One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Mike J. G.]

Regarding the artwork in the Aigburth underpass, Mike, I'm surprised you didn't get the 'relevance' of my observations. You were the one who introduced the subject, when suggesting that few people born and bred in Liverpool could have been unaware of the Maybrick story. I assumed that was why you mentioned the Maybrick mural, to illustrate your point. You even wrote this in your previous post:



A dark, local folk tale, sewn into the fabric of the city.

Anyway, Keith Skinner was interested to learn more about this mural and I thought it worth posting that the local Councillor, Patrick Hurley, who backed the idea behind the artwork, had never heard of Maybrick before 2013, despite being born in Liverpool in 1976. If you don't find this relevant, that's fine by me. Maybe we both misunderstood the reason you mentioned the mural in the first place.

My own experience of getting mainly blank looks from people, when I've mentioned my interest in the Maybrick story in casual conversation, has admittedly been whenever I've stayed in the city centre. I'm fully aware that many more people in Aigburth are likely to have heard of the Maybricks and the real events of 1889, and even more since 1993, when the first diary book came out.

My questioning of the relevance was directed at you claiming this councilman hadn't heard of the story... As though this was some monumental realization. There's obviously many people here who don't know who Maybrick is, just as there's people who couldn't name a Beatles tune or a local football player. Again, that there's a mural of them in the first place kind of says it all.

I don't recall you posting the link before to the 'Art goes underground' article, so many thanks for sharing it with everyone now. I haven't seen the artwork in person, but I do have photographs of the murals taken more recently. Again, you talk of the Maybrick mural's place in the city's history, but as you know the ideas were sought, unsurprisingly, from the local Aigburth community, as that's where the artwork was designed to be displayed.

No problem, I had a better article on it but the link seems to be dead now.

Again, this doesn't really mean a lot, as the mural was suggested in the first place, meaning it's still a well-known story, just not with every generation of the city's inhabitants. Many people aren't interested in music, sport, history, writers, etc. Many people couldn't tell you that Clive Barker created the Candyman as a Toxteth council-flat ghoul, or that he devised the fiendish Pinhead in a flower shop off Penny lane, lol. There are still plenty of people around who know these things.

As we can all see from your helpful link, the mural in question here is very upbeat, and dominated by the artist's striking depiction of RADIO CITY 96.7, with large musical notes emanating from its tower, which was built in 1969 in the heart of the city centre, and is also known as St. John's Beacon. I'm not sure how that would scream out 'the Maybricks of Aigburth' to anyone walking past, unless they took it as a cryptic nod to Michael and his Holy City. The top halves of Flo and Jim are tucked right in the top left hand corner, surrounded by pink clouds, which don't exactly echo your 'dark, local folk tale' of a 'spook house'. But each to his own.

The Maybrick mural is upbeat? How? Have you seen it? It's their standard mugshot portraits that you can find on Google images, written below it is something like: Do you know the story of the Maybricks? Nothing about it is upbeat.

I don't know what you're talking about regarding the radio city tower, as it plainly has nothing to do with the Maybrick mural. The Maybrick mural is one of several, and all are as noticeable as the other.

Also dwarfed by the Radio City Tower, Aigburth Cricket Club sits below and to the left of it, so we're getting warmer, although its associations with the Maybrick story are rather weak. One possibility is that the idea came from one of the many local residents in 2013 who would have remembered The Trial of James Maybrick, which was held at the cricket club in 2007 and organised by Chris Jones, the author of The Maybrick A to Z. It could well have been someone who attended this light-hearted event or read about it. As I recall there was music and dancing in the evening and a good time was had by all.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, you seem to be confused here, the Maybrick mural is of Jim and Flo, the classic black and white portraits you can find online, none of the other murals are connected to them. It's literally their portraits, side by side, with "Do you know the story of the Maybricks?" written below it, or something along those lines. Either way, the only connection to the Maybrick story that the cricket club has is that he was once a member.

warm cuddles,

Mike (Not Barrett)

[Mike J. G.]

Here's that link again, courtesy of Poste House Bloke...

https://liverpoolexpress.co.uk/art-goes-underground/

That was the first section that was completed, as far as I can make out. The subway is filled with other murals, some Beatles-related, football-related, etc.

[Mike J. G.]

Speaking of the Poste House and all that, I love this passage:

"Foolish bitch, I know for certain she has arranged a rondaveau with him in Whitechapel. So be it, my mind is firmly made. I took refreshment at the Poste House it was there I finally decided London it shall be. And why not, is it not an ideal location? Indeed do I not frequently visit the Capital and indeed do I not have legitimate reason for doing. All who sell their dirty wares shall pay, of that I have no doubt. But shall I pay? I think not I am too clever for that."

As it finely illustrates the setting up of narrative and pacing, planting the ideas in the reader's mind.

The writer is making the Whitechapel connection for the reader, and reminding them that he travels back and forth and that he has reason to do so. He then, after earlier declaring the reason for his spree, cements it, by stating that the poor unfortunates of Whitechapel will pay, and that he will not be caught because he's too clever.

Creative writing in a nutshell. Who honestly writes like that in real life? Certainly not murderers who aim to spill all of their deeds onto the pages of a book that they apparently have no design on anyone actually reading.

People who write like that do so because they're telling a story, so they have to make sure that they make everything clear. Much like a character in a movie reading out a letter, doing so for the benefit of the viewer who cannot see the letter, the diarist goes to great lengths to make sure that the reader knows the "who, what, why, where and when".

The following paragraph lays out yet more information for no other reason than to appear credible. Waffling on about how his arms hurt and how Gladys isn't well, laying those little snippets of fact for the reader to follow like breadcrumbs, something Dan Brown does in his novels all the time.

[Mike J. G.]

At the end of the day, when it's all said and done, it is what it is... (and other various sayings...)

People can believe whatever they fancy, and they generally do on here! We're all entitled to our own opinions, but we're not entitled to our own facts.

With the so-called diary, there are few facts. We know it came about in, what, 1992? We know Mike Barrett was trying to obtain a Victorian scrapbook in an auction, we know he was a journalist, we know he was a bit of a yarn-spinner. We know he claimed he was given the "diary" by Tony Devereux.

We know Anne claimed to have had the diary in her family for decades and little else to support that notion, we know she claimed that she gave it to Tony to give to Mike for fear of Mike and her father having a squabble if Mike thought it had come from the Grahams, we know that that's a silly excuse, but I digress.

We know a few electricians from a Garston shop claimed to have found something under the floorboards and that they then located a phone, presumably dialed the operator and randomly asked "Liverpool university, please, found artifact department!" and beat rush-hour traffic into the city center along the busy Aigburth road to attend said meeting at an unknown branch of said university to meet an unknown person who to my knowledge has never been named nor has he/she ever come forward with any information, and then the book was given to a former journalist and fond drinker down in the pub so that he could presumably take all of the earnings for himself.

More importantly, we know that diaries of this ilk have famously been forged by a few and believed by many to be the real deal.

What's more likely, Mike Barrett, former journalist and story-teller who was actively seeking a Victorian scrapbook, got his hands on a genuine 19th century artifact and just innocently tried to get it published while offering varying stories about provenance for shits and giggles, or that he made up the entire thing in a bid to earn some cash and fool a few gullible "Ripperologists?"

[Mike J. G.]

A three-part question I'd like to ask anyone interested in the "diary" fiasco is this:

What particular provenance do you subscribe to? Can you explain why you prefer that origin over any others? Why do you presume that Barrett was searching for a blank Victorian scrapbook?

That third question is most interesting, ain't it?

Supposing Mike really had been given the diary by Eddie Lyons(?) in the pub, or by Tony Devereux, who might or might not have gotten it from Anne, whose family may or may not have had it in their family for decades... then why is Barrett looking for a blank scrapbook? Has that ever been explained? If so, what is the explanation?

Same thing happens with Roger Patterson, he's making a fictional movie about a Bigfoot back in '67, obviously has a suit made to appear in said movie, then miraculously comes out with footage showing an "actual" Bigfoot! and all of a sudden, his fictional movie is conveniently forgotten about, along with the monkey suit.

Mike Barrett, innocent bloke, former magazine writer and yarn-spinner seeks Victorian scrapbook, then miraculously just happens to come into possession of not only a gen-u-ine Victorian scrapbook, but one penned by local cotton-merchant and famed arsenic poisoning victim, James Maybrick! The same bloke that Barrett had been reading about in Tales of Liverpool, and not only that, oh no, boils and ghouls, it's also a neat little confession to only the most famous bleedin' unsolved crimes in the world, Jack the sodding Ripper! Fancy that!

I can only surmise that Mike was seeking a Victorian scrapbook to write his own, totally different, non-Maybrick related yarn, one which never saw the light of day once he'd located the real deal from Eddie/Tony down the Saddle, who'd obviously found it under the floor at Battlecrease/behind Anne's nan's couch where it'd been for decades.

[Kattrup]

What particular provenance do you subscribe to? Can you explain why you prefer that origin over any others? Why do you presume that Barrett was searching for a blank Victorian scrapbook?

1. Mike Barrett
2. Fits all known evidence with no need for alternative, convoluted ad-hoc explanations
3. To fake the diary

[rjpalmer]

Hi Mike - Have you ever considered giving Anne Graham a ring and inviting her out to lunch and a pint? It seems unlikely she would ever accept (it has been reported she hung up the phone when Shirley Harrison tried to contact her a year or two ago), but maybe if she knew that the Diary's main supporters are now promoting the idea that she is a bald-faced liar and had helped her ex-husband Mike Barrett publish stolen goods, she would finally be willing to clear the air and tell, for the first time, the true origins of the Maybrick hoax? It would be beneficial to all if she would go on record and put this tawdry episode to bed. Who knows? Maybe she would like to get it off her chest.

If I was in Liverpool I'd do it myself, and if I failed, I would try to contact Barrett's daughter and his sister, as they might also have relevant information they would be willing to put on record. As for your three questions, I have no doubt whatsoever it is a modern fake, Barrett was involved, and the red diary was purchased with the intention of creating a hoax.

Just to be clear about the chronology, though...Barrett contacted Doreen Montgomery, claiming to have the Diary of Jack the Ripper on March 9/10 1992. Martin Earl published an advertisement on Barrett's behalf, seeking a blank or partially blank diary on March 19th. David Barrat established that the timing is such that Barrett almost certainly contacted Earl with his request for a blank diary within days or hours of contacting Montgomery, since the request had to be submitted to Earl by March 11th to make the next issue of Bookdealer. This supports Barrett's claim that he hadn't physically created the diary until he had a fish on the line (Montgomery). Your point about Tales of Liverpool is right on the mark, however. Barrett owned this book long before Dodd had his floorboards lifted, and the Diary-friendly folk have no explanation.

Their best guess is:

Mike bought a copy of Tales of Liverpool, but never read it.

Months later,

Mike read a copy of Tales of Liverpool, but never bought it!

If that sounds convoluted, it is.

One person who might have been familiar with Richard Whittington-Egan's works was Tony Devereux. He worked as a compositor at the Liverpool Echo when the Echo published a long, regular series of columns by Whittington-Egan dealing with Liverpool mysteries and oddities , including piece about the Maybrick case. Hell, it could have been Devereux who gave Barrett the copy of Tales of Liverpool to begin with. Cheers, RP

[rjpalmer]

Here's an example of RWE's work in The Echo. It would be somewhat odd if our old friend Tony Devereux set the type, no?

[erobitha]

Don't know about Caz, who has been at this for quite a considerable number of years more than I, but I am dizzy with all this round and round and round we go stuff.

Mike's attempt to purchase a DIARY not long after speaking with Doreen is NOT a smoking gun of anything. Yet, this relentless campaign never ends. In my view he was attempting to buy something that would give him an idea of something he could compare to what he had. In typical Mike fashion he didn't realise what he had was a SCRAPBOOK presented as a DIARY. Martin Earl dutifully did as requested and when the penny dropped with Mike it was too late. Like most things in Mike's life. He didn't know whether he was being sold a pup himself. Instead of finding an apple to compare with an apple, he ordered an orange. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have always personally had concerns with Anne's later version of events, and I cannot speak for anyone else's view. I still believe she has failed to be completely honest. She perhaps saw an opportunity to try and engineer the whole situation to her favour. After all, Mike knew he didn't get it from Devereuax and so did Anne. So by Anne saying she gave it to Devereaux to give to Mike left Mike in a pickle. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Nice chess move. He could feel the ownership of the scrapbook tale slipping away from him and into Anne's control. She masterfully turned the tables to her advantage. Of course, the scrapbook itself was sold to Robert Smith and remains in his possession, but for Mike it was Anne's behaviour that knocked him for six. How could she, his wife, do that to him? Pull the rug from under him like that? So that started Mike's campaign to try and regain control over the narrative and the only option left was, you guessed it, "I forged it". Not one shred of hard evidence that proves he did, but a massive F**ck You to Anne and her new best friend Feldy. "Who is the clever one now?". Mike truly believed he was getting the last laugh.

The sad thing is that a domestic dispute that had been brewing since the scrapbook was found led to ridiculous cat and mouse statements, retractions, half-truths and lies which left a whole community still wondering "well where did this thing actually come from?".

It came from under the floorboards of James May brick's bedroom on the 9th March 1992. Eddie Lyons found it and in effect sold it to Mike who had probably bragged about being a writer to him (they drank in the same pub for a while) and Eddie thought he might be able to "do something with it".

Eddie is unlikely to ever admit to it as it is in effect stealing. Unless he is offered some kind of immunity from prosecution why would he criminally implicate himself? Paul Dodd would be the rightful owner and that then opens a whole legal can of worms.

Who put the book there? I don't know. I would like to believe it was Maybrick, but there is a good chance it might not have been. I am however, and have always been, more intrigued by the watch. I think the two artefacts are intertwined but not in the way the cynics believe.

And now we are back here again. Going round, and round, and round again.

I'll just copy and paste this again in say five years time when the same discussion rears it's head again.

[Scott Nelson]

Devereux obtained an unknown document from a workman, Darren, who found it in Battlecrease sometime in the late 1970s or early to mid 1980s. Devereux then watched the Michael Caine mini-series in 1988 and decided to write a Maybrick Diary based on this old document with modern trimmings, such as the Abberline emphasis. He then gave it to Mike Barrett before he died. The older document may be with the Devereux family or may have been destroyed.

[erobitha]

Devereux obtained an unknown document from a workman, Darren, who found it in Battlecrease sometime in the late 1970s or early to mid 1980s. Devereux then watched the Michael Caine mini-series in 1988 and decided to write a Maybrick Diary based on this old document with modern trimmings, such as the Abberline emphasis. He then gave it to Mike Barrett before he died. The older document may be with the Devereux family or may have been destroyed.

I can't actually rule this one out. There could also be a link to the house clearance in the 70's to an antiques dealer who cleared the house out. I'm talking about the watch here but the two could be linked. However, I do beleieve the more likely scenario is that it came out of Battlecrease House in March 1992.

[rjpalmer]

In my view he was attempting to buy something that would give him an idea of something he could compare to what he had.

If Mike bought this diary for comparison reasons, why did he stipulate that it “must have at least 20 blank pages?”

What could all these blank pages tell him about the authenticity of a written document?

Does a man who thinks he may have just bought a genuine Rembrandt rush out and try to compare it to a blank canvas?

And if this was an innocent purchase, why didn’t Barrett bring it with him to London? “Here, Doreen, I’ve went to great expense—forking over 25 pounds that I couldn’t afford—to do my own comparison.”

Instead, Mike hides its existence from Shirley Harrison and Doreen for the better part of 2 ½ years, and never mentions it?

Anne's ridiculous explanation made no sense 25 years ago, and it makes no sense now.

[erobitha]

If Mike bought this diary for comparison reasons, why did he stipulate that it “must have at least 20 blank pages?”

What could all these blank pages tell him about the authenticity of a written document?

Does a man who thinks he may have just bought a genuine Rembrandt rush out and try to compare it to a blank canvas?

And if this was an innocent purchase, why didn’t Barrett bring it with him to London? “Here, Doreen, I’ve went to great expense—forking over 25 pounds that I couldn’t afford—to do my own comparison.”

Instead, Mike hides its existence from Shirley Harrison and Doreen for the better part of 2 ½ years, and never mentions it?

Anne's ridiculous explanation made no sense 25 years ago, and it makes no sense now.

How many pages were missing fron the front of the scrapbook? I can only guess in Mike's mind that was significant enough to try and compare somehow.

Presenting Doreen with an expense for a Victorian diary would have set off alarm bells don't you think?

As for Anne, I know others are a little more understanding and sympathetic to her than perhaps I am. I do feel the Barretts as a couple have made the doggiest of dinners of this whole thing, and as a result, we may never get to know the true origins of the scrapbook.

I will maintain to the day I die that it was not Mike or Anne who wrote it.

[Mike J. G.]

1. Mike Barrett
2. Fits all known evidence with no need for alternative, convoluted ad-hoc explanations
3. To fake the diary

Bingo.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike - Have you ever considered giving Anne Graham a ring and inviting her out to lunch and a pint? It seems unlikely she would ever accept (it has been reported she hung up the phone when Shirley Harrison tried to contact her a year or two ago), but maybe if she knew that the Diary's main supporters are now promoting the idea that she is a bald-faced liar and had helped her ex-husband Mike Barrett publish stolen goods, she would finally be willing to clear the air and tell, for the first time, the true origins of the Maybrick hoax? It would be beneficial to all if she would go on record and put this tawdry episode to bed. Who knows? Maybe she would like to get it off her chest.

Allo, mate. To be honest, if I had any way of contacting Anne, I would do, but I imagine she's, like you say, not one to engage in dialogue with people on the matter. I'd go for a pint with her neighbour's dog at the minute, such is my urge to get back to the pub!

I would assume she's well aware of how some people may view her, but isn't bothered, as she's able to live a life of relative anonymity. It's not often that people involved with hoaxes bother to clear their name as these hoaxes, though well known in the wider world among interested observers, are seldom huge stories for these people locally once the dust has settled. In the grand scheme of things, these hoaxes aren't really a big deal. If she was willing to involve herself then I doubt if she cares much about how she's perceived by a few Ripper-related readers.

If I was in Liverpool I'd do it myself, and if I failed, I would try to contact Barrett's daughter and his sister, as they might also have relevant information they would be willing to put on record. As for your three questions, I have no doubt whatsoever it is a modern fake, Barrett was involved, and the red diary was purchased with the intention of creating a hoax.

I did consider tracking down a few people, but honestly, I wouldn't know where to begin. I know some of the Devereux family, but I'm more familiar with the younger generation, who, IIRC, wete nephews of Tony, or something like that, but Tony died while they were still young. My parents know the older generation but as far as I know, they no longer live around Aigburth and I'm honestly not sure what relevant information any of them could provide. I agree; modern hoax, Barrett was definitely involved.

Just to be clear about the chronology, though...Barrett contacted Doreen Montgomery, claiming to have the Diary of Jack the Ripper on March 9/10 1992. Martin Earl published an advertisement on Barrett's behalf, seeking a blank or partially blank diary on March 19th. David Barrat established that the timing is such that Barrett almost certainly contacted Earl with his request for a blank diary within days or hours of contacting Montgomery, since the request had to be submitted to Earl by March 11th to make the next issue of Bookdealer. This supports Barrett's claim that he hadn't physically created the diary until he had a fish on the line (Montgomery). Your point about Tales of Liverpool is right on the mark, however. Barrett owned this book long before Dodd had his floorboards lifted, and the Diary-friendly folk have no explanation.

Their best guess is:

Mike bought a copy of Tales of Liverpool, but never read it.

Months later,

Mike read a copy of Tales of Liverpool, but never bought it!

If that sounds convoluted, it is.

Cheers for that info, RJ. It's definitely convoluted, to say the least! I remember Orsom saying something similar to what you posted above re: the timeline.

One person who might have been familiar with Richard Whittington-Egan's works was Tony Devereux. He worked as a compositor at the Liverpool Echo when the Echo published a long, regular series of columns by Whittington-Egan dealing with Liverpool mysteries and oddities , including piece about the Maybrick case. Hell, it could have been Devereux who gave Barrett the copy of Tales of Liverpool to begin with. Cheers, RP

I wouldn't doubt that, to be honest, RJ, I've a feeling Tony was a reader of RWE. You might very well be right about him lending Barrett the copy of Tales.

Cheers, mate, all the best.