Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    Just ordered the diary from amazon. Another book came up as well entitled "The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick" by Anne E. Graham. So is this Michael Barret's wife? If so, how does this square with the idea that the Mike and his wife were incapable of writing the diary when it seems that she is in fact a published author? Add to that that her book is about the wife of James Maybrick. Thoughts??????

    c.d.
    Hi c.d.,

    It seems to me that your question still hasn't really been addressed, so here is some background on how Anne Graham came to be a published author in 1999 - seven years after her husband brought the Victorian scrapbook to London for the first time.

    It was Paul Feldman who sold Headline the idea about the book – the marketing angle being that it would be written by the great granddaughter of Florence Maybrick whose husband was JtR (Feldman never allowed the known facts to limit his imagination). Anne had become extremely interested in the story and wanted to do a book on the case based on the unpublished Home Office files at The National Archives – a large quantity of which had already been photocopied for Paul Feldman by his research team. Carol Emmas, (who was a photographer and Robbie Johnson’s girlfriend) first met Anne around 1994 and together they did a lot of research for Paul in Liverpool. When he secured a publisher, it was agreed that Carol would help Anne with the book and have co-author status, although the majority of the writing would be done by Anne. Anne apparently would have much preferred to do a straight study of the case and leave the JtR element out, but that - unsurprisingly - was part of the deal. In the end it fell to Carol to fill in the JtR detail – neither of them having much interest at all in the subject. Anne came to London for a few days and Keith Skinner worked with her at The National Archives whilst she sifted through the boxes of Home Office documents and catalogued them – a copy of which she presented to The National Archives.

    It is interesting to note that the lady who stands accused (by many) as the author of the JtR scrapbook had very little interest herself in documenting his crimes in the late 1990s. Perhaps she had exhausted her interest by 1992 when her brilliant hoax had been finalised, and wanted to move on to the intriguing story of Florence Maybrick? Or perhaps she had little interest in JtR in 1999 (actually, 1998 when the main preparatory work was being completed) and little interest in JtR in 1992 (which is why she gave the scrapbook away so casually), just as she had little interest in JtR in 1968 or 1969 when she stated that she first saw the document amongst her father's possessions? If Anne Graham played a central role in the creation of the Victorian scrapbook, she was quite Machiavellian about it: first she stayed in the shadows whilst her husband Bongo Barrett brought the document to the world's attention, then she stepped-in at exactly the right moment to remove Bongo from the deeper provenance just when he was destroying the superficial version of it which the world had first been fed; then she reached her absolutely apogee of brazen cunning when she published a book on the subject thereby revealing her research and writing talents. Actually, Machiavelli would have blushed to know his name was being associated with such a calm, cool, calculating crime (as the hoaxing of the Maybrick scrapbook would therefore be).

    I hope you enjoy the book you ordered from Amazon (you don't say which it is), and I hope you access Graham's book too. In truth, you have inspired me to review it myself again!

    Hope this is helpful.

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 09-30-2019, 09:29 AM.
    Iconoclast
    Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
      although the majority of the writing would be done by Anne.
      Just like old times, then.

      Barrett's articles, I mean. Barrett's articles.







      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        Just like old times, then.

        Barrett's articles, I mean. Barrett's articles.
        I thought you were commiserating me on the football for a moment there, Roger.

        Again, I would be happy to agree that Anne Graham was clearly no fool and that - if you wish it - she could well have been the driving force behind Mike Barrett's articles in the Sparky comic (or was it Whizzer & Chips?) in much the same way (like a practice run) for the scrapbook and thenceforth the published work of research with her name finally on it. All of this is definitely possible. Possible, possible, possible. But plausible? That's a harder square to circle because there is - to my knowledge - no back catalogue of Anne Graham's creative treachery; so the creation of a brilliant hoax which quickly evolves into a criminal offence (allowing it to be published) appears to have had no precedence and ultimately perhaps no purpose. Was it Anne Graham's way of 'paying the mortgage' (and that Mike claimed that as well as authorship of the scrapbook?). Is there any evidence that 12 Goldie Street was draining the family finances so much that the evil plot was hatched fairly soon after they moved in? For parents who genuinely appear to have doted on their only child, Caroline, it seems a truly spectacularly-risky venture to build the hoax of the decade right in front of her eyes (as must surely have happened) coupled with the knowledge of the consequences for Caroline if that illicit artefact spoke too loudly of them and thus dobbed them in with its own incompetence and banality. What would have happened to Caroline if both Anne and Mike had served time for their extremely unlikely crime?

        You can make hay whilst the articles shine, Roger, but it is not an evidenced argument. Anne's contributions - at best - would have been to tidy up the inarticulate nonsense which flowed effortlessly from Mike Barrett's pen (we've all seen it, for goodness sake - it's like he made up his schooldays in his CV and spent them dreaming of a future in scrap metal dealing rather learning to spell and write) but tidying up someone's efforts at spelling and grammar are very very different from constructing a hoax which would captivate the world of Ripperology and which - if they were the authors of it - would put their beloved daughter in a relative state of peril should they go the whole way and allow it to be published.

        There is nothing in the apparent psyche of Mike and Anne Barrett that should suggest to anyone that back in 1992 they would be prepared to risk so much on a single turn of pitch and toss. Nothing. The risks attached to such a gamble are not the risks such people take to resolve what would presumably be financial drivers. With the terrible loss they would endure if it all fell down around them, they would have simply moved house - that's what people facing that awful dilemma do. If they did not, we'd have an endless stream of faked diaries and other money-making schemes which - in a recession - would overwhelm the publishing world if we ever took each one seriously. And if we wouldn't take tens of thousands seriously, why were we prepared to take this one seriously?

        I admire Anne Graham for salvaging what she could from her marriage with Mike Barrett and for protecting her child from the worst excesses of it. It is too great a stretch to argue that strength of character could be so easily corrupted by the same.

        PS There is still time to commiserate with me over the football, by the way ...

        Ike
        Iconoclast
        Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

        Comment


        • Hello Ike,

          Thanks for your detailed response to my question regarding Anne.

          The book I ordered is "The Diary of Jack the Ripper - The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick" by Shirley Harrison.

          It might be a while before I can get to it as I am still (slowly) trying to finish "The Worst Journey in the World" about Scott's 1910 expedition to the South Pole.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

            The book I ordered is "The Diary of Jack the Ripper - The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick" by Shirley Harrison.

            It might be a while before I can get to it as I am still (slowly) trying to finish "The Worst Journey in the World" about Scott's 1910 expedition to the South Pole.
            ...the latter must put the "chilling" confession of James Maybrick into some perspective
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Hi Ike – in regards to your "ethical" objections in Post #5028.

              Many years ago, long before you posted on these boards, I suggested a scenario where Barrett may have scammed his own wife into helping him create the Diary. A simple plot, really. She’s under the impression they are creating a novella—a piece of fiction, so naturally she helps him. (“I wanted Mike to write a story,” she later laments). Alas, Mike then takes the typescript,--behind her back, and probably with the cooperation of someone else—buys the scrapbook, creates the artifact, and peddles it as the “Real McCoy.” By the time Anne figures it out, she’s in too deep.

              Sound farfetched?

              Maybe, but Shirley Harrison tells an interesting tale in one of the editions of her book, that addresses what you refer to as “Mike’s psyche.” It seems that Barrett had placed an advertisement in LOOT magazine, calling for original artwork for a children’s book that was being prepared for publication. (This was a lie; no such book was in the works). So various strangers submitted their drawings and sketches, which were all duly rejected by Mike, only to find out later that copies of these drawings, etc., were being peddled in “art shop windows in Southport!”

              Thus, Barrett was more than willing to trick people into assisting with his scams.

              There are other nagging details—Mike and Anne physically fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, little Caroline tells us—that suggest that Anne might not have been a willing participant, at least not initially. Allegations of abuse complicate our musings.

              Or maybe we are both wrong--we have too romantic of a view of what women are capable of, wrongly assuming they can't be "Machiavellian."

              Let me also just add that Melvin Harris was not incorrect when he wrote that Barrett was "not unknown to the Liverpool police" --before 1992.

              Most detectives end up drinking themselves to death, Ike, because they don’t look for the good in people…they see the potential for bad. Maybe you’re too nice a guy for this line of work. You want a happy ending, but you’re not going to find one here. None of us are.

              Comment


              • Hi Roger,

                Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                Hi Ike – in regards to your "ethical" objections in Post #5028.
                Maybe, but Shirley Harrison tells an interesting tale in one of the editions of her book, that addresses what you refer to as “Mike’s psyche.” It seems that Barrett had placed an advertisement in LOOT magazine, calling for original artwork for a children’s book that was being prepared for publication. (This was a lie; no such book was in the works). So various strangers submitted their drawings and sketches, which were all duly rejected by Mike, only to find out later that copies of these drawings, etc., were being peddled in “art shop windows in Southport!”
                I have to say I'd forgotten that particular scam of Mike's. I don't think anyone would doubt that Mike Barrett could be capable of such a simple scheme. It clearly rules him very much in as a potential con artist, though I'm not sure that he would rank highly on a sophistication score with that particular one.

                There are other nagging details—Mike and Anne physically fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, little Caroline tells us—that suggest that Anne might not have been a willing participant, at least not initially. Allegations of abuse complicate our musings.
                Hmmm. The fight over the scrapbook can be explained away all too easily by either side of the debate. I don't think there's mileage in this one.

                Or maybe we are both wrong--we have too romantic of a view of what women are capable of, wrongly assuming they can't be "Machiavellian."
                I wouldn't doubt this for a moment. My romanticism was focused more on the lack of a back catalogue for Anne's criminal nature than on the Machiavellian nature required to create this artful dodge, but fair enough.

                Let me also just add that Melvin Harris was not incorrect when he wrote that Barrett was "not unknown to the Liverpool police" --before 1992.
                Obviously the 22 year old Mike had a wee brush with the law over a stolen handbag in the early 1970s. I personally can't recall any other such brushes, but - if there were any - please do tell. Not suggesting there weren't, just unaware of any myself.

                Most detectives end up drinking themselves to death, Ike, because they don’t look for the good in people…they see the potential for bad. Maybe you’re too nice a guy for this line of work. You want a happy ending, but you’re not going to find one here. None of us are.
                See, that's definitely my problem. Maybe I am too nice a guy for this line of work. I need to maybe toughen up a bit. Acquire a thicker skin. Move to Liverpool maybe!

                Ike
                Iconoclast
                Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Livia View Post
                  ....Ralph Vaughan Williams - Composer

                  married Adeline Fisher, daughter of Herbert Fisher (barrister and
                  former secy to Prince of Wales). Proposed (June 1897) at the Stephens'
                  home of Virginia and Vanessa, cousin through her Aunt Julia and related to
                  Judge Stephens of Maybrick trial fame. Studied in Germany and France under
                  Maurice Ravel....

                  If Williams wasn't a solicitor, then there's another fellow from
                  Liverpool who may have been involved. He was John Herbert
                  Williams, a cotton broker who was a partner of T A Wooley,
                  close friend to Maybrick and who attended his funeral. Williams
                  shot himself in the head in his office at the Exchange in 1900.
                  Here's a solicitor named Williams. He was the solicitor for John Baillie Knight's uncle Edwin under whom he apprenticed in the Soap Business.
                  Monier Faithful Monier Williams

                  Bedford, Monier Williams & Robinson, solicitors, 6 & 7 Gt. Tower st.
                  Last edited by Trapperologist; 11-19-2019, 05:36 AM.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X