Archive through 22 August 2001

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 22 August 2001

Casebook Message Boards: The Diary of Jack the Ripper: General Discussion: Taped coversation with Michael Barrett: Archive through 22 August 2001

Author: John Omlor Thursday, 26 July 2001 - 09:47 pm
Tape Tree Announcement!!!!!! Hello everyone. In the interest of a truly open and honest conversation and a completely fair-minded investigation, in which everyone has access to all relevant materials, I have arranged with Keith Skinner to make the following offer. Keith has a taped conversation, made with Mike Barrett (at Mike's home, I believe) on January 18th, 1995. This date is particularly interesting, because it falls between the time of Mike's two "confessions" and this is the meeting Mike talks about in his second confession, when he says "On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all called at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and started a tape recording off and my very words at the begining (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET FCKED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser'. I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaboarate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary., much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do." Now the tape that Mike is referring to, where he curses out Paul Feldman and talks about his relationship with Anne and allegedly collaborates with Keith and Shirley and wherein, Mike claims under oath, he was promised money in June of '95, can be heard and people can decide for themselves whether they think Mike is telling the truth in the tape or in his sworn affidavit or somehow in both or in neither. The meeting was indeed held with Shirley and Sally and an independent advisor (who does in fact say some stuff here and there, I believe). Keith graciously sent me a copy of these two cassette tapes (about 60 minutes each) and I let him know that I could not use them or write about them on these boards in any way unless they would be made available to everyone else who wanted to hear them. This, I believe, is the only* fair and reasonable and responsible thing to do. I do not want to write about such tapes and what is on them here on these boards knowing that some people have been allowed to hear them and some people have not. I do not want there to be a select and chosen few only who have been allowed to hear and discuss them. I believe that would be both unfair and needlessly exclusionary. And so I agreed to discuss the tapes and offer my reactions in public only if they would be made available to everyone. Keith kindly agreed to this, provided I arrange the tape tree. Here's what I have in mind. I'll dub two copies of the 2 cassette tapes and send them to two people (RJ and Chris George, perhaps, if they are interested). I'll do this provided RJ and Chris also agree to make at least one copy of the two cassettes and send them to whomever they choose who is also interested and who also agrees to make at least one copy and send those tapes to someone else. Now anyone who wants to or is able to can certainly make and distribute more than one copy, of course. But only one would be required. In this way, eventually, everyone would get a copy of the tapes, provided each member of the tree keeps his or her word and fulfills their obligation. I'd like to know what people think about this idea or if anyone has any more efficient way of distributing the material. I think it is very important that material such as this not be kept secret. That is why I petitioned Keith to make this little project possible. I was pleased when he readily agreed. I look forward to any responses or ideas. If no one has any objections or a better plan, I'll dub the two cassettes and send them to RJ and Chris once they, if interested and willing, send me their snail-mail addresses via private e-mail -- omlor@tampabay.rr.com. I hope that this way everyone eventually gets a chance to hear Mike Barrett tell one of his stories and to judge for themselves what they think his role in the creation and dissemination of this document might have actually been. Thanks very much everyone, --John
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 27 July 2001 - 01:39 am
Hi, John: I am ready and willing and will be e-mailing you privately. Many thanks to you and Keith for making the Barrett tapes available. Best regards Chris George
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 27 July 2001 - 03:15 am
John--O.k. Count me in. Cheers, RP
Author: John Omlor Friday, 27 July 2001 - 07:39 am
OK Guys, Now it becomes the task of those who are also interested to send word to either RJ or Chris, who will choose their recipients (who must themselves promise to do the same in terms of copying and distributing promptly) and send them the tapes and also forward any addresses and names of interested parties on to them (as I am about to do to RJ and Chris). In the end, we should all have them. Thanks in advance, everyone, for your participation in this. --John PS: Once you two guys have chosen your own recipients you can post a short word here (or on the announcements board perhaps), and people will know who to send their requests to next.
Author: John Hacker Friday, 27 July 2001 - 01:23 pm
Hiya all, I would like to get in on the copying chain. A chance to hear those talks would be extremely interesting, and hopefully enlightening. However, the idea of copying tapes the tapes chain fashion is likely to result in inaudible copies after just a few generations. Each copy will have a little less quality then it's predecessor. What I would like to suggest is that that instead of tapes, that we attempt to get them burned onto CD. These could then be duplicated endlessly with no loss of quality. I would be willing to make and distribute a limited number of CD copies to people willing to make either CD or tape copies for others. I am at work at the moment so I can really take the time to think it through at the moment, but I give it some thought later tonight. If anyone out there would be interested in either receiving CDs or helping duplicate 'em, please post and let me know so that I can guage the interest level. John Hacker (Snark)
Author: Christopher T George Friday, 27 July 2001 - 02:05 pm
Hi, Snark: I don't have a CD burner but I think you are correct that copying one tape from another tape will result in loss of sound quality as new generations of tapes. Use of CDs thus sounds the best solution. I might also add that having heard the recording of Mike Barrett's April 1999 appearance at the Cloak and Dagger Club, the Liverpool accent is going to be an issue for the untrained ear. Any loss of clarity could become a real problem in trying to precisely understand what Mike is saying. Some may find his "Scouse" accent to be difficult enough to comprehend without potential deterioration in the sound. And I come from Liverpool!!! All the best Chris George
Author: John Omlor Friday, 27 July 2001 - 05:52 pm
Hi Chris and Snark, The tapes are of fair quality and although I am having no trouble with Mike's accent and can understand the conversation fairly well, a good set of headphones does help. I have no problem if someone wants to put them onto a CD. I wouldn't be able to do this but I'm happy to have Chris or RJ or anyone who wants send a copy to Snark or anyone else who has the technology and have them burned. Heck, I'd like a CD too, if possible. I'll dub the first two copies of the tapes once I get RJ and Chris's snail mail addresses via e-mail. They'll be on their way poste haste. Let me know if I can help out with possible production of the CD Thanks all, --John
Author: John Hacker Friday, 27 July 2001 - 09:08 pm
Good evening folks, Before I make any promises I can't keep I want to try burning a CD from an audio tape to make sure that I can get it working. I have done it before, but my tape deck has been packed for over a year since I moved and I need to dig it out and give it a test run. I'll dig it out first thing tommorow and see what happens. Once I've made one CD copy, duplicating others should be easy. But with 2 hours of tapes would take 2 CDs and about 1 hour to dupe, so it might take a while to get them all made, I use the machine the burner pretty much constantly. One cautionary note is that a few older CD players might not play recordable CDs properly. I have never personally encountered one that doesn't though. John, Assuming it all works I'd be glad to provide a set of CDs for you, as well as for Keith Skinner if he would be interested. John Hacker (Snark)
Author: Guy Hatton Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 04:56 am
Perhaps Spryder could encode the recordings as MP3s and post them on the Casebook for everyone to download? Cheers Guy
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 28 July 2001 - 02:27 pm
Hi Guy. There's about two hours worth of talk, I think (two 60 minute cassettes). Wouldn't that be a very big MP3? I'm asking honestly, since I really don't know this. And wouldn't posting them here take up tons of space? Again, I don't know, so I'm asking. I'm happy to let Stephen try such a thing if he wants. Meanwhile, the tapes will be off to RJ and Chris on Monday. Just for the record -- I missed out on a quick 120 bucks because of one stupid putt that hung just on the edge of the hole today. I'm in that sort of mood where I could easily hurt myself. Now I must shower off the dust and drink until I no longer care. All the best, diary-heads, --John
Author: Guy Hatton Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 05:58 am
John - If, as you say, there's two hours' worth of material, then it would probably be quite a large single file, but could perhaps be split into four or more chunks (one file per cassette side?). I'm not sure how low a bitrate you could go down to for speech - but the 128k stereo commonly used for music, which equates to about 1Mb of data per minute of audio, would be excessive. My guess is that each 30 minute chunk could be squashed to around 8 - 10 Mb without too much quality compromise. It's just a matter of whether people think it's worth it. Personally, the one I really want to hear is the Billy Graham interview. What was going on there? All the Best Guy
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:14 am
Hello all, After a few frantic hours of searching I managed locate my tape deck. A few more hours of digging and cursing turned up the missing cables. Argh. I got it all hooked up and tested it's working really well. I took one of my sons audio tapes and burned 2 30 minute tracks onto a CD. The tape I used was a tape to tape dub of an old mono sound source so it should be a pretty fair field test. The sound quality was very clear considering the age of the tape deck. Now all I need to get started is to beg for a copy of the tapes from one of the lucky possesors! So if Chris, RJ, or John could see their way clear to sending me a set, I can start making some CDs to distribute to those who are interested in getting 'em. The tricky part is of course to figure out HOW to distribute them. I don't really have a clear idea as to how many people would be interested in receiving copies, so I am somewhat hesitant to make a blanket offer to provide them to all requesters. Unfortunately I don't have automated equipment so it's going to need to be done one CD at a time, so my total output capacity is limited to 1 or 2 discs on most days. If you are interested in getting ahold of a set of CDs, please let me know and I will try to accomodate you as best I can. I will definately get a set out to anyone with a burner who is willing to make and pass alone a copy or two. Tapes made from the CDs should also have a fairly good quality so if those who receive CDs would be willing to pass on a tape or two as well to others, that would help get these intertesting recordings distributed. Thanks, John Hacker (Snark)
Author: Alegria Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 10:19 am
John, I think that people who wish a copy of a CD should send you either blank CDs or money for them. If 20 people want them it could be expensive on your part to produce and mail them. Ally
Author: John Omlor Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 11:04 am
Hi Snark, Very cool. Tell you what, if you send me a copy of your snail mail address (to omlor@tampabay.rr.com), I'll make a third set of tapes today and send them off to you along with the ones I am sending to Chris and RJ. Then you can burn away. I probably wouldn't need the CD, as I have the tapes and they are still good quality. But others with burners might want to volunteer to take a copy of your cd and then burn some for others. They could send you mail promising to burn a few copies and you could forward them the names of people who have sent you requests. Thanks, seriously, and I'll watch for your address. --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 02:28 pm
Thanks Snark and John, for all your help. I know Keith will appreciate it, and so do I, considering I heard the tapes last year, and couldn't comment (or rather, chose not to) for the same reasons John gave, until Keith was willing and able to find a way for everyone to have the opportunity to hear them too. Posts from Keith follow. Love, Caz
Author: John Hacker Sunday, 29 July 2001 - 07:14 pm
Alegria, I am not sure what CDs are running these days, but I'll probably pick up a bulk pack with some paper sleeves instead of jewel cases. Those are probably under 50 cents a disk. I will need to check on the cost of mailers and postage etc, but I don't expect it to get too expensive. I would think that by the time it did get prohibitively expensive I would pass the "too much time investment" threshold. Rather then ask people to send CDs or money, if anyone feels that they should contributing they could make a small (or large) donation to the Casebook. (Repeat after me "We love the Casebook. We love the Casebook") If there are more interested parties than I can accommodate, hopefully there will be some others with CD burners or folks willing to dupe tapes from the CDs to that everyone who is interested gets to hear them. John Hacker (Snark)
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 07:20 am
Hi John, Keith asked me this morning if you had made any observations about the tapes yet. He is really looking forward to your input on the boards. Don't forget that, now no one can be accused of talking about evidence that's not going to be made available to all, I guess you could start making observations whenever you're ready (hint hint, nudge nudge ). I was particularly struck by the raw emotion in Mike's voice (unless it was all part of the act, of course), when he talked about all the time and effort Anne watched him put into trying to work out what the diary was, and where it could have come from (pre-Devereux), only to have her try to stop him going public, and then later, when his life had already been turned upside-down, come out with her 'in the family' story, which, whether true or not, still made him look a complete fool, because it suggested she had kept him in the dark all that time. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 10:13 am
Hello Caroline, Please tell Keith that I will be more than happy to offer my opinions, conflicted as they are, about the tapes here on this board. But I would prefer to wait a few days so that at least three more people (John and RJ and Chris) have had a chance to hear them. Still, by way of a trailer or preview of coming attractions, let me say three small things, make three partial and soon-to-be-developed comments about the recordings. 1.) Chris, John, and RJ: They are on their way. They are fascinating and enlightening, I think. 2.) The Mike Barrett I heard in those tapes seems to me to be willing to play almost any card whatsoever if he thinks it will get him a sympathetic ear or a drink. 3.) If he is that pleased with himself for finding a few latin quotations clearly listed in the back of a dictionary, he must be positively beaming inside if he really wrote this book. (Oh yes, and one more thing, he speaks highly of no one, not Allen Gray, not Melvin, not Paul Feldman (of course), not Keith or Shirley, not Anne (although he does repeatedly swear his love for her and does seem genuinely hurt by her not telling him the family provenance story first, as Caz suggests), not even his dead friend Tony. Mike seems, by January of 1995, to dislike everyone in his life. That is sad.) But I've already said more that I wanted. When Chris, RJ and John have had a listen, I'll say a good deal more. Thanks Caz, and thanks to Keith and please ask him to be patient. Bye, --John
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 10:59 am
Hi, John et al.: John, I am very much looking forward to getting the tape. Thanks for sending it. I will be pleased to offer my reactions to it after I receive it. And thank you, Keith, for making this recording available to those of us who wish to hear it. On a couple of lighter notes: 1) I have seen the California noir novelist James Ellroy interviewed a couple of times recently. John, judging by your photo, are you Ellroy's Floridian twin brother? 2) Walking into Washington, D.C.'s Union Station among a swollen pack of Baltimore commuters this morning I was reminded of the line in Eliot's "The Waste Land" about the commuters crossing Blackfriars Bridge into the City of London. I remembered his line, "I had not thought death had undone so many." I recalled my hypothesis that our Diary penman was influenced by Eliot, and that the peach imagery in Prufrock might have been the inspiration for the Diary lines about slaughtering a woman being like ripping open a ripe peach. A satirical Diary line occurred to me: "I riped a peach!" Best regards Chris
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 11:13 am
Hi John, I will. Hi Chris, All, I will be passing on all posts, including any specific messages for Keith, until I go off on my holidays, in a few days' time, to Benalmadena, on Spain's Costa del Sol, for two weeks of sheer unadulterated laziness and gluttony. I'm not sure how I'll ever catch up afterwards, if you all write too much! Chris, I think the Barretts lived in the same house as the Williams did previously. Mike mentions this on the January 1995 tape, when asked about the reason for the pseudonym, and says something to the effect that Shirley already knew this checked out, so why was she asking again. It makes sense if we consider that Mike had to give his address so that Doreen could write to him following their initial phone call, but wasn't ready to give her his real name yet. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Tuesday, 31 July 2001 - 05:33 pm
Uh, what was that Chris? Oh, sorry, no. I don't know the writer you mention.. Sorry, you caught me a bit off guard as I'm afraid I was lost in dreamy thoughts and delicious visions of Caz lazily lying topless on the Costa del Sol and being delivered big frozen drinks by adoring young Spanish beach attendants who go home at night and dream about her milky white skin shining in the sun and sand of their Spanish homeland as they wash the sweat of the day's work and the day's fantasies off of their smooth, dark skin and their hard, flat stomachs. Uh, Ellroy, no, I don't recognize the name... Now, what were we saying about Mike Barrett... I need a cigarette, and I don't even smoke. All the best, --John
Author: Scott Nelson Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 12:56 am
Now really, John, you must learn to treat fellow posters with respect! This is a serious Website (?). If you had written the above post several months ago, it would have been immediately deleted by the Board "Moderator". Happy Holidays Caz. Unfortunately, it looks like the diary/watch investigation is more or less permanently at an impasse. That's too bad. What many board writers don't realize is the vastness of their reading audience. But the arguments or positions have become circular, tedious and are getting very boring. Maybe we should try kick-starting the investigation again by inquiries into people who have recently surfaced who may have some knowledge of the diary origins. To Shirley Harrison: anything to report on Tracy Steinbach? She came to the Board almost a year ago claiming some sort of Maybrick ancestory. Does she have any information on the diary origins? How about Steve Powell? Sorry, just ranting on a very rare day off from work.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 06:46 am
Hi John, You transported me right back to Lloret in 1970, when my mum and dad and brothers had all gone to a bull fight, and I was left sunning myself alone with a bacardi and and a good � sixteen, and far too shy to go topless. But he of the smooth skin and the flat stomach wasn�t Spanish � he was eighteen and from Wiltshire and he wanted to be a vet and he wanted me.... And I let him slip through my fingers some time later back home in cold cold London, when I thought I�d met another man of my dreams. Seven years later I knew I hadn�t, and Caz had changed her mind - all too late, far too late.... I shall print off your kind post, John, because it's bound to be deleted as wildly off topic. But Keith will no doubt give me grief for having inadvertently distracted you from concentrating on Mike's tapes Now, where was I? Hi Scotty, Thanks, I do hope they will be happy holidays. I might even miss all you guys here a bit. I agree that many of our arguments here are beginning to look like the tape is just going round again. I too wonder if Peter Birchwood has made any progress with the Australian front, or what Tracy Steinbach feels about the diary, and if she has any family information that might help show if the diary author got anything fatally wrong (such as Michael writing somewhere that he�d never attempted to write verse in his entire life ), or else had a grasp of Maybrick family life above the literature available to a modern forger. Love, Caz
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:24 am
But Scotty, What could be more respectful than making someone the object of desire, especially from a safe distance, and especially by handsome young Spaniards? (Yes, everyone, I know all about the dangers of turning women into objects and why the whole courtly love tradition was sexist, but jeez, sometimes one just has to let one's mind play a little, no? ) Scotty -- You're right, of course, about the inevitable repetition built into any discussion of this mystery (and the one that occupies the other boards as well, by the way -- although the loop is much smaller in this case because the amount of collected, recorded or documented evidence is still much smaller). This repetition is the result of a fascinating critical and interpretive impasse. We have an unsigned, signed text -- a text, that is to say, where we do not, for very good reasons, believe the signature. We have almost no material evidence as to the identity of its real author. So we read. We read the book and the statements of those involved and the reports of those who know those involved and we read the possibilities that remain concerning those that we have not yet met that might also have been involved. We read, a lot. And reading is one of those genuinely heterogeneous activities where people's own subjectivity often takes over and we learn more about them than we do about what they are reading. So the discussion becomes as much about us as it is about the case or about what we have been reading. And only the arrival of new, reliable evidence, which may still be open to contradictory interpretations, can change this pattern. And when it arrives, we'll have to read it as well (as people are about to do with the Mike B. tapes from January 18th, '95.). But then, of course, we'll have all the same problems of pure subjectivity again. It's inevitable and although it's one of the things that makes life both fascinating and frustrating, it's also one of the things that can make arriving at historical truth a real challenge. So hang in there and know that the discussion is bound to be repetitive and personal and to plod along slower than the little guy at the bottom of this post, but that if we look at it as an experiment in having fun while reading, it doesn't have to be all that painful. Thanks, and please be assured that I have nothing but the hardest respect for my dear friend Caz. "Highest," I meant "highest," really I did... --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 08:47 am
Hi John, I don't think Scotty was being too serious with his comments. So I don't think you or he need have any hard feelings towards each other. On the other hand, you can both be as hard as you like on me...... Love, Caz PS I'm off to unpack my daughter's case (she came back from Hungary late last night and has only just come out of her bedroom - it's nearly 2pm here now), wash all her stuff and start packing again for Spain (14 bikini bottoms each should just about cover it).
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 09:05 am
Hi Caz, Yes, I wasn't really taking Scotty too seriously, but I suspect there are some out there who might think I was being a bit presumptuous. Just wanted to ease their minds. Adios, mi amiga, --John
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 01 August 2001 - 04:55 pm
Hi John, Well, I'm here for another couple of days yet, so I'll save my adios 'til later. Hasta manana guapo. Love, Caz
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 07:32 am
From Keith Skinner To Melvin Harris, Chris George & John Omlor Melvin I hope that you too will be given the opportunity of listening to the Mike Barrett tapes � recorded in Liverpool on January 18th 1995. I express this hope because, in your letter to Shirley Harrison, dated February 4th 1995, you finish with the following PS. :- PS. Since finishing this letter I have received a copy of an alarming statement made by Barrett. I enclose a copy. This man should be allowed to state his position freely, without any inducements to please either believers or doubters. Because a large sum of money seems to be on promise, but only IF he goes along with the Anne Barrett line, then any testimony endorsing that line is null and void, as a matter of course. But in this case, his witnessed repudiation means that you may not make use of anything said on those tapes. They are now meaningless, and I understand that an enlarged statement about this visit has since been made by Barrett, in which the repudiation is repeated and made even stronger by extra details. I have not yet seen this statement. This is an unfortunate turn of events, and since a crime is involved, can we, from now on, have this investigation conducted on a strictly equitable level? And in a letter to Robert Smith, dated February 13th 1995, you write :- �This man [Mike Barrett] may well be erratic, but he has to be listened to with care and not offered any inducements to make him lean one way or the other.� During the Liverpool session with Mike Barrett, Alan Gray�s name was mentioned and I believe I am correct in recalling that Mike implied � he may even have stated � that Mr Gray would take a bottle of whisky with him whenever he visited him. Whether or not this actually happened, I do not know � and certainly Alan Gray should be given the right to respond to this allegation, if I have accurately represented what Mike implied or told us. But allowing it did occur � and bearing in mind your dictum and professional code of conduct � I was wondering what status, or reliability, should be given to any unsupported hearsay evidence which Mr Gray might have induced in this manner � and then conveyed to you? Two final points. 1) If Chris George and John Omlor are agreeable, then I would like to send to each, photocopies of your letters sent to Shirley Harrison and Robert Smith, so that both men can judge their context and confirm to the board that I am not misrepresenting what you have written. 2) Why not put a decisive end to all of this acrimony by attending the Oxford Summit in October, bringing with you your embargoed information? Show it privately and exclusively to Chris George � and if Chris agrees it definitely and conclusively identifies the supposed modern day hoaxers, then I, for one, will accept his verdict � and apologise unreservedly and wholeheartedly to all of those people I have doubted and challenged over the last nine years, whose views and opinions differ from the ones I presently hold.
Author: John Omlor Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 09:51 am
Hi Keith (and scribe), Having heard the tapes, where Mike is supposed to have been promised money "only IF he goes along with the Anne Barrett line," and hearing what Mike chooses to say (true or false) about Alan Gray in those tapes, I would indeed be most interested to see the photocopies of the letters from Melvin that you mention. And your offer to Melvin about having Chris examine any material Melvin might have and then promising to completely change your opinion and offer apologies all around if it does indeed identify the book's author(s), seems to me both fair and generous. That way, you wouldn't even have to see the sacred secrets yourself. More details about Mike on Gray and Mike on the money he thinks he's due will come later, after Chris and RJ and John have a good listen. But yes, Keith, send along anything you think worth sending. All the best, --John
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 09:56 am
Hi, Keith: I would of course be prepared to read anything that you send my way. Best regards Chris George
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 10:59 am
Hi John, Chris, In case this is my last visit to the casebook before I get on the , I will be faxing through these latest messages to Keith today. Anything else may have to wait a couple of weeks. (Oh joy ) Love, Caz PS Chris, I have one more post to you from Keith, which I think would be more appropriate to The Maybrick Diary board, so I'll see you over there in a minute.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 11:08 am
Hi, Caz: See you on the other board. Have a great time on your hol. Don't drink too many fudgepuckers. I believe the combination of fudgepuckers and hot, direct sun can be fairly potent. Bon voyage Chris
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 11:43 am
From Keith Skinner To Chris George and John Omlor Gentlemen� I thank you both for very kindly agreeing to my request. The material will go in the post to you this evening for your independent assessment and deliberations that I have not, irresponsibly, taken out of context or misrepresented anything which Melvin has written to either Shirley Harrison or Robert Smith. Best Wishes Keith
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 11:46 am
Thanks Chris - I'll go easy.
Author: John Hacker Thursday, 02 August 2001 - 06:54 pm
Hello all, Thanks to Mr. Omlor, I am now in possession of a set of tapes with which to start making CDs from. I will start the process of creating sound files from the tapes tonight, power permitting. Due to the high heat and incompetent local electrical company I've had 6 power outages in the past 7 days. Sigh. I have not had a chance to listen to the tapes, to see how clear the sound is, but I will probably try to enhance the sound quality a bit before I burn them off to CD. I've never tried it before, but I have some software that should help. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'll let everyone know how the experiment turns out. Once I have a master set of CDs burned, I'll be able to duplicate them assembly line fashion, and I'll start getting them sent out hither and yon. John Hacker (Snark)
Author: John Hacker Monday, 06 August 2001 - 07:28 pm
Hello all, I've managed to record all of the tapes to .WAV files and have filtered out a lot of the hiss and seriously boosted the signal strength of the original tapes. (They can be played now with the volume at 9 or 10 o'clock instead of 2 o'clock on my system.) I still need to listen to them all to make sure that the sound is consistant, but them seem pretty good to me. MUCH better than the original sound. The only complaint that some might have is that the process of hiss removal has created some very odd sound artifacts where there were faint indistinct sounds on the original tape. On those "edge of hearing" sounds, there is now a very slightly "mechanical" flavor to them. This doesn't seem to detract from the quality of the primary voices in anyway, and those sounds that this happens are not distinguishable on the original tape. I can boost the strength of the original sound without the hiss removal, but it's nowhere near as strong of a signal and there is a great deal more hiss. So I guess the question is would people prefer edited or original sound? If anyone has any thoughts on the subject, please let me know here or in email. I still need to edit the sound files to fit onto CDs. There were two 90 minute tapes, so I need to cut the four 45 minute files down so they'll fit on 2 or 3 CDs. Then it's burning time. John Hacker (Snark)
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 05:09 am
Hi All, It's all gone rather quiet here. Has anyone else managed to listen to the tapes yet? I'm dying to hear people's impressions. Don't be shy. Chris? RJ? Any more observations from John Omlor? Love, Caz
Author: R.J.P. Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 05:34 pm
Caz--Hello. After paying close attention to the diary debate all these months, I admit that it was quite interesting to hear some of the key players discussing the diary on tape. Here are some of my initial impressions. One question though, I can't recall...who was the one gentelemen who's voice we hear [not Keith, obviously] the so-called 'independent advisor'? Anyone we know? Anyway, my impressions. The main feeling I was left with was that Mike Barrett was not being candid. So, all in all, the tape didn't strike me as a very believable recantation of his earlier confession. At several points Mike seemed to be evasive. At other times, he seemed to be making things up as he went along --- and this particularly seemed to get him into trouble; his story changed almost in mid-sentence at times. As much as Keith & Shirley tried to keep him on track, Mike drifted from point to point to point [Mike digressed so much that he made Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy seem like a blunt & direct narrator] and he made such a strange confused web of tales that I started to suspect that it was all part of some 'act'. A case in point was Mike's discussion of Tony D's relationship to the diary. In theory, if we were to believe AG's story, she merely handed Tony the diary wrapped up in brown paper while on his doorstep. Tony then gave the diary to Mike, still wrapped up. So, in other words, Tony was an ignorant middle-man. But as Mike now tells it on this tape, things suddenly get a little strange. Now we have Tony D. [or so Mike claims] owning his own private copy of RWE's Liverpool Tales and refusing to lend it out. This makes Mike so curious that he goes out and buys his own copy, wherein he finds out the diary's author is Maybrick. [This was news to me!] This seems riddled with problems. First, this is in direct conflict with Mike's earlier story. Second, it tends to conflict with Anne's claim that TD was nothing but a clueless handler of the diary [if Tony wasn't aware of the diary's content why would he refuse to lend Mike the book? Why would he anyway? Weren't we told TD 'wasn't a reader'?] Third, it goes against the supposed physical evidence--viz: Paul Feldman has stated the TD's copy of RWE's book had Mike's signature in it. So here, at least, it seems that Mike is caught in a blatant dishonesty, which would, to my mind, suggests that his claims on this tape should be looked at with suspicion. I would suggest that Mike may have had an agenda of his own for these statements, and might even hazard a few guesses as to what that agenda was... but not not in public. There are several more interesting things that I can only guess at. It is difficult to know what to make of them from the context of the discussion. Near the end of the tape, Mike had an envelope to be delivered to AG. He made a point of mentioning the handwriting on the envelope, and suggested that Anne would definitely contact him once she recognized the handwriting. This is strange stuff. What do you make of it? There are several sealed envelopes in this whole muddled affair. I wonder what was in that one, and who wrote it for Mike? All in all, I am more then ever of the opinion that Mike & Anne know more about the Maybrick diary than they have ever said. I think they are both still being evasive. Personally, I guess I have to disagree with your intuition on this one. I don't think Mike's strange verbal gymanstics suggest that he is ignorant of the diary's origins or believes it to be genuine. Quite the contrary. Much in this tape is too personal for public consumption. Regardless of Mike's involvement in the Maybrick fiasco, I think he was genuinely appalled that his personal life was hung out on the laundry line for all to see. Some would say he deserves it, I reckon. But I tend to feel for the old boy. I don't know how long it will take to make its way to Australia, but I've kept up my end of the bargain, and after a short delay due to some technical difficulties, I've sent the tape along to Steve Powell. Cheers, RP
Author: John Omlor Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 08:11 pm
Hi RJ, If you wrote the following to me, then you misread my own position here: "All in all, I am more then ever of the opinion that Mike & Anne know more about the Maybrick diary than they have ever said. I think they are both still being evasive. Personally, I guess I have to disagree with your intuition on this one. I don't think Mike's strange verbal gymanstics suggest that he is ignorant of the diary's origins or believes it to be genuine. Quite the contrary." My intuition is not at all that Mike is or is not ignorant of anything. My own intuition on these tapes is that nothing Mike says can be trusted. [And that Mike did seem to be hurt at the thought of Anne telling Paul her story but not him --whether she did or not, I do think Mike was probably hurt by the idea, made public in Paul's book, that she would.] That's why I wrote, above: "But what can we believe from Mike's claims on these tapes? "Logically, of course, the answer remains 'nothing.' Just as that is the answer to the question 'what can we believe from his original "confessions?"' Just as that is the only logical answer to the question 'what can we believe from anything Mike has ever said?' Nothing." But I do have a real problem with your conclusion. You write: "All in all, I am more then ever of the opinion that Mike & Anne know more about the Maybrick diary than they have ever said." But your own post lays out clear reason after clear reason why Mike is probably telling a bunch of lies and cannot be trusted. So if you can't trust him when he chooses to say he didn't write the diary, why in the world would you trust him when he chooses to say he did? If Mike lies consistently and thoroughly, even regularly contradicting his own earlier stories and even promising to swear, on all that is sacred to him, to directly contradictory tales, then how on earth can we logically decide whether he knows more or less or everything or anything about the actual origins of the diary at all? If he's a thorough-going liar, then it seems to me impossible to conclude that he knows more than he is saying or that he knows less than he wants us to think or anything at all about what he might or might not really know -- since everything -- both his confession where he tells his "I wrote it story" and his confession where he tells us here his "I know it's genuine" story and every little tale in between -- everything is obviously an act put on for ulterior motives (to gain the favor of his listeners at the time, whether they are Alan Gray and his confessors or Keith and Shirley or whomever) and consequently, the truth about how much Mike really knows remains utterly unavailable to us. That's really the only fair and logical conclusion available at the moment concerning Mike's multi-narratives and their many direct conflicts (consider for instance the cruel and snide jokes Mike makes at Gray's expense on the tapes and the cracks he makes about Shirley and Keith in his second confession (a confession which has its own false or exaggerated claims, as evidenced by this tape); or the Outhwaite book-buying story as told in confession number one and then as told in a completely different manner here). Add to that his own obvious lack of self-awareness, about his own feelings concerning his attitudes towards certain religions for instance or concerning the nature of his own alcoholism, and you have a real problem. Because then not only do we have someone who is obviously not telling the truth and who is quite happily contradicting himself regularly and thoroughly without regard to detail or consistency, but we also have someone who is apparently even unaware of his own attitudes and the true nature of his own personal beliefs and desires. To decide, within all that, that such a person "knows more than they are saying" or is making stuff up and "knows less than he is saying" or knows anything for sure, would seem a brave folly to me. I must say, though, that I do believe Mike when he says he wants to talk to Anne. He has a voice there, at that point, and a rhetoric of language with which I am thoroughly familiar. I know the voice of a man who fears he has lost forever the woman he thinks he loves or loved once, the woman he believes loves or once loved him. I know the desperation and the panic and the sound of a man for whom this becomes the most important thing all day every day and all night every night, awake or asleep, and who gets gripped by that fear and becomes open to trying whatever is necessary to get in touch with her to have just a single word.... I know that voice, of course, because I have used it myself. I have been there, as I'm sure many of us have at one time or another. I do not think that was an act. Beyond that, I do not know how anyone can say, from listening to Mike here (sounding less than believable) and reading the directly contradictory (and similarly less than believable) confessions, how much Mike does or does not know. Heck, I'm not even sure I know how much Mike wants me to think he does or does not know. But I'm fascinated to hear other reactions to this Rorschach of a tape. Still struggling with a snail's connection, --John
Author: R.J.P. Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:17 pm
John--- Well, all I can say is that whether or not you have a "problem" with my conclusion is completely outside of my control. It is still my conclusion. Some have implied that what we have in this tape is Mike Barrett being candid. Some (including you) have suggested that Mike has "recanted" his confession. Which is fine, of course. Caroline has stated her belief that Mike hasn't the faintest idea of where the diary came from, and has implied (she can correct me if I am wrong) that Mike believed the diary was genuine. Paul Begg has given his opinion that Mike Barrett always struck him as being most believable when he was stating that he (Barrett) believed the diary was authentic. But after listening to this tape, my own opinion is entirely different. I don't feel that Mike is particularly believable when he states on this tape that he "knows" the diary to be genuine. Further, I feel that it is likely that Mike was motivated by ulterior motives (for instance, to see AG and his daughter) when being interviewed. [Shirley Harrison seems to give a sigh near the end of the tape, as if--understandably!---in exhasperation, stating something along the lines that she hoped that Mike was being honest for honesty sake. Which I took to mean that she hoped he wasn't saying this because he thought it would patch things up with Anne and help control the damage he had done to the diary. So I think I am not alone in my doubts here]. You can disagree if you like, but to my way of thinking, I was particularly interested in the specifics that Mike felt worth protesting and evading and being jocular about. He seems contradictory about Tony Devereux's role. If what we have here is Mike being candid, why would he be double-dealing with this particular part of the story? If Feldman is telling the truth (and I think he is) then Mike is demonstratably lying at this point. If this is Mike being on the up & up about not knowing where the diary has come from then perhaps we have a problem. Why did Mike evidently try to 'set up' Anne Graham by giving her the description to the inside of TD's house? Does this imply anything about what Mike knows or doesn't know? In the tape Mike also protests (too much, methinks) that he had never heard of the Bernard Ryan book. I am curious why Shirley asked about this particular book. When asked about the Blue Coat Art shop & Harold Brough, Mike became particularly digressive. We are given a long ramble about Liverpool geography and one-way streets. When the Crashaw quote comes up we are suddenly (abruptly, I thought) given a long ramble about scotch. I find no fault in the interviewers, they tried their damnedest to keep Mike on-track. But, at the end of the day, to use a familiar phrase, I felt MB was utterly down-playing his earlier confessions. It would be most instructive, I think, to compare this tape to some of the tapes of Mike's conversations with Gray. Perhaps Mike didn't give too much useful information there, either. Some, quite understandably, might come to the conclusion that Mike knows nothing. Others might even come to the conclusion that MB, through some quirk in his personality, is unable to be candid. Others might suggest that he knows, but has never given a completely true account. My hunch is that it is a combination of the last two suggestions.