Announcement

**David Orsam** · 05-22-2018, 02:38 PM

Part 2 - 20 September 1995

BA: Hello again, Bob Azurdia here. And Mike Barrett, the man who two years ago produced what he claims is the diary of Jack the Ripper, alias James Maybrick, a Victorian murder victim, has been attempting to maintain that his claims are still valid and that the diary really is genuine. He�s been moved to protest following a programme in this slot with Stewart Evans and Paul Grainey (sic) who in turn have produced a new book called The Lodger in which they claim that new evidence proves the Ripper was actually an American crack doctor named Frank Tumblety who had relatives living in Widnes and who escaped the police when he jumped bail having been charged with a lesser offence than murder. They say that Mike Barrett is discredited and that he signed a sworn affidavit to the effect that the Ripper diary is a hoax. Mike Barrett in turn says the Ripper diaries have ruined his life causing his divorce and alcoholism and affecting adversely everyone who has been involved with the diaries professionally. Mike, you still, however, state categorically that the diary you possess is genuine?

MB: As far as I know, yes, the point is, you see, going back to the original, when I cracked, I had two years people asking me provenance and when you haven�t got the answer and when you are getting the same question asked virtually seven days a week, uh oh, what do you do? You just, in the end you just give up. I felt like carrying a tape round and just putting the tape on when anybody asked me and saying there you are there�s me answer.

BA: But you haven�t helped yourself at all by denying and signing denials.

MB: Oh no, I admit, yeah, I admit I haven�t helped myself at all because I absolutely got fed up and totally fed up with the diary. I am sick to the diary. Even today. I mean I�m in this studio now. It�s the diary, it�s the diary, the diary. It�s seven days a week.

BA: Well it didn�t have to be, you could very well have walked completely away from it. Because with all respect you volunteered to come to this studio today.

MB: I volunteered for one reason and one reason alone after listening to your interview last Wednesday. And when I read that I had made a statement, an affidavit stating in the book, The Lodger, that I had claimed that I had written a diary, I knew that statement was totally and utterly false and that was the reason I contacted you.

BA: Yes, but you had signed a statement to the effect that it was a hoax, not necessarily by you yourself.

MB: It was a Daily Post statement.

BA: Indeed.

MB: And that was the only statement I�ve ever signed. Only to the Daily Post. No others whatsoever.

BA: Well the other one you signed apparently in a solicitor�s office which you referred to a little earlier but you told me that that was a denial of a denial.

MB: That was the denial of you know of -

BA: Of the Daily Post statement.

MB: Of the Daily Post statement. Yes that was a denial. I was totally drunk at the time.

BA: You see, I�m not, I repeat, questioning your integrity but � and you seem an honest, sincere, worthy and at the moment, certainly, sober person � but who knows what will happen tomorrow?

MB: Now having said that, at the moment I tend to be a great deal permanently sober. I emphasise that.

BA: Indeed, indeed, indeed, and this is not meant critically but you know you have proved in the past, in the last couple of years, that suddenly you can go back -

MB: I ask anybody, anybody, we�re dealing with the biggest serial killer in history, to step into my shoes. And they all think the money�s fantastic, it�s hardly little, everything�s gone on legal fees, right, I�ve seen the documents. Now having said that �

BA: You�ve not made anything?

MB: No, very little, I�ve just paid �11,000 out for legal fees alone. Literally the week before last. Right and that -

BA: Legal fees for what?

MB: Fending off bad publicity, the press and everything else. There�s tremendous amount of animosity been directed towards me, you know, from Ripperologists I hasten to add who it�s never been in their bests interests to say the diary is genuine. Never been. Not all of them. Quite a lot of Ripperologists attack me very viciously.

BA: Do you feel that it is going to take any more turns at all or will your book be republished yet again?

MB: Oh I should imagine it will be republished because there is talk now of a movie.

BA: Still?

MB: Oh yes, still talk of a movie, yes.

BA: Because surely the feeling was that it was discredited by that story of yours in the Daily Post?

MB: Well if it was discredited then how come just less than a few weeks ago New Line Cinema�s stepped in and are offering quite a considerable sum of money to be involved?

BA: In the last couple of months?

MB: It�s been negotiated for the last 18 months and that was well before, that was well after the Daily Post, well after the Daily Post, they said they�re very, very, interested in making a movie. They�re talking about Sir Anthony Hopkins playing the part of James Maybrick.

BA: And you believe that there�s -

MB: You have to remember there that as well as making a video which was shot by Paul Feldman, he had his own Ripperologist team, right, there�s a Ripperologist who have never can turn round and say Paul, not one Ripperologist has put a fault in the diary, not the actual diary, not the content of the diary whatsoever. It all comes down to the ink. Not one Ripperologist to this day has turned round and quite categorically said �That statement in the diary is false, it couldn�t have happened�. Now that is factual. Now that really is factual. Having said that, going back, New Line Cinema, you can�t tell me they haven�t had their researchers on it. Shirley Harrison. The research teams have been in so many different camps that by now somebody somewhere would have discredited the actual content of the diary.

BA: Yes, except that, of course, as we are well aware, it�s perfectly possible to make a feature film based on fiction.

MB: True.

BA: And come up with a purely entertaining piece.

MA: Oh yes, yes. True.

BA: So to this extent it�s still a good story whichever.

MB: Yes, I�m not denying that. But what I am saying is, though, that I think it will be in the interests of the general public if somebody could come along and say, well the contents, you know, this is where it falls down. But not the contents of the diary. It doesn�t fall down at all.

BA: So where do you think the thing was kept all the years until -

MB: I�ve always tended to believe it was in Knowsley Buildings.

BA: Knowsley Buildings which don�t exist anymore?

MB: No, it�s on the present site [inaudible] Silkhouse Court. And I think if I get my dates correct I think it was demolished in 1969 approximately. And then Silkhouse Court was built on that premises.

BA: That�s where Maybrick had his office?

MB: Now the reason - yes that�s where Maybrick � Knowsley Buildings. Now the reason I always say, maintain it�s Knowsley Buildings. Very simple. �I leave this in now a place where it shall be found�. He doesn�t say he leaves it Battlecrease House, firght. He doesn�t leave it in Battlecrease with servants or anything else and that�s going into the Maybrick case in general which is well documented. Also Lowry comes into it which was his clerk. And at the beginning of the diary he says �I curse Lowry for making me rip.� Now I don�t believe he means making me rip as in Ripper. I mean rip as in the pages of the diary, the part where it�s destroyed, because several items he mentions that were also taken and he does say � I don�t know if I�m allowed to say this on air � but he does say it because it is documented in the book � �Bastard Lowry, bastard, bastard, bastard�. And he does state, Lowry, in the book. So why does an insignificant person come into the diary? The clerk. Lowry is his clerk. Therefore, I am of the opinion, I�ve always had the opinion, if you read the diary very, very, carefully it does give the person the impression that he was writing the diary at Knowsley Buildings. Now on the third of May, that was the day he took to his bed, that was the day he took to his bed, and he died on the eleventh of May. The third of May he gets out of his sick bed in the morning and he travels all the way back to Knowsley Buildings. Once again, this is exceedingly well documented. He goes to Knowsley Buildings in the morning, then he goes to a Turkish bath the same late morning, right. Now he goes to a Turkish bath, now you don�t carry a diary as big as the diary, the ledger that we have, to a Turkish bath. Then he gets back to the train and goes back to �

BA: He might have done, might have done, particularly in a portmanteau or a briefcase.

MB: Then he goes back to Battlecrease House.

BA: He might have done.

MB: Why does he go back to Knowsley Buildings? Now first of all you have to consider he goes back to Knowsley Buildings because that�s exactly where the diary is. That�s what I firmly believe, that�s exactly where the diary is. That�s why he gets out of his sick bed and it�s well documented he was very, very, sick at the time through arsenic poisoning. Now why does he get out of his sick bed and actually go there? Now he goes back to Knowsley Buildings. Now having said that on the same night he returns to Battlecrease House and then there he stays until the eleventh of May and he died, he never gets out of his bed again, he never gets out of his bed again. Now he says in the diary �I leave this now in place where it will be found�. I am fairly convinced that he knew he was dying and he has put that diary in Knowsley Buildings in a certain place within Knowsley Buildings and it�s remained there until it was demolished in 1969 and somewhere along that line that�s where that diary has somewhere come into Tony Devereux�s hands.

BA: Yes.

MB: Now that is my theory, of course I can�t prove that.

BA: No, and nobody ever managed to find any of the demolition workers who had demolished the building?

MB: No, no, we tried.

BA: It�s perfectly plausible Mike, perfectly plausible.

MB: This is the way we feel.

BA: You�ve obviously studied both the Maybrick case and the Ripper case yourself.

MB: Oh yes.

BA: And all this subsequent to the discovery of the diary?

MB: Subsequently after the diary - once I knew Maybrick was involved I wanted to go down to me publisher with enough ammunition as possible in order to convince the publisher � well actually, I didn�t actually approach a publisher, I had to approach an agent, the agent approached a publisher, this is the way it works within the business. I had to go with enough ammunition to, you know, to convince an agent. And I went down with a great deal of ammunition. But, of course, my ammunition I had, this was my own personal research, was not sufficient hence Shirley Harrison and her team was brought in hence Paul Feldman eventually his team was brought in and team after team after team and hence the result was the book. So from that day onwards the diary was totally taken out of my hands.

BA: Yes.

MB: And teams of experts were taking on and the diary was in their hands from that day onwards.

BA: Indeed. But I mean you yourself by what you�ve been saying to me are extremely well versed in the Maybrick case and the movements of James Maybrick right up to his last moments?

MB: Of course because you were involved in the research once we began all the research.

BA: All this information really you�ve gained subsequently?

MB: No.

BA: Yes, subsequently, subsequent to having been given the diary.

MB: Oh yes.

BA: In other words you weren�t an expert or particularly interested in the case before hand?

MB: Oh no, no, no, sorry, I thought you meant previously, no, sorry, subsequently, oh yes, all this information, I mean I think I�ve become one of the world�s greatest experts on either the Ripper and Maybrick. I mean, I�ve had to. Shirley Harrison has had to because we�ve had to defend our corner.

BA: Perhaps, perhaps, not necessarily because again the accusation could be well you�re obviously very well versed, you could well have fitted these things in on the way.

MB: Well as I say once again thank you for the compliment. That�s all I can say. Thank you very much for the compliment. But I assure you I haven�t.

BA: What are you going to do now, Mike, are you going to walk away, ultimately or not? I mean to say, you have, this time - you have deliberately climbed over the parapet as it were to be shot at now because -

MB: Yes, deliberately, yes, because I�m full of confidence.

BA: Alright.

MB: I�m going back to the day when I first started that journey to London full of confidence that I had the original diary of Jack the Ripper. And I did go full of confidence. I didn�t know what was going to happen afterwards. And I had two years literally of sheer hell and that�s when I went to the bottle, right. Now, having said that, I�m absolutely confident I�ve beat the bottle, I really do, confident, I�m quite proud of that fact because it�s been a tremendous struggle. Now I�m back to my former confident self. So let them come at me again.

BA: Let them come at you again?

MB: Yes, this time.

BA: Meaning?

MB: The Ripperologists, the newspaper people.

BA: You�re ready for all the pressure once more?

MB: Definitely, this time, oh yes, definitely.

BA: And you�re going to continue then�

MB: Mnhhmmm

BA: Battling -

MB: Yes.

BA: For -

MB: The diary.

BA: The diary.

MB: Yes.

BA: And for it to be claimed�

MB: When you really do believe something.

BA: Or to be accepted -

MB: You see I do admit that I went through one part where I couldn�t, I didn�t want nothing to do with the diary anymore I wanted it off my hands and away, you know. I felt that the diary destroyed everything. Now, I�ve thought to myself, what�s the point, the diary�s there, I can�t sweep it under the table and really and truly I can�t sweep it under the table no matter how much I could have tried to sweep it under the table I couldn�t, it was out of control, it was Frankenstein�s monster. So I�d best come to terms that Frankenstein�s monster exists. So I had to come to terms with this Frankenstein�s monster. So I�ve got to go back and go back into the ringside so to speak and fight me corner again.

BA: Now turning to a different tack altogether, Mike, in the paperback edition of your Ripper diary there are allegations that, in fact, it is your wife who physically wrote the diary. Your wife, Anne, from whom you are now divorced. Now, what about all this?

MB: Right, well first of all, right, if you�re listening or if eventually she does listen to this, right, yeah, I�m not trying to be offensive, Anne, but you haven�t got the capability. That sounds an insult I don�t mean that to be offensive to it, I don�t want her to take it personally and what have you. I think it�s total nonsense. A lot of things have been said that the diary was handed - Anne handed the diary to Tony Devereux via - and then Tony Devereux give me the diary. One thing where there�s been once again, I keep saying, a lot of misconceptions and I think that�s a very appropriate word: misconceptions. That - I have made several mistakes with this diary because I�ve been very, er, well shall we say, I can�t say ill-advised but I�ve been literally stranded by myself and had to make me own decisions by myself at all the time and people coming at me left right and centre so I�ve been forced to make decisions there and then on the spot.

BA: And sometimes these decisions have not been as wise as they might have been?

MB: Not been as wise as they might have been, right, I fully admit that. You can call me a fool but then again the pressure that I�ve been under, I�m not trying to justify that I�m just trying to explain it I haven�t had, you know, the advice there given immediately at hand when questions have been asked. What I have been asked is did I believe Anne�s story and my honest answer is I�ve not been able to speak to my wife since she left me in January right.

BA: January 95?

MB: 94.

BA: 94.

MB: 94.

BA: So you�ve been apart now for eighteen months?

MB: Eighteen months. I�ve never sat down and discussed this issue with my wife. How can I possibly, you know, collaborate with my wife or my ex-wife to be precise when she hasn�t explained the story. This information has been relayed on to me via various other people i.e. Shirley Harrison, i.e. Robert Smith, my publisher.

BA: Yes but the claim is that, in fact, the diaries are genuine but had been, or at least this is one of the claims, that the diaries are genuine but had been in her family for years and years and years.

MB: Yes, that is the claim.

BA: And her name, her surname, her married - her maiden name Graham?

MB: Correct.

BA: And, in fact, Mrs Maybrick had Grahams related to her?

MB: No, Florence Maybrick had an illegitimate child and she was named Graham, this is where, so she didn�t have relatives as such, she was illegitimate, but once again research is developing, we don�t know that Florence Maybrick did have an illegitimate child, research is still in progress so therefore we can�t confirm Anne�s story because there�s a tremendous amount more research to go into it, right. We have asked for Mr Paul Feldman, who produced the video, to produce the appropriate documents that he has fit and he has not seen fit to produce them to Shirley Harrison or I or Doreen Montgomery or Robert Smith.

BA: So somebody -

MB: He is holding back.

BA: So somebody does claim to have documented proof -

MB: Paul Feldman of MIA Productions is claiming to have documented proof. We have yet to see that documented proof.

BA: And this would therefore put a real link in place?

MB: Yes, a link in place, but if we can have that documented proof we could all be working as a team instead of against one another which doesn�t make sense. Paul Feldman is in one camp making a video and not releasing the information, Anne is working with Paul Feldman and not releasing the information.

BA: Well are there any other Grahams about?

MB: No, no, no, not at all. You mean directly related to Anne?

BA: Sure, sure, directly related to your wife or going back to -

MB: No, no. Once Billy Graham died that was the end of �

BA: Billy Graham?

MB: Billy Graham, William Graham.

BA: Being your father in law?

MB: Yep my father in law. After he died that was it, there was only Anne, er, Anne Barrett.

BA: And he never made any reference to this diary?

MB: Never whatsoever.

BA: So if any of this is true there are one or two other possibilities. One being, one suggestion being that your wife actually had been keeping these diaries and then gave them to Tony Devereux to give to you for some reason?

MB: Which I find highly improbable for the very simple reason is, that she says in a statement which is there in the paperback for all to see that relationships between Billy Graham and I had broken down irretrievably for several years previous. However, up until Christmas 1994 Billy Graham was having Christmas dinner at our house. On top of that I was also taking him to the British Legion every Sunday, there are plenty of people who will verify that fact. Also on top of that particular fact I was also going down every Thursday and collecting his pension for him which my signature was on, the signature book, and I was also cleaning his flat on a Thursday, if I didn�t clean it on a Thursday somebody else, a friend of his, Jake, did but the point is there is too many people can verify that relationship did not break down so, therefore, within Anne�s statement within the paperback there is one fact that is absolutely untrue and I felt I had the right to justificate (sic) that particular fact. Now because Anne hasn�t explained or hasn�t had the opportunity for Anne to explain these facts to me and why she come out with this statement I am left in a limbo. And I think that is a very appropriate word �limbo� because nobody has been able to contact my wife Anne. We�ve tried it through solicitors letters, we�ve tried everything possible and she will not communicate with either of us.

BA: She�s still in Liverpool?

MB: We believe she�s still in Liverpool. Now Shirley Harrison has tried to contact her. She�s having, she�s not having no more discussions with Shirley Harrison. Doreen Montgomery, no more discussions. Robert Smith, no more discussions. So the people, the most appropriate people that are all actually involved with the diary, meaning the diary of Jack the Ripper, have made numerous approaches including my solicitor, Mr Richard Bark Jones, have made numerous approaches to contact Anne to no avail. So how can we turn round and produce something which we do not have, i.e. the evidence that Paul Feldman says he has. We are left in a limbo.

BA: Well now, you did say earlier on that you had not signed any other affidavits at all or any other -

MB: The only affidavit I did sign which I think this is where the misconception is, arose, is that I had, I made an affidavit saying that I do not and will not believe Anne�s statement until it is explained and I had the evidence in front of me that she did give the evidence - the diary to Tony Devereux. You see, when you are in a position where I�ve never been able to prove provenance of the diary, everything is vital important to give to my credibility, it is vital and when you are not armed with this particular evidence and you are not armed with the appropriate documents. how - it doesn�t put me in much standing.

BA: But is it not the case that on the 5th of January this year you signed a statement, you actually signed a statement in the solicitor�s office in Dale Street in Liverpool to the effect that your wife, Anne, had physically written the diaries, you provided the information for her to write and the two of you together with Tony Devereux had conspired the whole thing?

MB: No, that is totally incorrect whatsoever.

BA: But you surely signed that?

MB: I signed a statement but somewhere along the line the statement has gone totally out of the � where it has gone out of line, I signed a statement stating quite categorically that I did not believe Anne�s story and that is the only statement I have signed and I don�t even remember that was on the 5th January to be honest with you because I was so adamant that I will not accept Anne�s story until they have sat down and I�ve seen the documented evidence in front of me and I think it�s very vital that I see the documented evidence that, er, that, er, sorry, Graham, Florence Maybrick, had an illegitimate child called Graham. I have yet to see that document evidence.

BA: But is it not possible that perhaps you didn�t read what you were signing?

MB: Well I didn�t.

BA: You didn�t read what you were signing?

MB: No, I didn�t read what I was signing.

BA: So it is possible that you signed this document saying that you had provided the information and Anne had done the writing and the three of you, you two together, together with Tony Devereux -

MB: I suppose it�s possible but I wouldn�t like to think that, you know, that�s been used against me in any way or someone�s [inaudible] the information and used my signature.

BA: Surely, but there are copies of this affidavit apparently.

MB: Apparently there is so I�ve just been informed, you know. But the point is the affidavit that I made was saying quite categorically that I did not believe Anne�s statement.

BA: Yes, so you thought you were signing something quite different?

MB: Oh I thought I was signing a document stating that I did not believe Anne�s statement until - and I emphasise until, I see the documented evidence that Florence Mayrick had an illegitimate child. I have yet to see that documented evidence and that is vital. I�ve also got to see how Graham is related to Florence Maybrick, how that connection can be done. Now Paul Feldman just for the record has been very enthusiastic over this diary. So much so that on the 17th of March, Mother�s Day Sunday, right, in 1991, no 1992, after the publishing agreement was signed, and I am bound by a publishing agreement, took my wife, my daughter and myself to the Moat House Hotel in front of a gentleman, a Ripperologist, numerous people, Keith Skinner, no I don�t think Keith Skinner was there, and offered me �5,000 cash on the table in order to buy in for the diary. I actually totally refused that offer. The following Monday the letter is in my solicitor�s office, which is there for all to see, I was offered �15,000 to buy in for the diary from a client, we later found out it was by � it was Paul Feldman. Now having stated that I still refused. Then Mr Paul Feldman went on a relentless campaign against me because I literally � I can�t say against me, let�s say he wanted provenance of the diary so he didn�t actually come against me but what he did do, he intruded and had researchers going into my own private life and my own family and he actually had researchers finding my family, finding birth certificates and going into my private life and my family.

BA: But this is reasonable, surely, if you yourself had said that you are trying to find out the background to Mr Graham.

MB: Yes, but where, where does my family come into it?

BA: Well they are related to the Grahams.

MB: No, I�m a Barrett. I�m not related to-

BA: Sure, sure, but your father-in-law was Mr Graham and your wife was a Graham.

MB: Yes, yes, alright, yes, indirectly - I never considered it in that point of view, you know, I mean I was a Barrett and Anne was a Graham, yes I can see your point, yeah I can see your point but there was never any contacts with the Grahams or the Barretts in that respect.

BA: The difficulty is that you have now actually signed two things which do your credibility great damage. Great damage.

MB: Yeah, I suppose - people can say that but then again you can say that, you know, people - documents can easily be changed and altered.

BA: You�re not really suggesting that this happened are you?

MB: There�s a possibility if this is the case.

BA: Well there�s a possibility of an atom bomb dropping on us tomorrow but it�s highly unlikely isn�t it?

MB: No, there�s also a possibility that the diary of Jack the Ripper, somebody give me it, the possibility of it being dropped on my lap.

BA: Of course. Yes.

MB: It�s the same mathematical equation.

BA: But you�re not really suggesting that that document you signed in a solicitor�s office has been tampered with now?

MB: I can�t suggest that until I see legal advice. I do not know. It�s as simple as that. All as I do know is that the statements I signed, the statements I actually did sign was quite categorically stating that I do not believe Anne�s story until I see the documented evidence.

BA: Yes, but you didn�t read it you said also?

MB: I did not read it.

BA: You didn�t read what you were actually signing?

MB: No.

BA: So, it transpires you have signed two very damning documents against your own credibility. This being one, and the other one when you were drunk for the Daily Post.

MB: Call me na�ve.

BA: Yes I call you na�ve, with all respect -

MB: I�ll take it.

BA: In sorrow of course, of course.

MB: I�m na�ve and what have you.

BA: But it doesn�t do your case or your credibility any good?

MB: Yes but then again you�ve got to remember that there�s been that much animosity been directed towards me over the past three years it�s been incredible, it really has been incredible and the people that you believed that you can trust all of a sudden turn out to be your enemies.

BA: Then why not completely walk away? Completely walk away?

MB: Because I believe in the diary. I can�t walk away, it�s impossible.

BA: And the next major line of story or information will no doubt come when your wife Anne -

MB: Ex wife.

BA: Your former wife Anne speaks and says her point of view.

MB: Once, once, we have got that - I will not believe it until I see that documented evidence in my hand. I don�t think Shirley Harrison will believe it until she sees that documented evidence in her hand. I don�t think Doreen Montgomery, my agent, will believe it until she sees that documented evidence and I don�t think Robert Smith, my publisher, will believe it until he sees that documented evidence and all of us have yet to see that documented evidence.

**DirectorDave** · 05-22-2018, 02:55 PM

The WOW! signal moment. Barrett is busted!

MB: Yes. I�ve been attacked very viciously within the press, very viciously within the press.

MB: And the type of people I was interviewing such as Kenneth Williams, Stan Boardman, Mick Miller, erm some quite famous celebrities at the time, Bernard Manning etc., and I was working for, freelancing for a magazine called Celebrity magazine. Now because I had, shall we say, a moderate success within writing, people have automatically assumed and picked up on that fact and automatically assumed well if he�s had a moderate success in writing and had moderate success in interviewing people, you know, two and two make five and this is the conclusion an awful lot of people jump to

MB: The publisher, erm, and the various other people that have been involved within the diary, the research - we�ve tried to act completely above board, we�ve got some of the most eminent ink specialists within the world and to get their opinion and the ink has gone through micro test, this test, that test, and heaven knows and, in actual fact, if you�d like me to quote you some of the ink tests which is actually in the paperback.

MB: Yes, my curiosity was aroused and that�s why I�m here now. Now, in the book The Lodger it does say - now I�ve yet to see that research, I�ve yet to see what they have, those particular authors what they have, where their documents are. As far as we are concerned we have produced our documents within the book.

MB: Ah, right, as I say, I had two years of constant - being attacked, you know, people, pressure, I mean, phone calls in the middle of the night. I mean, I know I�m repeating myself but this is all factual. Threats, everything. My own private life just completely and utterly disintegrated to the point where I didn�t have a private life in the end, to the point where the diary literally got on top of me. And I went up and I got myself a bottle of scotch quote honestly and truly, right, and I drank the whole damn bottle of scotch and then after that bottle of scotch went, I went up and staggered up the next morning and drank another bottle of scotch. Two bottles of scotch within a period of 48 hours, I didn�t know if I was coming, going, backwards or forwards, so much so and this is well recorded because it�s in the paperback book. I ended up in an alcohol clinic. Now I regret that, it was a very stupid thing to do.

MB: Oh yes completely but having said that one has to remember people handle pressure in different types of forms. You know, my type of form to the way I handle pressure stress, I ended up taking to the bottle and believe me drinking two bottles of scotch within a period of 48 hours, considering I�m still on renal failure as well, is not a very sensible thing to do but I didn�t know if I was coming or going and what statements I�ve made at the time I just don�t remember.

MB: That�s a tremendous amount of knowledge. And yet again, having said that, go back to the Ripper books. There�s so many contradictions within the Ripper books. So the forger is going to make a mistake. He could easily make one mistake from one Ripper book to another Ripper book. I mean, the Duke of Clarence there�s one, Stephen Knight, there�s another, Melvin Harris. There�s so many different contradictions. I mean, I can go through the diary, the farthings, the pennies and everything. So easy to make a mistake yet the diary had it correct right the way through.

MB: Yes but I think being in the scrap metal game and being a real metal expert is two different things, particularly when the watch has actually gone through university and it�s been passed within that time and it has actually been, er, proven.

MB: Why does he go back to Knowsley Buildings? Now first of all you have to consider he goes back to Knowsley Buildings because that�s exactly where the diary is. That�s what I firmly believe, that�s exactly where the diary is. That�s why he gets out of his sick bed and it�s well documented he was very, very, sick at the time through arsenic poisoning. Now why does he get out of his sick bed and actually go there? Now he goes back to Knowsley Buildings. Now having said that on the same night he returns to Battlecrease House and then there he stays until the eleventh of May and he died, he never gets out of his bed again, he never gets out of his bed again. Now he says in the diary �I leave this now in place where it will be found�. I am fairly convinced that he knew he was dying and he has put that diary in Knowsley Buildings in a certain place within Knowsley Buildings and it�s remained there until it was demolished in 1969 and somewhere along that line that�s where that diary has somewhere come into Tony Devereux�s hands.

MB: Subsequently after the diary - once I knew Maybrick was involved I wanted to go down to me publisher with enough ammunition as possible in order to convince the publisher � well actually, I didn�t actually approach a publisher, I had to approach an agent, the agent approached a publisher, this is the way it works within the business. I had to go with enough ammunition to, you know, to convince an agent. And I went down with a great deal of ammunition. But, of course, my ammunition I had, this was my own personal research, was not sufficient hence Shirley Harrison and her team was brought in hence Paul Feldman eventually his team was brought in and team after team after team and hence the result was the book. So from that day onwards the diary was totally taken out of my hands.

MB: Which I find highly improbable for the very simple reason is, that she says in a statement which is there in the paperback for all to see that relationships between Billy Graham and I had broken down irretrievably for several years previous. However, up until Christmas 1994 Billy Graham was having Christmas dinner at our house. On top of that I was also taking him to the British Legion every Sunday, there are plenty of people who will verify that fact. Also on top of that particular fact I was also going down every Thursday and collecting his pension for him which my signature was on, the signature book, and I was also cleaning his flat on a Thursday, if I didn�t clean it on a Thursday somebody else, a friend of his, Jake, did but the point is there is too many people can verify that relationship did not break down so, therefore, within Anne�s statement within the paperback there is one fact that is absolutely untrue and I felt I had the right to justificate (sic) that particular fact. Now because Anne hasn�t explained or hasn�t had the opportunity for Anne to explain these facts to me and why she come out with this statement I am left in a limbo. And I think that is a very appropriate word �limbo� because nobody has been able to contact my wife Anne. We�ve tried it through solicitors letters, we�ve tried everything possible and she will not communicate with either of us.

**DirectorDave** · 05-22-2018, 03:00 PM

I'm not doing part two, that took me longer than planed after this much wine.

Sir Mikay is Buckled.

**Sam Flynn** · 05-22-2018, 11:44 PM

"within Anne�s statement within the paperback"

... that's two 'withins' - um - within four words. He certainly seems to have had a fondness for it!

**Sam Flynn** · 05-23-2018, 12:52 AM

BA: You had other problems I think as well didn’t you?

MB: Erm, regards?

I've previously commented on the diary's use of the isolated word "regards" (as opposed to "with regard to" or "regarding"), suggesting that it represented a sloppy use of English - which it is. However, could it also be a verbal tic of the author?

Diary examples:

"I am becoming increasingly weary of people who constantly enquire regards the state of my health"

"Will have to come to some sort of decision regards the children"

"Edwin asked regards Thomas and business"

And, from Shirley Harrison's Diary of Jack the Ripper "Mike: Page 6, 2nd paragraph, line 9 starts with an ink blot, this blot covers a mistake I made when I told Anne to write down James instead of Thomas. [Footnote: The word under the blot is not James but 'regards']"

**DirectorDave** · 05-23-2018, 03:17 AM

These are clear speech inflections, uncommon ones at that and certainly not localised dialect.

We seem to be at a level that if Frank Bruno turned up claiming a lost Shakespearean play and the lead antagonist said "Know what 'a mean 'Arry" at the end of every other sentence, we'd be expected to believe it as genuine.

**David Orsam** · 05-23-2018, 10:48 AM

A couple of housekeeping points:

Firstly, just to be clear, the dates of the interviews given are the dates of their broadcast on Radio Merseyside.

Secondly, I have spotted a transcription error in the following answer of Mike's: "Yes, unfortunately he couldn�t be questioned. I didn�t question him quite, several times. I did pester him. Badger him in actual fact. I could say badger him." The word "didn't" should read "did".

So his actual answer was:

"MB: Yes, unfortunately he couldn�t be questioned. I did question him quite, several times. I did pester him. Badger him in actual fact. I could say badger him."

**David Orsam** · 05-23-2018, 10:52 AM

Did anyone spot this answer by Mike:

"We have asked for Mr Paul Feldman, who produced the video, to produce the appropriate documents that he has fit and he has not seen fit to produce them to Shirley Harrison or I or Doreen Montgomery or Robert Smith."

Bingo!

Another Diary quirk emerging from Mike Barrett's normal speech.

Just fancy that, with him sharing quirks of the Diary's author and his wife's handwriting sharing several distinctive features of the Diary's author too. What a couple of interesting coincidences!

**Sam Flynn** · 05-23-2018, 12:45 PM

Mike likes his badgers almost as much as the diarist likes his headless chickens

Not just a quip, BTW. There's a serious point there, too.

**Pcdunn** · 05-23-2018, 10:17 PM

Very interesting. Following Mr. Barrett through the maze of his answers is nearly as tiring as reading an interview with President Trump.

Mixing up "subsequently" with "previously" is also a rather telling error, I think. Now on to Anne's interview...

**DirectorDave** · 05-24-2018, 11:07 AM

We are certainly a long way from "couldn't write a sicknote", and the lack of rebuttal in this thread very telling.

**rjpalmer** · 05-04-2019, 07:23 PM

I wonder: did Mike Barrett ever work as a waiter in his youth?

Announcement

Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995

Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment