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.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock,

I think we can safely put the diary on 'ice' until whatever time Anne Graham decides to grace us with any additional information she might possess, but there's one observation I'd like to run past you in the meantime, or more properly run past Ike, as it puzzles me a good deal.

A year or two ago Ike wrote the following worthy observation:

"On Monday August 22 1994, Barrett's GP (with Mike's permission) wrote to Doreen Montgomery with a list of Mike's medical conditions dating back to 1984. There was no mention of a stroke in 1992 or any other year, and yet Mike had claimed to have had one in his Tuesday September 28 1993 article in the Liverpool Daily Post: The Ripper Diary – Part 3 (‘How the Ripper ruined my life.’). The article read, "He is only 41 yet moves slowly with the aid of a walking stick. He blames the stress and strains involved in living with the Ripper story for the stroke which has left him with limited use of his right side."

Let me especially draw your attention to the following two points.

1. Mike walked slowly with a walking-stick.

2. Had 'limited use of his right side.'

Notice, too, that this dates to September 1993.

Now, when you have an idle minute, please view the sequence beginning at the 7-minute mark in Feldman's video 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' at the following link:

The diary of Jack the Ripper

I've been told that much of the video was also filmed in September 1993.

Yet, we see Barrett bounding down the sidewalk in a jaunty manner, carrying the diary in his right hand, opening to door to Goldie Street with his left hand, tearing the diary open with both hands, etc. etc.

Did no one back in 1993 notice that rather jarring contradiction between Barrett's behavior in front of the video camera and the decrepit, crippled Barrett described in the Liverpool Daily Post article???

What am I (or we) missing?

RP

[rjpalmer]

Mike has 'limited use of his right side' yet at another moment in the video, apparently filmed at the early Oct 1993 book launch, he raises his right hand with considerable dexterity and nimbleness and scratches his nose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

RJ,

Due of the hard factual information which I have received during these recent exchanges (which is not mine to disclose), I am satisfied that I can comfortably qualify whether or not Mike thought of himself as a journalist and what his motivations may have been (if he had any at all) for not discussing his contributions to Celebrity and Chat with anyone outside of his personal circle. I'm happy to read your thoughts on this but I may as well draw a line under addressing it any further until SocPillWhatever is completed.

Cheers,

Ike

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

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, including the Sunday Times and Scotland Yard, between March 1992 and June 1994, but I don't think it's whatever nonsense you've managed to convince yourself it is

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think we can safely put the diary on 'ice' until whatever time Anne Graham decides to grace us with any additional information she might possess, but there's one observation I'd like to run past you in the meantime, or more properly run past Ike, as it puzzles me a good deal.

A year or two ago Ike wrote the following worthy observation:

"On Monday August 22 1994, Barrett's GP (with Mike's permission) wrote to Doreen Montgomery with a list of Mike's medical conditions dating back to 1984. There was no mention of a stroke in 1992 or any other year, and yet Mike had claimed to have had one in his Tuesday September 28 1993 article in the Liverpool Daily Post: The Ripper Diary – Part 3 (‘How the Ripper ruined my life.’). The article read, "He is only 41 yet moves slowly with the aid of a walking stick. He blames the stress and strains involved in living with the Ripper story for the stroke which has left him with limited use of his right side."

Let me especially draw your attention to the following two points.

1. Mike walked slowly with a walking-stick.

2. Had 'limited use of his right side.'

Notice, too, that this dates to September 1993.

Now, when you have an idle minute, please view the sequence beginning at the 7-minute mark in Feldman's video 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' at the following link:

The diary of Jack the Ripper

I've been told that much of the video was also filmed in September 1993.

Yet, we see Barrett bounding down the sidewalk in a jaunty manner, carrying the diary in his right hand, opening to door to Goldie Street with his left hand, tearing the diary open with both hands, etc. etc.

Did no one back in 1993 notice that rather jarring contradiction between Barrett's behavior in front of the video camera and the decrepit, crippled Barrett described in the Liverpool Daily Post article???

What am I (or we) missing?

RP

Hi Roger,

I think that I’d like to hear Ike’s response on this

[Iconoclast]

What am I (or we) missing?RP

It is 11.17pm here in Blighty, RJ, and I'm going to my bed so I will need to address this tomorrow, but my first thoughts are to either thank you for providing a previously-missed but rather glaring example of Mike Barrett's unreliability with the actualite or else to check with you whether the question was designed to strengthen or weaken the case for Barrett?

I only ask because it feels like it was designed to strengthen the case but I can't see how it could?

[rjpalmer]

It is 11.17pm here in Blighty, RJ, and I'm going to my bed so I will need to address this tomorrow, but my first thoughts are to either thank you for providing a previously-missed but rather glaring example of Mike Barrett's unreliability with the actualite or else to check with you whether the question was designed to strengthen or weaken the case for Barrett?

By all means get a good night's rest, Ike, and sleep on it. One should approach this puzzle with a well-rested mind.

I've taken the liberty of reproducing below the photograph from the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 September 1993, showing Barrett, the stroke victim, holding a cane with what looks like a very stiff right arm, his shoulder noticeably sagging.

As you previously noted, The Post claims that Barrett has "limited use of his right arm" due to this medical calamity.

Poor chap. His lack of dexterity could account for more than half of his buttons not being done up.

[rjpalmer]

These aren't as effective as 'stills,' and I recommend watching the relevant section of Feldman's video, but below are some images supposedly shot around the same time, showing Mike in action.

Gone is his cane, as he rapidly walks down the sidewalk outside The Saddle Inn (lower left corner) both arms swaying.

Other scenes show Barrett vigorously tearing open a brown paper parcel with both hands, absent-mindedly scratching his nose with his right hand, and gesturing in an animated fashion while being interviewed--again with his right hand.




Any thoughts would be appreciated, Ike.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Barrett has "limited use of his right arm"

Technically, that should read 'limited use of his right side.'

[Iconoclast]

RJ,

As far as I can tell, you are doing your very best Iconoclast here?

From even just what you have posted (never mind my knowledge of the case), it seems clear to me that you are basically asking me to comment on whether Mike Barrett was a liar or not?

First you show him in September 1993 on film being very much unimpeded by any impediment whatsoever; and then you show the photograph from 'the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 September 1993, showing Barrett, the stroke victim, holding a cane with what looks like a very stiff right arm, his shoulder noticeably sagging. As you previously noted, The Post claims that Barrett has "limited use of his right arm" due to this medical calamity'; and then you refer to the film from very early in October 1993 (at the book launch) in which Barrett appears to be unimpeded again.

And then you ask me to make sense of it for you, and then some other poster implies that there's some great and threatening mystery for me to account for here (), and all the while everyone else is thinking, 'Why is RJ Palmer - of all people - doing Ike's job for him?'.

I don't know what to say to you that you don't already know, but - if you are in anyway genuinely confused - here's a clue from when he informed Harold Brough that he - and he alone, mind - was the greatest forger in history:

"Now Mr. Barrett who is seriously ill, says he has decided to confess to his actions, after being told by his doctor that he has only days to live".

Well, as we know, Barrett managed to bravely fight on and stretch out his fatal decline to over 21 years. Let that medical miracle sink in: 21 years.

When will you awaken to the realisation that you have placed all of your faith in the hands of an alcoholic fantasist and liar?

I can tell you that I have awoken to the realisation that I have been wasting my time and energies on this egotistical little man: when I first joined these boards, it was to put forward a case for Maybrick (or, at very least, to defend whichever one then existed), but over the years it has just become a ceaseless tit-for-tat about Michael Barrett. I'm bored with Barrett and I'm bored pointing out the blindingly obvious.

Let me do it this one last time: Michael Barrett was an alcoholic, an egotist, a deeply-flawed character, and a proven liar, but he was no writer, no journalist, and no-one worthy of another word from me, so please (everyone) don't ask.

Ike

PS The shot of Barrett walking outside The Saddle is - I am fairly confident - him walking down Goldie Street to number twelve.