One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[erobitha]

Hartley, by contrast, is accusing Eddie Lyons of theft and the selling of stolen property--without the least scrap of evidence. He can't even show that Lyons knew Barrett in March or April, 1992, let alone that he sold him the Diary of Jack the Ripper for 25 quid. There's probably a reason the diary supporters don't want Eddie Lyons questioned by those who don't believe these accusations are valid. If I'm wrong about this, Tom Mitch, Caroline Brown, or Jay Hartley can feel free to send me his current whereabouts in a private message.

I have no problem making my thoughts public RJ. These my own views and I stand over them.

I do not have to share with you or anyone the basis of why I hold that belief. You would like to know what I might know more than you, but it does not mean I have to share those details with you. I might know some things that are perhaps not public knowledge, but then I might not and could just be going on pure conjecture.

Eddie continues to claim he did not take the book.

I have said I believe he took the scrapbook from Battlecrease House on 9th March 1992.

If he wishes to pursue me legally, he is welcome to.

[Iconoclast]

If you mean that he never confessed to the hoax while in a state of sobriety, we have on record a private warning from Barrett's solicitor, advising Barrett to stop "strangling the golden goose." [And your point is, caller?] As such, it is hardly surprising that a sober Barrett would retract a confession that was so obviously detrimental to his legal and financial well-being on advice from counsel.

I'm not sure many of our dear readers will have bought your argument here, RJ, which seems to be that Mike Barrett vicariously confessed to creating the Victorian scrapbook whilst sober via the warning of his solicitor to stop strangling the sales of the book. I laughed. I hope you were joking (in a really weird way, obviously). Yes, he retracted his confession whilst - one assumes - sober; but that's not the same as making a confession whilst sober, is it?

I suspect that the original point made on the Forums was not that someone else (Richard Bark-Jones, his solicitor, for the record) may very well have been sober on any given occasion but that Mike Barrett was never sober whenever (and there were a lot of instances) he fessed-up that he - the greatest forger in history - had brilliantly and cunningly fooled the world ("but not The Sunday Times", remember!) by creating the Victorian scrapbook text.

If Mike Barrett was never sober when he confessed to this act of fraud, how comfortable are we all that his claims were sincere? Personally, I think you'd have to be criminally stupid to place your trust in a known liar and drunk, but that's maybe just me being a wee bit cynical. Maybe I should give him (and other liars and drunks) the benefit of the doubt, constantly?

Personally, I am concerned that his confessions were simply far too often (always?) made whilst he was drunk or else made potentially sober but under the watchful eye of Alan Gray, Melvin Harris' cuckoo in the nest. That to me speaks of a very sad man too pissed to get to the toilet before soiling his trousers (July 5, 1994) or else too easily led by those who would manipulate him for their own ends (January 5, 1995).

As I've said many times before (and apparently can't be sued for it 'cos he's long dead), 'Integrity, my arse'.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

The warning given to Barrett by Mr. Barke-Jones will not be lost on the more astute readers of Ike's thread-- all six of them, if indeed there are ten people reading along with us.

Everyone is aware that alcohol makes one impulsive and oblivious to potential repercussions. Barrett is hardly the first man to admit to wrongdoing while drunk, but then heeds the advice of his council on regaining sobriety. Nor would Barke-Jones be the first lawyer to try to help explain away his client's damning admissions by blaming Tetley, Jamison, Bud Weiser, and Jim Beam.

Regardless, from the account we are given of the tail end of 1994, Barrett was on a prolonged bender, so he barely had the opportunity to confess while sober. I think his pending divorce is more relevant than what substances were tracing through his veins and you are using his struggle with a very serious challenge in a very cheap, childish way. If Keith Skinner ever sees fit to release the rest of the Barrett/Gray tapes from this era, the public will be able to judge for themselves whether Barrett was drunk the entire time. From what I heard of these tapes he was drunk much of the time--yet still managed to make more credible revelations than your forays into secret anagrams, Diego Laurenz, 'private hand vs public hand', etc.

And anyway, Tom, not only is your argument self-serving, if memory serves, it isn't even accurate. Weren't we told that Barrett was entirely sober at Camilla Wolf's gathering shortly before the infamous 1999 Cloak and Dagger interview? Was not a sober Barrett standing by his confession on that occasion?

From the other side:

Barrett was referring to Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem, & Mystery by Richard Whittington-Egan. Gallery Press, 1985.

This has all been gone over to the point of coma-inducing boredom.

Barrett claimed on several occasions, including at the aforementioned Cloak and Dagger meeting in 1999, that his main source for the hoax was Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.

This is becoming repetitious beyond words, but let me remind you again that a subsequent analysis, carried out by three different researchers, all acting independently, has shown that Ryan's book is the only source that contains all the relevant 'Maybrick' material that appears in the diary.

Melvin Harris, an early diary critic, had named an entirely different book as the hoaxer's source, so Barrett's admission was spontaneous, unrehearsed, and made independently of any previous suggestion. It is yet another compelling indication that Barrett had inside information about the diary's creation, and your silly portrayal of Harris as an evil puppet master is again shown to be paranoia without foundation.

It has been subsequently proven by David Barrat that Mike's bogus research notes, given to his literary agent in 1992 (which he claimed had been compiled in part from newspapers at the Central Liverpool Library) contains a substantial error that has only been traced to one source: Bernard Ryan's book--which Mike failed to name in the notes and who later claimed to have not even known about when quizzed by his collaborator, Shirley Harrison. Draw your own conclusions; I've drawn mine.

As for Tales of Liverpool-- Mike's own copy was in the possession of his drinking companion Tony Devereux before August 1991, as confirmed by Devereux's daughters who had taken possession of it and turned it over to the police. This is relevant because this was at least seven months before the floorboards of Battlecrease were lifted (for the third or fourth time) by electricians in March 1992 which is where the diary friendly crowd is now suggesting is the true provenance.

Yet, it is clear that you and your fellow theorists have no explanation for this other than it was a happy coincidence that Mike had lent Tony a book with two chapters on the Maybrick case several months before Eddie Lyons appeared on the scene, and not merely a Maybrick book, but the very booklet that Barrett references in his bogus research notes of 1992. When confronted by Devereux's possession of the book by Martin Howells, Mike became flustered and started talking nonsense.

The jury in Lyons v. Hartley won't like that fact.

[rjpalmer]

I should apologize for misspelling Camille Wolff's name -- but can Tom Mitchell confirm that Barrett was drunk at this luncheon when admitting to having hoaxed the Maybrick Diary?

[rjpalmer]

Mike Barrett was never sober whenever (and there were a lot of instances) he fessed-up that he - the greatest forger in history - had brilliantly and cunningly fooled the world

can Tom Mitchell confirm that Barrett was drunk at Camille Wolff's luncheon where he still admitted to having hoaxed the Maybrick Diary?

Tom? Are you there?

[Iconoclast]

was going to buy this but got so many books to get through at the moment.

Milky,

If you’re even vaguely interested in the Victorian scrapbook, you really ought to read Inside Story, mate.

I suggest you make time for it - put it to the top of your pile of potential reads.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Mike Barrett was never sober whenever (and there were a lot of instances) he fessed-up that he - the greatest forger in history - had brilliantly and cunningly fooled the world

Perhaps this will refresh your memory, Ike. The meeting at Camille Wolff's house was on April 9, 1999.

The following account states that the luncheon lasted fully 5 hours, during which Barrett stuck to his confession, and, despite a few minor fireworks, the affair ended "amicably."

It states nothing about Barrett being drunk, and indeed informs us that he had a handler, Andy Aliffe, to keep him in line. By contrast, it does inform us that Barrett was wildly drunk when he was interrogated in front of an audience the following night, which is somewhat interesting.

Can you give us your source for Barrett being drunk at the gathering on April 9th? Or when he confessed down at the nick? Or during his interview with Feldman in July 1999, as described in The Final Chapter?

Thanks.

Grey House Report_99.pdf (rippercast.com)

[Iconoclast]

I’ve been having some challenges posting today. I tried my super new Mac, then I tried my trusty old PC, and both kept freezing. Anyway, it took me a few hours to think of posting using my iPad, and that seems to be working okay.

Quick point regarding the shapes observed in the cover sheet of the Victorian scrapbook, they have never been formally identified and their sizes are only indicative of the old carte de visite photographs so I think we should be wary of seeking to be too categorical about what the impressions are impressions of. It has been said that carte de visite photographs were more or less always portrait orientation, and perhaps that is true. By chance, my old mucker FDC emailed me this morning to point out that he had seen an old scrapbook on the BBC ’Flog It!’ Programme (my iPad won’t let me type a lowercase ‘p’ there, dear readers) and that this had contained photographs which were portrait orientation but mounted sideways. He didn’t say what size they were (and - given that it was on TV - he probably didn’t know) but I did rather chuckle at the irony of it all. Trust the Beeb to have an opinion on the matter!

Ike

PS If my Casebook issues continue, I may need to limit my posts until it is corrected. I know, I know, dear readers, but I’m sure the technicians will leap into action and restore all of my sparkling faculties, probably before I’ve scored a brilliant hat-trick in tonight’s Walking (pah!) Football, and even before the brave Lionesses have laced their boots up for tonight’s clash against the Swedes …

[Iconoclast]

Grey House Report_99.pdf (rippercast.com)

Well, I do believe that I don’t have that one in my collection, RJ, so I will give it a read. I assume that the text will be explicit that he wasn’t his usual Bongos mentus due to the demon drink?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Grey House Report_99.pdf (rippercast.com)

Wow! RJ, did you really mean to bring our attention to this? It tells us nothing about Mike Barrett’s sobriety that day, and absolutely crucifies him otherwise???

I would have understood if I had posted this, but you doing so has totally bamboozled me. Bizarre …

Anyway, if I can’t get my PC or Mac to play ball, I’m not going to be spending hours composing posts on my iPad so I may be taking an RJ-like summer break here, dear readers!

Ike

[milchmanuk]

Milky,

If you’re even vaguely interested in the Victorian scrapbook, you really ought to read Inside Story, mate.

I suggest you make time for it - put it to the top of your pile of potential reads.

Cheers,

Ike

thx
i,m downing Paul beggs "facts " & Swanson Victorian detective when i am getting tired of Paul .

[rjpalmer]

It tells us nothing about Mike Barrett’s sobriety that day, and absolutely crucifies him otherwise???

Come, come, Tom. You've been caught spouting nonsense--at least have the humility and the integrity to admit it.

No, the writer doesn't comment on Barrett's alleged drunkenness, but one would naturally expect that he would have had there been any evidence of it. Instead, he writes:




Are you suggesting that the editor of The Ripperologist was expecting to find Mike sober, having heard from "many other people" that our Liverpool hoaxer had a well-known habit for sobriety, and was shocked to find him drunk instead?

Funny stuff, Ike--you've missed your calling as a comedian!

And what the writer doesn't state doesn't concern me, actually. You, Tom Mitchell, wrote that Barrett only confessed to the hoax while drunk.

As such, you must have some strong evidence that Barrett was drunk at this April 9th gathering and on the other occasions I mentioned. Do you mind sharing what that evidence is?

And will Andy Aliffe and Keith Skinner back you up?

Enjoy your time away due to these unfortunate and timely technical difficulties.

[rjpalmer]

One other thing:

Wow! RJ, did you really mean to bring our attention to this? It tells us nothing about Mike Barrett’s sobriety that day, and absolutely crucifies him otherwise???

I would have understood if I had posted this, but you doing so has totally bamboozled me. Bizarre …

Why do you find it bizarre that I would send you this link, which seemingly disproves your statements?

The writer of the article draws no conclusions about Barrett's confession being implausible or demonstratable untrue during this 5-hour luncheon on 9 April 1999.

And the only thing that might be said to 'crucify' Barrett is the allegation that he physically abused his wife.

Other than the fact that domestic violence is deplorable, why do you think I would be troubled by this or would hesitate to acknowledge it?

After all, I am the one that believes Barrett is the hoaxer and that he tricked and bullied his long-suffering wife into helping him, and that she only cooperated because she first believed it was meant to be a work of fiction, and only afterwards because she believed that Doreen Montgomery would "send Mike packing."

How does this account of Barrett's behavior undermine that belief?

[rjpalmer]

If Mike Barrett was never sober when he confessed to this act of fraud, how comfortable are we all that his claims were sincere?

Tom/Ike -- I think we are about done here, but may I further draw your attention to the comments made by Adam Wood (the aforementioned author of the ‘I Beg to Report’ commentary) in the thread started by Jon Menges, Post #55?

Rippercast Audio Archives: The Maybrick Diary - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Adam Wood notes that the arguments and accounts given by Mike (that he and Anne forged the diary) during this 9 April 1999 luncheon and early the following day, 'were lucid and structured' and that he was 'confident and assured, fielding all questions good-naturedly and giving straightforward answers'.

Does that sound like Mr. Wood is describing a raving drunk?

Further, Wood contrasts this lucid and calm behavior with Mike's rambling and incoherence during the Cloak & Dagger meeting the following night, April 10th, asking 'Why the change?’

Come on, Old Boy. Is there any doubt that Barrett downed several pints before taking the stage but had been entirely sober the day before?

The claim that Barrett only confessed while drunk is poppycock. I look forward to your retraction.

[milchmanuk]

Tom/Ike
one thing i was thinking i wondered if i have read enough Maybrick books at the moment.
i would of thought i would of got more up to date info reading the threads and your posts here.
but it is on my short list due to curiosity.
as with all things Maybrick.