putting pressure on Anne). If he had told the truth about 'Tales of Liverpool' at the meeting it would have involved an admission of him having given the book to Tony Devereux before his death and thus of him being aware of Maybrick and Battlecrease House since early 1991, in contradiction of the story he was telling that day.
Mike hadn't forgotten anything but the gullible Miss Information still seems to be getting scammed by Mike years after his death!
THE PERSONAL INSULT QUEEN
How touching to read barnflatwyngarde say to Miss Information (#8485 of Incontrovertible):
'I have always admired the way that your posts tend to stick to the argument, and not launch into personal insults.'
Touching but naive and ill-informed.
Sure, it's difficult to launch into personal insults on the Forum, where personal insults are against the rules, but that didn't stop Miss Information saying to me, in the most insulting fashion, back in 2017 (underlining added):
Nor has it stopped her insulting people in disguise such as her recent reference to RJ Palmer as 'a master debater' (#8543 of Incontrovertible). You see, she means masturbator, or wanker. That's very unchildish, isn't it barnflatwuyngarde?
'I won't be told by the likes of you what I may post about and what I may not' (#2829 of Incontrovertible).
But over on JTR Forums, in the thread 'Lord Orsam's Blog', here are a few examples of her personal insults against me in response to my many detailed articles about the Maybrick diary on this website about which she has avoided ANY discussion at all:
'Every time I even think of clicking on one of the links you supplied I get an electric shock to remind me not to go there' (#61)
'I doubt Lord O has a clue whose writing is in the diary, and is merely enjoying the attention from all the puppies wagging their tails and running after his balls' (#145)
'You can really tell a man by his supporters' (#168)
'What a waste of space that man is. I'm beginning to think he may actually believe what he writes after all. I used to assume he was making it up just for jolly, either because he has nothing better to do or he thinks he is winding people up'. (#226)
'Orsam's skin is so thin, on the other hand, you can see right through it to the bare bones of his posturing.' (#237)
'I expect him to expire from nervous exhaustion first.' (#237)
'it's just His Orsamness talking out of his bottom as usual' (#241)
'How many people out there are still visiting him in his bat cave for their dose of brain washing?' (#304)
'Lord O can't have any respect for his supporters. He evidently thinks they are so easily fooled that he can palm them off with any old unsupported opinion dressed up as fact. I think the word for it is ipsedixitism.' (#321)
'I know he can't help himself, because I have it on good authority' (#398)
'that man has a sad obsession with Carols.' (#580)
That last insult about my supposed 'sad obsession' with Christmas Carols was hilarious because, unknowingly, she was referring to something Howard Brown had written, not me (but she had confused herself into thinking it was me).
It is through Miss Information herself that I know that Nick Warren had sweaty palms. Why did she tell us this? Because the man thought that Mike Barrett was involved in creating the diary. So it's obvious that the state of his palms, while he was alive, was important.
And, of course, in Clangerian fashion, she famously called the late Nick Warren 'a twat' in #4683 when she wrote:
'I thought it would have been a bit mean to include a detail that would only serve to make Warren look even more of a twat than he was thought to be all those years ago.'
In the same post, she also claimed without any evidence that Warren wrote an an anonymous poem to Robert Smith 'like a naughty schoolboy'.
There were also smears against Melvin Harris such as her repeated claims in 2005, after his death, that he 'never actually examined the diary', despite him having stated that he did (Miss Information being totally unaware that he had privately examined it with the assistance of a security guard) and thus posthumously calling him a liar when he was obviously unable to defend himself.
Here is how none other than Crazy Ally, the Admin of the Forum, described Miss Information's treatment of Melvin Harris on the Forum in a post dated 25 March 2004:
'The harassment referred more to the seven or eight posts you would write that picked on nothing but typos in Melvin's posts, or that lampooned his autocratic style more than any of the content of his posts. That's harassment.'
While Crazy Ally is the last person to rely on when it comes to harassment, it has been the case for many years that Miss Information constantly picks up on minor typos or spelling mistakes of those who think the diary is a modern hoax while ignoring those of any diary defender, which may nor may not be a form of harassment but is certainly an unpleasant and obnoxious thing to do. The fact of the matter is that Miss Information makes personal attacks on anyone and everyone who thinks that Mike Barrett could have been involved in creating the Maybrick diary.
Why she does it I don't know but the idea that she sticks to the argument is absurd.
THE SUPPRESSION QUEEN
Once again, Miss Information attempted to make a point about the transcript, you know, the transcript which no one is allowed to see, this time about the spelling of 'O' in 'O costly intercourse', in #8511 of the Incontrovertible thread.
Her point here, though, was slightly different from one about spellings. Responding to RJ Palmer's remark that for her theory to be correct Mike must have owned two copies of Tales of Liverpool she said that there must have been two copies of the transcript.
A transcript was said to have been discovered on Mike's computer during the 1993 police investigation. The problem is that no one seems to know exactly what this transcript was.
It might be the exact same transcript as had been printed out and given to Doreen Montgomery at some point after 13 April 1992.
Alternatively, it might a different transcript. It might not even be a transcript but a draft of the diary prepared before it was created.
Given that no one knows what happened to the one supposedly found by the police we'll probably never know.
But there is no difficulty in Mike preparing different versions of the diary text. That could have been done for an innocent reason or a nefarious one.
But, if the Barretts were the forgers, and it was done how Mike said in his affidavit, we can pretty much guarantee that there must have been two documents: a draft of the diary text prepared prior to the creation of the diary (not properly a transcript) and a transcript prepared afterwards.
Sure, the Barretts might have been very lazy and decided to hand over to Doreen the text of the diary Mike prepared on his computer before the creation of the diary but that would have been stupid. I would have thought that, even if they were the forgers, they would have prepared a new transcript specifically to give to Doreen.
So, yes, as I've said in the past, there must have been two transcripts (or rather one transcript because, to repeat the point, the first one wouldn't properly have been a transcript but a typed draft of the diary text). But that is completely different from Mike acquiring two copies of the same book having supposedly forgotten he'd purchased the first one!
Most importantly, rather than discussing transcripts in the abstract, Keith Skinner and Miss Information need to release the copy of the transcript in their possession rather than hiding behind silly debating points of this nature.
THE DIZZY MISS LIZZY QUEEN
In #8547 of Incontrovertible, Miss Elizabeth ("Lizzy") Information tells us:
'I still suspect he wanted to find out if another prankster, a century after Jack the Ripper was active, could easily have found a genuinely old book to use for his diary, with enough unused pages for the purpose. The only item Martin Earl was able to locate - far too small and two years too late for the 1889 date - would have provided some reassurance that suitable Victorian vehicles were not exactly growing on trees'.
I like the use of the words 'I still suspect' as if she's been consistent in her approach and hadn't come up with about twenty different possible explanations prior to this one.
It's also noticeable that she hasn't attempted to respond to a single one of the many objections raised to this particular nonsensical explanation for Mike's attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages.
I've already set them out in great detail on more than one occasion.
But let's go through them again:
1. It would have made no sense for Mike to have made a single enquiry of a single dealer in rare and secondhand books if he wanted to establish how easy it would have been for a hoaxer to acquire the type of scrapbook or photograph album that was used for the Maybrick diary which Eddie Lyons had supposedly shown him. Finding something different to that particular scrapbook or photograph album would have told him precisely nothing about how easy it would have been for the hoaxer to obtain the particular 'old book' that had been used.
2. If Mike simply wanted to know if the prankster could have found 'a genuinely old book' it would have made no sense for him to ask Martin Earl for a diary confined to the period 1880 to 1890 bearing in mind that the Maybrick diary is not dated other than in the text, which, if it was a hoax, would obviously have been written in by the hoaxer.
3. Finding a genuine diary from that decade would have told Mike nothing about whether the 'old book' he had been shown by Eddie Lyons had been manufactured in, say, 1991 or any other impossible year. Mike wasn't an expert in dating scrapbooks! Furthermore, the Maybrick diary could have been written in an album from the 1870s or the 1860s or the early 1900s or any other decade. What good would it have done for Mike to have been told that there were a thousand personal diaries available from say, 1882, or none?
4. It would have made sense whatsoever for Mike to ask for a diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages when the diary he had been shown contained writing which filled 63 pages with a further 17 blank pages (making a need for 80 blank pages in total) so that a diary with, say, 40 blank pages, was never going to replicate what he'd been shown. So why did he do it?
5. In any case, Mike's question was answered when he was told by Martin Earl that no diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages could be located. He had his answer! But that obviously didn't satisfy him.
6. To the extent that the availability of a diary from 1891 with most of the pages blank was of any interest to Mike, he also had his answer. One was available! Why did he need to agree to purchase it from Martin Earl? He could easily have said that it wasn't in the period he had asked for, cancelled the order and terminated the call.
The whole thing is utterly absurd. Both Robert Smith and Miss Information herself have told us that they had no difficulty in locating a genuine Victorian or Edwardian scrapbook similar to what the Maybrick diary is written in. Mike had learned nothing from Martin Earl of any use whatsoever.
And I love the way that Miss Information frames Mike's search as for 'an old book to use for his diary'. Mike wasn't asking Martin Earl for an 'old book'. He was expressly asking for an old diary, one in a limited decade to boot. I mean, a first edition of Charles Dickens' 'Oliver Twist' was 'an old book' but it wasn't the type of old book Mike was looking for. Nor was he specifically asking Martin Earl for an old scrapbook or an old guardbook or an old photograph album. He particularly wanted a genuine Victorian diary even though that would have told him nothing about whether a hoaxer had acquired something which was NOT a diary to write the text of a fake diary into (such as a photograph album with blank pages). In other words, it told him nothing whatsoever about the availability of 'suitable Victorian vehicles', to use Miss Information's expression.
So nothing makes any sense with Miss Information's theory. It's a complete and utter dud. Yet, even though I've made these points repeatedly in the past, she fails to address a single one of them!
THE ROUND IN CIRCLES QUEEN
We go round in circles again as Miss Information recycles an old objection to the diary being based on Ryan's book while ignoring the answer that has already been made to the objection. In #8548, she said:
'If a hoaxer decides to write JtR's diary based on James Maybrick being the murderer, and only uses one modern book for all his information on the man himself, I'm wondering how Ryan's book really helps to pinpoint Maybrick's movements and whereabouts during the crucial period between August and November, when JtR killed up to five women in Whitechapel.'
In a state of confusion, she added:
'The usual defence is that James was unlikely to have had provable alibis when only four nights were concerned.'
No, that is not the 'usual defence'.
The answer to her objection has been made many times before and is very very very very very very very very very very very simple.
Mike simply didn't care!
There were many things that could have proved the diary to be fake (including the things that HAVE proved it be fake) but so what?
Miss Information always seems to think that something proving the diary to be a fake would have been the end of the world for Mike. That the fear of this failure would have been sufficient to ensure he never even embarked on the mission.
If it turned out that Maybrick had (say) been on holiday in Wales on 9 November 1888 and couldn't possibly have been in London, Mike would have just said, 'Boy, did that Tony Devereux give me a dud diary!'.
And that's it. No one would have been able to prove who forged it. There would have been no adverse consequences for Mike. The whole thing would have been forgotten about very quickly.
As usual with diary defenders (cf. Paul Begg), Miss Information makes the mistake of wondering what SHE would have done, hence:
'If I had tried my hand at such a hoax, using my own handwriting, I'd have wanted more than just Ryan as my guide...'
But she was never going to be creating a fake Jack the Ripper diary, was she? As a result, she cannot physically think like a forger. She can't even get past the fact that Mike was an incompetent liar. She seems to think it disqualifies him from forging the diary when the person most likely to have created the Maybrick diary with all its mistakes was.... an incompetent liar!!! Especially an incompetent liar assisted by a semi-competent wife!
If one adopts the approach taken by Miss Information to the war in Ukraine, I could say that Russia can't possibly have invaded Ukraine because, you see, if I was Vladimir Putin I would never have done such a thing. It's THAT barmy.
I can't put myself into the mind of Putin, just like Miss Information can't put herself in the mind of the forger.
But what's perfectly obvious is that if Maybrick could have been proven not to have been in London on one of the days of the murder, the diary would (probably) have been regarded as a fake. I say 'probably' because most diary defenders are lunatics, impervious to reason, so who knows what excuse they would have come up with to defend the diary on such an occasion?
But that doesn't for one second mean that the forger wouldn't have created the forgery in the first place. Not everyone is as paralysed with fear as Miss Information seems to be. Otherwise the Hitler diaries would never have been forged by Kujau because, after all, what if it could have been shown that Hitler's writing arm was useless due to an explosion at the time he was supposed to have written one of the entries? Oh, sorry, this was shown to be the case.... but it didn't prevent the forgery being created and sold as a genuine diary!
THE DIARY DEFENDING QUEEN
Responding to RJ Palmer's perfectly expressed statement that 'The solid rock of Diary belief cannot and will not be shaken', Miss Information attempted to distance herself from the nutjobs (the Major and the Bitha) who believe that the diary was genuinely written by James Maybrick, saying (#270 of the 'How to make Ripperology better' thread)
'You do seem duly concerned about the one and half posters who appear to have this solid rock of Diary belief'.
Ha ha! She is, of course, the Chief Diary Defender whose belief in the diary having been found under the floorboards of Battlecrease is rock solid (100% she says, 99% says Skinner). In this, she aligns herself entirely with the nutjobs and she has clearly expressed in the past her belief that the diary is an old item which might well be genuine.
She claims that all RJ Palmer et al had to do was 'hunt the hoaxer(s) and expose them' but that there has been 'an abject failure' to do so. To the extent that she claims the diary is an old hoax, she has never managed to identify the hoaxer(s) and expose them, even amidst her million words of waffle and speculation, but I've never heard her admit to her own 'abject failure'.
It's amazing how Miss Information is living in the past and seems to be arguing against the late Melvin Harris and his unidentified and mythical 'nest of forgers'.
We are now in 2022 and, as it happens, a clear suggestion of the identity of the hoaxer based on recently discovered handwriting HAS been made but Miss Information refuses even to consider it! It's amazing that she sticks her head in the sand and literally pretends that a candidate has not been put forward. Mike Barrett himself literally said that the actual forger was Anne Barrett. For that reason, there isn't any hunting or exposing that anyone needs to do!
THE IN-DENIAL QUEEN
My favourite statement from Miss Information in the 'How to make Ripperology better' was in the immediately preceding post (#269) in which she said:
'To anyone who knew Mike Barrett, his claims to have forged the diary were extraordinary, and as such they will require extraordinary evidence before anyone can finally lock him up and throw away the key.'
The disingenuity of this statement is amazing. She knows perfectly well that the argument against her is NOT that Mike Barrett alone forged the diary but that he was part of a team, involving at least one other person but possibly more, who forged the diary. This is what Mike himself said in 1995! He claimed to have forged the diary with the assistance of Tony Devereux, Billy Graham and Anne Graham.
Further, the only reason that some of the people who knew Mike Barrett might have thought that his claims were extraordinary, is because those people had a fundamental misunderstanding about the diary, thinking it to be an extraordinary document. For example, they believed that the statement in the diary that Gladys was ill again demonstrated a remarkable inside knowledge of the Maybrick family which someone like Mike Barrett couldn't possibly have possessed. They were not aware that pretty much all the information about the Maybricks in the diary could have been lifted from a single book. These people also believed that the forger had avoided the use of anachronistic phrases because they had been misled by Shirley Harrison into thinking that 'one off instance' was a nineteenth century expression. They were also unaware of 'bumbling buffoon' being an impossible expression.
I could go on but all those people who knew Mike Barrett while he was alive were labouring under a serious misapprehension about what an extraordinary document the diary was. Like Miss Information, none of them seemed to have appreciated how easy it was to create a forgery of this nature and how many supposed experts could be fooled by it.
So no, Mike's claim about how the diary was forged with the assistance of his wife and others is not extraordinary by any means and it does not require extraordinary evidence to conclude that the diary is a modern fake created in 1992. The fact of Mike having been secretly searching for a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 tells us all we need to know about it.
THE DOUBLETHINK QUEEN
Having dismissed Mike Barrett's 'claims to have forged the diary' in #269 of the 'How to make Ripperology better?' thread, Miss Information, with bewildering speed, and incredible doublethink, pivoted to the assumption that the argument against her is that it was Anne Barrett who did it!!!
Thus, while making a ludicrous point about Colin Ireland, she said in #271:
'I wonder if Anne Barrett patted herself on the back for her insight, when she read all about Colin Ireland's double life unwittingly imitating her art - and so soon after she had tried her hand at it too. Or would she giggle nervously at the thought of anyone actually believing she possessed any such insight - or indeed foresight?'.
The layers of nonsense in this statement are astonishing.
Firstly, the allegation by Mike Barrett was that Anne did no more than transcribe words he dictated to her. Whether this is true or not, isn't it odd how in one post, when it suits her, Mike is the supposed forger, in another post, when it suits her, Anne is the supposed forger??!! She never once considers the argument that they both did it together!
But the ludicrousness of her claim goes much deeper than this. She is pointing out that when murdering his victims, Colin Ireland took the train from the Essex coast to London. So, in the world of Miss Information, if Anne Barrett was the forger of the Maybrick diary, she must have subsequently (in 1993) known the details of the Colin Ireland murders and she then must have linked the fact that during the 1990s Colin Ireland regularly travelled from Southend to London (a relatively short commute made by hundreds of city workers every single fucking day) to her diary narrative whereby James Maybrick took the train from Liverpool to London in 1888 to murder his victims and then, having made that connection, she must have felt pleased with herself and 'patted herself on the back' because....er....because...well because of her insight and her foresight, apparently, and because (even though the diary doesn't actually mention Maybrick's mode of travel) she'd invented the concept of a serial killer travelling into London on a train.
Thing is, the idea of Jack the Ripper coming from Liverpool had already been made.
Based on Peter Underwood's book, the Liverpool Echo of 6 August 1990 had asked if there had been a 'Wack the Ripper?' (a 'Wack' being alternative slang for a scouser):
The Liverpool Echo of 27 May 1991 had asked 'Was Jack the Ripper a Scouser?'
There wasn't really much patting on the back involved in identifying Jack the Ripper as someone from outside London, especially Liverpool, which had already been done.
Furthermore, the real nonsense about Miss Information's Colin Ireland point (to the extent that it can be dignified as a point) is that it must apply to the forger regardless of their identity and regardless of whether they were alive or dead in 1993. Whoever forged the diary (and Miss Information always tells us that SOMEONE did) had, in Miss Information's crazy world, anticipated someone like Colin Ireland travelling to London to commit murders - albeit that of course in the real world there is no connection - and had shown incredible insight and foresight in doing so.
So why is she singling out Anne Barrett? What point is she trying to make with her patting on the back and nervous giggling comment?
It's just crazy. The idea that the Colin Ireland murders somehow elevates the diary narrative, and its author, to having special insight and foresight is utterly absurd.
For her post to have had any logical validity whatsoever she would have needed to argue that the diary was genuinely written by Jack the Ripper and that only such a person could have known that the killer could have travelled from Liverpool to commit the murders whereas no one else, without amazing insight and foresight, could have invented the idea prior to the exposure of Colin Ireland's crimes. That itself would be a dreadful argument but she tells us that the diary is a hoax so what the absolute fuck does Colin Ireland have to do with anything and why is she fucking mentioning him?
I mean, honestly, it is all such barking mad rubbish of the type she's been spewing out for over twenty years.
THE MISINFORMATION QUEEN
She's still at it. Spreading misinformation. Hence in #8637 of the Incontrovertible thread we find this (underlining added):
'I haven't needed to 'accuse' Eddie of anything. He and others who knew him have been doing that themselves at various times since July 1992, over six years before I'd ever heard of the old book, which he said he'd found under the floorboards of Battlecrease House and thought might be "important"'
But here is what her good friend Robert Smith claims that Eddie said to Brian Rawes in July 1992 (per 'The True History of the Diary of Jack the Ripper, pages 25-6) based on what Rawes had told Alan Davies:
'I found something under the floorboards, and I don't know what to do about it. It could be important'.
This was almost identical to what Shirley Harrison reported Brian Rawes' words to be in her earlier 2003 book, 'The American Connection', on page 292, hence:
'I've found something under the floor boards. I think it could be important'.
No mention there, in either quote, of a book, and certainly not of an old book. Assuming that Brian Rawes' recollection (as conveyed by Alan Davies) was accurate, Eddie could have been talking about anything.
In his 'True History' (page 26), Smith goes on to claim that Rawes told James Johnston on 6th February 2016 that 'something' was being described as 'an old book'. This is FALSE.
As I detailed in How to Befuddle and Confuse back in July 2020, Rawes never once mentioned 'an old book' to James Johnston on 6th February 2016.
What happened on 6th February 2016 is that Brian Rawes dramatically changed his story from the one he had originally told Alan Davies. Now, instead of recalling Eddie saying to him that he had found 'something', Rawes magically remembered him saying that he'd found 'a book'. By that time of course, Rawes had been constantly asked about the diary or scrapbook and no doubt one of his questioners had mentioned a book to him. Even then he didn't stick to the new story and, at one point in the interview, Rawes quoted Eddie's words as being 'I've found something important, I think it's important, under the floorboards' not mentioning the word 'book' at all, just as Alan Davies had originally recalled being told.
But the key point is that at no time did Rawes mention an 'old book'.
Miss Information was once challenged about this on the Forum and she was totally unable to provide any source for her claim that an electrician ever recalled Eddie mentioning an 'old book'. Yet she baldly repeats this falsehood yet again to mislead the Forum members. We've already seen the exact quote in which all Eddie ever told Rawes is that he'd found something under the floorboards which could be important. There was no mention of what that something was.
If Rawes later assumed that Eddie had been telling him about the discovery of a scrapbook or photograph album it's natural that his imagination might fill in the gaps and refer to the discovery as a book but what is absolutely clear is that he never told James Johnston on 6 February 2016 (or any other time) that it was an old book.
14 May 2022
For more on the misinformation of Miss Information see Lord Orsam Says...Part 31