Lord Orsam's Blog

[Caroline Brown]

no. that wasn't a simplest explanation it was a convoluted "translation" -and those are more often than not-not the right ones.

Hi Abby,

Remember we are talking about Mike Barrett here. So translations from all sides were de rigueur whenever he opened his trap on the subject of the diary.

But if you think my translation was 'convoluted', you should try wading through the translations of Mike's various 'confession' statements, by those who fell gratefully into the trap of imagining they contained even a grain of truth or inside knowledge on the diary's creator(s). The efforts to make his statements make any sense at all must have made their eyes water, and yet they would claim to be experts on Mike's affidavit of 5th January 1995, like it was the bleedin' Rosetta Stone, and not the desperately sad product of a broken man, lashing out because he blamed the diary and everyone closely associated with it for the tragedy of having lost his wife and only child.

Unless you try to understand the man, you will never 'get' it, and will continue to grab at the mind-numbingly simplistic "he admitted it so he did it" translation of his words and actions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

Okay, RJ. I'll help you out, but first ask yourself this question: what is the only logical explanation for Mike's denial - from early 1993, when the rumours first became public, to his dying day - that the diary had been in Maybrick's old home before he got his own mucky paws on it?

I'll help you out with the options:

A) Mike denied it because he knew it wasn't true.

But think about that for a moment. How could Mike know it wasn't true if Devereux gave him the diary without explanation? Simple. He couldn't. For all Mike could have known, it had been in the Maybrick house before Devereux got his paws on it. Result, because for a more than reasonable 5% to Paul Dodd, he could have been untouchable and armed with the perfect provenance, merely for accepting the possibility that it came from the house. So why the furious denial, implying that he knew it had never been near that house, in which case the whole Devereux story had to be a lie, told to cover up an uncomfortable truth and protect the guilty parties.

Now think about what that Devereux lie was covering up. I think I know by now what you believe, that Mike knew the diary had not come out of Maybrick's old home because he had bought the partly used photo album on 31st March 1992 and witnessed his wife spending the next eleven days, carefully and expertly disguising her usual handwriting, to produce the 63-page diary. But at that point, he wasn't about to admit to anything of the sort, was he? 5% of nothing is nothing, and Anne's precious creation had yet to be published, so any whiff of it not being 'right' would threaten to cancel out the recent rumours of a Battlecrease provenance and tread them into the ground.

So what did Mike do next? Did he grab at the perfect phoney provenance with both hands, knowing he had Paul Dodd's consent and blessing, and nothing could be proved or disproved? All for a measly 5% of a whacking great payday yet to come? Not a bit of it. Your silly faker furiously denied it, and kept on denying it for all he was worth, as if this was the very worst thing that anyone could believe about his phoney diary's origins - that the "old book" had actually been found in Maybrick's house, before good old Mike received it in good faith from an old friend and solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper by identifying its author. God forbid! What could possibly have gone wrong if he'd told a little white lie along with all the other big ones, and said yes, of course he was open to the possibility that it was in Battlecrease before being passed on to Devereux?

B) Mike denied it because he feared it was true.

If that was the case, he didn't fake the diary and neither did Anne. But there would have been no reason to fear it being true if he had got it in all innocence and ignorance from Devereux. He must have feared this being true more than anything else, to deny it so consistently and vehemently. The obvious - perhaps the only logical explanation, is that his denial was just another lie, to distance himself from the chap who had sold him the "old book", no questions asked. Mike had recently been staggered to find out that this man had worked in Battlecrease House and he put two and two together. If that wasn't bad enough, Feldman was now trying to 'induce' the bloody man to spill all the beans. How could Mike do a deal with Dodd under those circumstances? The implication would be clear, if chummy talked, that Mike had received stolen property directly from the thief, and that Devereux had nothing to do with it, having died several months before the handover. In short, Mike would have lied about the provenance to protect both himself and his partner-in-crime.

At best, both Barretts would be guilty of having dragged in a dead man, in their anxiety and ignorance about where the diary might have come from; at worst, Mike would be accused of knowing the man who had passed him the diary, because they were both Saddle regulars, and knowing where he had taken it from, because of the wiring job he did in the Maybrick house. Worse than that, if it had come out that the diary could not have arrived in Goldie Street in 1991 [because chummy had not set foot in Battlecrease House before March 1992], Mike's precious wife and daughter would be implicated too.

It's all down to Mike's denial of the ideal provenance really. When you eliminate the illogical reasons for denying it, and there's one logical reason staring you in the face, the only thing stopping you from seeing it has to be this glue-like attachment to Mike's dog's breakfast of a forgery confession.

By the way, thank you for the 'get better' wishes, but I'm fine.

Have a safe weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Howard Brown]

November 29, 2019


NEWS

https://www.orsam.co.uk/news.htm

[Paul Butler]

Could you expand on why you believe it to be simpler? It seems to involve a further step (the “translation”) so how is it simpler?

It's simplicity itself to anyone not fixated on believing serial fibber Mike Barrett's crazy claims to have written it either himself or jointly with the then Mrs B.

Book unearthed at Riversdale Road in the morning.
Shown to Mike in the Saddle at lunchtime and offered to him for twenty five quid or whatever.
Mike goes home to think about it and makes a few calls.
Mike decides it's worth the money and arranges to buy the book.
Mike makes appointment to take it to Doreen Montgomery and hey presto. Job done.

Simple, and with paperwork to back it up in the form of timesheets.

[Howard Brown]

A49301

https://www.orsam.co.uk/a49301.htm

[Kattrup]

It's simplicity itself to anyone not fixated on believing serial fibber Mike Barrett's crazy claims to have written it either himself or jointly with the then Mrs B.

Okay, so it’s only simpler if one already believes some other, unsupported but more convoluted and complex explanation.

I was just wondering how to understand your statement, thanks for the reply.

[Caroline Brown]

Okay, so it’s only simpler if one already believes some other, unsupported but more convoluted and complex explanation.

I was just wondering how to understand your statement, thanks for the reply.

I'm sorry, Kattrup, but if you were to pick over all of Mike Barrett's forgery explanations, you would find them not only unsupported by the facts, but also more convoluted, complex, contradictory, inconsistent, incoherent and downright unlikely than you could possibly imagine. Mike might have called his 'confessions' "simple", but that should not be mistaken for a ringing endorsement.

Mike's now infamous affidavit from 5th January 1995 has in recent months been stirred, shaken and generally poked about with, before being repackaged in a bottle with a pretty bow round it, and a label saying "Drink Me". Marketed as your dream ticket to Diary Wonderland, it may look simple and wholesome to the unwary, but when you get up close enough, it will still look and smell like the runny dog poo it always was. The label should have read "Do not swallow".

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

It's simplicity itself to anyone not fixated on believing serial fibber Mike Barrett's crazy claims to have written it either himself or jointly with the then Mrs B.

Book unearthed at Riversdale Road in the morning.
Shown to Mike in the Saddle at lunchtime and offered to him for twenty five quid or whatever.
Mike goes home to think about it and makes a few calls.
Mike decides it's worth the money and arranges to buy the book.
Mike makes appointment to take it to Doreen Montgomery and hey presto. Job done.

Simple, and with paperwork to back it up in the form of timesheets.

Precisely, Paul.

And the beauty of this oh-so-simple explanation is that it eases the least feasible modern suspect for authoring the diary out of the ill-fitting frame of his own making, without replacing him with a Maybrick, nor even necessarily a pre-WWII hoaxer. So it's a win-win, and would restore the credibility of every modern hoax theorist who could finally admit that Mike pulled a fast one with his forgery claims.

As Keith Skinner so often observes, we might be satisfied that the diary was found in Battlecrease on 9th March, but we still don't know where it was on 8th.

And neither did Mike Barrett.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Precisely, Paul.

And the beauty of this oh-so-simple explanation is that it eases the least feasible modern suspect for authoring the diary out of the ill-fitting frame of his own making, without replacing him with a Maybrick, nor even necessarily a pre-WWII hoaxer. So it's a win-win, and would restore the credibility of every modern hoax theorist who could finally admit that Mike pulled a fast one with his forgery claims.

As Keith Skinner so often observes, we might be satisfied that the diary was found in Battlecrease on 9th March, but we still don't know where it was on 8th.

And neither did Mike Barrett.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Looking at the forgery issue perhaps you would be so kind as to comment?



The first sworn affadvit is in such great detail. as to suggest that what was contained in that was the real truth, and that it was forged as is written.


I have to ask why would Barret go to such lengths, and put into writing so much which he would have known could either be proved or disproved?


And why if it was genuine did he even bother to go and swear it out. He could simply have kept to his original story.


I think the answer to that was that those who had finacially invested in him at an early stage realized it was a forgery, and he had to back track before the police got involved, but by then perhaps it was too late.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

I'm sorry, Kattrup, but if you were to pick over all of Mike Barrett's forgery explanations, you would find them not only unsupported by the facts, but also more convoluted, complex, contradictory, inconsistent, incoherent and downright unlikely than you could possibly imagine.

That may or may not be the case, as I am not sure what "facts" you believe contradict his explanations, but at any rate I was simply seeking to understand how one explanation involving more steps than another could be considered simpler.

[Sam Flynn]

Precisely, Paul.

And the beauty of this oh-so-simple explanation...

An explanation that requires us to believe that some electricians found the diary of one of the world's most infamous serial killers under the floorboards of a client's house and immediately decided to get rid of it for a few quid to a third party whom they hardly knew? That's never struck me as a simple, or even a likely explanation, Caz.

[Caroline Brown]

Hi Caz
Looking at the forgery issue perhaps you would be so kind as to comment?



The first sworn affadvit is in such great detail. as to suggest that what was contained in that was the real truth, and that it was forged as is written.


I have to ask why would Barret go to such lengths, and put into writing so much which he would have known could either be proved or disproved?


And why if it was genuine did he even bother to go and swear it out. He could simply have kept to his original story.


I think the answer to that was that those who had finacially invested in him at an early stage realized it was a forgery, and he had to back track before the police got involved, but by then perhaps it was too late.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dear Trev,

Not sure what you're on about, but if you think you know the answer, why ask me?

The police got involved in October 1993 and got nowhere. Mike didn't start claiming he'd forged the diary until June 1994, when his personal life was in tatters, and thereafter his various 'confessions' just got more and more bizarre and less coherent and credible as the pain of losing his wife and daughter worsened.

It does strike me that you have only really skimmed the surface of what was happening during that time, and what has been said and written about it. Therefore there doesn't seem much point in my trying to sum it all up for you here. Besides, if you haven't been reasoned into the position you currently hold, you won't be reasoned out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

That may or may not be the case...

Oh it is the case, Kattrup. You need a more comprehensive grasp of all the twists and turns of Mike's various forgery scenarios, and the stone cold fact that not one of his related claims has stood up to close scrutiny and been proved true. Where he did provide the odd provable detail, such as the arrival of the tiny red 1891 diary, he screwed up the year and had no way to prove it was ever intended for the creation of the diary.

...as I am not sure what "facts" you believe contradict his explanations, but at any rate I was simply seeking to understand how one explanation involving more steps than another could be considered simpler.

Trouble is, Mike himself contradicted one explanation every time he came up with a different one! Only one at most could have been factual, but proof that one of them was remains lacking - or we wouldn't be here.

I'm not clear how you have managed to calculate and compare the number of steps involved in either explanation: Barrett forgery or Battlecrease theft. Which of Mike's forgery scenarios are you going with? I believe there were upwards of three or four. The mental steps he took to come up with his various explanations must have been considerable. The theft explanation, on the other hand, has very few steps and not one of them relies on Mike's memory for dates, or his peculiar relationship with the truth and the "facts". Mike's way of 'taking back control' of his life, and the situation he found himself in, was to say he was there at the diary's conception. He was never going to admit it was stolen from another man's house, hence his consistent and adamant denials.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

An explanation that requires us to believe that some electricians found the diary of one of the world's most infamous serial killers under the floorboards of a client's house and immediately decided to get rid of it for a few quid to a third party whom they hardly knew? That's never struck me as a simple, or even a likely explanation, Caz.

Hi Gareth,

Where did you get the idea that the electrician would have believed the "old book" was actually written by the killer known as Jack the Ripper, when passing it on to a more interested buyer? Even Mike said that when he first clapped his eyes on the infamous nickname, on the last page of writing, he wondered what the hell 'Devereux' [a conveniently deceased substitute for a live electrician?] was playing at. And of course, the electrician would not have admitted to Mike where he got the "old book" from, and without reading its contents would not have had a clue if it was fact or fiction, or whose writing it was. Besides, having taken it from someone else's house, he'd have been in no position to name his price and earn himself a fortune, even if he considered it potentially very valuable at first sight.

The watch, on the other hand, was something solid and of more immediately apparent value, which could be sold on quickly and easily enough, without the need to explain what it was or why it was worth the asking price. Makes sense to me. Remember, this would have been before anyone knew whether this "old book" would be worth a penny more than just its physical value as an "old book", for which the finder could not provide a single additional detail, never mind a history.

Makes me wonder if this was why Mike immediately tried to obtain a similar item - to find out what the going rate was in 1992 for a diary dating back to the 1880s, containing at least as many blank pages as the one he had seen. If the electrician couldn't tell him a damned thing about it, he couldn't expect Mike to part with more than the going rate for his "old book", could he?

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

That may or may not be the case, as I am not sure what "facts" you believe contradict his explanations, but at any rate I was simply seeking to understand how one explanation involving more steps than another could be considered simpler.

Just to add...

Mike's explanation back in 1999 involves the unspoken, unproven step of his attendance at a specific auction on 31st March 1992; the unsupported step of the photo album being up for sale there on that day and Mike putting in a successful bid for it; and the further unsupported - and frankly risible - step of Anne being both willing and able to create the physical diary from it, in time for Mike to take it to London, still wet behind its ears, on 13th April as arranged.

If you can believe all that, entirely without any visible means of support, you could probably believe anything - except perhaps what comes out of a certain Prime Minister's mouth.

Love,

Caz
X