The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, that was quick - my July 1994 copy of Ripperana arrived this afternoon. We know that Mike had freely admitted in his Scotland Yard interview way back in October 1993 that he wrote pieces for Look-In back in the day, but apparently he was suffering the absolute horrors of hell to such an intense degree at the thought of being exposed by Nick Warren as a journalist (therefore potential hoaxer) in June 1994 - ahead of the July 1994 quarterly edition of Warren's Ripperana - that he simply caved-in under the seismic pressure he was enduring and confessed all to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post.

The following is the sum of the devastating expose of Barrett's professional career as a journalist which Warren wrote (bear in mind that Warren had sent this to Barrett in advance of publication to give him the opportunity to respond):

Mr. Devereux understood that Barrett was a journalist (he had certainly contributed features to magazines) ...

I've got to be honest, I was expecting slightly more than this for my £9.99 (including first-class post), especially given the rabid build-up it had been given in terms of it being the motivation Barrett needed to 'fess up and face the music. I don't know about anyone else, but I was certainly trembling as I read what I expected to be Warren's relentless and eviserating condemnation of what was so clearly a very guilty person, though in the end I had to conclude that it had not been particularly damning at all. What do you think, dear readers?

Are you thinking, 'Lord, how Mike Barrett must have lost his mind in panic and terror at the thought that such a claim was going to be revealed to the world which he had so far fooled so brilliantly: 'he had certainly contributed features to magazines''.

Or are you thinking, 'Talk about overplaying your hand to try to draw a conclusion which would rather conveniently work for your far-fetched and over-stretched fantasy regarding Mike Barrett's hoaxing powers"?

Ike

You were expecting more than I'd already quoted to you from that article yesterday in my post #49? More than was already reproduced on Orsam's site as far back as November 2023?

You have, of course, missed out the part where the Devereux family said that, as a result of their understanding that he was a journalist who had contributed features to magazines, they were "surprised to find his publishers describing him as an ordinary 'Liverpool bloke', scalesman at a firm of scrap-metal merchants".

I'm not responsible for you paying £9.99, but you are, as usual, missing the importance of what was happening in May 1994 when Mike read the draft of the article.

The first thing is that he would known for sure that he was going to face questioning from Shirley, Doreen and others following publication. Is it true that you're a journalist who has contributed features to magazines? That is question number one. A bit tricky already, isn't it?

Either he lies, which is going to be immediately found out, or he tells the truth.

Even if he just tells a part of the truth, as he did to Scotland Yard, the next question is going to be: why have you never told us this before?

If he doesn't mention Celebrity and Chat, he must know that one of the many investigators is going to find out about it. At the very least it would be a huge risk to lie.

He's caught in a trap. As of late June, the clock is ticking towards the inevitable, imminent publication and exposure of his secret past.

If you can't see this, Ike, you've really hit a flat earth type of denial of reality.

[rjpalmer]

What I would ask is, why would DS Thomas (or his colleague if he was also there) ask Mike Barrett if he had a word processor? What would be the point? The Maybrick scrapbook was handwritten into a very old book. What would it matter whether Mike had a word processor or not? DS Thomas might equally well have asked Mike whether he owned any notebooks or scraps of paper (if he was looking for evidence of a premeditated text from which the scrapbook text was copied-out). Perhaps DS Thomas was seeking clues as to whether Mike was deliberately suppressing an unmentioned previous career as a journalist whilst he was on invalidity benefit? It feels like a stretch, but perhaps his detective radar was blaring out that here was a skilful man of letters and therefore perhaps he had a word processor hidden away somewhere on which he might have composed a hoaxed text before he or someone else hand wrote it into the scrapbook. It's possible, I guess. But - still - what would be especially telling about a word processor that a notebook or scraps of paper could not have equally told?

There's a far more interesting companion question that you've failed to ask.

If it was no big deal that Barrett owned a word processor, then why did Barrett anticipate that the police would ask him about it?

Because--from what Keith has told us--anticipate it he did.

Why did the word processor concern Barrett to that point that---long before Scotland Yard even knocked on his door in Goldie Street---Barrett brought the matter up with Paul Feldman (of all people!)---or Feldman brought the matter up with him---and the two men hatched a strategy for dealing with DS Thomson's noisy question should it arise?


It's a pity that Keith, taking pity on Feldman's contrition, didn't probe the matter further. My own mental wheels would have been spinning at Feldman's 'crass' admission, wondering if there was anything else he had failed to mention to his research team.

RP

[rjpalmer]

with DS Thomson's noisy question should it arise?

My apologies. DS Thomas.

[rjpalmer]

Harrison's claim that that it was on the table in the dining room might have been no more than her own experience of where it usually was and where she expected it to be when the police were there. Perhaps Mike had hidden away in advance of Bonesy's arrival.

This is a reasonable assumption. We know that Harrison had visited the Barretts in Liverpool.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where Barrett and Feldman could have innocently discussed the word processor in advance of Mike's police interview, and Feldman could have innocently suggested that Barrett hide or deny its existence, but I confess that I'm coming up blank.

As for Barrett's worries, I believe a document stored on an Amstrad floppy disk could be checked for modifications, using the appropriate software. "Floppy disks are a magnetic storage medium, any change to the data will be physically recorded on the disk, making it possible to detect if alterations have occurred."

[Iconoclast]

This is a reasonable assumption. We know that Harrison had visited the Barretts in Liverpool.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where Barrett and Feldman could have innocently discussed the word processor in advance of Mike's police interview, and Feldman could have innocently suggested that Barrett hide or deny its existence, but I confess that I'm coming up blank.

As for Barrett's worries, I believe a document stored on an Amstrad floppy disk could be checked for modifications, using the appropriate software. "Floppy disks are a magnetic storage medium, any change to the data will be physically recorded on the disk, making it possible to detect if alterations have occurred."

Yes, RJ. There will also be a Creation date which would tell us when that particular version of any give document was initiated. What, of course, it could never tell you is what is on discs which we don't know about, but it would at least be very insightful to know when the contents of the discs we do know about were created. Unfortunately, we don't have any discs at all (to my knowledge) which is not to say that we don't know where they are.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, RJ. There will also be a Creation date which would tell us when that particular version of any give document was initiated. What, of course, it could never tell you is what is on discs which we don't know about, but it would at least be very insightful to know when the contents of the discs we do know about were created. Unfortunately, we don't have any discs at all (to my knowledge) which is not to say that we don't know where they are.

If, for the sake of argument, the disk shows that the typescript was created prior to 9 March 1992, and modified several times before and after that date, what new hobby would you take up?

When my uncle Dick died many years ago, his antiquated word processor with floppy disks were inherited by a relative who stored them in an attic. Knowing the hoarders in my family, they're probably still there.

Things sometimes turn up. Perhaps Barrett's disks are also still out there somewhere, like an unexploded time bomb.

If, as they say, Tempus omnia revelat. Of course, Anne Graham could always cut to the chase and tell us what she really knows.

[rjpalmer]

If, for the sake of argument, the disk shows that the typescript was created prior to 9 March 1992, and modified several times before and after that date, what new hobby would you take up?

Obviously, it couldn't have been modified before it was created, but you know what I mean.

[Iconoclast]

If, for the sake of argument, the disk shows that the typescript was created prior to 9 March 1992, and modified several times before and after that date, what new hobby would you take up?

Gardening, probably. A lot less hard on the musculature than typing out one hour telephone interviews and what have you (taking about a fortnight to complete it due to utter boredom at doing so and too easy to click on YouTube videos of Newcastle's Wembley glory).

Things sometimes turn up. Perhaps Barrett's disks are also still out there somewhere, like an unexploded time bomb.

Well, I think I know where they probably are if they do still exist, but there's always a risk they were consigned to the bin a long time ago.

If, as they say, Tempus omnia revelat. Of course, Anne Graham could always cut to the chase and tell us what she really knows.

What new hobby would you take up if she already has?

[Iconoclast]

Obviously, it couldn't have been modified before it was created, but you know what I mean.

I have long since given up the dream of never erring when I type, RJ. I find that living with my erring is simpler for my wa, mate.

[rjpalmer]

What new hobby would you take up if she already has?

The same---gardening. I don't find it easier on the musculature, though. My back is still a bit 'off' from planting an Italian plum tree last week.

I've long been under the impression that only about ten people in the world follow this thread, but I received an email from a correspondent who is following and wanted to pass along the following interesting observation.

The Ripperana issue under discussion states that "Mrs. Anne Steele was interviewed by video producer Paul Feldman, but the relevant footage was cut."

According to Martin Howells, the filming for the video took place in September 1993---the police interview with Barrett was in October.

Mrs. Steele (I thought her name was Nancy, by the way) was Tony Devereux's daughter, and she voiced surprise that Barrett was being described as a salt-of-the-earth ex-scrap metal scalesman, when she was told by her father that he was a journalist who had published in national magazines.

What Mrs. Steele revealed to Feldman during the filming is unknowable, because it was left on the cutting room floor, but the timing is interesting.

Did Feldman discover from Mrs. Steele the bit about Barrett being a journalist, and this is what triggered his suggestion to Barrett that he not mention his word processor if the police came calling?

The timing certainly fits, and something must have caused Barrett and Feldman to have this most interesting exchange.





Curious.

[Iconoclast]

According to Martin Howells, the filming for the video took place in September 1993---the police interview with Barrett was in October.
Mrs. Steele (I thought her name was Nancy, by the way) was Tony Devereux's daughter, and she voiced surprise that Barrett was being described as a salt-of-the-earth ex-scrap metal scalesman, when she was told by her father that he was a journalist who had published in national magazines.
What Mrs. Steele revealed to Feldman during the filming is unknowable, because it was left on the cutting room floor, but the timing is interesting.

I would have to check my facts but I'm fairly confident that Nancy (you are right) was shown in later versions of the Feldman video - sporting her bright orangey-yellow cardigan. Not all of her interview would have been broadcast, of course, as would be true of all participants.

[Iconoclast]

Mrs. Steele (I thought her name was Nancy, by the way) was Tony Devereux's daughter, and she voiced surprise that Barrett was being described as a salt-of-the-earth ex-scrap metal scalesman, when she was told by her father that he was a journalist who had published in national magazines.

I think you'll find that the 'journalist' comment - assuming it ever happened - came from Nancy Steele in whatever 'interview' she had with Nick Warren ahead of his July 9, 1994, edition of Ripperana.

What Mrs. Steele revealed to Feldman during the filming is unknowable, because it was left on the cutting room floor, but the timing is interesting.

I think if any revealing was done, it was to Martin Howells who was writing the script for Feldman's documentary as well as interviewing the key participants. I don't think Feldman was present. Small point but one worth noting all the same.

Also, Martin evidently created a typescript from the whole of his interview with Nancy Steele (including the unused stuff that ended up on the cutting room floor) and - in that - he reveals that Nancy in September 1993 was less forthright regarding Barrett's literary past:

Did Feldman discover from Mrs. Steele the bit about Barrett being a journalist, and this is what triggered his suggestion to Barrett that he not mention his word processor if the police came calling?

To be clear here: at no point in that transcript did Nancy Steele refer to Michael Barrett - either directly or indirectly - as a journalist. That comment was reported by Nick Warren almost a year later. I guess it is possible that this (the September 1993) comment was heard by Feldman once Howells returned to London and this triggered a concern in his mind which prompted him to suggest that Barrett deny - if asked - that he owned a word processor. It all seems pretty irrelevant to me thirty-plus years later but (as I have argued many times before) it is not for us to tell other people what they should have been thinking nor to suggest that they were being irrational regarding certain actions that they took.

Curious.

I would probably use the word 'unnecessary' or 'unhelpful' but maybe Feldman - rather than Barrett - was seeking to hide Barrett's past from Bonesy because Feldman's brain was capable of more leaps and bounds than even your average Bobby from the Yard.

[rjpalmer]

It all seems pretty irrelevant to me thirty-plus years later

Good afternoon, Ike.

Unless you're waxing philosophical while in the throes of your 'dark night of the soul,' how does the mere passing of time make Feldman's behavior 'irrelevant'?

Everything under discussion happened over thirty years ago. If you want to discuss the diary it is not irrelevant; if you want to retire to your rose garden and a stack of dusty old 18th Century novels you've been meaning to read before you shuffle off this mortal coil, then yes, it is all irrelevant.

Shirley Harrison's final draft must have been with the printers in September 1993, only days away from the book launch.

A look inside shows nary a hint of Barrett's journalistic career. He is an ex-chef, ex-scrap metal dealer, and ex-merchant marine.

As for Mike's word processor, Harrison has this to say on pg. 7:




Then, on the very eve of the hardback's release, Mrs. Steele is interviewed for Feldman's video.

And when Shirley's paperback version comes out the following year, 1994, the above paragraph is amended to read:




An interesting sentence has been added between 'the diary himself' and 'He spent hours.."

The public now learns for the first time that Barrett had had 'a brief flirtation with the writing world,' and Look In magazine is mentioned, but the impact of this revelation is lessened by a passing assurance that Barrett had submitted nothing more than 'simple word puzzles.'

Question.

What trigged Harrison to add this new information between the hardback in September 1993 and the paperback in 1994?

I submit it was Mrs. Steele's revelation of Barrett's career in journalism. And Barrett's interview with Scotland Yard.

I further submit Mrs. Steele's revelations are also what triggered Feldman's startling advice to Mike Barrett to deny he owned a word processor to the police.

Barrett did admit to Scotland Yard that he had a 'brief flirtation with the writing world,' as Shirley would later put it, but this by no means demonstrates that Mike did so willingly and without being prompted. Weren't the Devereux daughters interviewed by Scotland Yard before the police knocked on the door of Goldie Street?

[Iconoclast]

Unless you're waxing philosophical while in the throes of your 'dark night of the soul,' how does the mere passing of time make Feldman's behavior 'irrelevant'?

What I meant by 'irrelevant is the excitement which seems to have self-generated around a) Mike having a WP and b) Feldman advising him to deny it if asked. To me, it plays no part in the history, which is now thirty-plus years older.

The public now learns for the first time that Barrett had had 'a brief flirtation with the writing world,' and Look In magazine is mentioned, but the impact of this revelation is lessened by a passing assurance that Barrett had submitted nothing more than 'simple word puzzles.'

It just doesn't seem to have been the secret you're trying to make of it so I can't tell you a year's worth of who-told-what-to-whom. All I know is that it wasn't any kind of drama to anyone - and certainly not to Nick Warren in his Ripperana of July 1994. I can't get excited about this. It's all just supposition that we can never clarify or confirm.

What trigged Harrison to add this new information between the hardback in September 1993 and the paperback in 1994?

As I said above, I can't tell you a year's worth of who-told-what-to-whom but what I can say is that the vast majority of water cooler moments are not recorded so hoping to find out is optimistic in the extreme, I'd say. It's all just supposition now.

I submit it was Mrs. Steele's revelation of Barrett's career in journalism. And Barrett's interview with Scotland Yard.

Quite possibly one or both but neither amounted to the revelation of a career in journalism which you need it to be to be of any consequence whatsoever. I will never yield on this point: a few celebrity interviews in the crap rags whilst actually having a career on invalidity benefit is just not worth escalating. When there's a breeze on a sunny day, RJ, do you record it in your Victorian scrapbook as 'a typhoon hit us today'?

I further submit Mrs. Steele's revelations are also what triggered Feldman's startling advice to Mike Barrett to deny he owned a word processor to the police.

This I think could well have been what happened, but no-one will ever know. Feldman saw the Howell's film and thought, 'Whoa, this boy has submitted some stuff to a children's magazine - I didn't know that'. Whether that would be enough for him to advise Barrett to deny he had the Amstrad, no-one knows. It's now just supposition.

Barrett did admit to Scotland Yard that he had a 'brief flirtation with the writing world,' as Shirley would later put it, but this by no means demonstrates that Mike did so willingly and without being prompted. Weren't the Devereux daughters interviewed by Scotland Yard before the police knocked on the door of Goldie Street?

Possibly. I don't have the chronology before me. It's possible that the girls said to Bonesy that Mike thought of himself as a writer and that Bonesy therefore touched on it during his interview with Barrett in 12 Goldie Street, but only the witness statement and Anne's account of that meeting survive and neither confirms what you are suggesting. So, yet more supposition, I guess.

[rjpalmer]

It just doesn't seem to have been the secret you're trying to make of it so I can't tell you a year's worth of who-told-what-to-whom.

Obviously, it WAS a secret--hence Shirely being forced to revise the relevant paragraph in the 1994 paperback.

Even then she doesn't bother to revise the part about Barrett allegedly buying the word process after Tony's death in 1991, which is another relic of Barrett's deceptions because he had bought the WP years earlier in order to submit articles to Celebrity and Chat.

O, what a tangled web.

But as always, Ike, your reaction is to mutter "nothing to see here, folks!' as you turn again to the secret writings of 'James Maybrick.'

Good luck in convincing your readers to share your myopia.