One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

‘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?

Actually, that's a good point, Gary. You have demonstrated why Orsam's research should be checked and double checked before it can be taken as gospel, yet here is RJ not having the faintest clue if Ryan was the originator of an 'evident' guess that the Maybricks met on the Brittanic, or if he got it from some other source.

While I am happy to believe Mike did find this detail in Ryan's book, it means absolutely nothing because it doesn't appear in the diary!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, that would be lovely, thank you.

And no, RJ, even though I don't know this bloke from Adam, I don't imagine for a moment that he's lying but I do want to know his source because it's a remarkable claim which is not corroborated in any record (book, email, post, etc.) I've ever seen.

Cheers,

Ike

It is indeed remarkable, Ike, because I can't see any reason why Anne would not have mentioned Mike's kidney failure at some point, if only to try and undermine the suspicions that he had been well enough to plan a JtR hoax of this nature.

She did talk about his heavy drinking after their move to Goldie Street, but maybe he didn't tell her he was hooked up to a dialysis machine between the school runs, and when Mike's doctor in 1996 reported on his medical history and Mike sent it to Shirley, the doctor pretended there was no evidence of a stroke, and neglected to mention anything about his dialysis either.

You don't suppose Mike was having Birchwood on, do you?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Anything you say, RJ. We all speculate, but some of us admit we can't actually know what went on in Goldie Street between the summers of 1991 and 1992.

I personally decided, in late 2003, that Anne's provenance was not credible, and this had nothing whatsoever to do with Eddie Lyons.

We differ over the extent and motivation of the lady's deception, but neither of us can claim superior knowledge of what she herself knew.

Correction - what she herself KNOWS.

[caz]

Hi Ike,

I'm not sure if I can attribute your doubts to your bad reading habits (recently on display when Caz clearly wrote she HADN'T edited Mike's letter) or simply your deep skepticism of everything beyond the truth of the Maybrick Diary.

Let me reiterate, from Mr. Birchwood: "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."

You think he's lying about the dialysis and want me to send you his email? Do I have that right?

I sent you a PM, Old Boy, but there's no free lunch.

RP

I don't know that Birchwood was capable of lying, or just happy to be associated with liars, but Mike certainly was, and the least said about Mrs Birchwood's relationship with the truth the better, lest it make us all mad.

[caz]

How tiresome.

What better way for Mike to convince the Diary Faithful that he had nothing to do with the hoax and that his confession was false? Just make up silly stories about bloody kidneys, multiple personality disorder, MI5, and scratching the watch.

After all, Mike's own solicitor wrote him a concerned letter, telling him to stop "strangling the golden goose" with his confessions.

And it worked like a charm. After 25 years later these obviously ridiculous stories told for the benefit of Keith and Shirley are still being repeated as 'evidence' that Mike had nothing to do with any of it.

Just like Mike wanted.

You might be fooling the casual observers, RJ, who are included in the 22 who voted for a Barrett hoax in some form or another, but you must know the above is a load of distorted codswallop, designed to defend the indefensible, that was Mike's distorted codswallop.

Shall I remind everyone who Mike's audience was for all the silly stories you mention, with the possible exception of the MI5 fantasy?

That's right: the bloody silly bloody kidney story was told solely for the benefit of Alan Gray, when Mike was trying to convince him there was some truth in his forgery claims implicating Anne; the even sillier multiple personality disorder story was told for the benefit of a much wider audience in April 1999, when Mike was still trying to implicate Anne and convince those present that he was telling the truth; and for the beyond silly watch scratching story, we need to turn again to Alan Gray, who was once more the beneficiary of that particular gem.

So your silly claim that Mike was telling these 'obviously ridiculous stories' to convince the 'Diary Faithful' that his confessions were all false, is demonstrably bogus and very silly indeed.

You know perfectly well he was telling these 'obviously ridiculous stories' to the very people he was trying to convince that he and Anne really had faked the diary.

By all means carry on with these theatrics, Caz...

Thanks, but did I ask for your permission? I'll take theatrics every time over silly attempts to argue that black is white, hoping your own audience won't notice.

Now I'll take a break and this thread will go silent, as it always does.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

By the way, did anyone notice the second attempt to mislead the casual reader in the same post? RJ's percentages don't add up, because he omitted the votes of a further 7 people, who either rejected the Barrett hoax entirely or were undecided when they cast their vote here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...maybrick-diary

I think there may be one of several top jobs in British politics going soon, if you're interested, RJ.

[rjpalmer]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

By the way, did anyone notice the second attempt to mislead the casual reader in the same post? RJ's percentages don't add up, because he omitted the votes of a further 7 people, who either rejected the Barrett hoax entirely or were undecided when they cast their vote here:

Please, Caz, you are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Because you can't read carefully or think clearly, someone is being misleading?

As I noted in my previous post, "undecided" was not an option in the 2014 poll:

"undecided” (which was not an option in 2014)

Is that not plain enough?

Thus, no direct comparison could be made between the 2014 results and the 2022 results on the question of "undecided," because it was not an option in 2014.

The only three categories that could be directly compared were the three I mentioned: real, old hoax, modern hoax, since they are the only three options that overlap both polls. Adding 'undecided' from one poll, when it was not an option in the second, would be utterly irrelevant, so I ignored those results. They can't tell us anything about the apparent trends.

I thought that would have been obvious enough to even to the most 'casual reader,' but I don't mind explaining it to you.

Of course, it is not surprising that you would characterize these results as "misleading" considering the old hoax theory has gone from 25% acceptance down to 5.5% acceptance, despite the 'Eddie Lyons" provenance having been given a public airing.

It must be very disappointing, but, as you say, you still have a great deal of information that has not been released, so maybe round #2 will see better results.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for an explanation of "apparently not" from Keith. It can only have come from Anne or Shirley, and it seems to me that either would be debilitating to your recent claims.

Cheers and good luck.

[caz]

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.

May the floor be mine for another housekeeping post?

The following info is taken from my timeline and I will post it without additional comment:

Monday 22nd August 1994
Letter from Dr. XXXX to Doreen Montgomery:
XXXX summarises Mike Barrett's medical conditions:
1984 urethogram showed no evidence of urethral stricture.
1989 all investigations for renal problem were found normal.
1993 sebaceous horn developed over abdomen and was removed.
Since last year patient has been drinking heavily and developed alcohol psychosis.
Referred for treatment to Dr. YYYY, Consultant Psychiatrist, and admitted for detoxification at Fazakerley Hospital, but goes back to heavy drinking once discharged. Taking Librium for past couple of months. Last attended surgery 27th July 1994 for panel note as incapable of work.
XXXX's opinion is that Mike Barrett is addicted to alcohol. He is still taking Librium and under Dr. YYYY's care.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1994)

Friday 26th August 1994
Letter from Doreen M to Dr. XXXX, in reply to his letter of 22nd August 1994:
Doreen is perplexed by XXXX's letter. She understood Mike suffered from renal failure and his condition was deteriorating.
She asks XXXX to confirm that Mike is receiving invalidity benefit due to his condition.
The suggestion that Mike had a malignant tumour removed is obviously not the case in view of XXXX's description.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1994)

Wednesday 28th February 1996
Dr ZZZZ examines Mike Barrett and completes his Disability Living Allowance Medical Report.
Brief summary by CAM:
There appears to be strong evidence in Dr ZZZZ's report that Mike had NOT suffered from a stroke at any time. Under the section dealing with the extent of Mike’s physical disability, ZZZZ has written: ‘100% due to consequences of (1) RTA aged 14 yrs causing incontinence and stiffness low back (R) hip, and (2) injury to (R) wrist 18/12 ago’
Mike has at some point added his own comments [almost certainly while drunk] to his copy of the report before sending it to Shirley, and it’s not clear how much reliance the doctor was putting on Mike’s answers.
There is no mention of a stroke, but a ‘slight limp (R) leg’, which is in line with Mike’s old road traffic accident and would certainly explain his use of a walking stick, which he tells ZZZZ he has walked with ‘for years’, due to pain in the right (R) leg. He also refers to pain in his back and right hip.
Elsewhere in the report, ZZZZ mentions ‘6 blackouts’ Mike had over 11 years: ‘last one 18/12 ago’ and ‘6 dizzy spells’ over 12 months. ZZZZ also ticks yes to episodes of ‘altered awareness’ and ‘lost consciousness’ due to an unknown cause, but there is no history of ‘epilepticus’.
Significantly, ZZZZ reports that Mike is ‘fully mentally competent’ and there is also no ‘evidence of neurological deficit’. [The examination began at 11am and lasted for 50 minutes.]
Bearing in mind ZZZZ's opinion that the claimant was ‘fully mentally competent’ in February 1996, there is a PS by Mike, added at some point for Shirley’s benefit, on the page where he had signed to confirm the information in his own statement was correct. I will attempt to transcribe it exactly:
‘PS. So what!! I protect the people I love, but no-one will understand but you. Me I go in again in my own time, I owe them, the last time I Blew away a IRA BAstard BRiANS out. He Deverses it ANd I dont feel Guilty. Alougth I admit it HaRNTS Me. Like the DiARy.
TAke care, you get your Money. tRust Me Mike xxxx’
Regarding Mike’s kidneys, it appears that the doctors differ. While ZZZZ reports a ‘non-functioning (L) kidney’ under ‘Other conditions present’, he follows this up with ‘clinically there is no evidence of Renal Failure’. However, the doctor signing the sick pay form five days later diagnoses Mike with renal failure.
Source: copy of report sent by Mike to Shirley

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Please, Caz, you are now scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Because you can't read carefully or think clearly, someone is being misleading?

As I noted in my previous post, "undecided" was not an option in the 2014 poll:



Is that not plain enough?

Thus, no direct comparison could be made between the 2014 results and the 2022 results on the question of "undecided," because it was not an option in 2014.

The only three categories that could be directly compared were the three I mentioned: real, old hoax, modern hoax, since they are the only three options that overlap both polls. Adding 'undecided' from one poll, when it was not an option in the second, would be utterly irrelevant, so I ignored those results. They can't tell us anything about the apparent trends.

I thought that would have been obvious enough to even to the most 'casual reader,' but I don't mind explaining it to you.

Of course, it is not surprising that you would characterize these results as "misleading" considering the old hoax theory has gone from 25% acceptance down to 5.5% acceptance, despite the 'Eddie Lyons" provenance having been given a public airing.

It must be very disappointing, but, as you say, you still have a great deal of information that has not been released, so maybe round #2 will see better results.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for an explanation of "apparently not" from Keith. It can only have come from Anne or Shirley, and it seems to me that either would be debilitating to your recent claims.

Cheers and good luck.

Fair enough, RJ, but you didn't make it clear in the post I was responding to, why your poll figures left out those 7 votes, including 2 who voted genuine.

Why wait for an explanation from Keith, if you have already decided his "apparently not" could only have come from Anne or Shirley?

Any explanation for your reasoning on this one, and why Keith would have used the qualifying word "apparently", if there was no doubt on his or his source's part about the "not"?

Mike took the notes, and Anne typed them up for him to hand over to Shirley. So Mike knew whether he had updated them/added to them with Shirley's input prior to her receiving them, and up to Mike to tell Keith what he had done - for what that was ever worth.

No comment to make about the first part of your post, regarding the reason Mike 'Matilda' Barrett told such dreadful lies, which you knew to be complete and utter nonsense?

Could this sort of thing not explain why Keith might consider it a waste of his valuable time engaging with you, until you can demonstrate that you are above making up nonsensical arguments, which does nobody any favours, least of all yourself?

[rjpalmer]

Mike took the notes, and Anne typed them up for him to hand over to Shirley. So Mike knew whether he had updated them/added to them with Shirley's input prior to her receiving them, and up to Mike to tell Keith what he had done - for what that was ever worth.

Thanks, Caz, but you aren't seriously suggesting that Keith was taking Mike's word for anything in April 1999? (the date of his annotation).

That's why I left Mike out of the equation. Either Shirley withdrew her claim about giving input during Mike's creation of the notes, or Anne gave an entirely different account, which would put grave doubts on your suggestion that Mike's notes were created without her knowledge. But let's wait and see, shall we?

One other bit of housekeeping:

Oh for goodness sake, RJ. God gave you brains, so use them. Mike read St. James's in the diary, before identifying Maybrick from RWE, and simply assumed it was a reference to the one in his home town.

Yes, I realize that. I'm certainly an idiot for spending time on the Diary, but I'm not quite the idiot you think I am. "An idiot, but not an idiot." Or as Mike would say, "I wrote it, but I did not write it. Anne wrote it."

Yes, the explanation you offer above is the same explanation that Shirley always gave: that Mike's notes represent the genuine musings and research of a man who had no idea who Maybrick was or where the diary came from until he read the book that was found to have been in the possession of the Devereux family since at least July 1991.

But how is that belief still sustainable if the notes are bogus and Mike faked all of his deep probing and baffled research down at the Central Liverpool Library?

Do you see what I'm saying?

If Barrett was truly baffled, your objection remains; if Mike faked bafflement--as the notes suggest--then Mike's comment is...how would I put it?...interesting.

But as they say in courtroom dramas, "statement withdrawn, your honor."

Now I'm going to join Ike on some errand running.

P.S. What do you make of Mike already referring to another book that is mentioned in his research notes as early as 10 March 1992? (Doreen letter to Shirley, same date, referring to Wilson & Odell's Summing Up)?

With hours of receiving this 'old book' from Eddie, he's already launched into research--showing familiarity with the same book used throughout his research notes? Busy 24 hours for our boy! And his ownership of a second book dates to before 1991? At some point you and Ike are going to have to admit that it is all too much.

[caz]

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 interesting. My timeline gives me this:

Thursday 12th July 2001
Letter from KS to John Omlor (from Internet JtR Casebook message boards), copied to SH and CAM:
KS encloses tapes of conversation with MB on 18th January 1995.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/2001)

Keith confirms that he only has a record of sending this taped conversation to Omlor, who was evidently the one who made copies and 'helped widely distribute' it. I don't instantly recall this 'tape tree' and nor does Keith, but it was over twenty years ago and we were in the process of writing a book.

As you claimed that Keith was 'so eager to distribute this tape', you presumably know the reason why, having heard it yourself. Are you also aware of the letter Melvin Harris sent to Shirley following this interview, where he accuses her of putting pressure on Mike to toe the line and intimidating him? Melvin's information was coming from Mike, via Alan Gray, so you will recall from hearing the interview and how it was conducted, whether Mike's account of the proceedings to Gray reflected anything like the reality.

If you will send your copies of Barrett tapes to nutjobs the other side of the globe, you can expect little sympathy if you regret doing so years later and then blame others for your own carelessness.

[rjpalmer]

How interesting. My timeline gives me this:

Thursday 12th July 2001
Letter from KS to John Omlor (from Internet JtR Casebook message boards), copied to SH and CAM:
KS encloses tapes of conversation with MB on 18th January 1995.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/2001)

Keith confirms that he only has a record of sending this taped conversation to Omlor, who was evidently the one who made copies and 'helped widely distribute' it. I don't instantly recall this 'tape tree' and nor does Keith, but it was over twenty years ago and we were in the process of writing a book.

As you claimed that Keith was 'so eager to distribute this tape', you presumably know the reason why, having heard it yourself.

Let me refresh your memory, Caz. Seeing that you were a major contributor to this thread, as was Keith, I am surprised you have no memory of it, but, as you say, it was twenty years ago. Here is Omlor's opening post. Emphasis mine.

(Note: You can read for yourself that Keith knew of and approved of the distribution under Omlor's principle of "everyone [having] access to all relevant materials.")


Archive through 22 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Taped conversation with Michael Barrett: Archive through 22 August 2001
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 09:47 pm

Tape Tree Announcement!!!!!!

Hello everyone.

In the interest of a truly open and honest conversation and a completely fair-minded investigation, in which everyone has access to all relevant materials, I have arranged with Keith Skinner to make the following offer.

Keith has a taped conversation, made with Mike Barrett (at Mike's home, I believe) on January 18th, 1995.

This date is particularly interesting, because it falls between the time of Mike's two "confessions" and this is the meeting Mike talks about in his second confession, when he says

"On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all call ed at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and stated a tape recording off and my very words at the begining (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET F*CKED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLA CKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser'. I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaboarate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary., much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do."

Now the tape that Mike is referring to, where he curses out Paul Feldman and talks about his relationship with Anne and allegedly collaborates with Keith and Shirley and wherein, Mike claims under oath, he was promised money in June of '95, can be heard and people can decide for themselves whether they think Mike is telling the truth in the tape or in his sworn affidavit or somehow in both or in n either. The meeting was indeed held with Shirley a nd Sally and an independent advisor (who does in f act say some stuff here and there, I believe).

Keith graciously sent me a copy of these two cassette tapes (about 60 minutes each) and I let him know that I could not use them or write about them on these boards in any way unless they would be mad e available to everyone else who wanted to hear them.

This, I believe, is the only fair and reasonable and responsible thing to do.

I do not want to write about such tapes and what i s on them here on these boards knowing that some people have been allowed to hear them and some people have not. I do not want there to be a select and chosen few only who have been allowed to hear and discuss them. I believe that would be both unfair and needlessly exclusionary.

And so I agreed to discuss the tapes and offer my reactions in public only if they would be made available to everyone.

Keith kindly agreed to this, provided I arrange the tape tree."

[rjpalmer]

We also get this from someone called Caroline Anne Morris

Tuesday, 31 July 2001 – O7:20 am

Hi John

Keith asked me this morning if you had made any observations about the tapes yet. He is really looking forward to your input on the boards. Don’t forget that, now no one can be accused of talking about evidence that’s not going to be made available to all, I guess you could start making observations whenever you’re ready (hint, hint, nudge nudge).



Keith himself addressed the boards on 2 August 2001, with an open letter to Melvin Harris: “I hope you too will be given the opportunity to listen to the Mike Barrett tapes…”

I'm not sure why Keith used the plural "tapes," since there was only one tape. Perhaps Keith was thinking other tapes would soon be released?

+ + +

Anyway, it is curious that an elaborate attempt was made to make sure everyone had "access to all the relevant materials" but that the Alan Gray tapes have still not been available for public consumption. It does rather raise the specter that there has been a selective release of materials, but I am sure Keith would wish to avoid this impression. I was to understand that some effort was being made to release the Gray tapes. Has there been any progress on that front?

By the way, as I explained several times, I never had a full set of the Barrett/Gray tapes.

Nor did I send my copy to Steve Powell in Australia.

If you recall--and evidently you don't---this tape tree was created by Keith/John Omlor under the agreement that each person would forward their cassettes to the next interested party, which I did to Mr. Powell, or the "nut job" as you call him. I never heard back. Maybe he was too busy surfing and barbequing shrimp.

The Barrett/Gray tapes are an entirely different matter altogether. I think there is very little chance I will be able to retrieve the small amount I had on tape, so it may be entirely up to Keith to get these things out in the public domain. Since both Barrett and Gray are dead, I can't imagine there is any legal reason that they can't be released.

Another tape tree, anyone?

[rjpalmer]

One correction. I see now that Omlor does refer to "tapes" (plural). If I recall, JO transferred both tapes onto one 120-minute cassette in order to make shipping easier, etc. before sending one my way. It's been twenty-years, of course.

So that explains Keith's reference to tapes (plural). Sorry for the confusion.

[Iconoclast]

One correction. I see now that Omlor does refer to "tapes" (plural). If I recall, JO transferred both tapes onto one 120-minute cassette in order to make shipping easier, etc. before sending one my way. It's been twenty-years, of course.

So that explains Keith's reference to tapes (plural). Sorry for the confusion.

I think the vast majority of our dear readers will be struggling to understand the relevance of the tape(s) being raised twenty years later. Are we to understand that this Jan 18, 1995 meeting which was taped demonstrated evidence for the sort of pressure Mike Barrett claimed he was being submitted to and his desperate attempts at 'collaboration' in order to get the money his actions were rapidly drying-up, or did it contradict it, or was it all a bit ambiguous in the end? What were the general conclusions drawn by these tapes?

It sounds as though something important was established by it/them for so many people to have received bootleg copies all those years ago?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

At the risk of side-tracking myself (in my probably forlorn attempt to talk about the scrapbook without necessarily having to mention Mike Barrett's name), it has been suggested to me that some of our dear readers might appreciate a reminder of Mike's January 25, 1995 'affidavit' (I'm not sure it is an affidavit as it wasn't sworn in the presence of an authority such as a solicitor). It is available here on the Casebook but I often wonder how many people are fully aware of what documentation is stored here.

Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 25 1995
From a sworn affidavit:
Thursday 26th [sic] January 1995
MICHAEL BARRETT will say:-
Further to my statement of the 23rd January 1995, I have since contacted the Police and I am told that the Crime No is 16391.J.95.CR.001, and that this Invetigation (sic) has now been allocated to a Detective at Copperas Hill Police Station on 'A' Block.
At this time I am staying at an address that is only known to Mr Gray because this matter is becoming very serious, I have already had threats, my home attacked, and all this is ledged with the Police, also my phone wires were cut and now I have been beaten up, perhaps when they find me dead one day they might take me seriously.
On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all called at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and started a tape recording off and my very words at the begining (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET ****ED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser'. I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaboarate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary., much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do.
I was also afraid that if Anne and I get arrested for fraud what would happen to our daughter. I did not know who the Independent Advisor was and I felt a serious threat to me either through the Law or if I did'nt (sic) conform personal injury maybe. My wife has for the past 12 months kept my daughter away from me and used her to threaten me and blackmail me that I will not see her again if I don't co-operate.
Paul Feldman in June 1994 contacted me by telephone and I quote him "BARRETT I WILL ****IN GAURANTEE (sic) I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOU WILL NOT SEE YOU (sic) WIFE AND DAUGHTER, EVER AGAIN".
This is the type of pressure I have been under and there is no doubt in my mind that Paul Feldman in particular wants me dead.
I should inform you that I actually worked as a Barman in the Post House Public House about 7 years ago and I gained a full know-ledge of the history of the old pub, and I decided when writing the Diary that I would put the name Post House in knowing full well that it had been called the 'Muck Midden' in the 1800's. This fact could actually be established and in particularly by me should I later need to prove what I had done.
I am ready now should it be necessary to speak to the Detectives from Scotland Yard who saw me some time ago., Detective Thomas.
When writing the Diary Devereux was a tremendous help to Anne and I but we did not go to anyone else for advice in the matter.
I know its old hat and I am sick of trying to convince people about it but the truth is I wrote the Diary of Jack the Ripper and my wife Anne Barrett transcribed it onto the old photograph Album.
I should also mention that because of personal injury to my right hand and arm I now sign as best I can with my left hand.
Signed: M. Barrett (practically illegible)
Taken by me at the dictation of Mr. Barret: (Signature)

Now, the 'tape tree' posts, above, reveal that back in 2001 John Omlor and Keith Skinner distributed the tape recording of this meeting to various interested parties including RJ Palmer who may have then sent his copy to Australian Steve Powell who has indeed apparently 'dropped off the face of the earth' so I figure that's a good guess on my part. Now, not a great deal has ever been made of the contents of that tape, and my dear readers will ask themselves why that should be. I would like to suggest to them (because I have heard the tape of that meeting some time ago) that that is because the contents of the tape do not support Mike's January 25 'affidavit' in any material way. I don't recall any pressure being exerted on Mike and no threats being made to him regarding his safety nor his remuneration from sales of the book. Indeed, the meeting is perfectly convivial but for the natural frustrations which people seem to have experienced whenever trying to get anything consistently cogent from Mike Barrett's lips. The bit with the swearing at Paul Feldman is when only Keith and Mike are together and Mike is just 'blowing off' in the safe environment of his own home - there's no real aggression in his voice, just his usual bombastic show-offing and grandstanding. When Shirley Harrison, Sally Evemy, and Kenneth Forshaw arrive, the atmosphere is friendly. Forshaw (I think he was a Liverpool ex-detective or something like that - intended to reassure Mike that all was above board with the meeting) did actually talk (despite Mike's 'affidavit' claiming that he didn't), but this is primarily more of that tedious Professional Scousery which I so utterly despise (like anyone else cares whether or not two Liverpudlians know Liverpool streets and landmarks). Overall, my recollections of that very long meeting was that it was a perfectly 'safe space' for Mike, conducted with people he knew (bar Forshaw) in his own home, and recorded for everyone's reassurance. My recollection was that it was twisted grotesquely by an agenda-driven Mike Barrett whose January 25, 1995, 'affidavit' was a horrible travesty of 'recall'. It's a shame that neither RJ nor anyone else appears to have that tape anymore because I believe that our dear readers would think very differently about Barrett's various claims over the years if they were able to hear the source of at least one of his 'victim-claiming' statements. Indeed, it would be refreshing for our dear readers if they could hear Mike Barrett passionately and freely denying any involvement in the creation of the Maybrick scrapbook even though he is not being questioned about his involvement and no threats are being made to his proposed income form the sales of the book his actions and claims were rapidly destroying. Now, critics of the scrapbook claim that Mike was just playing a clever game of "Saying What You Want To Hear When It Suits Me", but - to me - the reality of that type of interpretation is that no-one can ever trust anything Mike Barrett ever said or did at any time after March 9, 1992, when he was first made aware of the scrapbook signed 'Jack the Ripper' which was stolen from Battlecrease House that morning. We just can't have it both ways when it suits us to do so.

I wish I could offer a little more clarity but right now I can't. All I would say is that the January 18, 1995, recording was made available by Keith Skinner in what appears to have been his usual generous spirit of co-operation and that the reason why its contents do not appear to have contributed to the case against Mike Barrett should speak volumes regarding the tape's contents.

To quote RJ himself, in conclusion: Nothing to see here, folks.

Cheers,

Ike