One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Let's be clear here (because I can't be arsed to check for myself): was Lord Orsam of Barrat the first person to ever uncover that articles had been written by Mike Barrett or was the fact that he had had articles published in his name in two-bit rags already on the record and all Barrat did was locate them? In terms of red flags, there's an obvious world of difference between these two scenarios. In one, it's a secret kept from everyone for nefarious purposes until Lord Orsam brilliantly uncovered it (once again proving himself to be the dark matter to Keith Skinner's matter); and - in the other - it's a known claim which Lord Orsam successfully turned into a fact which was interesting but hardly the point (if the claim had already been made). Which is it (as I say, I can't be arsed to check)?

For the record, I suspect it was the latter: that Mike Barrett had already admitted on more than one occasion that he had attempted a literary career in the 1980s (and had failed miserably) and all Lord O of the Dark Lands of Yore had done was track down his wonderfully average output.

Obviously, we all know exactly what point is attempted to be conveyed here: a red flag, a red flag, we've got a red flag and it's turned me into a newt!

It's not a red flag any more than I am (or ever was) a newt, if anyone is wondering.

I'm still far from clear what this 'red flag' is supposed to signal, regarding the true origins of the diary.

Is it redder than the red flag which accompanies the combined witness testimony of all those who have associated Eddie Lyons with the diary, going back to July 1992, when Eddie himself admitted to Brian Rawes that he had found something "important" under the floorboards of Maybrick's old house? Red flags don't come much clearer and brighter than that.

If Palmer can allow himself to imagine just for a second, that Eddie might have been talking to Brian about the diary, in which case it had to be found in March 1992 and quickly passed on to Mike, I'm sure he could then imagine how quickly Mike's magazine articles from the previous decade might have been filed away in his mind under "ancient history", as the import of seeing Jack the Ripper's diary, no less, struck him like a thunderbolt and took hold, to become his obsession for the 1990s - which nobody could surely deny the diary did indeed become, and a very unhealthy one at that.

It becomes a circular argument if one starts from just the Barrett hoax perspective, in order to see a potentially suspicious motive for Anne - as well as Mike - not to mention his previous literary ventures, in case everyone immediately suspects him of faking an interview with the Whitechapel fiend, reproduced in diary form.

Didn't Anne freely admit that she had advised Mike to write a story based on what was in the diary? Is that a sign that she was doing her best to hide the fact that he had writing ambitions dating back before the diary was offered to Doreen? Or did she not have any particular reason for mentioning Mike's magazine articles because a) she wasn't asked, and b) she saw no relevance with a diary that he had no hand in writing himself?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, I did get it a bit mixed up--as aways, I'm left wondering why Keith doesn't simply log-on to his still current account instead of relying on a postman who is in love with color-coded messages and small, medium, and large fonts. My mistake, though.

Either way, all my points are still relevant and on point. I doubt Keith thinks Anne is a 'fool.' Whether he still think she was incapable of hoaxing I'll leave for him to answer.

He hasn't given the whole story about Martin Fido, either.

What concerns me about Palmer's mistake here is not that he missed the colour-coded clues in Ike's post to whose 'voice' was whose, but that he was entirely unable to distinguish Ike's words from Keith's, from the tone and use of language alone, even after so many years of reading and responding to both.

I am left wondering how any kind of useful comparison could be made between the diary's use of language and that of Mike or Anne, from what little has been made public of their provably unaided writing, by anyone who admits to being fooled by Ike's words, imagining they were in fact Keith's.

Chalk and cheese, anyone?

[rjpalmer]

I think you weren't there so let's change "chases down" to the more plausible "sought".

I think you weren't there, Ike, so I'll stick with 'chased down.' I doubt Shirley had a sudden urge to explore the life of Bonnie Langford.

The way I picture it, she chased down copies of Barret's old articles with a growing sense of dread, confusion, and downright horror at the thought that the man she had previously dismissed as unremarkable bloke on disability was actually a struggling freelance journalist--precisely the type that turns to literary forgery when the well of inspiration has dried, and their source of income (Celebrity) has closed down. Who do you think writes literary forgeries? Jane Austen and Vladimir Nabokov? It's always the struggling bloke with minor talent.

What I find wildly convenient, but entirely implausible, is your strange theory that Barrett was embarrassed (and thus silent) about having published 20+ articles in a national magazine, but instead opted to portray himself as an unemployed scrap dealer with a bad back and a wife forced to be the bread winner. Lord knows, that's a great look to run up the flagpole.

As is so often the case, you're looking at it backwards.

You do not know this to be true. Either tell us how Warren uncovered Barrett's brilliant literary past or else do not make claims you cannot substantiate. My dear readers deserve so much better than this.

Your dear readers deserve someone with reading comprehension skills, Ike. You were already told that Nick Warren was alerted to Barrett's literary past by the Devereux Sisters. Do I have to write in a large, purple-colored font, four inches high?

I think I'll now disappear for ten or twelve days so you can regroup and reflect on the errors in your thinking. See you in December.

[Iconoclast]

I'd add reading Ike's "Society's Pillar" to that list, because an even and open minded view needs to encompass all the literature ... for anyone new to the debate I'd highly recommend it.

A very good summary of the need to read both sides of the argument, Abe, which I fear my dear readers occasionally don't fully do. That's a euphemism, by the way, if anyone missed it.

But can I politely remind you that it is my brilliant Society's Pillar - the eventual forerunner to what the literary experts are already describing in hushed anticipation as my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers, probably in 2026)?

Notwithstanding your forgetful adjective, I thought your post (#10443) was excellent, old chum.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

4. In the July 1994 edition of Ripperana, Nick Warren revealed that Barrett had worked as a journalist in the 1980s--a fact Warren had learned while interviewing the Devereux Sisters. This revelation came AFTER Barrett had already confessed, and not during the two years he was marketed himself as an ex-scrap metal dealer. If any diary researcher was aware of Barrett's career before Warren, they have not, to my knowledge, said anything.

I really must protest at the use of the expression "worked as a journalist in the 1980s" and insist that a more accurate representation of Barrett's very brief and very occasional dalliance into the world of literature should be described as "attempted to forge a career as a writer in the 1980s". Getting twenty articles published is not to be sniffed at, but nor does the whole body of Mike's output nor even a single example of it reach much above the level of dabbling dilletante (doubtless a term that was impossible to use in Victorian times but perfect for our scrap metal hero of the Thatcher years).

And I very much doubt that Nick Warren tracked down the source of Barrett creative juices. I assume Barrett just told him. How else would Warren have uncovered this? And - if Barrett revealed it to Warren (as seems inevitable) - who else did he reveal it to who didn't have the viper Warren's insidious drive to uncover a fraud and therefore just laughed it off as 'child's play' (which - in literary terms - it literally was in part). Nothing to see here, RJ.

5. Shirley Harrison (apparently alerted by Warren's article?) chases down Mike's old publisher at Celebrity magazine and received copies of three of Mike's articles, receiving them in November 1994. (Four months after the Ripperana article).

I think you weren't there so let's change "chases down" to the more plausible "sought". No-one bar the nest of vipers had any concerns about Barrett's more than humble attempts at Hemingway, RJ, so you should not be working creatively on a back story for which you do not have clear and obvious evidence. Stop re-refereeing history, RJ, that's my advice. That's not what your role is, mate. Pack your bags and get yourself out of Stockley Park, you've been relegated to the National League (being American, you may want to Google what 'relegation' means in a sporting context).

This gives a better understanding of how the news of Barrett's writing career came to be known.

It does no such thing, and you know it. We don't know how Warren knew and that's the relevant bit, not what he then did with that information.

It came from someone (Warren) asking questions ...

Of whom were these questions asked by the arch-viper-in-chief?

... and not by anything Barrett had revealed on his own.

You do not know this to be true. Either tell us how Warren uncovered Barrett's brilliant literary past or else do not make claims you cannot substantiate. My dear readers deserve so much better than this.

I leave you with this: a copy of one of Barrett's articles--not the best of the bunch, in my opinion--but characteristic. This one is from Celebrity in June 1987, and you can judge for yourself if this is anything that would have 'embarrassed' Barrett ...

Not sure what relevance citing a random article is if there's the known influence of his wife's 'tidying-up' and the certainty of editorial alteration - but if anyone is interested, I've got all of Mike's Celebrity articles (ironically, thanks to the generosity of the Dark Lord of Dark Darkness himself who sent me the one I foolishly forgot to photograph in my excitement at getting close to the end of the 1,080 articles I photographed of this most prestigious doctor's-waiting-room-come-emergency-toilet-paper periodical) so - if you want to see more - just let me know at historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com (I think that's the right address).

Ike
Generous to a Fault