The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)

[John Wheat]

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.

I'm not sure how you can describe a published writer as not a writer however convenient it is for you to describe him as that? Also I'm not sure how you can so easily dismiss a proven liar as one of the writers of the Diary?

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure how you can describe a published writer as not a writer however convenient it is for you to describe him as that?

1) It comes down to the degree of significance his published writing had to his whole life story; 2) and also to what degree his writing required actual creativity; 3) and to what degree his writing was actually actualised by him alone.

1) He got some celebrity interviews published in gossip rags over a two to three year period whilst 'learning his craft' as part of a writing circle - a mere snapshot of his 61 years on the planet.
2) He never once sold any creative writing in the context that we all understand a 'writer' to be. Nor did he once sell a news item in the context that we all understand a 'journalist' to be.
3) He himself freely admitted that he couldn't finalise his interview notes and he needed his wife Anne to 'bring them to the market', as it were.

These are the reasons why it is not merely convenience which causes me to deny him the title of 'writer'. I'd grant him 'aspiring writer', but no more.

Also I'm not sure how you can so easily dismiss a proven liar as one of the writers of the Diary?

Well, because - to believe he wrote even a line of the scrapbook - I would have needed him to describe the processes involved in far richer detail than he did and without ambiguity or error. The lack of the richness of his experience coupled with the ambiguities and the outright errors prevents me from believing he had presented any sort of a case for having been involved in the scrapbook's creation. That does not mean that he couldn't have been involved (as I have said a few times now) - but the odds of him having been involved reduce (in my mind) with every mindless lie and error.

For the record, he said on many occasions that the scrapbook was genuine. Why don't you believe him?

[rjpalmer]

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 think you misunderstand me, Old Boy.

My concern is not that Barrett is a scammer---we've established that fact three decades ago.

My concern, rather, is why no one around him seems to notice that he's a scammer.

This is not Mike the Evil Confessor, circa the Summer of Un-Love, 1994, when it became fashionable and expedient for the diary's supporters to point out Barrett's economy with the truth and other failings. This instead is Good Mike, the man who just wants a greenhouse, Autumn of 1993--the only spokesperson and provenance the diary has.

How can he be limping along with a cane one moment, nearly paralyzed, but bounding up the sidewalk the next, waving his right arm around, etc., and no calls him out on it?

That's my concern. My suspicions are aroused--but they extend beyond Mike Barrett. I'm wondering about everyone else--at the bare minimum, their powers of observation.

I was only informed very recently that the filming for Feldman's video took place in September 1993. I'm away from my books---I wonder if someone can confirm this?

And I don't recall whether the public was ever informed whether Barrett was using a cane and demonstrated stiffness on the right side of his body when he had first turned up in London in April 1992?

Or was this apparent 'stroke victim' act something new that Mike had developed for the book launch?

This is what puzzles me. I think we can fairly conclude that Barrett wasn't a method actor akin to Marlon Brando or Daniel Day-Lewis. At least based on the available evidence, Barrett seems to be in & out of character---a hobbled stroke victim one moment, and a man who is able to recreate, for the benefit of Feldman's cameras, his much healthier self when he allegedly received the diary back in 1991/1992.

Where is Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, Doreen Montgomery, etc., when this remarkable change was going on?

You and I weren't there at the time, Ike--so we can be excused---but they were. Was Barrett's act as blatant as it appears to be?

Was everyone in on the joke, but no one said anything until Barrett decided to go rogue?

That's what I'm wondering about.

And don't forget--it must have been around September 1993 that Mr. Feldman had also advised Barrett to deny owning a word processor if questioned by the police.

[rjpalmer]

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

True. It was the way the film was edited that made the location confusing; the camera showed a sidewalk view of The Saddle Inn and then panned to Barrett walking down the sidewalk---but yes, I believe the jaunty, loose, and pain-free Barrett was walking down Goldie Street.

By the way, there is more than one video of Feldman's film on Youtube; the relevant sequence starts around the 6-minute mark in one, the 7-minute mark in the other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure how you can describe a published writer as not a writer however convenient it is for you to describe him as that? Also I'm not sure how you can so easily dismiss a proven liar as one of the writers of the Diary?

I agree entirely, John. Saying that Michael Barrett was "no writer, no journalist" is reality denial of the highest order. It's a historical fact that he worked as a freelance journalist between 1986 and 1988. It's literally there in print. It cannot be wished away, however inconvenient it might be.

[Iconoclast]

I think you misunderstand me, Old Boy. My concern is not that Barrett is a scammer---we've established that fact three decades ago. My concern, rather, is why no one around him seems to notice that he's a scammer.

Ah yes, I see what you mean.

As you say, we weren't there, but I can guess that none of the London lot were there in late September when the Daily Post published that photograph. It looks like the 'stroke' story was a one-off for the benefit of the newspaper and I assume that none of the London lot bought that paper that day. They had been up filming earlier that month (I think you're right in saying), and the police had been up taking witness statements around September 20-22, but I assume they had all trooped off home again before the Barretts travelled south for the book launch (the location of which escapes me).

Interestingly enough, of all the material I have come by and continue to come by, I don't appear to anything more for that September 29, 1992 article than the following photograph:



I assume I would quickly find it in any of the numerous books bar Harrison's first so I'll check that out. Ah - Ripper Diary page 67.

Anyway, cutting to the chase, you asked:

Where is Robert Smith, Paul Feldman, Doreen Montgomery, etc., when this remarkable change was going on?

I think the answer is that they were all in London, totally unaware that Barrett had claimed to have had a stroke. Even if they had seen the photograph (above), they may not have reacted unduly: I once asked Keith whether Mike had had his cane when he met him in Rupert Crew's office in June 1992, and he surprised me by saying he had had it then (I think I'm quoiting Keith correctly here). If I'm correct in my recall, then the cane - if not the 'stroke' - was already part of Mike's persona more or less from Day Two.

Hope this advances the case a wee bit ...

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I don't appear to anything more for that September 29, 1992 article than the following photograph

Beware of the Typographical Taliban, Ike. It was published on 29 September 1993.

As far as I'm concerned, the suggestion that Feldman, etc., weren't aware of the local Liverpool newspaper coverage of the diary is risible.

I also find it rather cute that you think Barrett being a scam artist and pretender somehow helps the diary's cause, but to each his own.

Barrett's pre-ownership of the cane is interesting. At least we know he didn't borrow one from central casting before the photo shoot.

'Am I insane? Cane, gain. Sir Jim with his fancy cane. Will soon strike again.'

Enjoy your day.

[John Wheat]

1) It comes down to the degree of significance his published writing had to his whole life story; 2) and also to what degree his writing required actual creativity; 3) and to what degree his writing was actually actualised by him alone.

1) He got some celebrity interviews published in gossip rags over a two to three year period whilst 'learning his craft' as part of a writing circle - a mere snapshot of his 61 years on the planet.
2) He never once sold any creative writing in the context that we all understand a 'writer' to be. Nor did he once sell a news item in the context that we all understand a 'journalist' to be.
3) He himself freely admitted that he couldn't finalise his interview notes and he needed his wife Anne to 'bring them to the market', as it were.

These are the reasons why it is not merely convenience which causes me to deny him the title of 'writer'. I'd grant him 'aspiring writer', but no more.



Well, because - to believe he wrote even a line of the scrapbook - I would have needed him to describe the processes involved in far richer detail than he did and without ambiguity or error. The lack of the richness of his experience coupled with the ambiguities and the outright errors prevents me from believing he had presented any sort of a case for having been involved in the scrapbook's creation. That does not mean that he couldn't have been involved (as I have said a few times now) - but the odds of him having been involved reduce (in my mind) with every mindless lie and error.

For the record, he said on many occasions that the scrapbook was genuine. Why don't you believe him?

The chances of the Scrapbook being genuine are in my opinion virtually zero. Whatever contradictions Mike Barrett may have made.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) It comes down to the degree of significance his published writing had to his whole life story; 2) and also to what degree his writing required actual creativity; 3) and to what degree his writing was actually actualised by him alone.

1) He got some celebrity interviews published in gossip rags over a two to three year period whilst 'learning his craft' as part of a writing circle - a mere snapshot of his 61 years on the planet.
2) He never once sold any creative writing in the context that we all understand a 'writer' to be. Nor did he once sell a news item in the context that we all understand a 'journalist' to be.
3) He himself freely admitted that he couldn't finalise his interview notes and he needed his wife Anne to 'bring them to the market', as it were.

These are the reasons why it is not merely convenience which causes me to deny him the title of 'writer'. I'd grant him 'aspiring writer', but no more.



Well, because - to believe he wrote even a line of the scrapbook - I would have needed him to describe the processes involved in far richer detail than he did and without ambiguity or error. The lack of the richness of his experience coupled with the ambiguities and the outright errors prevents me from believing he had presented any sort of a case for having been involved in the scrapbook's creation. That does not mean that he couldn't have been involved (as I have said a few times now) - but the odds of him having been involved reduce (in my mind) with every mindless lie and error.

For the record, he said on many occasions that the scrapbook was genuine. Why don't you believe him?

You're not even saying things that are factually accurate, Ike. He didn't just get "celebrity interviews" published. Vicky Guinea wasn't a celebrity, was she? Gbassy Khan wasn't a celebrity, was he? Marilyn Houlton wasn't a celebrity, was she? Yet Michael Barrett interviewed all these non-celebrities, didn't he?

If he wasn't a journalist, can you explain why Mike was referred to as "Celebrity's Mike Barrett" in a 1987 edition of Celebrity? Why did the editor ofCelebrity, David Burness, tell Shirley Harrison that Mike had worked for him? Why did Mike have articles that were said to be "Exclusive" published in Celebrity?

If you want to insist on the fantasy that Mike was writing for Celebrity "as part of a writing circle" while learning his craft, can you please tell us, with evidence, when Mike joined the writing circle and when he left it? If you can't do it, I'll be forced to conclude that you're inventing or imagining this claim.

What do you mean when you say that Mike "never once sold any creative writing in the context that we all understand a 'writer' to be."? Why does a writer have to be "creative"? Isn't a journalist also a 'writer'? Aren't people who write non-fiction books also called 'writers'?

When you say that Mike didn't "once sell a news item in the context that we all understand a 'journalist' to be" you must be speaking only for yourself. Contributors to magazines are also journalists, aren't they? You didn't answer my question about James Green who also wrote for Celebrity. In your mind, was he a journalist in his capacity as a contributor toCelebrity?

The fact that Mike relied on his wife to tidy up his articles gets you absolutely nowhere. Aside from the fact that many journalists have their articles finalized and tidied up by editors, I've said for ages that Mike and Anne were a writing team. Just as Anne helped Mike with his articles, so she could have helped him with the diary.

That Mike was once a journalist and thus a writer is simply a matter of fact and record. It has no bearing whatsoever on subjective factors such as "the degree of significance his published writing had to his whole life story", or "to what degree his writing required actual creativity" or to what degree his writing "was actually actualised by him alone". None of these, either individually or collectively, are the criteria for someone being described as a writer or journalist. They are just things you've invented because the fact of Mike Barrett having been a journalist is too inconvenient for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The chances of the Scrapbook being genuine are in my opinion virtually zero. Whatever contradictions Mike Barrett may have made.

They are zero John. The phrase ‘one off instance’ is an anachronistic phrase which couldn’t have been used by Maybrick. It is a proven forgery.

[rjpalmer]

I think the answer is that they were all in London, totally unaware that Barrett had claimed to have had a stroke. Even if they had seen the photograph (above), they may not have reacted unduly: I once asked Keith whether Mike had had his cane when he met him in Rupert Crew's office in June 1992, and he surprised me by saying he had had it then (I think I'm quoiting Keith correctly here). If I'm correct in my recall, then the cane - if not the 'stroke' - was already part of Mike's persona more or less from Day Two.

Hope this advances the case a wee bit ...

Ike

At least part of the Feldman/Howells video must have been filmed in October, because just before the six-minute mark we see a very brief clip of Barrett, wearing a blue jumper and sitting between Anne Graham and Doreen Montgomery, at the book launch held in London on 4 October 1993. This was a mere five days after the Liverpool Post ran the photo of Barrett, cane in hand, with the allegedly limited use of his right side.

It's a pity we can't hear what is being said. Mike and Anne turn around to face an apparent heckler behind them (at least I think it's a heckler, because Barrett looking slightly annoyed and defiant mutters something while Anne weakly smiles and Doreen Montgomery stares straight ahead as if very uncomfortable).

But the video tends to cut away when something interesting is occurring; I wonder how much creative control Feldman exerted over the final cut?