And This Is Factual!

[Pcdunn]

Pat, if Anne was not involved we are looking for someone who has similar handwriting to her and someone whose proof reading fails to spot the same mistakes as her.

What is the simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions? Anne Barrett transcribed the diary.


As for the value of the book, as an heirloom certainly there would be value, but surely more in the photos rather than the book. As for cash value what would you get for a Victorian book with a few photos circa 1990? £50? Mike could earn more than that composing a couple of word searches.

Totally true, Dave. I had been told earlier that the diary author's handwriting did *not* match either of the Barretts, or their friend Tony. I suppose Mr. Orsam 's examination of the diary for word use and errors in comparison with Anne's writings does seem to sink the notion that Anne wasn't involved.

Well, re the value of the old photographs, Anne might have wanted a possible source of money in case she needed it in a hurry (perhaps to get away from Mike?); that was my only point there. There is also the interesting comment she made on the radio interview: "I thought it might have been stolen." The best lies have a bit of truth in them, and maybe she did guess or know it was stolen.

[DirectorDave]

Totally true, Dave. I had been told earlier that the diary author's handwriting did *not* match either of the Barretts, or their friend Tony. I suppose Mr. Orsam 's examination of the diary for word use and errors in comparison with Anne's writings does seem to sink the notion that Anne wasn't involved.

Well, re the value of the old photographs, Anne might have wanted a possible source of money in case she needed it in a hurry (perhaps to get away from Mike?); that was my only point there. There is also the interesting comment she made on the radio interview: "I thought it might have been stolen." The best lies have a bit of truth in them, and maybe she did guess or know it was stolen.

Hi Pat,


A Victorian Photo Album is not something you can hawk about the pubs of Liverpool with any great success, really you might get £50 at an auction, probably half that at an antiques shop, and e-bay was a few years away. The photo album as it was is not instant cash and not enough cash to make an escape.

Yes, I agree it's easier to distort than lie, but we must be careful that does not allow us to look for the truth that must be in every lie....that way madness lies.

[Kaz]

MIKE BARRETT IN HIS OWN WORDS PART 2


It may (perhaps) be said that they are fake notes written by Mike for the purpose of deceiving others or giving them what they wanted to read and, while I have no reason to think that is the case, this would demonstrate a hitherto unknown ability by Mike to create fake manuscript documents!

But the purpose of me exhibiting them is to prove that Mike did not only claim to have forged the Diary on one single drunken occasion.

Indeed, these notes....etc etc certainly put the amongst the pigeons.

I'm not sure how they can be defended

Good work, David.

[Iconoclast]

Indeed, these notes....etc etc certainly put the amongst the pigeons.

I'm not sure how they can be defended

Good work, David.

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink. They were not posted, so we lack corroborating evidence from Anne's replies. They therefore could be 'genuine' (and by 'genuine' we should mean factually-correct) or else they could be malicious, manipulative, and utterly mendacious. I - for one - have no way of knowing which it is.

And nor does anyone else, I'm afraid.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

[DirectorDave]

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink. They were not posted, so we lack corroborating evidence from Anne's replies. They therefore could be 'genuine' (and by 'genuine' we should mean factually-correct) or else they could be malicious, manipulative, and utterly mendacious. I - for one - have no way of knowing which it is.

And nor does anyone else, I'm afraid.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

That would be Maybrick, the arsenic addict as opposed to Barrett the alcoholic?

So they both had alleged substance abuse issues.
They were both emotionally broken men.
They were both married with children, having issues with their wives.
Both had failing health.
Liverpool cotton merchant v Liverpool scrap metal merchant.
Would be 40-50 when they committed their crime
Both had literary ambitions


It's not just the barrattisms in the Diary or Anneslips with the proof reading, Mike is pretty much writing Maybrick as himself.

[Kaz]

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink. They were not posted, so we lack corroborating evidence from Anne's replies. They therefore could be 'genuine' (and by 'genuine' we should mean factually-correct) or else they could be malicious, manipulative, and utterly mendacious. I - for one - have no way of knowing which it is.

And nor does anyone else, I'm afraid.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

Its game over for me.

Clearly Mike and Anne were gifted con-artists/liars, they 'seemed' to have pulled the wool over so many.... the people who met them.

However, their gift at deception/fraud pails into insignificance when you compare it to the FLUKE at tying JM into the leading role...

Lottery winning chance.... Euro millions!


I'll occasionally drop into see if theres any further developments but these last few weeks/months tie things up and my interest has diminished.

[Iconoclast]

Its game over for me.

Clearly Mike and Anne were gifted con-artists/liars, they 'seemed' to have pulled the wool over so many.... the people who met them.

However, their gift at deception/fraud pails into insignificance when you compare it to the FLUKE at tying JM into the leading role...

Lottery winning chance.... Euro millions!


I'll occasionally drop into see if theres any further developments but these last few weeks/months tie things up and my interest has diminished.

Hi Kaz,

Of course, it is your right to give up whenever you wish to, but your submission should not be confused with insight by others who may be impressionable and easily-led. Nothing has been proven. Only whispers on the breeze, my friend, all-too simply misheard.

Ike

[Abby Normal]

Its game over for me.

Clearly Mike and Anne were gifted con-artists/liars, they 'seemed' to have pulled the wool over so many.... the people who met them.

However, their gift at deception/fraud pails into insignificance when you compare it to the FLUKE at tying JM into the leading role...

Lottery winning chance.... Euro millions!


I'll occasionally drop into see if theres any further developments but these last few weeks/months tie things up and my interest has diminished.

Hi Kaz
Very commendable. I know we’ve had our snits in past, but I would be remiss if I didn’t say I find your change of mind refreshing.

And not just because it now more aligns with my ideas, but in general. Seems to many folks get entrenched in there beliefs here, and instead of being open minded, entrench themselves and never consider other possibilities.

[rjpalmer]

Only whispers on the breeze, my friend, all-too simply misheard.

That's right. Stiff upper lip, mate...

King Arthur: A scratch!? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!

In truth, the only thing left is for Anne Graham to come clean, but the chance of that happening lies somewhere between 'highly unlikely' and 'a snowball's chance in Hell.' If she was unwilling to spill the beans to Keith Skinner or Shirley Harrison, she's unlikely to be moved to talk by an abstract idea like 'setting the record straight.'

[Iconoclast]

That's right. Stiff upper lip, mate...

King Arthur: A scratch!? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!

In truth, the only thing left is for Anne Graham to come clean, but the chance of that happening lies somewhere between 'highly unlikely' and 'a snowball's chance in Hell.' If she was unwilling to spill the beans to Keith Skinner or Shirley Harrison, she's unlikely to be moved to talk by an abstract idea like 'setting the record straight.'

Here's a thought, though - what if she can't spill the beans because she's telling the truth and you just don't want to hear it because it doesn't support your view?

I know you and your ilk will already be struggling with this notion so let me rephrase it. What if you're wrong?

[Phil Carter]

That's right. Stiff upper lip, mate...

King Arthur: A scratch!? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!

In truth, the only thing left is for Anne Graham to come clean, but the chance of that happening lies somewhere between 'highly unlikely' and 'a snowball's chance in Hell.' If she was unwilling to spill the beans to Keith Skinner or Shirley Harrison, she's unlikely to be moved to talk by an abstract idea like 'setting the record straight.'

Hello rj,

I was thinking of reasons not for revealing the truth.. but ones for witholding it.

Imagine you had signed a piece of paper x amount of years ago agreeing to never reveal the truth of this debacle to anyone.

Now. It all then depends on whom you signed the paper for. If the person is dead, then the risk of being taken to court will diminish considerably.

However. If the person (s) is (are) still alive, one is left in a quandary.

That snowballs chance in hell will become a fireball should a certain person..or persons..pass on. That's how I see it.

The other chance comes with Anne's daughter..who may know the truth but is waiting for the right moment.
No less unlikely.



I suggest David, for example, write to Anne. I don't somehow think Anne will show much trust to any person connected with this from 26 years or so ago.. ..

Just my humble opinion.



Phil

[Mike J. G.]

Then let me try, Kaz.

These are the scribblings of an emotionally-broken man whose senses were scratched and torn by the ravages of the demon drink.

The back story for Maybrick as Jack the Spratt is too rich to discard in the light of Barrett's desperate befuddlement.

You been at that demon drink, yourself, fella?

[Mike J. G.]

Its game over for me.

Clearly Mike and Anne were gifted con-artists/liars, they 'seemed' to have pulled the wool over so many.... the people who met them.

However, their gift at deception/fraud pails into insignificance when you compare it to the FLUKE at tying JM into the leading role...

Lottery winning chance.... Euro millions!


I'll occasionally drop into see if theres any further developments but these last few weeks/months tie things up and my interest has diminished.

Welcome to reality, Kemosabe!

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Kaz,

Of course, it is your right to give up whenever you wish to, but your submission should not be confused with insight by others who may be impressionable and easily-led. Nothing has been proven. Only whispers on the breeze, my friend, all-too simply misheard.

Ike

Totally. If you squint at that log in the loch, it just might be possible to think that it really is Nessie.

[Mike J. G.]

Here's a thought, though - what if she can't spill the beans because she's telling the truth and you just don't want to hear it because it doesn't support your view?

I know you and your ilk will already be struggling with this notion so let me rephrase it. What if you're wrong?

Totally. And Bob Gimlin hasn't come clean about the Patterson Bigfoot hoax, either. He's not done so, because it's the real deal.

Logic, and stuff.