The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)

[John Wheat]

I understand it will seem convenient, but there are a heck of a lot more posters out there who can argue one way or t'other if they are so inclined. I'm happy to argue other points, but the issue of whether Mike Barrett was a journalist, thought himself a journalist, told people he was a journalist, or knew he wasn't a journalist has been settled in my mind and I know there is no point in continuing the debate, especially as it would make no difference to those who will twist and turn all circumstances in one direction every time.

On the subject of 'admitting writing the scrapbook', had you written, 'surely claiming to have written the scrapbook is evidence of sorts', I might have been inclined to show some largesse, but you didn't so I shan't. In the case of the former, you can't admit to something you didn't do and we don't know he did it so you can't use the word 'admit' in this context. In the case of the latter, it would be evidence of sorts if an account had been given by Mike Barrett which did not err, which did not alter over time, and which did not present so many claims which were never fulfilled (the obvious example being the receipt for the purchase of the scrapbook which was promised at the Cloak and Dagger meeting but which never materialised - not before, not during, and not afterwards (when the mooted threat of arrest had passed)).

So, yes, my stepping away from this specific debate will appear convenient and I will live with that (and prosper from it - debating semantics over something someone patently wasn't wasn't exactly stimulating now, was it?); and, no, merely speaking the words by way of confession is not meaningful evidence of any sorts.

I never said it was meaningful evidence. Although if Mike Barrett was telling the truth which I know there is no way of definitively knowing then he did write the diary. You are of course free to believe Mike wasn't involved in the writing of the Diary. There is no evidence that Maybrick wrote the diary though but there is evidence Mike was involved in the writing of the Diary however unreliable it may be.

[rjpalmer]

There's one rather glaringly obvious reason why Michael Barrett didn't discuss his contributions to Celebrity and Chat with his literary agent and his co-author, or with anyone else

And it's far from certain that Barrett even admitted the bit about writing children's puzzles for Look-in or interviewing Kylie Minogue. We don't know where Chittenden got this information.

The way I see it, had she known about it, Shirley would have included this information in her 1993 hardback like she went on to do in the 1994 paperback. She obviously felt her readers had the right to know, no matter how flippantly Ike now brushes it all aside without a single batted eyelash.

Nor does Ike seem concerned that Barrett's purchase of the word processor was wrongly reported as having occurred after Tony Devereux's death.

[Abby Normal]

I never said it was meaningful evidence. Although if Mike Barrett was telling the truth which I know there is no way of definitively knowing then he did write the diary. You are of course free to believe Mike wasn't involved in the writing of the Diary. There is no evidence that Maybrick wrote the diary though but there is evidence Mike was involved in the writing of the Diary however unreliable it may be.

Bingo John. That evidence being:

The provenance begins and ends with him.

He was looking for a victorian diary with blank pages (gee, I wonder why)

He admitted it.

[rjpalmer]

So we've gone back to the old favourite, have we? The secret information which you can't mention but which has miraculously resolved all the problems you've been struggling with.

From the odd wording of his post, I momentarily thought Ike might have been offering a peek at this 'factual information,' but he appears to have been blowing smoke from the sanctity of his secret enclave, not unlike the black clouds currently drifting up from the Sistine Chapel.

Barrett's been dead for years, as has Feldman, and the diary has recently turned 33 years young; you'd think he could just spit out what he supposedly has instead of acting like he was involved a task as momentous as naming the new Pope.

We'll all be long dead, but I would hazard a guess that when the 1991 UK Census is open for inspection in 2091 or early 2092, Barrett's occupation will be down as 'writer' or 'journalist.'

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the odd wording of his post, I momentarily thought Ike might have been offering a peek at this 'factual information,' but he appears to have been blowing smoke from the sanctity of his secret enclave, not unlike the black clouds currently drifting up from the Sistine Chapel.

Barrett's been dead for years, as has Feldman, and the diary has recently turned 33 years young; you'd think he could just spit out what he supposedly has instead of acting like he was involved a task as momentous as naming the new Pope.

We'll all be long dead, but I would hazard a guess that when the 1991 UK Census is open for inspection in 2091 or early 2092, Barrett's occupation will be down as 'writer' or 'journalist.'

RP

I’ll do my very best to make it to 126 Roger but I fear the worst.

[Paddy Goose]

We'll all be long dead...

.. when this conclave concludes.