Solving the Linder Mystery

If anyone ever suggests that the 2003 book Ripper Diary - The Inside Story by Seth Linder, Keith Skinner and Caroline Morris, pushed a certain agenda, they will invariably be told by the Chief Diary Defender and co-author of that book, Caroline Anne Morris, that this isn't possible because the three authors all held different views. Hence:

As we can see, on 12th March 2018, "AmericanSherlock", who suggested that the authors "lean towards the authenticity of the diary", was told by Caroline Morris that the book:

'was never meant to include the authors' personal speculation about how, why and when the diary may have been created, or by whom - for starters we didn't think alike so it would have become a bit of a mess.'

Three years later, on 8th November 2021, Roger Palmer was told this:

"It wasn't for the authors, whose personal views were/are in any case different from one another's to express our opinions about the truthfulness or otherwise of the various accounts of how Mike ended up with the diary..."

I've always been puzzled by this. One cannot insert a playing card between the views of Caroline Morris and Keith Skinner about the diary. I'm sure I don't need to convince anyone who has been reading the boards over the past 27 years that the former speaks of the latter as if she worships him and the ground he walks on. She has certainly never disagreed with anything he's ever said. For Keith Skinner's part, he confirmed to me on 21st January 2018 that he agrees with virtually everything Morris says:

"I will just end by saying that Caroline (Caz) expresses and articulates my thinking clearly and accurately. I seldom read a post where I disagree with what she has written."

So those two are, without doubt, thick as thieves. Not only do they think alike but one would be forgiven for thinking they are the same person. It can hardly be said that the views of Keith Skinner and Caroline Morris regarding the diary are "different from each other".

No, so it's blindingly obvious that she must have been saying that the views about the diary of Seth Linder were (and are) different to the views of herself and Keith Skinner.

That is certainly what I've always understood her to mean.

The problem is that for the past ten years (since I first read Inside Story) I've never had a clue about Seth Linder's views on the diary. For all I've ever known, he was satisfied that the diary was a fake created by Mike Barrett.

If I'd wanted to look up the guy on the internet, this is what his biography on O'Brien Press Limited, who published his book, Belfast Walks, says:

Seth Linder is a journalist, author and scriptwriter who lives in Northern Ireland. He has worked on numerous projects exploring the heritage, history and culture of Northern Ireland, including Belfast City Hall’s centenary exhibition and the award-winning ‘Belfast Bred’ dramatized food tour of the city, produced by Kabosh Theatre. He has worked with local historians and community groups throughout Belfast. He scripted the groundbreaking iTours video guides to Belfast and a series of booklets covering the city’s arts and cultural scenes.

On his own website, sethlinder.com it is stated:

"Over the last fifteen years I’ve lent my copywriting, research and scriptwriting skills to numerous projects throughout the island of Ireland. I’ve also written drama episodes for the BBC, film scripts and countless features for most of the leading newspapers and magazines in the UK and Ireland. I have written three travel books.

I have been lucky enough to use my love of history, heritage and the arts on a diverse array of jobs from walking tour apps to timelines, interpretive panels and exhibitions. I have scripted many short films, dramatized tours and audio/visuals on all kinds of subjects.

I also write brochures, booklets and websites for many different kinds of businesses, from estate agents and media firms to transportation, ferry and print companies."

So no mention in either of those short biographies of any interest in true crime or the Maybrick diary in particular.

We do know, however, that Linder went running around Liverpool with Keith Skinner and James Johnston a few years ago for the (presumably rubbish) documentary that never got picked up, broadcast or released, as revealed by this still from the trailer:

But still, the man's views about the diary remained inscrutable.

Until now.

For I recently (by accident) acquired a copy of Ripperologist No. 20 from December 1998:

What do we find in this issue? To my surprise, nothing less than a review of Shirley Harrison's 1998 edition of The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Seth Linder in which he expresses his own views about the diary.

Well well, so let's see how the views of Seth Linder differ so markedly from the views of his co-authors, Caroline Morris and Keith Skinner, shall we?

First, here's the full thing:

Goodness me. Let's see what we've got.

Well Linder is bothered by the "dismissive nature" of the approach by some people to the diary. Caroline Morris and Keith Skinner don't seem to like this dismissive nature either.

He says that in Shirley Harrison's book:

"Barrett's own account of his alleged forgery is examined fairly and in detail and found to be simply implausible".

Hmmmm, now who else shares that exact same view?

It gets ever better because Linder then tells us that he has "come to believe" Anne Barrett.

Now it's important to remember that we are in 1998, long before the discovery of the infamous Portus & Rhodes "timesheet", at a time when it is certainly the case that Keith Skinner also believed that Anne Barrett was telling the truth about the diary having been in her family for decades. We'll come presently to discuss Caroline Morris' views on this subject.

Linder then refers to the "extraordinary" story of the watch. If Morris and Skinner don't think the story of the watch is extraordinary I'll eat my hat.

Linder has somehow also seen a "convincing rebuttal" in Shirley Harrison's book of some of the linguistic objections to the diary, having apparently been fooled by her claim to have found the expression "one off" in a document from the 1860s. It's hard to be convinced by a document that the author doesn't actually produce or quote from but Linder, it seems, was convinced.

Then, when it comes to the authenticity of the diary, Linder feels that, "the diary's opponents have too glibly dismissed the degree of skill and knowledge needed for the alleged forgery". A statement that will certainly warm the cockles of the hearts of Caroline, Keith and, indeed, young Thomas Mitchell.

There is, of course, the problematic question of the handwriting but Linder seems optimistic that "the Galashiels letter will shed some light on this" (really?) and seems annoyed that the experts can't get their act together and tell us that it is indeed Maybrick's handwriting in the diary.

Linder's conclusion, that the diary is "a document of genuine historical interest", could have come out of a Press Release issued by Diary Defender Central and is bang on what Keith Skinner and Caroline Morris have always believed about the diary. The old, genuinely interesting historical fake scenario!

One can well imagine Keith Skinner glowing when he read this review back in 1998. Seth Linder, a professional journalist, was literally articulating everything he believed about the diary. Remember, this was before the days of Caroline Morris. She was not yet a feature of Diary World. But Skinner had clearly found an ally in Linder, thus solving the mystery of why the man was invited to co-author Inside Story in the first place. Skinner simply reached out to someone who 100% shared his views about the diary.

Then, when Caroline Morris started emailing Keith Skinner in 1999 with her views about the diary and posting on Casebook, which posts, as we've seen, for Skinner, "expresses and articulates my thinking clearly and accurately", she was then invited to join Skinner and Linder to write a book about the diary.

Skinner, in other words, chose two people who were completely aligned with his own views on the diary. The idea that the personal views of the three authors were different from one another and that they didn't think alike is revealed as the complete and utter bogus nonsense I've always thought it to be.

But the world of Caroline Morris is never simple. How could she possibly have claimed that the three authors held different views? Well I suspect it's all in the fine print, as usual. Today, Morris hints that she never really believed Anne Barrett's story about the origins of the diary. But her posts from before Inside Story was written tell a different story.

First of all, let's just nail down Keith Skinner's views on this issue from before 2003.

In a post addressed to Caroline Morris dated 14th May 2000, he wrote:

"Let me first of all confirm my position over the alleged Maybrick Journal. I firmly do not believe it to be a modern hoax, neither am I persuaded that it was written by James Maybrick, or that Maybrick was the Ripper. Very simply, I believe it to be an old document, in need of explanation, because if it did exist prior to 1987 - and I do believe Anne Graham's testimony - then it intrigues and worries me. I'm puzzled as to where the internal content (Maybrick and Ripper) has been obtained, when set in historical context, because I do not think some of the source material was in the public domain. So, for me, Paul Begg's three important questions remain unanswered; who wrote it? why was it written? when was it written?"

There's that "old document" of historical significance line that also attracted Seth Linder. And we can see confirmation from Keith that he did believe Anne Graham's testimony.

On 23rd February 2001 he posted:

"Turning to my position concerning the historical status of the Diary. I have, since 1994, repeatedly expressed my sincere belief that I regard this document to be an old fake. I may be wrong and it is not important for me to be right. I reach this position because I believe Anne Graham’s story and that of her late father. I may be wrong about them and it is not important for me to be right. I accept the results of Rod McNeil’s ion migration test. He may be wrong and it is not important to me that he be right. But I have no theory to account for the Diary’s existence, if indeed it did exist, in the early part of the twentieth century. I’m baffled and even more so when my good friend and professional colleague, Martin Fido, states that “Science dates the document to a historically impossible period.”

To Roger Palmer on 27th February 2001, he said:

"Yes, I do believe Anne Graham’s story and I do believe this document is old. But I am not fighting for that belief, just as I am not trying to defend a theory. I have no explanation for why this Diary was created. I do not know why it was, allegedly, in the possession of Elizabeth Formby or if there is any truth in the ‘Formby/Nurse at Battlecrease House’ connection. I am not fighting to vindicate Anne Graham. I just want the truth, even if that truth exposes me as being totally gullible and naïve, as well as professionally incompetent. It just doesn’t matter to me, although I would be concerned if my “bungling” were a consistent feature of my work and I was short changing clients. But if Melvin has cast iron proof, then it would be absurd of me to try and disprove it. Why would I want to do this RJ? I cannot emphasise enough that it is simply not important for me to be right. "

Then on 24th May 2001:

"In response to your question of Tuesday, May 22nd, 2001 @ 09:47 pm – all I am able to relate is that, over a seven year period, Anne’s story about the origins and her personal involvement with the Diary has remained consistent – without deviation or embellishment. Neither does it sound like it is a rehearsed speech. She has recounted the story to me and other people, on many occasions; written down her thoughts, recollections and feelings in great detail, explaining the reasons why she remained quietly isolated until July 1994 and – importantly – of her relationship with Paul Feldman.

I believe her, but I pay extremely close attention to Steve Powell’s Australian input which is not easy to explain away – even given Anne’s denial of the circumstances. If Steve Powell is a publicity seeking fantasist, then he has been extraordinarily lucky, or remarkably diligent, for he has revealed detail which, quite simply, is not in the public domain. Peter Birchwood, I understand, is currently pursuing this line of enquiry and the results of Peter’s research could be extremely important in determining the historical status of the Diary.

If I have misjudged Anne, then that will say more about my incompetence and inadequacies, than Anne’s deception. There was a time when I spent over a three month period with her, transcribing the Feldman tapes of the interviews with her father. That, more than any other occasion, provided me with a God given opportunity to discuss the Diary with her and watch her reactions. It also put me in direct contact with her daughter, Caroline. Anne invited me to stay with her, whenever I went to Liverpool, but I always declined her kind offer, as I considered it absolutely imperative to retain a professional detachment and give myself space to think. I still have Feldman’s memo worrying about my hotel bills! And each time I came away from Liverpool convinced that Anne was telling the truth and that neither she nor Mike created the Diary, or knew it to be a modern hoax."

So Keith's view was quite clearly that the diary had existed within the Barrett family for many years and probably went back to at least the early twentieth century. Above all, he believed Anne Barrett.

What about Caroline Morris? Well, her stated position prior to the emergence of the "timesheet" was that she didn't know whether Anne was telling the truth or not, but look what she wrote on Casebook on 4th June 1999:

"We have yet to sift the lies from the truth, but do we have the right to assume Anne NEVER told the truth about the diary origins? Who can make that final judgement and condemn all those who disagree with it? Not me. Not you. Not Peter."

Translated from Morris-speak to plain English, she was saying that no one had the right to assume that Anne was lying about the origins of the diary.

Then we had this from her on 24th March 2001:

"Whether or not Anne had a potential financial incentive to tell her story in July 1994, this doesn't, by itself, prove this was her reason for telling it, nor that the story was a lie. (In fact, if her story were true, there would be no moral reason why she should not share the royalties with Mike.) But, having shown a potential motive for lying, we could then test Anne's means and opportunity to tell a completely tall story and hope to get away with it. One thing that comes back to haunt me about all this is how confident could she have been, when she first told it to Feldy, that no one involved in the forgery would ever have reason, or be able (as Mike has not been) to come forward and prove her story to be rubbish."

So, again translated to plain English, we have the type of mind-reading argument so familiar to current readers of the forums whereby she suggests that Anne is unlikely to have invented a story about the diary having been in her family for years because she would have known it could have been so easily exposed. The message was clear. Anne was likely telling the truth; no wonder Keith Skinner believed her.

We find the same type of thing posted again by Morris on 29th September 2003:

"That’s fine except that I never said I believe Anne’s story.  I just can’t be as sure as you are about who is telling lies about what. I do have to wonder what possessed Anne to put herself and her sick, elderly father in the spotlight, just so she could tell a load of rubbish about the diary’s origins, especially if she was a co-conspirator. But even if she had no idea how Mike ended up with the diary, it would seem to be an act of lunacy on her part, considering all the recent press interest, the accusations of fraud, not to mention Scotland Yard’s involvement."

So, while making clear that she had never actually said she believed Anne, she then put forward an argument (in the form of her merely wondering) that Anne was surely telling the truth because it would have been lunacy on her part to put her father in the spotlight and lie about the diary.

Today, of course, she has no problem with Anne having carried out "an act of lunacy" because she has a brand new theory of where the diary came from. But back in 2003, the year of publication of Inside Story, she was clearly fully disposed to believe Anne's story.

CONCLUSION

I think we can safely conclude that the views of the three authors of Inside Story in 2003 were very much alike. To say that they were different is disingenuous in the extreme and seems to me to be based on nothing more than the fact that two of them believed Anne Graham's story while the third was prepared to believe Anne Graham. At least, that is what I suspect Caroline Morris will argue, if pushed (although she will pretend that she never believed Anne). Otherwise, they all thought the diary was likely to be an old forgery while undoubtedly keeping their options open as to it being genuine. Above all, every one of them dismissed out of hand the idea of Mike Barrett having been involved in the forgery.

In that context, the failures of Inside Story, which have been discussed on this website in the past, can be viewed in their proper context. While the authors may not have intentionally omitted from their book facts which supported Mike Barrett's account (such as the information from the auctioneers, Outhwaite & Litherland, which corroborated some parts of it), it seems likely that their inherent bias led them not to view such facts as important. Equally, it's likely that they didn't pursue lines of inquiry which might have supported Mike's account because they simply didn't believe his account and didn't think it would be fruitful to do so. As we know, the authors made a right royal mess of the issue over Mike's January 1995 affidavit, thinking that Mike had made it publicly available, not realizing that it was sworn in secret and that he only gave it to Anne (which she described as "blackmail"), a serious error which made it look like Mike swore an affidavit publicly telling the detailed story of the forgery only to inform all the people who would have read that affidavit a few days later that he got the diary from Tony Devereux after all, making him appear quite mad and irrational, something which, it has to be said, was the central theme of the book but which we now know was based on a false premise.

Had the authors all not shared the exact same view about Mike Barrett, one of them might have dug a little deeper and realized that his apparently odd behaviour had a perfectly understandable explanation. Had they all not shared the same view, perhaps one of them might have investigated his journalistic career a bit deeper and even read his published articles which could have been found at the British Library. Perhaps one of them might have registered that his receipt of the red 1891 diary on 28th March 1992 was entirely consistent with the claim in his affidavit that it took eleven days to create the diary. Perhaps one of them might not have been so easily convinced by Anne's claim that Mike had only wanted to purchase the red 1891 diary in order to see what a Victorian diary looked like. Perhaps one of them would have wondered what Mike had meant when he repeatedly stated at the Cloak & Dagger meeting in April 1999 that the diary was in his wife's handwriting. And so on and so forth.

LORD ORSAM

27 August 2026