One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

I continue to be surprised by people's acceptance as Mike Barrett as the 'hoaxer'. It genuinely baffles me. If you spend any reasonable time studying the various video, audio and statements available in the public domain you can only draw the conclusion that Mike was a habitual liar with alcohol problems. Does that make him guilty as the hoaxer? No, it doesn't.

I watched an interesting re-run of true crime series called a "A Crime to Remember" last night and one episode focused on the case of Alice Crimmins. In Queens, New York in the 60s she was convicted for the murder of her two children with absolutely no evidence other than an assassination of her character. Her lifestyle and behaviour did not agree with those conservative beliefs of the time, so it was easier to simply label her as guilty. Twelve married men on the jury convicted her based on nothing more than disgust at her behaviour. A woman numbing her grief in ways they did not understand. In reality there was zero evidence that actually linked her to these crimes.

I feel many believe Mike was the hoaxer because they can see his character is questionable, its impossible not to draw that conclusion, but we should be careful here. We have zero evidence that he actually did hoax it. Are some of us on this forum in danger of simply assuming his guilt when there is no actual evidence of it?

Mike was a habitual liar and an alcoholic. These are facts, but he presented no real proof he hoaxed the document. We need to continue this journey of truth without considering one more word that came from Mike Barrett post March 1992.

It's the only way the truth will be established for those that genuinely want it.

[Iconoclast]

We need to continue this journey of truth without considering one more word that came from Mike Barrett post March 1992.

It's the only way the truth will be established for those that genuinely want it.

Oh, please, dear readers, please!

[rjpalmer]

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.

So, we are finally reduced to staking-out Barrett's toilet in search of clues. It might be more worthwhile to explain the purchase of a blank Victorian Diary pre-London, or Dr. Baxendale's solubility test, but to each his or her own.

It's interesting that the medical history that Dr. XXX had for Barrett didn't date to any time before 1984.

If it had, maybe Dr. XXX would have been aware that on 2 March 1982 Barrett was admitted to Walton Hospital, Rice Lane, Liverpool L9 1AE under the care of Dr. J.K.M. Rawlinson, suffering from urinary/kidney complaints. Dr. Rawlinson writes that Barrett "has a non-functioning kidney on one side that might need removal," and further writes that Barrett will undergo 'further treatment' in the Day Ward. He does not specify the treatment.

We then see from the above that Barrett was rechecked for a "renal (kidney) problem" again in 1989 (and urinary problems in 1984) which means that he must have been complaining of one, but the tests in this instance were 'normal.' Chronic kidney problems can come & go and be difficult to diagnosis.

So, two, possibly three, complaints of kidney problems BEFORE the Diary was heard of by anyone.

What is Ike's thinking here?

That in the 1980s, Barrett was already faking kidney complaints to lay the groundwork for when a random electrician would hand him the Diary of Jack the Ripper in March 1992?

Note also that the report by Dr. XXX doesn't extend past August 1994. My correspondent P. B. stated that Barrett had kidney complaints in the 1980s (the 1982 letter from Dr. Rawlinson shows this is true) and that he later underwent dialysis. Since P.B. was writing in 2001 (it may have been 2002, I'd have to go back and check) that leaves at least 7 full years between 1994 (the date of Montgomery's letter) and 2001 for Barrett to have received dialysis treatments, so, as far as I am concerned, Ike's suggestion that P.B. was either wrong, being dishonest, or had been handed a forged medical report by Mike is not made out. I don't know that that is the case at all, though Ike's idea of Mike forging a medical document is certainly of interest. It must have been more convincing than the Diary if it convinced P.B.

Perhaps more relevantly, none of the diary critics have ever suggested that Barrett wasn't a habitual liar. Some of them have suggested that part of Mike's memory loss and erratic behavior could have been attributed to Korsakov's Syndrome and other complaints. In short, that the Mike Barrett of 1995-1996 does not give us a good indication of the abilities and personality of the Mike Barrett of pre-1992. Apparently, this is a big joke to some, but Dr. XXX himself refers to "alcohol psychosis," and the physician that Harrison quoted in her book specifically referred to Korsakov's Syndrome (though it was perhaps the same Dr. XXX) so I am at a loss to explain why Keith is so quick to dismiss this as unworthy of our consideration. At least that is the impression he has left in my mind after his most recent posts.

Here is the appropriate section of the letter from Dr. R.

I have blacked-out some of the descriptions of the complaints because I don't think there is any crying need to parade them on a public forum. I am willing to forward an unredacted image of the complete letter to Keith Skinner via Ike if he doesn't already have it and wants to see it, but, in exchange, can the public finally see the typescript prepared by Mike and Anne, as previously promised? It's been nearly 30 years.



Thanks.

[Iconoclast]

Ike's suggestion that P.B. was either wrong, being dishonest, or had been handed a forged medical report by Mike is not made out. I don't know that that is the case at all, though Ike's idea of Mike forging a medical document is certainly of interest.

I'm not sure that I did say any of these things, RJ?

I could check back but I've other things to do right now. If you repeat it, I'll obviously have to check back. Just wanted to put it on the record for our dear readers that my silence is not concurrence with your claims.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Thanks.

For clarity, RJ, is Dr Rawlinson the source of Peter Birchwood's email that you quoted a few days ago (yesterday?)?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Thanks.

I'm drawn inexorably to the bit at the bottom where Mike has evidently attempted to encourage this consultant to influence someone over Mike's housing conditions. I wonder what was so wrong with 7C Calvin Street that needed amelioration in order to be entirely beneficial to his health?

Anyone who has had a new baby enter their household for the first time will know what chaos it causes and that it may result in a need to move to a bigger property. In our own case, Mrs Iconoclast and I lived very happily for five years in a two-bedroom downstairs flat created from the separation of upstairs and downstairs in a lovely 1892 Edinburgh suburb with two dogs and two cats where the biggest part of the flat was a huge, ornate, and really rather useless living-room and all the other rooms relatively small (so much so, I made an office for myself out of the downstairs cupboard). Four short months after baby Izzy came along, we were moving into a significantly bigger house (upstairs and down this time!) to accommodate all the paraphernalia and the extra life we'd suddenly acquired.

Coming - as Bongo's hospital intervention did - just under five months after the birth of little Caroline Barrett (October 22, 1981) and given that Mike's housing conditions were clearly part of the discussion with the hospital team, and given that it sounds as though the Barretts were possibly in council accommodation at this point (I could be wrong, of course), it does just raise the question around whether Mike was hamming something up?

Just a thought. Naughty me.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

it does just raise the question around whether Mike was hamming something up?

If your theory is correct, and there is nothing to indicate that it is, since Barrett's kidney complaints continued in 1984 and 1989, are you suggesting that this could be yet another instance where Anne Graham, slaving away down at the office, would have been entirely oblivious to Mike "hammering something up," or do you concede that she would have been aware of both her husband's health and own her own living arrangements on Calvin Street?

It seems to me, Ike, that you and Ero always studiously avoid mentioning Mike's better half.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you to analyze the contents of Barrett's bed pans from 39 years ago, Ike. I find it interesting that you are endlessly fascinated by Barrett's kidneys but remain utterly unconcerned and even bored by the fact that he and wife handed over bogus research notes to their own collaborator and literary agent back in 1992. Notes that avoid mentioning the one book that independent research has confirmed would have been most useful to the hoaxers.

Research notes that were also once lauded as strong evidence that Barrett had no idea where the diary came from and was simply a confused ex-scrap metal dealer trying to figure it all out.

[MrBarnett]

I dread to think what ‘hammering something up’ might mean in Scouse land.

I was beginning to think that all this diary nonsense was a waste of time, but it turns out not to be so:

[rjpalmer]

I was beginning to think that all this diary nonsense was a waste of time, but it turns out not to be so:

The seduction of geographical coincidences. Anne Graham worked in the same building:

[MrBarnett]

The seduction of geographical coincidences. Anne Graham worked in the same building:

Blimey!

I imagine Arthur Young was the prominent firm of accountants of that name.

Who wrote that, RJ? Someone familiar with the ‘off’ somewhere usage clearly, but presumably not Ryan?

[MrBarnett]

Blimey!

I imagine Arthur Young was the prominent firm of accountants of that name.

Who wrote that, RJ? Someone familiar with the ‘off’ somewhere usage clearly, but presumably not Ryan?

And just in case anyone is interested, Bromley Street was in the civil parish of Ratcliff but in the ecclesiastical parish of St Dunstan’s Stepney.

[rjpalmer]

Blimey!

I imagine Arthur Young was the prominent firm of accountants of that name.

Who wrote that, RJ? Someone familiar with the ‘off’ somewhere usage clearly, but presumably not Ryan?

Sorry. It's Paul Feldman, from 'The Final Chapter.'

Feldy once theorized that Anne Graham had found the diary at Silk House Court, but soon learned that the original building had been razed in the 1960s. He even contacted the builders in the off chance that some of the old furniture or fixtures had survived the demolition and rebuild, but such was not the case. Ultimately, Feldman was forced to dismiss it as a 'red herring.'

[MrBarnett]

Sorry. It's Paul Feldman, from 'The Final Chapter.'

Feldy once theorized that Anne Graham had found the diary at Silk House Court, but soon learned that the original building had been razed in the 1960s. He even contacted the builders in the off chance that some of the old furniture or fixtures had survived the demolition and rebuild, but such was not the case. Ultimately, Feldman was forced to dismiss it as a 'red herring.'

That really is a coincidence, then.

[Iconoclast]

That really is a coincidence, then.

Like this case doesn't have enough of those ...

[jmenges]

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?

Elsewhere it has been insinuated that I am somehow involved in the suppression of the Alan Gray tapes since I asked Keith if I could release them and was told that they can be released once they were cleaned up.
It wasn't me who was tasked with cleaning them up. It was James Johnston. I've never heard the tapes. I've never been instructed to suppress the tapes because I've never received copies of the tapes. I have no idea what Keith Skinner and James Johnston intend to do with the Alan Gray tapes, or when they plan on doing it, beyond what I said in my post from June 2020.
I would have happily supplied this information to said Elsewhere if they had bothered to ask but its obvious they delight in accusing me of being involved in wild conspiracies instead.

JM