Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post
    Is there any evidence for any of this?
    No John, I just made it all up.

    Actually, I just made that up.

    Yes John, there is evidence [documentary, multiple witnesses, recorded interviews, correspondence and what have you] behind everything I post, and I try to make it very clear when I'm giving my personal opinion or interpretation based on that evidence.

    According to Robert Smith the diary was found on the 9th March, the same say MB phoned the literary agent, not that I believe it was! Meanwhile, Brian Rawes told SH that whatever had been hiding under the floorboards was discovered in June 1992. And this counts as provenance? What a complete mess.
    Did you actually read my post? Brian Rawes was told by Eddie Lyons, on 17th July 1992 in the drive of Battlecrease, that he [Eddie] had found a book under the floorboards. He didn't tell Brian when he had found it, and Brian simply assumed he meant recently, which wasn't the case. Working from memory alone, Brian initially thought this conversation had happened in the June, but the documentary evidence and circumstances, plus the accounts given by Colin Rhodes and Brian himself, pinned it down to 17th July, because that is the first and only time Brian ever went to the house, and it was also when Eddie and Graham Rhodes were there, working on the ground floor.

    Are you suggesting the diary was found 4 months after MB phoned the literary agent? Actually, what are you suggesting?
    Ah, so you didn't actually read my post. Why do I bother?

    By the July, the "old book" was getting close to a publishing deal. If Eddie got a sniff of this it would explain why he told Brian he thought what he'd found [back in March, when he insisted he had previously been at the house and floorboards on the first floor were taken up] could be "important".

    In short, Eddie couldn't have found anything under floorboards on any other occasion than 9th March 1992, because none of the other work at the house up to and including July 1992 involved taking up any floorboards.

    Alan Davies told SH the following:

    "He recounted a story by another electrician at Portus and Rhodes, Brian Rawes. At the end of one day, Mr Rawes had been picking up two other employees from Battlecrease House in the firm's van. He recalls one of them saying, "I've found something under the floorboards. I think it could be important."
    Yep, Chinese whispers. What Alan told Shirley was broadly, but not precisely, what Brian's experience was, so the documentary evidence and testimony from Colin Rhodes shows why Brian was really sent to the house and when. Alan wasn't there; he got his information from Brian, who was. If they'd both said precisely the same thing, and given precisely the same information, down to Eddie's inside leg measurement, you'd have more reason to be suspicious.

    We can see how the Chinese Whisper machine works on these boards, on a daily basis, with one poster giving out information and the next poster either ignoring it, misreading it, or posting a version of it that bears only a passing resemblance to the original. And the original is still there in black and white for people to consult, which makes it all the more frustrating, because nobody has to rely on their naturally imperfect memory, like the electricians would have done, for what was said and done by whom on any particular occasion.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-31-2020, 09:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Monday 12th December 1994
    ...You know what, when we get to write this affidavit, we'll need a lot of detail you know. Then we'll sign it and swear it before a solicitor. That's what we'll do.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    MB [Thinks]: I don't want to let my new important friends down here. I've got less than a month to think up some of the details, by the looks of it. Hmmm. A military man, I think. Have him bidding for it. Make it part of a job lot. Add in a compass. I nearly lost two fingers - so I'll have the compass lose its fingers too! Brilliant. Erm, I could say there were some World War One photographs inside - better check to see if they would have been valuable and maybe therefore not likely to be part of a single job lot. I can't write a note because of my hand so I'll just have to remember to check that. I'll find an auction house somewhere in Liverpool, and somewhere I could have bought the ink and nibs. I'll say I gave it all to Lynn to get rid of. This is easy peasy. I wonder if there'll be a few bob in it for me?

    AG: I have to go now, Mike. Can I do anything for you before I go?

    MB: Yeah. You could pour me some of that Lucozade, please. It's in the cabinet here, underneath me jumper and what have you.

    AG: Sure thing, Mike. Hmmm. That's interesting. I didn't realise Lucozade was made by Whyte and Mackay.

    MB: Thanks Alan. Yer me best ******* pal and I empathise that.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I suspect that there is an undercurrent with all of this somewhere, and those ripper researchers "directly" involved with Barrett in this probably know a lot more than has been disclosed.

    The truth is out there!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Morning Trev,

    Shortly before the affidavit of 5th January 1995, when Mike had injured his hand badly, Alan Gray was heavily involved, on Melvin Harris's behalf, with getting enough information out of Mike Barrett to put together a detailed statement of how and when the diary was created, and by whom.

    From my timeline:

    Wednesday 7th December 1994
    AG and MB divorced

    Thursday 8th December 1994
    Evening Standard article: 'At last – the truth about Jack the Ripper'
    Melvin Harris is quoted: "There is now no doubt whatsoever that they [the diary] are a recent fake...The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known."

    Monday 12th December 1994
    Alan Gray and Mike Barrett in conversation, during visit by Gray to MB at Liverpool Royal Infirmary.
    AG: What he [Melvin Harris] was saying to me was as soon as Mike comes out, it's in the best interest of everyone to take a concise statement and all the newspapers will [take it] and at the end of it we go down together and swear it as an affidavit and that will be it nailed down, right. It will take a few hours.
    MB: I'll get nicked then.
    AG: No, you won't, because this statement will safeguard you is what Melvin tells me.
    MB: Yeah, yeah.
    AG: Just stay as you have been and let the others handle it. Let everyone get on with it and that's it. You know the saying, 'every dog has its day'...
    ...You know what, when we get to write this affidavit, we'll need a lot of detail you know. Then we'll sign it and swear it before a solicitor. That's what we'll do.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Last edited by caz; 07-31-2020, 08:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    Ok, thanks. Yes, it certainly seems unfortunate that Inside Story contains errors of this sort.
    Yes, it's obviously not ideal but dealing with the wealth of material they had, and the credits going to three different people, it's probably inevitable that relatively insignificant details get mixed-up (until such time as someone decides they are significant and they can be corrected). I think significant errors would be picked-up at the editorial reviews, in fairness.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    This relates to when Caroline Morris wrote to R.J. Palmer on another thread:



    Inside Story (p170) states that on Jan 18 1995 (13 days after Barrett signed the affidavit): 'Barrett had assented to a meeting at his house with Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison, Sally Evemy...to discuss his sworn statement'.

    How could Keith Skinner have attended a meeting n January 1995 to discuss with Mike Barrett a sworn statement the existence of which he wasn't aware of until two years later?

    I have taken the opportunity to ask Keith for a response to this and he has emailed me the following:



    It is unfortunate that Inside Story (which I think was primarily written by Seth Linder from Skinner and Morris's extensive research, though I could be wrong) is misleading on this point. The fact is that the transcript of the Jan 18, 1995 meeting makes no reference to a Jan 5 1995 affidavit.
    Ok, thanks. Yes, it certainly seems unfortunate that Inside Story contains errors of this sort.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post

    Is there any evidence for any of this? According to Robert Smith the diary was found on the 9th March, the same say MB phoned the literary agent, not that I believe it was! Meanwhile, Brian Rawes told SH that whatever had been hiding under the floorboards was discovered in June 1992. And this counts as provenance? What a complete mess.

    Are you suggesting the diary was found 4 months after MB phoned the literary agent? Actually, what are you suggesting?

    Alan Davies told SH the following:

    "He recounted a story by another electrician at Portus and Rhodes, Brian Rawes. At the end of one day, Mr Rawes had been picking up two other employees from Battlecrease House in the firm's van. He recalls one of them saying, "I've found something under the floorboards. I think it could be important."
    John,

    Just when I was in the mood to be conciliatory, you go and post more notes in the wrong order.

    Brian Rawes claimed that he picked-up the Portus & Rhodes' van from Battlecrease House in the early afternoon of Friday, July 17 1992 - four months after the March 9 work was carried out there. Eddie walked up to the van after Rawes had reversed it out of the drive and suddenly blurted-out what Rawes recalled as "I’ve found something under the floorboards here and I think it could be important. I don’t know what to do about it." Rawes advised him to speak with Colin Rhodes about it and he drove away.

    Now, you will read this literally and say, "Ah ha - proof positive that it couldn't have been the diary!"

    The balanced researcher - on the other hand - would ask themselves whether Rawes had remembered it word-for-word, and whether or not Lyons may actually have said "I found something ...". In that event, Lyons might have been alarmed enough about something that he felt the need to offload his fears onto someone 'safe'.

    We'll never know, probably, for certain what went down in that moment, but it is interesting to note that Lyons was at Battlecrease House around the time Barrett was getting good vibes about this Jack the Ripper diary thing he claimed a mate had given him. Now, if Lyons had taken it from Battlecrease House on March 9, sold it, and then later found this Barrett guy bragging in The Saddle about his impending publishing sensation, maybe his return to the scene of the crime in July 1992 had set off a whole host of alarm bells in his head?

    Cheers,

    ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Abe,

    Mike's initial 'confession' was to Harold Brough and the Liverpool Daily Post on Saturday 25 June 1994 so it was 'out there' for six months and more before Melvin Harris persuaded Alan Gray to persuade Barrett to sign the affidavit and the Cloak & Dagger Club decided to mark it with a meeting two days later. The report in the Post quotes MB as saying that he forged the diary because he could not pay the mortgage, and thought he would write the biggest story in history because writing was the only thing he was good at, apart from being a scrap metal merchant. But he was unable to explain how he did it or answer basic questions.

    And while we're on the subject, there has never been any evidence that the Barretts were struggling to pay their mortgage. Nor indeed has there ever been any evidence that Barrett was any good at scrap metal dealing.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Thank You good Sir.

    The Harris-Gray-Barrett coercion is speculative, but given Mike's drinking and general state of mind, it's not too far fetched, he'd confess to the Lindbergh Baby case at that point.

    What a situation, he says the Diary is genuine, but there's not enough proof. He says he faked it, there's not enough proof. Can't win.

    IIRC, Barrett said his mortgage was 600? That's alot for any house in 1992, never mind Goldie St.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    Hi Ike,

    I agree, the chronology and much else is a mess. I was musing over the affidavit a while back, hence I asked Caz to clarify the timeline, which she graciously did. My query was although Mike's affidavit was sworn in Jan '95, Feldman presented Anne to the C+D club very soon after, so I was curious to know who knew what when. Despite not knowing the detail of the affidavit, it seems pretty clear that Mike had been threatening to claim the forgery for a while before that, so any rumours of a statement in Jan '95, I believe, wouldn't have been misunderstood by the relevant parties, even if they didn't read the exact document. It's the exact reason I believe Anne and Feldman went public with the Graham provenance when they did.

    By no means am I'm saying this proves Mikes behind it. But even without seeing the affidavit, people knew what he was doing.
    Hi Abe,

    Mike's initial 'confession' was to Harold Brough and the Liverpool Daily Post on Saturday 25 June 1994 so it was 'out there' for six months and more before Melvin Harris persuaded Alan Gray to persuade Barrett to sign the affidavit and the Cloak & Dagger Club decided to mark it with a meeting two days later. The report in the Post quotes MB as saying that he forged the diary because he could not pay the mortgage, and thought he would write the biggest story in history because writing was the only thing he was good at, apart from being a scrap metal merchant. But he was unable to explain how he did it or answer basic questions.

    And while we're on the subject, there has never been any evidence that the Barretts were struggling to pay their mortgage. Nor indeed has there ever been any evidence that Barrett was any good at scrap metal dealing.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Hi Ike,

    I agree, the chronology and much else is a mess. I was musing over the affidavit a while back, hence I asked Caz to clarify the timeline, which she graciously did. My query was although Mike's affidavit was sworn in Jan '95, Feldman presented Anne to the C+D club very soon after, so I was curious to know who knew what when. Despite not knowing the detail of the affidavit, it seems pretty clear that Mike had been threatening to claim the forgery for a while before that, so any rumours of a statement in Jan '95, I believe, wouldn't have been misunderstood by the relevant parties, even if they didn't read the exact document. It's the exact reason I believe Anne and Feldman went public with the Graham provenance when they did.

    By no means am I'm saying this proves Mikes behind it. But even without seeing the affidavit, people knew what he was doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    I noticed some time ago David Barrat’s comment to your claim that the affidavit remained unknown for a long time. It would seem that on page 170 of Inside Story a meeting is mentioned during which Keith Skinner and Shirley Harrison discuss it in January 1995.

    I don’t have the book at hand but given that he quotes the passage, it seems relevant. Perhaps you could read it and comment?

    It’s this page, section “Shock fake (?) news”
    This relates to when Caroline Morris wrote to R.J. Palmer on another thread:

    ... you are assuming that Keith [Skinner] knew about Mike’s sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995 by August 22nd 1995. He didn't. Mike sent a copy of this affidavit to Shirley on January 22nd 1997 and Shirley then gave Keith pages one and two the following day. This was the first Keith knew about its existence. He thinks it’s possible it had been put on the internet by someone in 1996. But in short, he had no knowledge of it, or the content, back in 1995.
    Inside Story (p170) states that on Jan 18 1995 (13 days after Barrett signed the affidavit): 'Barrett had assented to a meeting at his house with Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison, Sally Evemy...to discuss his sworn statement'.

    How could Keith Skinner have attended a meeting n January 1995 to discuss with Mike Barrett a sworn statement the existence of which he wasn't aware of until two years later?

    I have taken the opportunity to ask Keith for a response to this and he has emailed me the following:

    I can clearly see from page 170 how the impression can be easily gleaned that Mike Barrett’s affidavit of January 5th 1995 may have been widely known about by the time of the meeting with Mike on January 18th 1995. But certainly it wasn’t mentioned, publicly or privately to me, at Feldman’s C&D talk on January 7th 1995. Neither was it discussed at the tape recorded meeting with Mike in front of an Independent Observer who Shirley had arranged to be present – a retired officer from Liverpool CID. Having him there proved to be extremely useful as throughout the interview Mike kept telling everybody he would give us the whole truth if somebody went out and bought him a bottle of Scotch. In the end our Independent Observer told Mike it wasn’t a good idea to keep asking because of “compromising your visitors.” But – yes – I agree Inside Story is misleading and it reads like Mike’s detailed account in his affidavit had already been examined in considerable depth. It was probably written that way in order to address it straight away rather than returning to it in the narrative. It’s not until 1998 that Shirley responds to it in the Blake edition of her book.

    Looking at a timeline of events I note there is a telephone conversation between Shirley and Mike on Sunday January 15th 1995 – ten days after the affidavit was sworn and my strong suspicion is that word of the affidavit had already been told to Melvin Harris – plus it would be entirely consistent for Mike to have been telephoning people (Shirley, Doreen, Robert, Feldman) to let them know about the affidavit There is a memo sent from Shirley to Doreen, Robert and Feldman on January 16th 1995 confirming that a meeting had been arranged for the 18th January in Liverpool with Mike...”Says diary is 100% genuine and claims to know about Mrs Hammersmith too. Lots of talk about wanting to see Anne, etc.” So although we wrote in Inside story the meeting with Mike was to discuss his sworn statement, none of us had seen it. Indeed I don’t think I had sight of it until the beginning of 1997 (I think) by which time somebody had already posted it on the internet. I know I was mainly concerned with trying to understand the reasons why Mike had confessed to forging the diary back in June 1994.

    Hope that might clarify the situation.
    It is unfortunate that Inside Story (which I think was primarily written by Seth Linder from Skinner and Morris's extensive research, though I could be wrong) is misleading on this point. The fact is that the transcript of the Jan 18, 1995 meeting makes no reference to a Jan 5 1995 affidavit. Interestingly, Barrett does refer to an affidavit he claims to have signed four years earlier (1991, obviously):

    MB: Right. He [Tony D] made his betting slips out as per usual and what have you and I said, “I’ll go an put them all on” and what have you. So I go down, put the betting slips on, come back and what have you and he [TD] said, “Here you are and this is for you.” So I said, “Well what is it?” and he said, “Take it home and look at it”. That’s an affidavit sworn out in Richard’s [Barrett's solicitor] office to this day, to the very day. You can go back and it’s dated four years ago and what have you and I said, “What is it?”, he [TD] said, “Just take it back and look at it”, so I come back and look at it and it’s “Yours truly Jack the Ripper”. I thought, excuse my language, but I thought you know, “I’ll phone him up immediately” and he [TD] was adamant, he was totally bloody adamant.

    This 1991 affidavit has never seen the light of day and I assume it never will but it would be fascinating if it did. The key thing is that at no point did Mike reveal:

    MB: Oh, and by the way and what have you, I just swore another one of these affadavids a fortnight ago for Melvin Harris in which I claim I forged the DAiry.

    This brings out how all over the place Mike Barrett was (especially with affidavits) and people – like Trevor Marriott - are (encouragingly) beginning to ask why and relate those questions to the real world. Hence how vital it is to understand the chronology of when things occurred. It exposes the superficiality of RJ’s and Lord O’s line of reasoning which is more or less along the lines of a calculated conspiracy. It reveals how events to do with peoples' lives and relationships were driving this story and raises it above the level of a cosy armchair mystery involving one dimensional characters. For those who want a greater understanding of Mike’s affidavits, I suggest they listen to Mike Barrett’s Radio Merseyside interviews of September/October 1995.

    Mike did make an affidavit on April 26 1993 (reproduced on page 36 of Inside Story and copied below). The date is significant – four days after the story had broken in the newspapers that JM was going to be named as JtR in a book based on his scrapbook. Why does Mike feel it is necessary to swear an affidavit that he was given the scrapbook?

    Click image for larger version  Name:	2020 07 30 MB Affidavit.JPG Views:	0 Size:	59.7 KB ID:	738696

    PS I've just heard that the takeover of Newcastle United has been called-off so I may need to lie down for a couple of days. I'm sure the news will feel more bearable for me by then.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Apologies if Inside Story misled anyone by sticking to the chronology of what we know happened on what date, without always going the extra mile to explain who knew about it and when.

    I have still seen no evidence that Mike, or Alan Gray, or Melvin Harris, or anyone on Melvin's behalf, shared the news of this particular affidavit, or its content, with anyone else until early 1997, when Shirley and Keith first saw copies, courtesy of Mike himself. If anyone has such evidence, I'll be happy to be corrected.
    I am not sure what evidence would satisfy you, if Keith Skinner’s account in a book he co-wrote does not.

    Is your recommendation to researchers that “Inside Story” is generally untrustworthy or is it just the details surrounding the affidavit?


    If the meeting January 1995 was not about MB’s sworn statement, what was it about, and why would it be described in a false and misleading manner?

    It seems the affidavit being made public quickly is mentioned on several other occasions, David Barret mentions a phone call between Whay and Harrison January 16th, by which date the affidavit was known (page 167).

    I’m currently on an island vacationing and don’t have the book close by. If by chance you have a copy, perhaps you could check how much Keith Skinner et al. knew about the affidavit yourself, instead of relying on me googling it off Barrett’s website? It seems to be rather well documented around pages 167-170.




    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    You are so right about Chinese whispers, John. But there is no excuse for posters here, with an imperfect grasp of the evidence, the chronology, the context and the accounts given by all the individuals concerned, to mislead the readers with Chinese whispers of their own! Your post is brimming over with them! Where do I start?

    The documentary evidence we have to date shows this actually happened in late 1992. In addition, Davies had been on sick leave for the previous six months, since a nasty car accident on 13th June that year.



    I don't believe in shops having powers of memory. Davies enquired about the diary he'd heard about before his accident, and was told it had been sold in a pub in Anfield and therefore no longer on the market.



    As I say, where do I start with this lot? Might it not have been simpler to wait for The Baron to prove the bloody thing could not possibly have come from the house at any time, presumably because it was Anne Graham who planned and executed the hoax?

    It was on a Friday afternoon - POETS day - 17th July 1992, to be exact, and Brian Rawes had one more job to do, with Arthur Rigby, before they could knock off. Brian had no 'employees' to pick up. He had been sent by the boss to pick up the firm's van, which was at Battlecrease and was needed for the two-man roofing job at Halewood police station. Brian didn't know the way to Riversdale Road as he had never been to the house before, so Arthur Rigby drove them both in his car, then drove himself back to the office to wait for Brian to return with the van, so they could load up and take the van together to Halewood.

    While Brian was reversing the van down the drive at Battlecrease, Eddie emerged - he was working on the ground floor with Graham Rhodes and used his own car for work - and told him he had found a book in the house under the floorboards and thought it could be important. Brian was in a rush, and knew the boss's son was inside, so he advised Eddie to mention it to the boss. I don't know where you got the idea that Brian ever suggested that 'whatever was found was discovered at the end of the day'. How would he know? Eddie didn't mention when he'd found it, and Brian simply assumed it was recently. He had no reason to think otherwise. The conversation was brief and not at the end of anyone's working day. Brian had no idea that Eddie might have been talking about a find on his previous visit to the house, back on 9th March. By the July, Mike was no doubt itching to brag down the pub about securing a publishing deal for the "old book", so if Eddie heard the latest gossip was that Bongo had an "important" book that was going to be published, the timing of his conversation with Brian that afternoon makes perfect sense. What if Bongo had mentioned Eddie's name to anyone? The connection would be made back to Battlecrease and he'd be buckled. "What did you tell 'em, Mike?" "Don't worry, lad. Would I split on a mate - er - while he's still alive and kic8king and able to kick the crap out of me? Not bloody likely. I told 'em all I was given it a year ago, by that old boy who lived on your road and then died of a heart attack in the summer holidays. I said he never told me where it came from, which is the God's honest truth - technically speaking. And I still don't know because you haven't told me either."

    Eddie had helped out with his mate Jimmy B, back on Monday 9th March, when floorboards on the first floor had to be lifted. Arthur was there that day and did a full day's work, while the other named electrician, Jimmy C, put in just two hours. Eddie and Jimmy B were only "filling in", so were unlikely to have hung around for the whole day, considering the young lad was only needed for two hours. As I say, Eddie had his own wheels and his local was the Saddle, where Mike spent every weekday lunchtime while waiting to pick up his daughter from the school over the road at 3.15. Doreen Montgomery rarely arrived at her office in London until late morning, and often stayed late into the evening, so the end of 'normal business hours' was very flexible as far as she was concerned.



    Yeah, it might have been funnier if I hadn't come to your rescue with a more realistic timeline of events.



    The way you tell it, it's more than that, John. Anyone can make up a deeply unsatisfactory scenario and then argue that it's deeply unsatisfactory.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Is there any evidence for any of this? According to Robert Smith the diary was found on the 9th March, the same say MB phoned the literary agent, not that I believe it was! Meanwhile, Brian Rawes told SH that whatever had been hiding under the floorboards was discovered in June 1992. And this counts as provenance? What a complete mess.

    Are you suggesting the diary was found 4 months after MB phoned the literary agent? Actually, what are you suggesting?

    Alan Davies told SH the following:

    "He recounted a story by another electrician at Portus and Rhodes, Brian Rawes. At the end of one day, Mr Rawes had been picking up two other employees from Battlecrease House in the firm's van. He recalls one of them saying, "I've found something under the floorboards. I think it could be important."
    Last edited by John G; 07-30-2020, 05:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Wow. This is like the World Record for Inaccurate Reporting Blatantly Intended to Influence the Feeble-Minded! I honestly don't know where to begin to pick through the twisted nature of the story you have just unfolded for us.

    If ever there was a case of "playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order", this is definitely it.

    Please, if the whole drama wasn't about to finally end at 2pm next Saturday, I'd advise you to read a book on the subject or ask someone who knows what they're talking about before you post.

    I think you have maybe 30 bits of Maybrick-related information in your collection and you've just randomly picked-up 10-15 of them and thrown them equally-randomly into a post.

    In that regard, it is a masterpiece of obfuscation.

    Ike
    On yer bike, Ike!.

    Do you have a specific point to make, ir are you just randomly hitting the keyboard?

    And this from someone who seems to think that Maybrick was living in Whitechapel for years with Sarah Robertson. Hilarious!

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I am simply trying to get all things in perspective by asking relevant questions, which it seems some have no answers to other than to keep portraying Barrett as the village idiot, which I don't believe was the case for one minute.

    A village idiot would not have been able to formulate the affidavit in such detail without help, and if he did have help where did that help come from and is another question?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Well Lord Orsam explicitly accepts that Alan Gray was a driving force behind the creation of the affidavit and it is therefore very likely indeed that the driving force behind Alan Gray was one Melvin Harris himself.

    Now, Alan Gray appears to be about as literate as Mike Barrett, so that - to me - leaves the finger pointing very strongly at the remaining party.

    Where did the exquisite detail come from? I have to accept that that all came from Mike Barrett. If that makes him a Village Idiot Savant, then fair enough. I suppose such an oxymoron is possible.

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Trevor,

    Or he wrote it himself and it wasn't true, or he wrote it himself with others who formulated it for him and it wasn't still true.

    Looks like others have beaten me to the analysis part. What I would say is that you (and others) are possibly being influenced far more by Barratt's 'creative juices' in his affidavit than in the accuracy of it.

    If I had time (one day I will, though Lobster Day is likely to have buggered that up by then) I would dig into the specifics of how Mike came to make his affidavit in Jan 1995. It does seem that he was being manipulated to do so by Alan Gray and - behind him - very possibly Melvin Harris, which leaves me with a strong sense of someone having written it for him. Now, clearly he would have had to have come up with the details, and it appears that he did, but was he actually truly motivated to do so or was he simply being carried on the wind of someone else's agenda?

    Alan Gray himself signed an affidavit some years later (Jan 1998) in which he tells of meeting Mike in the late evening one day in Liverpool and the two of them come metaphorically to blows because Gray has finally (long since) seen through Mike and his funny little games. Gray ends with the most wonderful line which I think sums up how everyone who ever tried to get any sense out of Mike Barrett came quickly to feel:

    AG: Don't ring me anymore or contact me. I am going now before I kick the shi t out of you.

    This doesn't answer any of your questions, Trevor, I appreciate, but I post it as an indication that Mike Barrett - who should indeed have been the perfect foil for a forger of the scrapbook - was the very least likely foil of all, unless you like your foils to be straight out of Village Idiot School.

    Sorry I can't be more helpful.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    I am simply trying to get all things in perspective by asking relevant questions, which it seems some have no answers to other than to keep portraying Barrett as the village idiot, which I don't believe was the case for one minute.

    A village idiot would not have been able to formulate the affidavit in such detail without help, and if he did have help where did that help come from and is another question?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X