Rippercast Audio Archives: The Maybrick Diary

[rjpalmer]

I can't help noticing that literary forgers aren't particularly well-known for their sobriety.

For instance, check out the film "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" that came out last year. It tells the true story of the hard-drinking, down-on-her luck writer Lee Israel, who, during a prolonged bout of "writer's block," turned to writing and selling bogus letters by Noel Coward, Dorothy Parker, etc. Admittedly, she was a class above Barrett, but there are certain similarities.

Konrad Kujua, of Hitler Diary fame, also loved to pound down the brewskies with his Nazi idolizing friends. They had a regular drinking club, and Kajua's background was not all that different from Barrett's. He seems to have began his career of forgery almost as a drunken joke.

Personally, I don't see how Barrett's crazy talk, erratic behavior, and heavy drinking is incongruous with the type of person who would carry out a literary fraud. Yet, many (but not all) of those who have met Barrett think that he was "incapable."

[Abby Normal]

I can't help noticing that literary forgers aren't particularly well-known for their sobriety.

For instance, check out the film "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" that came out last year. It tells the true story of the hard-drinking, down-on-her luck writer Lee Israel, who, during a prolonged bout of "writer's block," turned to writing and selling bogus letters by Noel Coward, Dorothy Parker, etc. Admittedly, she was a class above Barrett, but there are certain similarities.

Konrad Kujua, of Hitler Diary fame, also loved to pound down the brewskies with his Nazi idolizing friends. They had a regular drinking club, and Kajua's background was not all that different from Barrett's. He seems to have began his career of forgery almost as a drunken joke.

Personally, I don't see how Barrett's crazy talk, erratic behavior, and heavy drinking is incongruous with the type of person who would carry out a literary fraud. Yet, many (but not all) of those who have met Barrett think that he was "incapable."

exactly Rj

and re his love of the pub. the pub! a veritable proving ground for yarns and tall tales!

and how many great (and famous) writers had some kind of substance abuse, drinking and or pschological problems?

the idea that he (a published author no less)was incapable of writing this silly diary is patently ridiculous.. but i guess any straw to clutch to keep the (non) mystery alive.

[Yabs]

Great new episode of the podcast.
In my opinion, I think Mike was more than capable of scripting the diary.

He comes across as someone needy for praise, it's almost like he's torn between wanting to receive what he feels is well deserved credit for writing it, but at the same time, doesn't want to completely kill the mystery.

Or, perhaps he feared fraud charges if he absolutely proved he forged it.

[PaulB]

I can't help noticing that literary forgers aren't particularly well-known for their sobriety.

For instance, check out the film "Can You Ever Forgive Me?" that came out last year. It tells the true story of the hard-drinking, down-on-her luck writer Lee Israel, who, during a prolonged bout of "writer's block," turned to writing and selling bogus letters by Noel Coward, Dorothy Parker, etc. Admittedly, she was a class above Barrett, but there are certain similarities.

Konrad Kujua, of Hitler Diary fame, also loved to pound down the brewskies with his Nazi idolizing friends. They had a regular drinking club, and Kajua's background was not all that different from Barrett's. He seems to have began his career of forgery almost as a drunken joke.

Personally, I don't see how Barrett's crazy talk, erratic behavior, and heavy drinking is incongruous with the type of person who would carry out a literary fraud. Yet, many (but not all) of those who have met Barrett think that he was "incapable."

But the conclusion of those who have met Mike isn't based solely, if at all, on his drinking. I met him before Shirley's and Paul's books were published, when Mike's marriage was still intact, and when he was still holding things together.

[Hunter]

Hi Paul,
do you believe he and Anne were incapable of concocting such a thing?

[Ozzy]

Is the mp3 the audio track of the video, of which you posted a trailer Jonathan?
If so, is there any chance of uploading the complete video?

[Yabs]

But the conclusion of those who have met Mike isn't based solely, if at all, on his drinking. I met him before Shirley's and Paul's books were published, when Mike's marriage was still intact, and when he was still holding things together.

Hi Paul.
Just a quick couple of questions....

Those that assumed he wasn’t capable of writing it, how did they come to that conclusion?
Was it simply his manner or general perception of his intellect, or some other reason?

Also, I was wondering were people aware in 1992-93 that he had wrote for various publications or was that something that wasn’t known until Barrett himself revealed the fact?

[jmenges]

Is the mp3 the audio track of the video, of which you posted a trailer Jonathan?
If so, is there any chance of uploading the complete video?

The audio recording I released is combination of two different cassette tape recordings made separate from the video. As much as I would love to release the entire video, that’s not possible at this time.
Maybe someday.

JM

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,
do you believe he and Anne were incapable of concocting such a thing?

No. It's surprising what the most unlikely people are able to do, but I question whether Mike had the application to complete such a project.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul.
Just a quick couple of questions....

Those that assumed he wasn’t capable of writing it, how did they come to that conclusion?
Was it simply his manner or general perception of his intellect, or some other reason?

Also, I was wondering were people aware in 1992-93 that he had wrote for various publications or was that something that wasn’t known until Barrett himself revealed the fact?

Hi
I think they had all sorts of reasons. Feldy was convinced that nobody could convey the despair he saw in the 'diary' unless they'd felt it, and he didn't think Mike had the experience, knowledge or ability to convey that. One of my initial feelings was that Mike seemed too ignorant about both the Maybrick and Ripper cases to have done much research. I also thought that the idea of forging a 'diary' of Jack the Ripper was so daunting (just finding out what things not to do to avoid the thing immediately being recognised as a fake) that Mike, who I thought was quite canny, would not have proceeded with the idea. Lots of reasons. And, not, I think most were aware that he'd written something for a kid's paper, but what else had he had published?

[Yatish]

Keith Skinner. The absolute patience of a saint. Like trying to grapple with a bar of soap at times.

A really great listen...

[rjpalmer]

I think most were aware that he'd written something for a kid's paper, but what else had he had published?

Inside Story reported it was a kid's magazine, but it really wasn't. It was Celebrity Magazine, the sort of celebrity gossip sheets one sees in the check-out lines at grocery stores. David B. chased down copies of these articles, and published some examples at this website, Orsam Books; you'll find them about a third of the way down in his critique of Robert Smith's book. (#15)

The articles credited to Michael Barrett date from 1986 to 1988. As Lord O notes, the magazine folded near the end of 1988, so Barrett's creative efforts must have gone looking for another venue.

Barrett's writing appears to be competent, but who knows to what extent Anne helped him? (Or why does that even matter?) An example of Mike's prose:

"As addicts of the series will have observed by now, the elfin Miss Langford is playing a computer programmer who is heavily into health foods."

An elfin woman being heavily into health foods is somewhat amusing, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Shirley Harrison also reported that Barrett belonged to a local 'writer's circle,' so it would have been interesting to chase down other members, but I don't know if that was possible.

I'm sure it looked very different when the whole Diary saga unraveled in 'real time,' and people are no doubt giving their honest interpretations of Mike, but, for those of us who came to the controversy late, and from the 'outside,' it is difficult not to see Barrett as being depicted as a salt-of-the-earth Jekyll before his public confession, and as an unruly and untrustworthy Hyde afterwards. It couldn't be that simplistic, could it?

PS. Does anyone know what was meant by Robbie Johnson being 'loosely connected to the entertainment industry' or some such phrase? Is his girlfriend being a photographer relevant?

[jmenges]

Keith Skinner writes:

I'm sure it looked very different when the whole Diary saga unraveled in 'real time,' and people are no doubt giving their honest interpretations of Mike, but, for those of us who came to the controversy late, and from the 'outside,' it is difficult not to see Barrett as being depicted as a salt-of-the-earth Jekyll before his public confession, and as an unruly and untrustworthy Hyde afterwards. It couldn't be that simplistic, could it?

Roger – thank you for your observations.

I appreciate you want to give balance and perspective to Mike Barrett’s relationship with the Diary between the years 1992-2016 and I welcome that.
I understand that your impressions of Mike Barrett come from what you have read about him, published or unpublished – what you have been told about him, true or untrue, – what you have seen of him on film, edited or unedited – affidavits he has sworn – your own set of taped conversations between Mike and Alan Gray – transcripts of interviews with him?

You comment that, for yourself, “...it is difficult not to see Barrett as being depicted as a salt-of-the earth Jekyll before his public confession, and as an unruly and trustworthy Hyde afterwards.” For all I know thousands of people may agree with you – I don’t know. What I do know however is that the point of Jonathan’s series of Diary podcasts is to let people, who may be interested in the 27 year old controversy, hear the voices of key figures involved, at precise moments in time which have been caught on tape. These recordings have not been doctored. There is no hidden agenda to present anything but the facts. What reason would we have for giving a bias Roger? What would we – or anybody - gain from this? How does being deceitful and manipulative get us any closer to the truth? In short, I resent the inference as, I suspect, does Jonathan. My 1999 C&D interview with Mike Barrett could have been over in 5 seconds flat if he had produced the auction ticket from Outhwaite & Litherland with which he claimed he bought the black ledger, late March/early April 1992. He could have given it to Harold Brough in June 1994 when he told the Liverpool Daily Post he forged the Diary. He could have given it to Alan Gray any time between the summer of 1994 and the beginning of January 1998. He could have produced it in support of his January 1995 sworn affidavit. And he could have given it to me in front of eighty people on April 10^th 1999. But he didn’t...

Now, I’m sure you will have your own honest explanation for why Mike never produced this vital piece of forensic evidence and you may be right. It’s a great shame he didn’t because it might well have proved your long held belief that the Diary was physically hand written, (by Anne Graham from the text which Mike had created on his word processor) into the black ledger over a period of eleven days immediately before being taken down to London. (This is what Mike stated in his sworn affidavit in January 1995.) It’s been suggested Mike was simply playing everybody along to keep the controversy going for those who desperately wanted to believe the Diary was written by James Maybrick and give them hope? “Any straw to clutch to the keep the (non) mystery alive” as has been posited. Perhaps he was? It’s been suggested he did not want to kill the Diary off completely whilst there was still the possibility of receiving royalty payments? Perhaps that’s true? It’s been suggested he did not want to produce the auction ticket because he genuinely feared arrest for fraud? All and any reasons are possible.

Am I right in believing you are coming to the UK soon? If so, I hope you may swing by Liverpool and knock on Anne Graham’s door. You’ll have heard Mike state she suffers from a multi personality disorder, (which apparently explained why her handwriting did not match the writing in the Diary,) so perhaps you’ll strike lucky and get her on a Diary writing day. Failing that, you might be able to tease out the real Inside Story?

KS

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith.

Nowhere did I imply that the podcasts have been ‘doctored.’ It’s a strange suggestion.

All of the podcasts date to January 1995-April 1999 (after Barrett had already confessed to the Daily Post), so they can obviously play no role in any earlier depiction of a guileless, greenhouse coveting Barrett. The cat was out of the bag, and in one podcast we see Barrett trying to put it back in the bag.

I was referring, of course, to the Barrett we very briefly see in Shirley Harrison’s first edition, and in the video produced by Feldman. I conceded these were ‘honest’ impressions, and unless you played a part in how Barrett was depicted in those two productions, I am at a loss as to why you ‘resent the implication.’

It might strike you as unfair, but it is an unfortunate reality that the public revelation of ‘Hyde’ inside of Barrett was only revealed after he confessed to forging the diary—most notably in Paul Feldman’s book, so, fairly or unfairly, the impression is that these ugly revelations coincided with Feldman’s attempt to undermine Barrett’s affidavit.

This is not to suggest there was a concerted effort to disguise the ‘real Mike’ from the public back in 1992-93, but, rather, that it makes it difficult not to conclude that Barrett had been previously putting on an act. To put it differently, if what was learned about Barrett by 1999 was known in 1992, would the Diary have even been published?

Obviously, the fact that a man confesses does not prove he is guilty. It is entirely reasonable to insist on due diligence and proper verification. People make false confessions, and I can see how a reasonable person, confronted with Barrett’s crazy tales, might conclude that his 1995 confession was bogus.

I just don’t think that that’s the correct answer.

As for the auction slip, we can only draw conclusions on the evidence we have, not on the evidence we don’t have. Personally, I don’t find the advertisement for a ‘unused or partially used’ Victorian diary appreciably less damning than an actual receipt.

By the way, there is a date given in the middle of page 257 of ‘The Inside Story’ that appears problematic. 17 July 1992. Are you sure that is correct? If you want to know why I ask, send me a pm and I will forward you an attachment.

If not, that’s cool, too.

RP

[jmenges]

As for the auction slip, we can only draw conclusions on the evidence we have, not on the evidence we don’t have. Personally, I don’t find the advertisement for a ‘unused or partially used’ Victorian diary appreciably less damning than an actual receipt.

Well, here’s my simplistic conclusion Roger – Mike Barrett did not have an auction ticket because he did not obtain the ledger from
Outhwaite & Litherland. You believe he did purchase the ledger from the Auction House but, as far as you are concerned, it was not
necessary for him to produce the ticket to prove this was the case.

Fair enough.

By the way, there is a date given in the middle of page 257 of ‘The Inside Story’ that appears problematic. 17 July 1992. Are you sure that is correct? If you want to know why I ask, send me a pm and I will forward you an attachment.

I see you have now turned your attention to the Watch which Mike Barrett admitted to Alan Gray he put the scratches inside. I’m not
too sure how this squares up with your feeling 18 years ago that the Watch was an independent hoax created as a bit of fun and motivated
by somebody seeking publicity? I’m guessing that somebody was Robbie or Albert Johnson – or both – but it’s reassuring to remind myself
you will only be drawing conclusions on the evidence you have and not on the evidence you do not have. I will check our source for the
17^th July 1992 date and if we are wrong then I will let you know.

KS