One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Simon, I wish you'd ******* said so!

Keep the day job, Ike.

[rjpalmer]

Regarding the above Punch cartoon, Ike has struggled over the years to fully grasp Barrett's strange claim that it was the work of the 'journalist' P.W. Wenn, when it is a cartoon by Sir John Tenniel.

For instance, Ike once wrote:

(which he [Barrett] pompously claimed in his 05/01/1995 affidavit was by P.W. Wenn when it was not; just another example of Mike's reckless relationship with the truth).

There was hardly anything 'pompous' about Barrett's mundane albeit inaccurate claim that this was the work of the mythical P.W. Wenn, and Ike's quick dismissal of it as a 'reckless' lie betrays, I think, an obvious enough tendency among diary believers to quickly grasp at whatever explanation is emotionally satisfying (ah! Barrett is lying again!) rather than to try and apply sober reason and analysis to understand what might have been going through Barrett's mind.

If the curious public was ever allowed access to the Barrett/Gray tapes it is possible that some of these minor mysteries might be unraveled, for these long conversations between Barrett and Gray were the breeding ground for the construction of the 05/01/1995 affidavit and a careful review of their contents would be necessary background material as we try and understanding the intricacies of how and why this confession was created.

I think I am correct in saying that both Martin Fido and Melvin Harris concluded that Barrett's statement that the cartoon was the work of 'P.W. Wenn' can be traced to Barrett's misreading the identifying marks of the engraver Joseph Swain in the lower right corner of the cartoon. Ike is correct in saying that Sir John Tenniel was the cartoonist, but Swain did the atual engraving. At some point, and perhaps influenced by Barrett's blurry alcoholic eyes in looking at a second generation copy of the Punch cartoon, 'JSwain' became 'PWWenn.'




Of course, we never quite know if some of these errors might be down to Mr. Gray's translation of Barrett's ramblings or whether they came directly from the horse's mouth, but Barrett's "reckless" lie was not a lie so much as it was an incompetent blunder by an unsophisticated man and can in no way be considered evidence that the confession was false.

[erobitha]

I find it bewildering that both RJ and Orsam persist in trying to piece together various tidbits of nonsense that Mike Barrett has spouted over the years as reliable testimony that will lead them to the truth. They are both simply cherry-picking what elements of Mike's random statements and unsubstantiated claims best suit their arguments.

Has it not been adequately proven that Mike was an out-and-out liar? His conflicting under-oath affidavits should seal that conclusion. You can't keep cherry-picking random piecemeal statements that suit your own narrative. There has been zero proof to any of Mike's claims. Not one piece of actual evidence for anything.

I put forward to the court of history that Mike Barrett's testimonies must be struck from the record. We cannot reasonably put weight on any of his claims due to the lack of demonstrable evidence and his proven track record of lies. He has no credibility as a witness.

The quest for truth will be best served if everyone accepts this as fact.

Going round and round in circles chasing Mike's nonsense will not lead us to the documented proof of anything either way.

[rjpalmer]

There has been zero proof to any of Mike's claims. Not one piece of actual evidence for anything.

The usual knee-jerk response.

To give the most startling example, Barrett's affidavit mentions he sought to buy raw material for the hoax from Martin Earl in Oxford and documentation supplied by Anne Graham and Martin Earl confirm that he did indeed do this.

Any reasonable person would conclude that documentation did, in fact, confirm this element of Barrett's affidavit.

What we get in response is the "Apologetics' of Sir Thomas of Tyne and other similarly minded theologians, explaining why this documentation should be dismissed as apocryphal, thus calming the waters so belief in the Holy Writ might be resumed.

We can argue this round and round for the hundredth time, but I'm more interested in reminding our tiny handful of readers--rather hopelessly since I can merely whistle in the wind--that the Barrett/Gray tapes are necessary background material for understanding the affidavit, and these tapes have never been made available to the public. I dismiss the pessimistic handwringing that there is nothing more to glean from these tapes, particularly since Gray was neither a historian nor a 'Ripperologist' and may not have understood all that Barrett was telling him. That was the impression I was left with after hearing a small percentage of the tapes.

I recently mentioned these tapes again, and Keith Skinner's desire to make them available to Rippercast for public airing, and afterwards I was disappointed to receive a private message from Jon Menges informing me that Keith has since contacted him and withdrew his offer. Keith gave his reason for deciding to do this and said that he was okay with his statement being made public (thus Jon forwarding it to me) but he didn't specifically give me permission to repeat the statement, and I'd be interested in knowing if Keith would be willing to do so as Keith said something that I think is a very curious and worthy of discussion--that the tapes somehow support Anne Graham's non-involvement in the creation of the hoax. At the very least, this statement being made public would at least supply a final parenthesis to a contentious episode in the diary saga and we can thereafter think of the tapes as merely a burnt and silent pile of plastic that we need not worry about because we will never hear of them again.

Anyway, I found Keith's statement odd because on page 266 of Keith's own book The Inside Story, as well as in statements made elsewhere, it appears that Gray himself never came to this conclusion, believing that Graham had written the diary's transcript with input from the late Tony Devereux, which might be seen as partially compatible with Barrett's affidavit. Whether this was Gray's final conclusion or just an angry outburst after being exasperated by Barrett's shenanigans is not entirely clear, but I suspect the latter.

But, as I say, I am merely whistling in the wind, and I don't feel any pressing need to resume this conversation.

[jmenges]

Keith did give me permission to use his email to me as his statement as to why he considers it pointless for the tapes to be released. So I post it below in full.

Releasing the Alan Gray tapes for public consumption would not resolve anything apart from perhaps giving you a more peaceful life (meaning me-JM) which in itself, of course, is a very good reason for sharing them! If there was anything on them which conclusively proved Mike and Anne Barrett created the diary then I would have long gone and wouldn't be here now. If anything they demonstrate that Mike and Anne did not fake the diary. Alan Gray knew that from spending many hours with Mike and I strongly suspect Melvin Harris reached the same conclusion as he was working closely with Alan Gray to expose the diary as a modern hoax, ruin Paul Feldman (they detested each other) and as Alan says on the tape, "bring down those terrible people in London" or words to that effect. Alan genuinely felt that Mike was being taken avantage of by a network of corrupt, despicable individuals who knew the diary was a fake but were continuing to extract financial gain from it, cutting out Mike in the process and attempting to silence him by intimidation or physical violence. The same theme of hidden agendas and pimping the diary is occasionally expressed on the Message Boards. Throughout the tapes you hear Alan cautioning Mike not to keep changing his story from day to day and growing more and more frustrated as Mike would not give him one piece of forensic evidence which would indisputably prove he and Anne wrote the diary. (The auction ticket would have done it but that doesn't get mentioned.) Alan becomes increasingly exasperated and reminds Mike of how much he owes him for the amount of time he has invested looking after Mike and running him around in his car. At one point, if I remember correctly, he tells Mike the cheque he (Mike) gave him had bounced. These were not sit down interviews with Mike but were sessions recorded by Alan using, I suspect, a concealed recorder which is what gives them their freshness and vitality. Alan also uses them to summarise where he is with his investigation. We do cover the Barrett/Gray relationship in Inside Story.Where Alan endears himself to me is that he dates everything! Thus it can be put in historical perspective with what else is going on which I believe is essential in order to extrapolate their real value. They are difficult to listen to in terms of clarity and many hours have been spent making notes from their content and transcribing them. When my April 1999 Cloak & Dagger interview with Mike was released - when he came to London to prove the diary was a modern hoax by showing the auction ticket - I was accused of being the reason Mike did not produce it. Apparently it was because I had mentioned to Mike that Don Rumbelow and Stewart Evans were in the audience and both were police officers. This apparently led Mike to think he was going to be arrested as some commentators have claimed. An excuse will always be found to explain Mike's irrational behaviour and lies and I strongly suspect it would be the same with the Alan Gray tapes.

JM

[Iconoclast]

Keith did give me permission to use his email to me as his statement as to why he considers it pointless for the tapes to be released. So I post it below in full.
JM

I don't think I owe the Good Lord Orsam nor his nitpicking acolyte any good advice that might ever serve them well, but I'll offer them this: the pursuit of the Grey-Barrett tapes can only end in tears for therein lies lies, disinformation, and an awful lot of Johnny Walkers. With - given time - Keith's permission, I can imagine a day when the tapes are published and transcripts provided (or at very least the latter), but that day is evidently not today, which is ironically very good indeed for those who cling to every obscure nuance and twist it thoroughly until it bleeds a version of the truth which looks nothing like the truth for there is nothing in those tapes which they will be able to twist. Nothing whatsoever. They will hear the melodramatic interplay of the dynamic duo torturing each other with unfilled lust - Gray for his major pay day and Barrett for his desperation to remain relevant to at least one person in this world. Eventually, Gray wised-up to Barrett's long-game of spinning a yarn for drunken company and he gave up. The viper Harris didn't even start - the pathetic affidavit of January 5, 1995, bursting every stupid bubble he'd ever tried to blow.

Be careful what you wish for is my sound advice. I have personally wasted many days transcribing some of those tapes which otherwise (to my knowledge) were not already transcribed. It is like paying for a sin you haven't committed, feeling the need to keep going through the terrible descending gloom of Gray's naivety until the hours are filled with the growing dread of discovering the actual depths of his nigh-on limitless gullibility when all you want him to say is, "*** off , Mike" and storm out of 12 Goldie Street forever.

Mike Barrett did not create the text of the James Maybrick scrapbook, nor did he purchase a document into which he could have written it. The tapes make it clear that that is a hopeless fantasy of a hopeless liar whose first lie should have been his last and indeed presumably would have been had there not been sufficient vested interests to serve here, there, and everywhere. A lie here, a lie there, will tell of the boring ***er who never once managed to repeat his signature line from the scrapbook correctly despite endless attempts at profound repetition. That alone should speak volumes to those desperate to flush the scrapbook from their lives via the convenience of Mike Barrett's tortured alcoholism: I give my name [‘that all know of me,’] so history do tell what love can do to a gentleman born.

Couldn't even remember the correct ingredients for - had he been the author of it - what should have been his most memorable signature dish.

Dear, dear me ...

[rjpalmer]

Let me just pop back in to correct a typo in my previous post. The relevant passage in Ripper Diary: the Inside Story is on page 226, not 266.

It seems to me that the idea that Barrett's rambling confessions somehow disprove Anne Graham's involvement in the hoax can only be Keith Skinner's subjective interpretation or opinion, because Gray himself did not come to this conclusion.

Citing a sworn affidavit by Gray himself, we are told that Gray was "still convinced" the diary was a 'fraud' as late as 1998 and believed that 'Tony Devereux composed the storylines and Anne Grahm wrote the Diary.'

Some will recall that Barrett did describe Devereux's help in conceiving the idea and also stated that the Diary was written out by Anne based on pre-existing 'rough notes.'

Gray apparently concluded that Barrett wasn't so much lying about the whole thing as he was exaggerating his own central role in the enterprise.

[Scott Nelson]

If Barrett ever said one truthful thing, it was that the Diary came from Devereux.

[Iconoclast]

If Barrett ever said one truthful thing, it was that the Diary came from Devereux.

Well, Scotty, if that were true, then the world of statistics would have its Greatest Ever Amazing Coincidence in the History of the Entire Universe in the 'double event' of March 9, 1992, but you sound quite sanguine about that so who am I to query the likelihood of it being so?

[Iconoclast]

Gray apparently concluded that Barrett wasn't so much lying about the whole thing as he was exaggerating his own central role in the enterprise.

The conclusions of Alan Gray are not exactly top of my list for perspicacity, I have to say.

Trusting the limited knowledge of the world's biggest mug seems like a fragile platform to build an argument on.

[Scott Nelson]

Hey Ike, why do you refer to Jack the Ripper as "Jack the Spratt McVitie"???

Forgive an American's ignorance.

[rjpalmer]

Scott - You should read Martin Fido's book on the Kray Twins. You'll meet Jack the Hat McVitie, enforcer and murder victim.

[Scott Nelson]

Well, Scotty, if that were true, then the world of statistics would have its Greatest Ever Amazing Coincidence in the History of the Entire Universe in the 'double event' of March 9, 1992, but you sound quite sanguine about that so who am I to query the likelihood of it being so?

I already theorized that Lyons came from Battlecrease on that day with the story from a fellow worker that a book had been found there some years before, clinching the provenance of a document Mike already had. Mike just telephoned Crew on that day because that's when he heard the story from Eddie and realized what he had. So no real coincidence; no diary was found in Battlecrease on March 9, 1992.

What may have been a coincidence is that Mike knew the guy whose hands the diary ended up in.

No? Oh well.....

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks RJ. I've got Martin's Murder Guide to London somewhere. It's probably somewhere in there.

[Iconoclast]

I already theorized that Lyons came from Battlecrease on that day with the story from a fellow worker that a book had been found there some years before, clinching the provenance of a document Mike already had. Mike just telephoned Crew on that day because that's when he heard the story from Eddie and realized what he had. So no real coincidence; no diary was found in Battlecrease on March 9, 1992.

What may have been a coincidence is that Mike knew the guy whose hands the diary ended up in.

No? Oh well.....

Okay, Scotty, let's play around with that idea ...

Technically, this scenario could have been the correct version. Lyons could have mentioned to Barrett in The Saddle on March 9, 1992, that he had been working that morning on the floorboards of James Maybrick's old home at 7 Riversdale Road.

FIRST SCENARIO

If Barrett had received the scrapbook from Tony Devereux (or someone else) in 1989 (as has been proposed) or whenever then he could have gone home and rang Rupert Crew Ltd. because he realised that Lyons had just handed his scrapbook the perfect provenance back to James Maybrick.

The problem with that is three-fold:

1) Barrett never once mentioned this in any of his confessions; and
2) If he had mentioned this, he would have had to face the prospect of his having to give up his precious scrapbook because it evidently belonged to Paul Dodd; and
3) It truly would have been - as you yourself acknowledge - an astonishing coincidence if the guy who had received the scrapbook from Tony Devereux (at some point, obviously, before his death in August 1991) then was the guy who Lyons told the tale of his morning to in The Saddle on March 9, 1992.

SECOND SCENARIO

If Barrett had already created the scrapbook by March 9, 1992, then he could have gone home and rang Rupert Crew Ltd. because he realised that Lyons had just handed his hoaxed scrapbook the perfect provenance back to James Maybrick.

The problem with that is three-fold:

1) Barrett never once mentioned this in any of his confessions; and
2) If he had mentioned this, he would have had to face the prospect of his having to give up his hoaxed scrapbook because it evidently now looked as though it belonged to Paul Dodd; and
3) It truly would have been an astonishing coincidence if the guy who had hoaxed the scrapbook of Jack the Ripper by James Maybrick then was the guy who Lyons told the tale of his morning to in The Saddle on March 9, 1992.

THIRD SCENARIO

If Barrett had had a light-bulb moment, he could have hurried home to ring a literary agent and then set about creating the scrapbook on March 9, 1992.

The problem with that is three-fold (at least!!!):

1) Barrett would have had to have jumped from James Maybrick's floorboards coming-up to "I could turn celebrity murder victim, Liverpool-based, James Maybrick into Jack the Ripper" and there's no obvious reason why anyone on the planet would have suddenly done so; and
2) Barrett never once mentioned this in any of his confessions; and
2) If he had mentioned this, he would have had to face the prospect of his having to give up his hoaxed scrapbook because it evidently belonged to Paul Dodd.

FORTH SCENARIO

Lyons found the scrapbook under Maybrick's floorboards on March 9, 1992, and sold it to Mike Barrett in The Saddle later that day.

Problems with that:

1) None whatsoever because it is so blindingly-obviously what actually happened.

Applying Soothsayer's Razor, it seems pretty obvious to me which is the intuitively least awkward scenario to endorse, though - of course - everyone is entitled to hold dear to whichever one they either feel the evidence supports or else they desperately hope was the true version.