One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

As I leave, Ike, let me just say that I would hope that in the future you might demonstrate more humanity and a more measured viewpoint than what we see in this above ill-considered comment.

According to a physician, Barrett's later behavior was consistent with Korsokov's Syndrome which is a biproduct of alcoholism, so it is hardly a joke, even though some recently made light of it. The Mike we see in 1995-1996 might not represent the Mike of pre-1992 or even 1993.

Further, someone who knew Barrett personally also said that Mike really did have a stroke--which obviously may have contributed to his behavior, and the alleged lack of abilities that you and Caz are so fond of writing about as a sort of mantra.

There is also this, which you won't be familiar with--a poignant message that Peter Birchwood sent me over twenty years ago.

Hi Roger

I just got back from Ireland and have finished scrolling through about 300 JtR messages most of which have gone into delete. Your last one is typically well conceived and researched. There is one point that I must make which needs to be understood when considering MB’s part in all of this.

There are references in Feldman and Harrison books to stories told by Mike which are obviously meant to take with a pinch of salt. One of these is that Mike had been seriously ill with kidney disease and had nearly died and had been on dialysis.

I have seen a report by a doctor confirming that by the mid-1980s Mike had indeed suffered serious kidney failure and that later he underwent dialysis treatment. For those unfamiliar it involves sitting for several hours at a time connected by tubes to a machine which filters and cleans the blood. It is a necessary but painful treatment.

If we are concerned that MB’s stories of the diary and how he forged it are often inconsistent and his character changeable then we must consider that this disease and its treatment means that fatigue poisons accumulate in the body, the mind is affected in various ways, it is difficult to concentrate, and memory lapses are common. Incredibly enough, even such mundane things as handwriting can change!

I’m familiar with all these effects because they happened to me during my three years of dialysis before I got the kidney transplant that saved my life. I even had to give the Bank a new signature!

Incidentally, although it was said during the Wallace trial that William Herbert Wallace’s kidney disease had altered the moral center of his brain to make him a criminal mastermind, I think it is a fallacy.

--------------

That's all from me, Ike.

I don't believe that Mike was the incompetent idiot you think he was. I think he suffered medical issues that could explain his decline. His handwriting on the receipt for the word processor is fluid and competent--in stark contrast to the blocked lettered examples from the late 1990s that Caz likes to reproduce.

But now the floor is yours.

RJ,

*Sigh*

I was so hoping - as all our dear readers know - to expend my energies this year on the subject of James Maybrick who was Jack the Ripper rather than on Mike Barrett who was not a Jack the Ripper hoaxer, but it seems I just can't get away from him.

You write that “someone who knew Barrett personally also said that Mike really did have a stroke”. Was this ever verified or was it as reliable as a social media opinionette?

Your post includes a startling email from Peter Birchwood (who he?) claiming that he had seen a report from a doctor regarding Mike's medical conditions in the mid-1980s. This is remarkable stuff and completely news to me! As I understand it, there has never been any evidence that Mike ever had renal failure so for him to have had extensive dialysis seems to me to be extremely unlikely indeed. As I understand it, there has never been any evidence either that Mike had ever suffered a stroke nor indeed that he had ever had cancer, and yet he claimed he had battled through those as well. That's quite a battering his body must have received - renal failure, extensive dialysis, a debilitating stroke (does everyone remember the famous picture of him leaning on a walking stick?), and - as if that wasn't enough for one man - he goes and gets a completely undocumented cancer too. Talk about being an unlucky bastard. Mike Barrett was the very definition of one (if you choose to believe him).

If he had suffered serious kidney failure in the mid-1980s and later underwent dialysis treatment, when did any of this occur? Mike's faculties were right on point throughout 1986-1988 when he had numerous articles attributed to him in Celebrity magazine (as well as those in Chat and in Look-In), and there was no evidence of fatigue, difficulty concentrating, and memory lapses during the period the scrapbook was being published (1992-1993) so when did Mike display any of these symptoms other than the latter two which 'coincidentally' happened to coincide with the alcoholism brought on by the collapse of his marriage in 1994?

I don't know who this bloke Peter Birchwood is but regardless of his potential credentials, citing some punter who once sent you an email with a whole bunch of ill-informed claims and judgements on Mike Barrett based upon his own experience of renal failure is unacceptable. Quite apart from the fact that I assume Mike's medical records remain confidential (despite his passing, unless he waived his rights or his rights ended on his death), using questionable sources such as this is surely misdirection?

So - I'll ask it again: Peter Birchwood - who he?

Cheers,

Ike

[caz]

So now it is just a "possibility" that Shirley mentioned the book to Mike before he handed over his notes?

You've been telling us that she did mention the book to Mike.

And even though it is your claim, the onus is now on Lord Orsam to show that you didn't simply make up this 'fact'?

You're right, Caz. This conversation is boring. Carry on without me, because you are clearly making it up as you go along and neither have the ability nor the desire to reveal your source for this 'fact' that has now become a 'possibility.'

RP

Just to clarify, in case RJ is still confused, we know Shirley asked Mike about Ryan's book, and we know he replied that he'd never heard of it:

Wednesday 18th January 1995
From a recorded interview with Mike Barrett at Goldie Street, Liverpool, conducted by Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison and Sally Evemy, in the presence of an independent witness:
Mike says he didn't take the diary seriously at first and had never heard of 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' before Shirley mentioned it to him. He says Tony Devereux was dead before Mike connected James Maybrick to the diary. Mike says he concentrated on the ripper stuff first, not thinking of the Liverpool angle until later.

Mike said the same about Ryan's book to Keith in the April of 1994, and now, 13 days after his affidavit of January 5th 1995, he is saying it again to Keith and Shirley.

We don't have a written record of when exactly Shirley posed the question about Ryan to Mike, but it's only Orsam who needs this to have been after the notes were in Shirley's hands, for his speculation to survive.

We also know what Mike told Shirley - see page 7 of her first edition - about spending hours in the library sifting through microfilm newspaper reports.

I think we can all agree by now that Mike was lying about this, and never did any such thing, either before or after March 1992. But it would have looked mighty odd if his notes reflected none of the painstaking work he had described to Shirley.

A simple shortcut, to save a simple man the time and trouble of actually doing this work, albeit belatedly, was to find himself a single book on the Maybrick case - any one would do - take some notes from it and source them to The Echo. Job done, and nobody would notice the join until after his death, when Orsam's latest obsessive search for damning evidence discovered the astonishing truth: that Mike was not only a liar, but a lazy one too.

Shirley's mention of Ryan's book may have prompted Mike to use it for his notes, but equally he could have found it independently and it was just a coincidence when Shirley happened to ask him about it. Either way, he wasn't going to say he'd already read it, and she never suspected as much.

[rjpalmer]

Clearly, Anne knows if Mike didn't bring the thing home until March 1992, and would know if whatever research he had put in, presumably while she was out at work, and between the school runs, was not done until the Spring/summer of 1992.

I have no idea if Anne took any interest at all in how Mike went about his research, or what he may have told Shirley about it, but how would Anne know, unless Mike told her? And how would she know if he was being truthful about his sources?

Quite a telling response, Caz.

It seems like you can't quite bring yourself to kick Anne Graham's 'in the family' provenance tale to the curb, eh? Do you want to keep it in reserve in case the Eddie Lyons theory implodes utterly?

It's always good to have insurance!

Why the sudden need to have Mike doing his research behind Anne's back while she's at work? Is it because she's the one who admitted to typing up these bogus notes, and it would look pretty damning otherwise?

Shirley's account of these events is clearly based on an early joint interview with both Mike and Anne, because at one point she quotes Anne word-for-word. (Note to self: does that mean this conversation was tape recorded?)

The account is short on details, but Shirley describes Mike also doing research at night, while Anne is home. And after all, what Ripperologist hasn't bugged the hell out of his or her spouse with an endless cascade of theories and conjectures, whether or not they were doing 'research' for good or for ill?






It sounds like this is all coming from the same interview Shirley conducted with both Mike and Anne, presumably when Shirley visited Liverpool in July OR August 1992. Strange that you suddenly want to keep Anne out of it.

And from this, it seems clear enough that Anne was entirely aware of Mike's supposedly in depth and obsessive research and never denied it during this interview.

It would be far better if we actually had a tape of this early discussion, but what we have is what we have.

And Anne is the one who typed up these obviously bogus notes that weren't based on hours and hours of research.

And what has happened to your oft-told tale of Anne "Hoovering" up Mike's original notes?

Are you trying to tell us that Anne could have typed up these bogus notes without knowing they were bogus? Is that even slightly credible?

Why not admit it: these notes being hastily thrown together with only four sources--one of them disguised--is the death knell for Anne's 'in the family' story.

[rjpalmer]

Just to clarify, in case RJ is still confused, we know Shirley asked Mike about Ryan's book, and we know he replied that he'd never heard of it:

Wednesday 18th January 1995

Thanks, Caz.

Sadly, this is just as I predicted. This is the same tape from 1995 that Keith helped widely distribute back in 2001, or so. We all heard it: Chris George, John Hacker, John Omlor, etc. etc. We had a 'tape tree,' remember? I sent my copy to Stephen Powell in Australia--another blast from the past!!

How on earth is Mike's denial in 1995 and 1994 evidence that Shirley asked Mike about Ryan as early as 1992?

It does raise the question, however, if Keith, who was so eager to distribute this tape in 2001, has made any progress in uploading the Alan Gray tapes?

[caz]

So - I'll ask it again: Peter Birchwood - who he?

Oh blimey, Ike, you might regret asking.

Peter Birchwood was one of those in Melvin Harris's magic circle, who was sent copies of all sorts of material handed to Alan Gray by Mike, and posted a fair bit of it many, many moons ago - including information from Mike's bank account, which I duly added to my timeline!

I think I asked RJ in the recent past if Peter Birchwood was the sender or receiver of the famous Barrett and Gray tapes, which RJ had in his possession but decided were not worth keeping, despite since claiming they contain evidence to support Mike's forgery claims! RJ has studiously avoided giving anything away - aside from the actual tapes - so we still don't know how he came by them or where they ended up.

I wish you luck getting more information out of RJ concerning his sources of information, but I wouldn't hold your breath for any earth-shattering revelations.

It's a minor miracle, though, if Mike managed to pull himself together long enough to sandwich the planning and execution of Jack the Ripper's diary between two extra large slices of heavily buttered, highly debilitating bouts of life-threatening illness. He should be in The Lancet, as an example to us all of what a gentleman born can achieve, with kidneys like Mike's. What a cruel woman Anne must be, to have jokingly dropped one on the diary, right under Mike's nose.

Oh, and whatever you do, don't ask about Maria Birchwood. Send me an email if you want to know about that piece of work. Nothing I could post here would be printable. And for once, Stewart Evans would be in total agreement.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

I don't know who this bloke Peter Birchwood is but regardless of his potential credentials, citing some punter who once sent you an email with a whole bunch of ill-informed claims and judgements on Mike Barrett based upon his own experience of renal failure is unacceptable.

Your glaring ignorance of the Diary saga never ceases to amaze me, Ike.

Peter Birchwood, a highly respected genealogist (once featured in a television series), was one of the early diary researchers; among other things, he personally met and had dealings with the shadowy Stanley Dangar of Maybrick watch infamy, as well as other key players. This was all before your time, of course. Peter also worked with Melvin Harris, I believe. He had a lot of interesting commentary on Feldman's crackpot genealogy. When Feldman and the Diary Faithful were claiming that Anne never received a penny off the Diary, it was Birchwood who produced a number of bank statements showing that she had cashed several large royalty cheques before leaving Mike--putting Feldman's false claims to bed.

None of this is either here, nor there. I believe Birchwood; he had no reason to lie. Barrett's claim of a having kidney disease was treated as great big joke by the Diary Faithful; Birchwood saw medical documentation that showed otherwise. I will once again point you towards Barrett's highly fluid and competent signature of the mid-1980s.



It seems to differ considerably from the BloCk LEtteR examples that Caz uploads to our screens from time to time. Are you suggesting that Birchwood lied about the bank asking him for a new signature?

If you don't want to believe it, Ike, be my guest. You don't believe a lot of things. You also believe a lot of rather astonishing things.

Now, until Keith can tell us why he wrote 'apparently not' in 1999, I don't think there is much reason to keep speculating about Mike's notes. Particularly since Shirley herself dated these notes to before Mike brought the diary to London in her 2002 book (which was written at around the time of Keith's annotation).

Otherwise, we'll end up with nothing more than desperate back peddling like this:

For all we know, Mike's notes could well have been a combination of his own unaided work and tasks suggested by Shirley.

This was once stated as a fact. Now it is just speculation?

So, Ike, back to the point of this thread: Maybrick and Charles Lechmere and the geography of Stepney.

[caz]

How on earth is Mike's denial in 1995 and 1994 evidence that Shirley asked Mike about Ryan as early as 1992?

It's not. I don't think I ever claimed it was. It doesn't even bother me when she asked. But if Orsam wants her to have asked Mike as late as 1993, then he's the one who needs that evidence. He could ask Shirley, I suppose, because even if she didn't record the conversation or take notes immediately afterwards, she might remember if she asked Mike early on in their diary book project, or when much of the research had already been done.

[MrBarnett]

Is there anything here that could not have come from the LE, apart from the reference to a ‘Porter’ which could have come from Morland, but didn’t come from Ryan?

[MrBarnett]

Is there anything here that could not have come from the LE, apart from the reference to a ‘Porter’ which could have come from Morland, but didn’t come from Ryan?

The way Lord O presents it - as a ‘big one’ - you’d imagine this alone meets the criteria of the thread title.

[MrBarnett]

A combination of the LE 1889 and 1956, plus the odd use of ‘porter’ would give you all of that ‘big one’, wouldn’t it?

[MrBarnett]

Your glaring ignorance of the Diary saga never ceases to amaze me, Ike.

Peter Birchwood, a highly respected genealogist (once featured in a television series), was one of the early diary researchers; among other things, he personally met and had dealings with the shadowy Stanley Dangar of Maybrick watch infamy, as well as other key players. This was all before your time, of course. Peter also worked with Melvin Harris, I believe. He had a lot of interesting commentary on Feldman's crackpot genealogy. When Feldman and the Diary Faithful were claiming that Anne never received a penny off the Diary, it was Birchwood who produced a number of bank statements showing that she had cashed several large royalty cheques before leaving Mike--putting Feldman's false claims to bed.

None of this is either here, nor there. I believe Birchwood; he had no reason to lie. Barrett's claim of a having kidney disease was treated as great big joke by the Diary Faithful; Birchwood saw medical documentation that showed otherwise. I will once again point you towards Barrett's highly fluid and competent signature of the mid-1980s.



It seems to differ considerably from the BloCk LEtteR examples that Caz uploads to our screens from time to time. Are you suggesting that Birchwood lied about the bank asking him for a new signature?

If you don't want to believe it, Ike, be my guest. You don't believe a lot of things. You also believe a lot of rather astonishing things.

Now, until Keith can tell us why he wrote 'apparently not' in 1999, I don't think there is much reason to keep speculating about Mike's notes. Particularly since Shirley herself dated these notes to before Mike brought the diary to London in her 2002 book (which was written at around the time of Keith's annotation).

Otherwise, we'll end up with nothing more than desperate back peddling like this:



This was once stated as a fact. Now it is just speculation?

So, Ike, back to the point of this thread: Maybrick and Charles Lechmere and the geography of Stepney.

The geography of Stepney is absolutely relevant in that it provides us with the most stunning example of Lord O’s ability to get things wrong.

[rjpalmer]

Is there anything here that could not have come from the LE, apart from the reference to a ‘Porter’ which could have come from Morland, but didn’t come from Ryan?

You might benefit from rereading the articles, Gary, particularly the one about the White Star line, as you seem to be doubting what Caz and Ike have already accepted as a foregone conclusion.

'Brittanic' is an error traceable only to Bernard Ryan. Florrie and Jim did not meet on the Brittanic. The Liverpool Daily Post printed arrivals from the passenger list on 23 March 1880, showing that Florrie and Jim actually arrived on The Baltic.

There were three steamers from New York arriving within a week or so; Bernard Ryan evidently just guessed and got the wrong one. Barrett repeats his error.




Barrett is clearly lying about his source--failing to name the very book that he later identified as the source for the diary. And lo, every confirmable detail about Maybrick's private life CAN be found in Bernard Ryan. Remarkable insight for a guy who we are told was barely a cretin.

[caz]

I agree with you, Ike, these notes ostensibly represent Mike's research 'since August 1991.'

Emphasis on Mike's research.

If I had joined in a collaboration with another person and was trying to get up to speed (whereas they had been working on the project for months), I would want to see their notes--not the joint notes we made together after I joined the project. That only makes sense.

And indeed, this is what Shirley Harrison herself reported in 'The American Connection'(2002) page 298:




Mike's research "BEFORE he brought the Diary to London." Before 13 April 1992. BEFORE Shirley may or may not have mentioned Bernard Ryan to Mike.

Now, Ike, while I appreciate that these small details are boring to you (despite your enthusiasm for other obscure facts associated with the diary) I am not sure they would bore Keith Skinner, who seems to take pride in ironing out these small details and contradictions.

Because, as I already posted, Keith said in 2017 that these weren't Mike's notes from before he brought the diary to London (despite Shirley's statement) but represented notes tidied up by Anne supposedly before July or August 1992 with contributions by Shirley Harrison.

Can't you see why this contradiction is important?

If they DON'T represent additions by Shirley Harrison--but are solely Mike's notes--then Caz's suggestion crumbles into a heap of nonsense.

Let me cut to the chase, and I will then withdraw from the conversation until when--or if--Keith wishes to clarify things. Because as I said earlier, Keith is the only one who can answer the following.

Here is what is bothering me.

1. Shirley says the notes were made before Mike came to London.

2. Keith tell us in 2017 that this isn't entirely true, since Mike added to the notes with Shirley's input. This is the same thing Keith stated when he wrote a cover letter for the notes back in the 1990s:





But here's the deal. Here are Keith's own handwritten annotations to Mike's notes:





Note the annotation in Keith's handwriting dating to 19 April 1999 under the bit about Shirley's contributions:

"APPARENTLY NOT"


Who in April 1999 told Keith that the notes were "not" made with Shirley's input?

Was it Shirley herself who was now giving a different version?

Or was it Anne Graham who denied these notes were made after Shirley started giving suggestions?

Why are we told two different versions of how and why the notes were made? And why didn't KS discuss this in 2017? Had he forgotten about his own annotation?


This reminds me of the infamous 'typescript' created by Mike and Anne.

We were told two different stories of when and why the typescript was created, too. One that Mike made it before he came to London; one that he made it at the bidding of Doreen Montgomery.

Ditto with the notes.

That's all from me for a good long while. I'll let Keith sort it out and explain it.

RP

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

I wonder, what do we know happened in April 1999, shortly before Keith wrote 'apparently not' under his note about Mike having updated his research notes with input from Shirley?

Ah yes, the famous Smoke & Stagger meeting, when Keith interviewed Mike and the even more famous auction ticket got stage fright.

Shirley gave me a lift to the meeting - my first - as we lived quite close at the time.

Anne didn't attend, unsurprisingly.

I can't think how anyone but Mike could possibly have known if any of his notes had been the result of input from Shirley, between their first meeting on April 13th 1992 and when Mike handed over the final typed up version in the July/August. The notes themselves were not dated, and none named Shirley as the source.

The truth of when Mike made his first and last note lies with Mike alone, with no evidence that Anne was involved with his little scraps of paper until she complained they were cluttering up the place and typed them up for him.

I'm sorry, RJ, but I can't see how you would expect anyone but Mike to have had the answers to your questions about the notes he gave to Shirley, and why you would believe anything he may have said about them on various occasions to Shirley, Keith, or anyone else, including Anne.

You are becoming a little obsessive if I may say so, about something that not even Keith could 'sort out and explain' to you, if it all boils down to more of Mike's less than reliable claims.

Why not just ask Orsam? He's the one who claims to have a season ticket into the depths of Mike's mind.

[MrBarnett]

You might benefit from rereading the articles, Gary, particularly the one about the White Star line, as you seem to be doubting what Caz and Ike have already accepted as a foregone conclusion.

'Brittanic' is an error traceable only to Bernard Ryan. Florrie and Jim did not meet on the Brittanic. The Liverpool Daily Post printed arrivals from the passenger list on 23 March 1880, showing that Florrie and Jim actually arrived on The Baltic.

There were three steamers from New York arriving within a week or so; Bernard Ryan evidently just guessed and got the wrong one. Barrett repeats his error.




Barrett is clearly lying about his source--failing to name the very book that he later identified as the source for the diary. And lo, every confirmable detail about Maybrick's private life CAN be found in Bernard Ryan. Remarkable insight for a guy who we are told was barely a cretin.

‘Clearly lying?’ Only if we accept Orsam’s research as gospel.

What do you think about ‘off Tithebarn Lane’ and the Schweisso example? Could MB only have got that info from Ryan?

[rjpalmer]

Here's another blooper from Barrett's notes, quite hilarious. I think Orsam discussed this previously, but I can't find his reference.

Anyway, Barrett always claimed that he first realized Maybrick was the diarist when he read Richard Whittington-Egan's Tales of Liverpool, a small booklet that had two chapters on the Maybrick case. He was very consistent about this.

Here's how he originally told it to Shirley Harrison:




Barrett must have been thunderstruck. Here, at long last, was the identity of the diarist! He 'read' Richard Whittington-Egan's book and must have eagerly inhaled its contents. He later refers to the book in his research notes.

(Not surprisingly, Barrett later told a different version--he saw the book, not in the library, but in a bookstore. There is no reason to believe either account, however, because Barrett's personal copy was later found by Scotland Yard in the possession of the Devereux family, where it had been since at least July 1991).

Yet, when Mike comes to write his 'research notes' he writes the following:



Stop the presses.

How could Barrett have 'first thought' that Florrie and James had been married in St. James Church Liverpool?

What previous research had left Mike with this wrong assumption that was now being corrected by Richard Whitting-Egan's book??

He told us that Richard Whitting-Egan was his first introduction to the Maybrick case! Now RWE is correcting his long-held belief??

Obviously, another blunder by Barrett, suggesting that Richard Whittington-Egan wasn't the first time Mike had ever heard of James and Florrie's marriage. He's given the game away.

And, as I keep pointing out, Mike's ownership of RWE's book predates the 'miracle' at Dodd's house by a good eight months.

At this point, denial is the only default position.