The Diary—Old Hoax or New?

[rjpalmer]

PS. It would, of course, be useful if Shirley Harrison could shed some light on these events, but she has never responded to any emails in the past few years, and I suspect that she is retired and/or no longer has any interest in the diary. That's just my guess, though.

It is also worth reminding yourself, Ike, that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the Diary researchers to have ignored Barrett in 1995, and to have not truly sifted his claims, because they were then under the spell of Anne and Billy Graham, who had convinced them that they had seen the diary in the 1960s and 1940s respectively.

Yet, according to your own theory, the Grahams must have been leading them down the garden path.

Anne's behavior should worry you more than the behavior of the admittedly pathological liar Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

PPS. Ike - One final thing to clear up some possible confusion. Recall that Barrett had already mentioned getting the photograph album from Outhwait & Litherland as far back as June 1994, during his drunken confession to Harold Brough that summer.

Liverpool Daily Post, 27 July 1994, page 4:





Thus, you can't demonstrate that anything Shirely Harrison had asked Barrett about during the 18 January 1995 interview (and subsequently referred to during her discussion with Anne Graham on the same date) refers to Mike's sworn affidavit rather than his public confession to Harold Brough back in June.

It's just wishful thinking that this "forgery thing" was a reference to the secret, non-circulating affidavit.

Yes, Shirley did contract Kevin Whay in preparation to her interview with Barrett, but that would be entirely natural if she was going to confront Barrett about his drunken confession to Brough. In the same conversation, she mentions the Bluecoat Art Shop...which was also revealed to Brough by Barrett.

The timing of Shirley's memo has led you astray; it was because Keith and Shirley were going to confront Barrett; it had sod-all to do with the affidavit lodged two weeks earlier.

FINIS

[Iconoclast]

PPS. Ike - One final thing to clear up some possible confusion. Recall that Barrett had already mentioned getting the photograph album from Outhwait & Litherland as far back as June 1994, during his drunken confession to Harold Brough that summer.

I'm happy to concede that Shirley's meeting with Kevin Whay of Outhwaite & Litherland on January 16, 1995, could very well have been set up in advance of Barrett's January 5, 1995, fantasia. It's the lesser of the points at issue here - but let's not use this as some backdoor attempt to marginalise Anne's very obvious attempt to find out what her husband had said that morning about his latest forgery claim.

How would that even work? Well, let's expand a little on it to see how that would work:

Anne: Did Mike not mention the forgery thing this morning when you met him?
Shirley: You mean the latest forgery claim he made in an affidavit a couple of weeks ago and which he posted through your door? ["I put that through the front door to Anne".]
Anne: No, not that one - not the forgery claim he made a couple of weeks ago! Why would you think I was referring to that one?
Shirley: Well, the recency effect, I guess - he's just made an affidavit claiming to have forged the diary and he said he'd posted a copy through your door.
Anne: No, no, no, no, no. I was referring to the one that he made almost seven months ago now - obviously!
Shirley (sotto voce): It seems this latest affidavit is more secret than we first thought ...

[John Wheat]

I'm happy to concede that Shirley's meeting with Kevin Whay of Outhwaite & Litherland on January 16, 1995, could very well have been set up in advance of Barrett's January 5, 1995, fantasia. It's the lesser of the points at issue here - but let's not use this as some backdoor attempt to marginalise Anne's very obvious attempt to find out what her husband had said that morning about his latest forgery claim.

How would that even work? Well, let's expand a little on it to see how that would work:

Anne: Did Mike not mention the forgery thing this morning when you met him?
Shirley: You mean the latest forgery claim he made in an affidavit a couple of weeks ago and which he posted through your door? ["I put that through the front door to Anne".]
Anne: No, not that one - not the forgery claim he made a couple of weeks ago! Why would you think I was referring to that one?
Shirley: Well, the recency effect, I guess - he's just made an affidavit claiming to have forged the diary and he said he'd posted a copy through your door.
Anne: No, no, no, no, no. I was referring to the one that he made almost seven months ago now - obviously!
Shirley (sotto voce): It seems this latest affidavit is more secret than we first thought ...

The Diary is a fake and it's highly likely it was written by Anne and Mike Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

- but let's not use this as some backdoor attempt to marginalise Anne's very obvious attempt to find out what her husband had said that morning about his latest forgery claim.

Absolutely Anne was fishing, trying to find out what Mike may have told them. How does that help your argument?

Mike had slipped a copy of the affidavit through Anne's mailbox as a form of blackmail. That she knows about the affidavit and is wondering if Mike spilled the beans in no way demonstrates that Shirley and Keith were also aware of it, or in Shirley's case, was admitting that she was aware of it.

At this point, Old Bean, I really think it would be to your benefit to take this up with your colleague Caroline Brown, who has insisted that Shirley and Keith were unaware of the affidavit until January 1997, and has even taken the late Melvin Harris to task for not sharing the affidavit with other researchers back in 1995-1996. See the 'Special Announcement' thread for details.

[Iconoclast]

Absolutely Anne was fishing, trying to find out what Mike may have told them. How does that help your argument?

Mike had slipped a copy of the affidavit through Anne's mailbox as a form of blackmail. That she knows about the affidavit and is wondering if Mike spilled the beans in no way demonstrates that Shirley and Keith were also aware of it, or in Shirley's case, was admitting that she was aware of it.

At this point, Old Bean, I really think it would be to your benefit to take this up with your colleague Caroline Brown, who has insisted that Shirley and Keith were unaware of the affidavit until January 1997, and has even taken the late Melvin Harris to task for not sharing the affidavit with other researchers back in 1995-1996. See the 'Special Announcement' thread for details.

Roger,

I am not trying to suggest for a moment that Keith and Shirley were not unaware of the contents of Barrett's Disney Productions affidavit of January 5, 1995 until 1997. They clearly were unaware of the contents. No, no, no, no, no, you once again miss the point. It is very obvious that they did not see the actual affidavit until 1997 (because they clearly hadn't realised to what level of artificial intelligence Barrett had stooped to in describing his fantastic creative skills) but we are discussing whether or not some intergalactic secret was being preserved by the unlucky few who had been inflicted with the contents of the affidavit of January 5, 1995. You keep implying that it was the biggest secret of all time (until a new secret emerged last Saturday explaining why Fabian Schar didn't pass the ball sideways to Alexander Isak who was standing in front of Fulham's empty goal for 2-2). You keep implying that no-one was to know about this 'non-circulating' 'confession'. Well, Mike freely mentioned it in the morning of January 18 to Shirley and Keith (inter alia) and then his ex-wife did the same thing in the afternoon (once they'd finished the critical business of which was the appropriate cake to serve with tea). This doesn't sound to me like any kind of a secret. Shirley and Keith were twice drawn to Mike having made a fresh affidavit of forgery and everyone else in the room could hear it.

No, no, no, no, no. There's no secret, and that (I'm fairly sure) is what we were debating. Shirley and Keith knew about the January 5, 1995, affidavit within two weeks of Melvin - sorry, Mike - making it: they just didn't show any interest in seeing it, presumably because they weren't made aware that there were new claims being made in it. Two years later, they realised.

[John Wheat]

Roger,

I am not trying to suggest for a moment that Keith and Shirley were not unaware of the contents of Barrett's Disney Productions affidavit of January 5, 1995 until 1997. They clearly were unaware of the contents. No, no, no, no, no, you once again miss the point. It is very obvious that they did not see the actual affidavit until 1997 (because they clearly hadn't realised to what level of artificial intelligence Barrett had stooped to in describing his fantastic creative skills) but we are discussing whether or not some intergalactic secret was being preserved by the unlucky few who had been inflicted with the contents of the affidavit of January 5, 1995. You keep implying that it was the biggest secret of all time (until a new secret emerged last Saturday explaining why Fabian Schar didn't pass the ball sideways to Alexander Isak who was standing in front of Fulham's empty goal for 2-2). You keep implying that no-one was to know about this 'non-circulating' 'confession'. Well, Mike freely mentioned it in the morning of January 18 to Shirley and Keith (inter alia) and then his ex-wife did the same thing in the afternoon (once they'd finished the critical business of which was the appropriate cake to serve with tea). This doesn't sound to me like any kind of a secret. Shirley and Keith were twice drawn to Mike having made a fresh affidavit of forgery and everyone else in the room could hear it.

No, no, no, no, no. There's no secret, and that (I'm fairly sure) is what we were debating. Shirley and Keith knew about the January 5, 1995, affidavit within two weeks of Melvin - sorry, Mike - making it: they just didn't show any interest in seeing it, presumably because they weren't made aware that there were new claims being made in it. Two years later, they realised.

The Diary is a fake though. Probably written by Anne and Mike Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

Well, Mike freely mentioned it in the morning of January 18 to Shirley and Keith (inter alia) and then his ex-wife did the same thing in the afternoon

You keep making this claim, Ike, but have produced no evidence for it. It's all in your head.

Bear in mind that Keith and Shirley were, I believe, stationed in or around London and only went to Liverpool sporadically. There is nothing in the typescripts you've uploaded to show that either they, or the Barretts, were referring to anything other than Barrett's public confession the previous summer to Brough (which we know was quickly retracted) and to his claim in October 1994, that Anne had been the penman. (Sorry for the gender dysphoria, but that's how we refer to it).

Let's try another tack. If I don't agree with your assessment, at least I can try to fully understand it.

1. Do you accept that the first thing Mike did with his affidavit was to slide it (or mail it) through Anne's letterbox, and that Anne read it, and this is why you and I think she was 'fishing' for information from Keith and Shirley two weeks later?

2. Also, can you finally admit that Mike didn't give a copy of the affidavit to anyone else that we know of in the whole 1995 and 1996. [Alan Gray obviously had it because he typed it, and he may have given a copy to Melvin, but we have no evidence that Mike gave it to anyone else until January 1997].

Thank you, kind sir.

Finally, I didn't want to bring this up, but it's been preying on my mind since your post of some weeks ago.

You referred to the suspension of Sandro Tonali as "spurious."

He bloody admitted it! He confessed to gambling on matches and took his punishment on the chin. So, what was 'spurious' about it?

When it comes to confessions (be it 'Maybrick's', Barrett's, or Tonali's) you have some very queer ideas.

[Iconoclast]

1. Do you accept that the first thing Mike did with his affidavit was to slide it (or mail it) through Anne's letterbox, and that Anne read it, and this is why you and I think she was 'fishing' for information from Keith and Shirley two weeks later?

Sounds about right, RJ. I don't know if Anne read it, but she certainly seemed to be aware of his new forgery claim.

2. Also, can you finally admit that Mike didn't give a copy of the affidavit to anyone else that we know of in the whole 1995 and 1996. [Alan Gray obviously had it because he typed it, and he may have given a copy to Melvin, but we have no evidence that Mike gave it to anyone else until January 1997].

I wasn't aware I'd ever been asked this question in this form before, RJ, but I can confirm that I am unaware that Mike Barrett ever gave his January 5, 1995 affidavit to anyone other than Anne Graham and his solicitor.

Finally, I didn't want to bring this up, but it's been preying on my mind since your post of some weeks ago.You referred to the suspension of Sandro Tonali as "spurious."

Not quite, RJ - I thought my Apple Mac's autocorrect may have been at fault again, but it turns out it was your recall:

Speaking of which, Tonali is back tonight after a scurrilous ten-month ban and the mighty Magpies are away at Forest in the EFL Cup. Time for a quick Guinness or four, anyone???

I described it as 'scurrilous', RJ, and scurrilous it was. So he placed a few bets here and there - ten months for that! In 1995, Eric Cantona leapt into the crowd at Crystal Palace and kung-fu kicked a Palace fan and he only got a nine months ban! You'll excuse me if I don't see the two as equal crimes - not least because if Tonali got ten months, Cantona should have got twenty months (and - and here's the rub - if he had, Newcastle would have been crowned Premiership champions in 1996 instead of coming second).

When it comes to confessions (be it 'Maybrick's', Barrett's, or Tonali's) you have some very queer ideas.

I don't have queer ideas, mate, but I do hold a grudge.

[Iconoclast]

The Diary is a fake though. Probably written by Anne and Mike Barrett.

You'll wear those Control, C and V keys out if you don't watch it ...

[John Wheat]

You'll wear those Control, C and V keys out if you don't watch it ...

I doubt I will. I tend to write out each reply.

[rjpalmer]

I don't know if Anne read it, but she certainly seemed to be aware of his new forgery claim.

I won't press you on this point, Ike, but your readers might well wonder how Anne would have known about Mike's 'new' forgery claim if she hadn't read what Mike had shoved through her letterbox and if Mike hadn't distributed the affidavit to others who might clue her in to its contents. Your mind, like the Blessed Virgin, works in mysterious ways.

I can't imagine that you are suggesting Anne would have been aware of what Mike's claims would be, without even reading them, because she had lived through it, and would already be familiar with the events he would describe in his affidavit?!? My God, you might be on to something.

As for Tonali. Yes, you're quite right. Scurrilous. My apologies.

I present to you the name of Tucupita Marcano, infielder for the San Diego Padres. This June he was banned for life for betting on a baseball game he played in. Four others received a one-year suspension for betting on games that they weren't involved in.

I'm a brute, so kicking a Crystal Palace fan strikes me as no great crime, but betting on one's sacred sport is anathema. Am I wrong to think that if Mr. Tonali had played for Sutherland, you'd have been among the first to gather up the tar, feathers, and lynch rope?

Enjoy your day. Today is the day my team will almost certainly be eliminated from playoff contention, so all is doom and gloom.

[jmenges]

I doubt I will. I tend to write out each reply.

Please try to kick the habit or you’ll soon run afoul of the anti ‘trolling’ rule.

It is also considered trolling (on these boards) if anyone posts, not to further the conversation, but to sarcastically underscore a point.

Thanks

JM

[Iconoclast]

I won't press you on this point, Ike, but your readers might well wonder how Anne would have known about Mike's 'new' forgery claim if she hadn't read what Mike had shoved through her letterbox and if Mike hadn't distributed the affidavit to others who might clue her in to its contents.

I was aware of this potential contradiction in terms, RJ, but I figured it was reasonable to imagine Anne had got as far as the following and then gave up before she got to the 'extraordinary' stuff:

Michael Barrett's Confessions
January 5 1995
From a sworn affidavit:
I MICHAEL BARRETT, make oath and state as follows:-
That I am an Author by occupation and a former Scrap Metal Merchant. I reside alone at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and at this time I am incapacitated due to an accident., for which I am attending Hospital as an out-patient. I have this day been informed that it may be neccessary (sic) for them to amputate two of the fingers on my right hand.
Since December 1993 I have been trying, through the press, the Publishers, the Author of the Book, Mrs Harrison, and my Agent Doreen Montgomery to expose the fraud of ' The Diary of Jack the Ripper ' ("the diary").
Nobody will believe me and in fact some very influential people in the Publishing and Film world have been doing everything to discredit me and in fact they have gone so far as to introduce a new and complete story of the original facts of the Diary and how it came to light.
The facts of this matter are outlined as follows:-
I Michael Barratt (sic) was the author of the original diary of 'Jack the Ripper' and my wife, Anne Barrett, hand wrote it from my typed notes and on occasions at my dictation, the details of which I will explain in due course.

Your mind, like the Blessed Virgin, works in mysterious ways.

It's very kind of you to compare me with the Almighty - I am more than willing to accept the comparison, by the way. My old mate Matt Delahunty always says that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I have a feeling he first thought of that atheist trope having encountered Mike Barrett in some capacity. It certainly feels right where Mike is concerned.

I can't imagine that you are suggesting Anne would have been aware of what Mike's claims would be, without even reading them, because she had lived through it, and would already be familiar with the events he would describe in his affidavit?!? My God, you might be on to something.

Alas for your extraordinary hoax-theory, there is nothing extraordinary about my thought process here: I don't think for a moment that Anne had got as far as Mike's 'detailed' claims, you see - I think she read as far as "explain in due course", flung Mike's affidavit on the kitchen table, and then put the kettle on which is what any self-respecting Brit would do when their ex- has attempted to put them front and centre of an extraordinary hoax. I even imagine she may have tutted as she did so which would be a clear sign of how furious he had made her.

I present to you the name of Tucupita Marcano, infielder for the San Diego Padres. This June he was banned for life for betting on a baseball game he played in. Four others received a one-year suspension for betting on games that they weren't involved in.

The interesting thing about Marcano (by the way, I flew to Dan Diego on FA Cup Final Day 2000 - May 20, in fact - the only time in my life I've secretly wanted Newcastle to NOT get to an FA Cup Final as I would have missed it, and Chelsea obliged us in the semi-final so ethical dilemma dealt with) is that he is Venezuelan. I'm assuming he must have been extremely good to make it ahead of denizens of your rather large and populous country?

I'm a brute, so kicking a Crystal Palace fan strikes me as no great crime, but betting on one's sacred sport is anathema. Am I wrong to think that if Mr. Tonali had played for Sutherland, you'd have been among the first to gather up the tar, feathers, and lynch rope?

I think your own autocorrect played foul there, RJ, but you're right, had Tonali had the terrible misfortune to wear the wrong colour of stripe, I would probably have gloated ever so slightly. He obviously shouldn't have bet on football and I don't understand why they do it when they could stick it on the gee-gees or the dogs, but there you go. Extraordinary behaviour.

Enjoy your day. Today is the day my team will almost certainly be eliminated from playoff contention, so all is doom and gloom.

Well, it's ever so nice to have had a wee chat, RJ. By chance, last evening the 5th round draw for the League Cup gave Newcastle their first home tie in NINE attempts. I was starting to think the Battlecrease provenance may actually have been an amazing coincidence after all ...

[rjpalmer]

Hello Ike, just a brief comment.

In truth, I can't blame autocorrect, but merely the slow and inevitable march towards geriatric senility, disability, and death. Years ago, I used to frequent the small, quaint town of Sutherland and somehow inflicted its name onto your archrival, Sunderland. We are currently having a lively national debate about the nature of senility and its symptoms due to...ahem...certain well-known figures that I cannot name on this forum due to the blanket ban on discussing politics. I'll leave it your imagination, but from what I have read, mixing up names isn't quite as bad as mixing up faces, to the extent of believing, for instance, that Barak Obama is still the POTUS. So, I live in hope.

I suppose by 'very influential people in the film world' Barrett only meant Paul Feldman. I've wondered about that. It's possible that Barrett, going through a rough patch, was paranoid to the extent that he genuinely feared being on the receiving end of GBH from Feldman and his chauffer Robbie, so I cannot entirely rule out the possibility that Barrett lodged the affidavit with his solicitor under the belief that his battered and lifeless body would soon turn up in the Mersey. A message in a bottle, as it were. Of course, this is pure speculation.

Ciao.