Originally posted by rjpalmer
View Post
Are you implying that Harrison sussed to the fact that Barrett's notes were based on Ryan, but didn't challenge him about it?? And then Shirley went on to make misleading comments about those notes in her own books?? If that is what you are implying, it is absurd.
That she would ask Barrett about his sources at a later date is entirely rational and reasonable. Indeed, according to Feldman's book, Feldy became suspicious about the notes sometime around 1994 because they seemed too 'literate' to have been Mike's work. That's why questions were being asked, and why Anne Graham was asked to clarify the genesis of the notes.
What still isn't explained is why Keith was specifically asking about Ryan's book in April 1994.
The reason that Barrett repeatedly denied knowing about this book is now obvious, but less obvious is why Skinner and Harrison had been so keen to ask him about it.
It is almost as if there was something behind the scenes that triggered these specific questions.
The reason that Barrett repeatedly denied knowing about this book is now obvious, but less obvious is why Skinner and Harrison had been so keen to ask him about it.
It is almost as if there was something behind the scenes that triggered these specific questions.
Keith wasn't 'specifically asking about Ryan's book' in April 1994. The whole line of his questioning was to clarify for himself how Mike had identified Battlecrease House in Riversdale Road in the early days of his research which, as far as Keith was concerned, began after Tony's death in August 1991. Mike said he must have seen a photograph of the house somewhere although he knew there wasn't one in ToL. Keith suggested various Maybrick books, but the only one Mike picked up on was Ryan while Keith was changing the cassette. So Keith then asked him just to recap on what he had been saying - not because Ryan had any significance for Keith at the time, but so he would have a full record of what they had discussed.
And again, in Goldie Street on 18th January 1995, it was Mike who brought up Ryan's book when Shirley asked a general question about sources, reminding her that she had been the one to tell him about it after the research had begun, just as he had told Keith the previous April. Mike told Shirley that when he read the book she had recommended, it "confirmed even more". Quick thinking on Mike's part, to have the diary coming first, and Ryan later confirming for him what was in it. But he was the one who brought up this specific book on both occasions, when he had no need if it then forced him to lie about its role in the story.
And nothing much wrong with Mike's memory either, in January 1995, when he had just dictated his affidavit to Alan Gray. He volunteered the same Ryan story on 18th that he had volunteered to Keith nine months previously, and was able to keep the details perfectly straight on each occasion.
There you have it, folks.
If any of you were under the mistaken impression that Caz was stating that Shirley had told Mike about Bernard Ryan’s book between April 1992 and July 1992, the fault is yours.
Caz was ‘clearly’ speculating.
If any of you were under the mistaken impression that Caz was stating that Shirley had told Mike about Bernard Ryan’s book between April 1992 and July 1992, the fault is yours.
Caz was ‘clearly’ speculating.
There is no evidence, nor even the remotest likelihood, that Mike attended an auction in late March 1992, and brought home the scrapbook for Anne to use for a Ryan-based fake. It's clearly speculation and it's totally without foundation.
Leave a comment: