Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But the content and the composition of the affidavit does not indicate it was penned by the deluded individual you portray!

    Either he wrote it himself because it was true, or he wrote it with others who formulated it for him and was still true.

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

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Ven
    replied
    No, it just means "unproven" let the others work it out!

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    In answer to Trevor's request here is my tuppence worth. I have rated each piece of information based on my understanding of present outcomes from Mikes 1995 affidavit - with no commentary other than the results. This is simply my intepretation.

    - Name - TRUE
    - Address - TRUE
    - Personal Injury - FALSE
    - Diary idea - UNPROVEN
    - Timeline of starting said idea - UNPROVEN
    - Funds withdrawn on dates described - UNPROVEN
    - Funds provided by William Graham - UNPROVEN
    - Auction date and event - UNPROVEN
    - Military man at auction - UNPROVEN
    - Auction items purchased - UNPROVEN
    - Auction process described - UNPROVEN
    - Soaking scrapbook in linseed oil - UNPROVEN
    - Drying the scrapbook in the oven - UNPROVEN
    - Kidney-shape carving in scrapbook - TRUE
    - Purchase of nibs and pens on Bold Street - UNPROVEN
    - Purchase of Diamine Ink from Bluecoat Chambers - UNPROVEN
    - Dictation of "diary" to Anne - UNPROVEN
    - Footage of such pose - TRUE
    - Timeline on Tony Devereux death - TRUE
    - Ink blot covering the word James - UNPROVEN
    - Page 226 Punch Magazine Quote - TRUE
    - Page 228 ink blot covering S - UNPROVEN
    - Page 250 quote from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE - UNPROVEN

    23 pieces of information

    TRUTHS = 6 (26%)
    UNPROVEN = 16 (70%)
    FALSE = 1 (4%)

    So UNPROVEN/FALSE scores 74% for me.
    But the uproven does not automatically mean it didnt happen or could not have happened !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Great post.

    Another question for me would be: why would Mike have felt obliged to admit to this 'fraud' if he did it? Who was forcing him to incriminate himself, by swearing this affidavit in the first place? The paradox is that if he didn't do it, he needed an affidavit, because he knew there would be no hard evidence against him. And if he did do it, he wouldn't have needed an affidavit unless there was no hard evidence for it. I'm surprised the latter wasn't pointed out to him at the time.

    I suspect he was into damage limitation by June 1994, when his personal world had imploded, due mainly to the diary's presence in it, and the diary itself had been declared a modern fake. One way of coping with all this was to try and show the world that he had not been taken in by a fake, but had in fact masterminded it, fooling his nemesis Feldman in the process. This was more important to him than the fear of being nicked for forgery. If push came to shove, they'd have to prove it and he knew they'd find nothing.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    But the content and the composition of the affidavit does not indicate it was penned by the deluded individual you portray!

    Either he wrote it himself because it was true, or he wrote it with others who formulated it for him and was still true.

    i am having difficulty in coming to terms with the suggestion that out of the blue he went to all those lengths to pen this affidavit with all that detail included, and I have to ask why?

    When he was first interviewed by the police what account did he give? That he got it from Tony Deveraux and he believed it was genuine who could disprove that at that time certainly not the police because Deveraux was brown bread, Then it finished up with Robert Smith who says he took it in good faith as being genuine so no evidence of dishonesty from a police perspective at that time agaibst Barret or Smith or any others who were involved up until then.

    Following the police investigation and no one being prosecuted all the parties fall out for what reason is not clear and Barrett was hell bent on confessing, which brings in the affidavit.

    And how would penning the affidavit stop him from prosecution it would be hard evidence against him. So an afterthought was the second affidavit where he could introduce the criminal defence of duress being placed on him by the other co-conspirators if he was re-interviewed

    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
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 07-30-2020, 03:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ven
    replied
    Well, let's wait and see on Saturday! It may all be moo!

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    As a keen student of this whole debacle, Michael Barrett to me was a man with the world on his shoulders and much of it self-inflicted. The line between fiction and truth was blurred in his mind a long time before the "diary" surfaced. His self-pity for failing as an author (which he claimed was his profession on his 1995 affadavit - a detail I chose to skip over), he always wanted the be the driving force behind a bestseller. With money run out, wife gone, kid gone, health worsening - I can see why it was attractive for him to spin another yarn in the hope he can cling on to some kind of relevance - even within his own life. He was bitter, angry, bemused, confused, sad, insecure, arrogant, stubborn, aggressive, pitiful and at times could be charming and disarming. A complex human no doubt, but does that include an ability to mastermind this "hoax"? The evidence we do have thus far shows that to be both highly unlikely and highly improbable.

    To answer Trevor's question why would he sign an oath that to me is 74% UNPROVEN/FALSE, I have not the foggiest - but that 1995 statement is not proof of anything.
    Great post.

    Another question for me would be: why would Mike have felt obliged to admit to this 'fraud' if he did it? Who was forcing him to incriminate himself, by swearing this affidavit in the first place? The paradox is that if he didn't do it, he needed an affidavit, because he knew there would be no hard evidence against him. And if he did do it, he wouldn't have needed an affidavit unless there was no hard evidence for it. I'm surprised the latter wasn't pointed out to him at the time.

    I suspect he was into damage limitation by June 1994, when his personal world had imploded, due mainly to the diary's presence in it, and the diary itself had been declared a modern fake. One way of coping with all this was to try and show the world that he had not been taken in by a fake, but had in fact masterminded it, fooling his nemesis Feldman in the process. This was more important to him than the fear of being nicked for forgery. If push came to shove, they'd have to prove it and he knew they'd find nothing.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-30-2020, 02:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Thanks for clarifying Caz.

    Which means my own 74% UNPROVEN/FALSE score stands. Handy.
    And another thing...

    Mike's claim to have been telling everyone since 'December 1993' that the diary was a 'fraud': UNPROVEN.

    The first documented mention was in June 1994.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    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”
    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.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    As a keen student of this whole debacle, Michael Barrett to me was a man with the world on his shoulders and much of it self-inflicted. The line between fiction and truth was blurred in his mind a long time before the "diary" surfaced. His self-pity for failing as an author (which he claimed was his profession on his 1995 affadavit - a detail I chose to skip over), he always wanted the be the driving force behind a bestseller. With money run out, wife gone, kid gone, health worsening - I can see why it was attractive for him to spin another yarn in the hope he can cling on to some kind of relevance - even within his own life. He was bitter, angry, bemused, confused, sad, insecure, arrogant, stubborn, aggressive, pitiful and at times could be charming and disarming. A complex human no doubt, but does that include an ability to mastermind this "hoax"? The evidence we do have thus far shows that to be both highly unlikely and highly improbable.

    To answer Trevor's question why would he sign an oath that to me is 74% UNPROVEN/FALSE, I have not the foggiest - but that 1995 statement is not proof of anything.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-30-2020, 01:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Erobitha,

    I'd switch around the two I have highlighted above.

    Mike did sustain a nasty injury to his hand. He lacerated it in late 1994 IIRC, and claimed it was a result of breaking one of Anne's windows - something like that.

    But I think he lied about being told, on the same day he swore the affidavit, that he might lose two fingers as a result.

    Devereux was housebound in 1991, but not severely ill, and his death from a heart attack in August 1991 was unexpected, and happened while the Barretts were away on holiday.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Thanks for clarifying Caz.

    Which means my own 74% UNPROVEN/FALSE score stands. Handy.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    In answer to Trevor's request here is my tuppence worth. I have rated each piece of information based on my understanding of present outcomes from Mikes 1995 affidavit - with no commentary other than the results. This is simply my intepretation.

    - Name - TRUE
    - Address - TRUE
    - Personal Injury - FALSE
    - Diary idea - UNPROVEN
    - Timeline of starting said idea - UNPROVEN
    - Funds withdrawn on dates described - UNPROVEN
    - Funds provided by William Graham - UNPROVEN
    - Auction date and event - UNPROVEN
    - Military man at auction - UNPROVEN
    - Auction items purchased - UNPROVEN
    - Auction process described - UNPROVEN
    - Soaking scrapbook in linseed oil - UNPROVEN
    - Drying the scrapbook in the oven - UNPROVEN
    - Kidney-shape carving in scrapbook - TRUE
    - Purchase of nibs and pens on Bold Street - UNPROVEN
    - Purchase of Diamine Ink from Bluecoat Chambers - UNPROVEN
    - Dictation of "diary" to Anne - UNPROVEN
    - Footage of such pose - TRUE
    - Timeline on Tony Devereux death - TRUE
    - Ink blot covering the word James - UNPROVEN
    - Page 226 Punch Magazine Quote - TRUE
    - Page 228 ink blot covering S - UNPROVEN
    - Page 250 quote from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE - UNPROVEN

    23 pieces of information

    TRUTHS = 6 (26%)
    UNPROVEN = 16 (70%)
    FALSE = 1 (4%)

    So UNPROVEN/FALSE scores 74% for me.
    Hi Erobitha,

    I'd switch around the two I have highlighted above.

    Mike did sustain a nasty injury to his hand. He lacerated it in late 1994 IIRC, and claimed it was a result of breaking one of Anne's windows - something like that.

    But I think he lied about being told, on the same day he swore the affidavit, that he might lose two fingers as a result.

    Devereux was housebound in 1991, but not severely ill, and his death from a heart attack in August 1991 was unexpected, and happened while the Barretts were away on holiday.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    I note on Lord Orsam's website that he has (quite rightly) questioned the evidence for the claim that Barratt knew what he was being offered and yet still went ahead with the purchase. He has specifically cited Caroline Brown (Caroline Morris as was, or 'Caz' of course here on the Casebook) as the source of this claim and asked the (again quite reasonable) question why she has not produced the evidence to back up her clams. I would suggest that - given that Caroline is a published researcher and author and given that the Victorian scrapbook is still debated today, twenty-eight years after it first came to light - that it is a) highly unlikely that she would make up this (or any other claim) without having the evidence to back it up, and b) is perhaps unwilling or unable to do so currently for commercial reasons (for all we know - and I don't by the way - she, Keith Skinner, and Seth Linder could be working on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story and the Latest Twenty Years). I'm sure, in time, the evidence will be made available, in the same way people doubted Keith Skinner's mysterious 'evidence' regarding the Battlecrease House provenance (because it wasn't his evidence to publish - it was Bruce Robinson's), and everyone will understand why Caroline has made those claims and on what evidence she made them.

    I don't know this for certain, obviously, and perhaps Caroline wouldn't want to admit it if it were true (I don't know - perhaps she'd be happy to), but I am willing to believe that what turned-out to be true about Keith Skinner's claim of the early 2000s will eventually turn out to be true of Caroline's in 2020.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Hi Ikeypoo,

    No, I'm not working on a new book on the diary, for which I'm hugely thankful, given that after Saturday it would need a bit of a rewrite.

    Also, I'm not sure why anyone would be worried about the new evidence concerning Mike's red diary if the Maybrick diary is going to be proved a Barrett production in just two days from now.

    But I'm happy to report that the emails Martin Earl kindly sent in May, that most pleasant of months, explaining in great detail the way he ran his bookfinding business, were not just sent to me, but to other recipients, so it would be rather awkward to explain if I had made anything up, misrepresented his position or over-egged the pudding in relation to Mike's order specifically.

    As the bloody red diary has clearly rattled Lord O [but not the bloody red Baron of course, who is another character altogether], and RJ Palmer appeared to be hoping that Martin Earl had made an exception for just one of his customers - 'Mr Barrett' - and had deviated from his standard business practice on this one occasion, I might just consult those emails again and return with a little more detail - if I think it might be helpful to anyone not yet 100% confident that the evidence to back up my clams will be rendered redundant on LOBSTER Day. [Just read your post again and saw your shellfish reference, Ike. Please tell me it was accidental - too delicious either way.]

    I can almost hear it now, the sirens wailing somewhere on Merseyside as they go to arrest Anne Graham, and me wailing in utter despair, with Roy Orbison's 'It's Over' playing inside my head, as the final whistle blows and Arsenal win the FA Cup.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-30-2020, 12:29 PM. Reason: saw the reference to clams and couldn't resist

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    In answer to Trevor's request here is my tuppence worth. I have rated each piece of information based on my understanding of present outcomes from Mikes 1995 affidavit - with no commentary other than the results. This is simply my intepretation.

    - Name - TRUE
    - Address - TRUE
    - Personal Injury - FALSE
    - Diary idea - UNPROVEN
    - Timeline of starting said idea - UNPROVEN
    - Funds withdrawn on dates described - UNPROVEN
    - Funds provided by William Graham - UNPROVEN
    - Auction date and event - UNPROVEN
    - Military man at auction - UNPROVEN
    - Auction items purchased - UNPROVEN
    - Auction process described - UNPROVEN
    - Soaking scrapbook in linseed oil - UNPROVEN
    - Drying the scrapbook in the oven - UNPROVEN
    - Kidney-shape carving in scrapbook - TRUE
    - Purchase of nibs and pens on Bold Street - UNPROVEN
    - Purchase of Diamine Ink from Bluecoat Chambers - UNPROVEN
    - Dictation of "diary" to Anne - UNPROVEN
    - Footage of such pose - TRUE
    - Timeline on Tony Devereux death - TRUE
    - Ink blot covering the word James - UNPROVEN
    - Page 226 Punch Magazine Quote - TRUE
    - Page 228 ink blot covering S - UNPROVEN
    - Page 250 quote from SPHERE HISTORY OF LITERATURE - UNPROVEN

    23 pieces of information

    TRUTHS = 6 (26%)
    UNPROVEN = 16 (70%)
    FALSE = 1 (4%)

    So UNPROVEN/FALSE scores 74% for me.
    Last edited by erobitha; 07-30-2020, 11:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Thank you for your detailed reply but that still doesn't satisfy my line of questioning in post #215 in which what I was trying to establish whether those specific points from the affidavit have been :

    proved to be correct in their entirety
    proved to be correct in some form
    proved to be false
    or unproven

    Because there is so much detail about them and I wonder whether someone simply making them up would not have known that they would be checked.

    I also wonder why after all those years had passed Barrett felt compelled to make those admissions?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Off the top of my head, Trev, I would say that it's a combination of 'proved to be false and unproven'.

    If anyone can point us both to where any of this dog's breakfast has 'proved to be correct' in a form which demonstrates genuine knowledge on Mike's part about the diary's true origins, I would be much obliged.

    It's no good simply saying, for example, that Anne's purchase by cheque of a red diary was 'proved to be correct in some form', when Mike falsely backdated its purchase to early 1990 to make it fit with a later date - but still allegedly in early 1990 - for acquiring the photo album from O&L.

    'Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

    During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.'

    Mike not only has Devereux, their alleged co-conspirator, dying over a year too soon [he actually died in August 1991], but he also dates the 11 day creation and completion of the diary to before May 1990. Even allowing for Mike forgetting when Devereux died, this would put the creation and completion before August 1991.

    For any of this to have a chance of being credible, you either have to rule out the red diary as irrelevant [it was not sent to Mike until 26th March 1992], and have the diary created between 1990 and 1991 while Devereux was still alive and able to help, or you rule out the timing of Devereux's death as irrelevant, but include the red diary as crucial, and then put the diary's 11 day creation and completion forward to April 1992.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-30-2020, 11:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Sheesh. Take a chill pill, lady.
    None needed, Harry.

    Just thought the large print might help the message finally sink in.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X