Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Click image for larger version Name:	Rawlinson.JPG Views:	0 Size:	70.3 KB ID:	780205
    Oh - Lord - it seems that RJ's photograph of Mike Barrett's scribbled 'sick note' has stirred the wrath of my mucker FDC:

    This scrap of paper supposedly representing a doctor's note has no evidential value in itself. The note has no header, no identification stamp, and no date and address of the doctor in question, and is written entirely unprofessionally. The sentence "He has a non-functioning kidney on one side which may require removal…” , a doctor is not going to formulate the sentence in this way. I also do not see what ‘better housing’ could contribute to the functioning or non-functioning of a kidney. As I thought, this note seems to come more from the sick brain of Mike Barrett than to be the recommendation of 'Dr. J.K.M. Rawlinson'? By the way if Mike can fake JtR's diary, copying a doctor's signature must be peanuts!

    Two posters you definitely shouldn't mess with - Cazmo Switchblade-Brown and The Man Known Only By His Initials.

    Don't say you ain't been warned, dear readers.

    Ike
    Iconoclast
    Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
    Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      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?
      You might be in for a long wait, RJ.

      No, I wasn't suggesting that Keith was taking Mike's word for anything. But he was meticulous about recording what Mike, Anne or Shirley told him, and his use of the word 'apparently' conveys a measure of doubt that would be consistent with any claim coming from Mike. So I don't see why you would leave Mike of all people 'out of the equation'. There is no evidence in my timeline, around the date of Keith's annotation, that he had any recent contact with Anne, either by phone or letter, so realistically I'd leave Anne out of the equation before Mike.

      But as they say in courtroom dramas, "statement withdrawn, your honor."
      I'll take that, concerning your funny little St. James's observation, because it only works as evidence of a fatal mistake in Mike's notes if you have already convicted him and thrown away the key. You made it sound like another 'death-blow', like your claim for the Britannic detail.

      If you are allowed to presume guilt and then find evidence for it, then I am allowed to show why the same evidence is consistent with innocence.

      As such, we are still in the courtroom and the onus is on the prosecution to prove its case - not to suggest what might be, but what is.

      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
        The note has no header, no identification stamp, and no date and address of the doctor in question, and is written entirely unprofessionally.
        Hi Ike. Just dropping in. I already gave my explanation for this.

        You might also inform 'FDC' that I said that I would happily send a copy of the entire unredacted letter to Keith Skinner for his examination, but I expect something in return. In fact, I expect two somethings. I will also release the letter to FDC if he wants to forward me his email address, but first we need the following:

        1) An explanation for Keith's notation 'apparently not' on Mike and Anne's research notes. I thought this annotation was dated 19 or 20 April 1999, but could it actually say 10 April 1999? The day after Camilla Wolf's gathering and the very day of Mike's Cloak and Dagger interview? Shirley was present. Did Mike and Shirely inform Keith at that time that Shirley HADN'T been involved in the creation of these notes, as he previously noted and then repeated in 2017?

        2) the typescript created by Mike and Anne as previously promised on these message boards.

        It's not much of a trade, really, but I thought I'd throw it out there.


        **bump**

        Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        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).
        This hasn't aged well.

        We can no longer do anything about Mike's refusal to release the auction ticket, since he is dead and buried, but one of us can still do something about the strange delay in making Mike and Anne's typescript similarly "available to all"

        I remember Birchwood asking to see the typescript around 1999 or 2000, and David Orsam asking for it around 2017 (and being told it would be released).

        It is now 2022. Wait much longer and the last person who has any interest in the hoax will also be dead and buried.

        It wasn't an old hoax in 1992, but it is certainly an old hoax now.

        RP
        Last edited by rjpalmer; 02-01-2022, 04:35 PM.

        Comment


        • Ike -- can you also inform us where FDC received his medical degree?

          Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
          Korsakoff's syndrome is similar to dementia and is also irreversible. People with Korsakoff's syndrome only have memories of the past, fantasize a lot, but no longer recognize people from their past.
          "They only have memories of the past," he states. And then, almost in the next sentence: they "no longer recognize people from the past."

          They can’t remember the past but only remember the past?

          How does that one work, Ike?

          As for it being ‘irreversible’

          From the American Alzheimer's Association:

          "Available data suggest that about 25 percent of those who develop Korsakoff syndrome eventually recover, about half improve but don’t recover completely, and about 25 percent remain unchanged. Some research suggests that those who recover from an episode may have a normal life expectancy if they abstain from alcohol."

          From Cambridge University.

          “Contrary to popular belief, partial recovery from Korsakoff's Psychosis is the rule and 21% recover more or less completely.”

          And these are people with full-blown Korsakoff's Syndrome. If MB only had Wernicke's encephalopathy and not full-blown KS, his recovery from the 'confabulation' stage could have been relatively quick. It would depend on the treatment he received.

          Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
          It is part of the mythomaniac's modus operandi to feign illness and, if necessary, falsify such documents as evidence.
          It is difficult to imagine the disconnect necessary to think this is a convincing argument against Barrett's involvement in a literary hoax.

          "I don't believe Mike could have played a role in peddling a bogus document because he is a scammer with a history of falsifying documents."

          Ouch.

          R P

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            I'll take that, concerning your funny little St. James's observation, because it only works as evidence of a fatal mistake in Mike's notes if you have already convicted him and thrown away the key. You made it sound like another 'death-blow', like your claim for the Britannic detail.
            Hi Caz.

            Although you claim not to read Lord Orsam Talks, you might take a peek at No. 22.

            I didn't explain myself very well. I still stand by what I wrote, of course, but let me add an additional subtlety that I failed to express.

            Nowhere in the diary does the diarist identify what he meant by 'St. James'--'Maybrick' didn't even say it was a church. Nor did the diarist explain what was behind his desire to 'burn St. James to the ground.'

            As far as your allegedly dunderheaded Bongo Barrett could have known, 'Maybrick' could have meant an entire section of London, or St. James Music Hall, Regent Street (designed by the same Victorian architect that built the Crystal Palace) or a number of other things or buildings. The Diary didn't identify what was meant.

            So, Mike's bogus notation is decidedly odd. It is very much a blooper.

            Barrett's note implies that he was already aware it was the Church where Jim and Florrie were married. But how could Mike have known this and assumed it if he had done no earlier research??


            Click image for larger version  Name:	Barrett's Blunder.JPG Views:	0 Size:	13.3 KB ID:	780531

            Do you see? He's claiming he had previous thought it was a church in Liverpool even though the diary didn't say Jack Diddly about it being a church.

            Thus, I don't think your explanation holds water.

            One would expect that a genuinely confused and clueless researcher would have written something like,

            'Ah, so that's what Maybrick meant by St. James! Do you see, Shirley? It is the church where Jim and Florrie were married! That's why he wanted to burn it to the ground! Now I get it!"

            But Mike didn't do that; he made a mess of it.

            Let's face it. Only the most credulous person can still accept these notes as the work of a genuinely puzzled scrap metal dealer who had no idea where the diary came from.

            But, as we seem to be just treading water, I'm going to take a long break on this thread.

            Carry on without me.

            RP
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 02-01-2022, 05:23 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              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."
              Thanks, RJ. Long time ago, many sleeps between then and now.

              So Omlor wrote:

              '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 then Omlor proceeded to make copies, which he sent to a select and chosen few only? Is this what happened? The names you mentioned were all associated with the Barrett hoax believers, were they not?

              I'm only asking, because I genuinely don't know if everyone who would have liked to hear them eventually did hear them.

              What I'm struggling with is how anyone hearing that January 18th conversation could have compared it with the statement Mike came out with a week later and failed to acknowledge how much the latter was at odds with the former. Even if none of the lucky listeners wanted to acknowledge this openly, they would need to have been in very serious denial if they could not even admit to themselves privately that Mike's accusations were a load of bollocks.

              Could you remind me, RJ, where you stood back in 2001, and tell us all where you stand today, regarding the truth or otherwise of Mike's statement, following the meeting in Goldie Street? I will understand completely if you would prefer to give a 'no comment' response.

              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                Did Mike and Shirley inform Keith at that time that Shirley HADN'T been involved in the creation of these notes, as he previously noted and then repeated in 2017?
                I didn't sleep well last night, so let me restate the above for clarity.

                Did Mike and Shirley inform Keith (on or around April 10th) that Shirley didn't have any 'input' into these notes, as Keith had previously noted in his annotations and then repeated again in his introduction to Smith's 2017 book? What does the annotation 'apparently not' mean, and on what was it based?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  Hi Caz.

                  Although you claim not to read Lord Orsam Talks, you might take a peek at No. 22.

                  I didn't explain myself very well. I still stand by what I wrote, of course, but let me add an additional subtlety that I failed to express.

                  Nowhere in the diary does the diarist identify what he meant by 'St. James'--'Maybrick' didn't even say it was a church. Nor did the diarist explain what was behind his desire to 'burn St. James to the ground.'

                  As far as your allegedly dunderheaded Bongo Barrett could have known, 'Maybrick' could have meant an entire section of London, or St. James Music Hall, Regent Street (designed by the same Victorian architect that built the Crystal Palace) or a number of other things or buildings. The Diary didn't identify what was meant.

                  So, Mike's bogus notation is decidedly odd. It is very much a blooper.

                  Barrett's note implies that he was already aware it was the Church where Jim and Florrie were married. But how could Mike have known this and assumed it if he had done no earlier research??


                  Click image for larger version Name:	Barrett's Blunder.JPG Views:	0 Size:	13.3 KB ID:	780531

                  Do you see? He's claiming he had previous thought it was a church in Liverpool even though the diary didn't say Jack Diddly about it being a church.

                  Thus, I don't think your explanation holds water.

                  One would expect that a genuinely confused and clueless researcher would have written something like,

                  'Ah, so that's what Maybrick meant by St. James! Do you see, Shirley? It is the church where Jim and Florrie were married! That's why he wanted to burn it to the ground! Now I get it!"

                  But Mike didn't do that; he made a mess of it.

                  Let's face it. Only the most credulous person can still accept these notes as the work of a genuinely puzzled scrap metal dealer who had no idea where the diary came from.

                  But, as we seem to be just treading water, I'm going to take a long break on this thread.

                  Carry on without me.

                  RP
                  Don't worry; I intend to.

                  But there was really no need for Mike to have known it was meant to be a church, RJ. Look at the note again and read what it says this time, and not what it doesn't. Mike had initially assumed the diary author's mention of St. James's [which Mike renders Saint James - another bluff?] was a reference to somewhere of that name in Liverpool, as were the Poste House and Battlecrease.

                  Bongo was clever, very clever. He carefully avoided the trap you want him to have fallen into. He said nothing about thinking it was a church, or thinking it was where Florie and Jim were married. He found the information about where they married, and simply related this to the reference in the diary to St. James's - as anyone would.

                  How do you think he managed to keep this up, carefully back* engineering his notes to appear consistent with someone genuinely trying to make sense of what's in the diary? Could you do it? I doubt I could.

                  [*Or should that be 'forward' engineering? I've never tried to do either, and I'm confused before I start. ]
                  Last edited by caz; 02-01-2022, 06:31 PM.
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Well, I'm out of here for a long bit, but it would be rude not to respond.

                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    RJ,

                    What was Feldman’s background?
                    The title of his company 'Duocrave,' might give you a slight hint as to the nature of the videos he produced. Or so I heard. His small office was near Abbey Road and employed six.

                    Personally, I'm more interested in Feldman's background in 'importing records.' It must have been quite lucrative.

                    I'm interested because someone else loosely connected to the Maybrick saga was into music distribution...but not in a good way.

                    I don't think the two men were connected, and I could never find any evidence of it, but the coincidence has always tickled the conspiratorial synapsis of my brain.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      Well, I'm out of here for a long bit, but it would be rude not to respond.



                      The title of his company 'Duocrave,' might give you a slight hint as to the nature of the videos he produced. Or so I heard. His small office was near Abbey Road and employed six.

                      Personally, I'm more interested in Feldman's background in 'importing records.' It must have been quite lucrative.

                      I'm interested because someone else loosely connected to the Maybrick saga was into music distribution...but not in a good way.

                      I don't think the two men were connected, and I could never find any evidence of it, but the coincidence has always tickled the conspiratorial synapsis of my brain.
                      Thanks, RJ!

                      Enjoy your break.

                      Comment


                      • In case this hasn't been picked up yet, I just noticed in Mike's research notes, a mere two lines down from RJ's Saint James 'blooper', we get this:

                        'One daughter: Gladys Evelyn, date of birth not known.'

                        On page 27 of Ryan's book, opposite the page where we find 'Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street', we get this:

                        'On 20th June 1886, in Battlecrease House, Dr Hopper brought Gladys Evelyn Maybrick into the world.'

                        It's just as well that Mike missed this information in the book he is supposed to have relied on for faking the diary and then the notes, because my timeline gives me a different story:

                        '20th July 1886 - Gladys Evelyn Maybrick born at ‘Beechville’.'

                        And this:

                        'February 1888 - The Maybrick family move into Battlecrease House.'

                        I guess the argument will now be that Mike didn't trust Ryan's information regarding Gladys, and was careful to avoid yet another potential trap for the unwary hoaxer.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X






                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          In case this hasn't been picked up yet, I just noticed in Mike's research notes, a mere two lines down from RJ's Saint James 'blooper', we get this:

                          'One daughter: Gladys Evelyn, date of birth not known.'

                          On page 27 of Ryan's book, opposite the page where we find 'Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street', we get this:

                          'On 20th June 1886, in Battlecrease House, Dr Hopper brought Gladys Evelyn Maybrick into the world.'

                          It's just as well that Mike missed this information in the book he is supposed to have relied on for faking the diary and then the notes, because my timeline gives me a different story:

                          '20th July 1886 - Gladys Evelyn Maybrick born at ‘Beechville’.'

                          And this:

                          'February 1888 - The Maybrick family move into Battlecrease House.'

                          I guess the argument will now be that Mike didn't trust Ryan's information regarding Gladys, and was careful to avoid yet another potential trap for the unwary hoaxer.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X





                          What a lucky omission - or rather two omissions.

                          Did Lord O provide this example?

                          If not, then he’s either not as thorough as his fans imagine or he deliberately left it out.

                          You pays your money…


                          Comment




                          • From The Morning Post 23rd July, 1886:


                            MAYBRICK. - On the 20th inst., at Beechdale, Grassendale Park, Liverpool, the wife of James Maybrick, a daughter.

                            MB seemingly didn’t pick that up and neither did he repeat Ryan’s two errors.

                            There doesn’t seem to have been a birth notice for Evelyn in the Liverpool Echo, so this appears to be an example where MB is at odds with Ryan and in step with the Echo. I wonder how many more of those there are that somehow slipped through Lord O’s net? Perhaps that wasn’t what he was looking for.




                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                              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.
                              Nice post, ero. I'm still catching up with the recent conversation, but I have to say that Mike made it all too easy for people to pin the diary on him, rather than having to pin the tail on the donkey when it came to naming their hoaxer. We know this to be true because RJ Palmer asked very early on in his on/off/on/off/and on again posting career what else he needed to know, given that Mike had confessed of his own free will to the hoax. More recently, in a similar vein, RJ remarked that Mike's confessions gave him 'the green light' to accuse him.

                              It's horrible history, because we all know Mike was a horrible liar, making RJ's green light a feeble excuse for accepting, without proof, anything that liar ever claimed about the diary's history.

                              Here is a quick reminder of what RJ wrote elsewhere on these boards, demonstrating how different his thinking can be, when he is away from Mike Barrett's corrupt influence and not being beguiled by his lies:

                              ‘But check, re-check, question 'certainties,' don't get bullied into accepting the party line without independent confirmation.’
                              RJ Palmer, October 1st 2021

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X

                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                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.
                                Funny, but I thought it was RJ who was so fascinated by Barrett's kidneys that he went to the trouble of quoting an email on that very subject, from the equally fascinated Peter Birchwood, and posting an image taken from a Dr. Rawlinson's letter on the same subject. Now it appears that Ike was expected to shoulder all the blame for this kidney shaped distraction.

                                But no matter - back to the research notes I go, and I'm wondering what RJ's source was for Mike and Anne handing them over to their literary agent, Doreen Montgomery. It was Mike who gave them to Shirley, but I don't recall anything about Doreen seeing them.

                                I still see no convincing evidence in those notes for Mike having the least idea how the diary came into being. If he knew, he did a rather good job of imitating someone very much like himself, but one who knew bugger all and was trying to figure it all out.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X