Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

One thing I keep coming back to. David, is this paragraph in Mike's 1995 affidavit:

"During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severely ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990."

Now, of course, throughout the affidavit, he gets into a terrible muddle over dates, and this paragraph is no exception: TD actually died in August 1991. Nonetheless, what is very significant is the claim that the Diary was completed before TD died, which in no way can be reconciled with a completion date in, say, March/ April 1992, 6 months after his death.

John, that passage, on its own, is very easy to reconcile with a completion date of the diary in April 1992.

It just depends on how you interpret the word "writing". Or rather what context it is being used in.

It could simply mean that, while Tony was ill (in 1991), the first draft of the diary was written and that draft was completed by August 1991 when Tony died. The scrapbook was then acquired in March and the actual fake diary was then written in April.

We face the same problem with our posts today. If Mike dictated the words to Anne to write into the scrapbook did Mike "write" the diary or did Anne "write" it? One has to use phrases like "write with a pen" to make clear what one is talking about.

If you look at the last paragraph of my post #1224 above, I made this very point about the meaning of "writing".

[David Orsam]

I see this statement is made:

"To date there is no evidence that anyone had heard about any such diary until Mike made his first call to Doreen's office on March 9th 1992."

This is not correct. Young Caroline said she had heard about the diary prior to such a call being made. Anne said that she had heard about the diary prior to such a call being made. Whether that evidence is true or not is another matter but it exists.

But if the statement is supposed to be that there is no evidence that anyone outside of the Barrett family had heard about the diary prior to 9 March 1992 then, Doreen/Shirley/Sally aside, exactly the same is true of the period between 9th March 1992 and 13th April 1992 when Mike managed to keep very quiet about the diary's existence with respect to outsiders.

[David Orsam]

One can, of course, walk with a stick if one chooses (albeit a very extreme form of acting), and pretend to have limited use of one side, but how does one manage to "age visibly" within a few months? Perhaps Mike used makeup as part of his acting tools too.

[David Orsam]

As I have been quoted on the subject, I think it's worth me stating that the little red diary would only have been known to have been useless for forgery purposes once Mike saw it. The advertisement itself was perfect for forgery purposes, especially if by "blank" one really did mean "blank."

[David Orsam]

It is completely true, as I mentioned to David, the Battlecrease provenance is my preferred option, just as a modern hoax is yours but I don’t know if I’m right. I’m only kicking it around like everybody else. It stands flatly against Anne Graham’s story of the origins of the Diary which, for all I know, still may be true.

Keith, while I don't say it necessarily affected RJ, I think there has been some serious confusion over your views and I would suggest that it was caused by your widely reported 2007 comment that:

"If I went into a court of law with the documents in my possession, I think the jury would reach a verdict and say "yes, this Diary came out of Battlecrease House".

Combined with the claim that we were told in this forum you found the Battlecrease provenance "compelling", it has for some time, I think, been the general belief that you had positively concluded that the diary came out of Battlecrease beyond any reasonable doubt.

However, it transpires – from what I have read on the other forum (and please correct me if I am wrong) – that you did not mean to say "court of law" in 2007, you meant to say "court of history" (whatever that is) – so that the burden of proof is presumably much lower - and, from what you have posted in this forum, you do not use the word "compelling" in the normally accepted sense, with regards to an evidential issue, to mean "not able to be refuted or resisted" or "overwhelming" but, apparently, in the lesser sense of "evoking interest" or "captivating".

When I was in email discussions with you a while back, I certainly got the impression that you were not certain by any means of the provenance of the diary which is why I made the now famous comment that I was "unconvinced" that you still held the views you were reported to hold in 2007. This seemed to cause an extraordinary controversy at the time but I must say that I now feel completely vindicated by what you have posted in this forum.

Anyway, whether I'm vindicated or not (and, of course, I am! hehe), I think that the above might explain why some people are, or have been, of the view that your own beliefs are more strongly held than they actually are.

[David Orsam]

RJ - quick question if you don't mind. These Alan Gray tapes of Mike Barrett speaking about the diary. Can I ask when they were recorded and for what purpose?

[rjpalmer]

Great question, but even after listening to the tapes, one can still ask what their purpose was, and evidently Keith and I have drawn entirely different conclusions about their worth and their meaning! The tapes I heard (and I never had a complete set, I think there were 12 or 14 originally) dated, I believe, to late 1994 and early 1995, mostly 1995, but I would want to recheck this, or perhaps Keith can enlighten you about the exact dates. From the context it is obvious that they are covering many of the same bizarre episodes mentioned by Paul Feldman in his book. They are long rambling dialogues of Gray attempting to pick Barrett's brains on various issues surrounding the Diary, Anne Graham, Paul Feldman, a proposed film deal, allegedly unpaid royalty payments, etc. There is a lot on the table, but most of what I heard has to do with Mike's "off the cuff" remarks about the Diary. At times Barrett is not inclined to go further without serious goading or a quick trip to the off-license. One has to read between the lines, but from the context of these discussions, and the letter reprinted in Harrison's book (mentioned in a previous post) it certainly appears to me that Gray had some half-baked scheme to sell Mike's glorious confessions for profit (or at least was telling Mike this to motivate him) and Barrett was only *half-heartedly* playing along. [Warning: subjective opinion]. So, in this sense, one could understand why the Inside authors would suggest that Gray was helping Mike "prove that he had hoaxed the Diary." That is certainly ONE way of looking at this part of it, but to me, this is far too simplistic to be of any value. It is entirely apparent that Barrett came to hate Feldman and wanted to derail his projects--true--but Barrett also made £25,000 off of royalties and--this is the big one--there was still the potential for a major film deal. This is the unspoken (or sometime explicitly spoken) elephant in the room. It was in the works. So, let's use our imaginations. Barrett can derail Feldman and make £25 from an obscure self-published 20 page monologue of "How I Forged Something in Liverpool" (akin to Steve Powell's effort in Australia) or he could potentially rake in tens of thousands of pounds from his share of a Hollywood movie. Any intelligent person would conclude that Barrett's motivations MUST have been entirely conflicted--and further complicated by his own emotional turmoil, divorce, and alcoholism-- and, to me, this is precisely what we hear in the tapes. At one moment he is as angry as a red-hot fireplace poker and drops what to me sounds like a legitimate hint of inside knowledge--such as Bernard Ryan--and at other times he rambles on so stupidly that I have genuine sympathy and understand completely why Keith or Shirley would finally throw up their hands in disgust and conclude that he knew absolutely nothing. At other times he even sounds intelligent and rational. I suspect there are a few more smoking guns if one was to listen to the whole arsenal of tapes, but never does Mike leave me with the impression that he is playing entirely straight with Gray or that this was an entirely serous effort to reveal "whodunnit." Quite the contrary, and I suppose Pink Moon can appreciate what I'm saying. It was simply not in Mike's DNA to tell it straight. He is dropping hints, retracting, retracing, deliberately confusing, contradicting, telling the occasional verifiable truth, and just plain being Mike. Keith seems to have come to a different conclusion, that liars are simply liars, and I suppose one can understand that. I can't entirely prove it, because I wasn't there and don't know the exact circumstances, but to me Mike's Jan 5, 1995 affidavit was simply one man's effort to unify some of the more believable aspects of Barrett's ramblings into a digestible form. Sort of like Phil Spector stuck with the utterly thankless task of taking the mess that was left to him by the four warring Beatles and piecing it together into the Let It Be album. No one was entirely happy with the result, and Phil got all the blame. And we all know how he ended up!

[James_J]

Morning all, just passing on the latest from KS

On post #1252, I wrote the following:-

But what worried me Roger is that in spite of you now acknowledging it was David who requested the O&L information and I did not initiate the discussion, you chose to assume I had some hidden agenda by asking me the relevance of “...posting yet again Kevin Whay’s search of the receipts at O&L?” And I don’t know why this should be Roger? It is almost like you have a preconceived idea that everything I write or say is completely anchored in an entrenched, immovable belief that the Diary is an authentic document, penned by James Maybrick, which came out of Battlecrease House on March 9th 1992 and that everything I write or say is carefully designed to lead people in that direction and persuade them over to my belief? It is completely true, as I mentioned to David, the Battlecrease provenance is my preferred option, just as a modern hoax is yours but I don’t know if I’m right. I’m only kicking it around like everybody else. It stands flatly against Anne Graham’s story of the origins of the Diary which, for all I know, still may be true.

Now, if the answer to my question can be found in an email I sent to you on April 22nd 2005, then please do post it on the board. The printed out emails I have on file of our exchanges only go up to February 25th 2005 which suggests from that date onwards I have either not printed them or they have been printed but not yet filed. It would therefore be quicker for you to post it, my only condition being, (with which I hope you would agree) is that you should post the emai in its entirety. But I thank you most sincerely for asking my permission which, of course, is happily given. In fact, I have absolutely no problem with you making public any of our email exchanges from the end of July 2004 which is when we commenced corresponding I believe?

Coming to post #1267 which is your response to David’s question about the Alan Gray tapes. There are two statements you make Roger which puzzle me.

The first...

“I have genuine sympathy and understand completely why Keith or Shirley would finally throw up their hands in disgust and conclude that he [Barrett] knew absolutely nothing.”

Is there a source for this Roger? To the best of my knowledge I haven’t drawn any conclusions about the series of Alan Gray tapes and their worth or meaning?

The second...

“Keith seems to have come to a different conclusion, that liars are simply liars...”

Is there a source for this quite extraordinary perception of my position? I would argue the complete opposite as far as the last 25 years are concerned and my involvement with the project. Yes, there are evidential lies but what interests me more is trying to determine the reason for the lie. That is why, for me, historical context and the very real human drama being played out, is so important. You go some little way to acknowledging this, I think, when you wrote that you didn’t know the exact circumstances [of Barrett’s lies]? There is something fundamentally wrong about our understanding of each others position Roger and it would be good to resolve why this should be. Hopefully the email of April 22nd 2005 will offer some clarification?

Best, KS

[caz]

Hi Phil. On March 9, 1992, at the time of this alleged sighting under Dodd's floorboards, the Maybrick watch was sitting in the window of a jewelry shop in Wirral. Ronald Murphy, the shop's owner, signed a statement confirming this, and he had already owned the watch for a couple of years. If someone said they saw it under floorboards in March '92, they are lying.

Hi rj,

What date do you have for Murphy putting the watch on sale? Dundas claimed he serviced it in 1992 [although he seemed to be describing a totally different watch], while Murphy only said he put it on sale in 'early 1992', as far as I am aware. How do you know it was in the window by March 9th?

What I have never understood is why a jeweller would keep a valuable watch for any length of time before getting it in working order so it can be sold. Murphy said he put a resale price on this one of '£295 or £275'. Albert said he saw it in the window over a period of a few weeks and finally managed to purchase it for £225 on July 14th 1992 after a win on the horses.

I don't think anyone has said they saw this watch under the Battlecrease floorboards, have they? But then, why would they? It would be more or less admitting to theft. And of course if the watch was stolen in March 1992, and taken across the Mersey to Wallasey, one could understand if any jeweller receiving it in good faith, but with no questions asked, might not be particularly eager to admit later when this happened and under what circumstances, when the purchaser returned to ask all sorts of questions, as we know Albert did.

Thus, Albert's coincidental purchase of the Maybrick watch in July 1992 -- only 4 months after the floorboards "had been lifted for the first time in 100 years!"--must be written-off as yet another amazing chronological coincidence, unless both he and Murphy are also allowed into the 'nest of liars.' I'm not sure how this one will pay out.

There is no evidence that Albert lied about anything, but if Murphy only got the watch himself, very shortly before putting it up for sale, as one would expect anyone in the trade to do, he'd have had a motive for putting his ownership of it further back in the past when asked questions about it, to protect himself in case it was suspected to be stolen property.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Albert Johnson did not state..as far as I know..That said watch came from a biscuit tin under the floorboards. Do tell me if Im wrong?

Why would he have stated any such thing? He bought the watch in a shop on July 14th 1992. He'd have had no idea where it had been before he first saw it in the window a few weeks previously.

But there is more...
4) it..the watch..is a ladies watch. Not a man's watch. Now all sorts of fanciful ideas to explain that point have come out over the years..yet the problem is that a wealthy man like James Maybrick would far more likely to own a man's watch and use that. Sorry..but that is quite clear.

Oh good heavens, not this again. Firstly, it is NOT a ladies watch, but a gentleman's dress watch.

Secondly, why would it matter if it had been a ladies watch? It could have been bought as a gift for a lady who never received it, or stolen from its lady owner.

Thirdly, if whoever put the markings inside this gentleman's dress watch was wealthy, they wouldn't necessarily have defaced their own watch. They could have acquired another one for the purpose, and kept it under lock and key.

But there's more...
7) The owner of the property is adamant that had such an item have been there..he would have seen it himself at some stage. Questioning the veracity of this statement could be taken as insulting. The gentleman in question has nothing to lose by sticking to his guns. That comment should be respected..not questioned.

As I have already pointed out, Paul Dodd told the Liverpool Daily Post in 1993: 'It must be certainly possible, if not probable, that the Diary did come from the house'. So how can it be 'insulting' to question the veracity of this very different statement you attribute to him above? He clearly hasn't stuck to his guns, has he? If one statement is true, how can the other be?

I don't expect any response to my post from Phil, but I just wanted to set the record straight before things get even more muddled than they already are!

Love,

Caz
X

[DirectorDave]

Secondly, why would it matter if it had been a ladies watch? It could have been bought as a gift for a lady who never received it, or stolen from its lady owner.

And really Caz that in a Nutshell is what is wrong with this case...the whole Ripper case not just this Mike Barrettt photoalbum nonsense.

Even if something is revealed that beyond reasonable doubt rules out a theory, the proponents of that theory will say "Ahh but I can come up with an implausible that you cant disprove so lets abandon reason".

Why would it matter...Jesh.

[caz]

Mr williams quite obvious really mike was trying to pass of a fake as genuine he might well have expected this to fall at the first hurdle so why would he give his real name.

Hi pinky,

Just saw your post above [still catching up with the thread!] and wanted to point out that Mike did give his real name to Doreen before she or anyone saw the diary, so it could very easily have fallen at the first hurdle, with everyone knowing the identity and address of the 'front man'.

As always with this saga, it does help to get all the known events in the right order!

Love,

Caz
X

[Spider]

And really Caz that in a Nutshell is what is wrong with this case...the whole Ripper case not just this Mike Barrettt photoalbum nonsense.

Even if something is revealed that beyond reasonable doubt rules out a theory, the proponents of that theory will say "Ahh but I can come up with an implausible that you cant disprove so lets abandon reason".
Why would it matter...Jesh.

And vice-versa of course!

[DirectorDave]

And vice-versa of course!

Do you have a particular instance in mind spider?

If you have a few, list em out....I'm in a reasonable mood...and bored oot ma tits snowed under in Fife.

[caz]

8 April letter

"I am so glad the arrangements have been made for us to have a get together on Monday 13th, here at my office". Assuming that Doreen was confirming an arrangement made that day over the telephone, it appears to have been 29 days after the second telephone call that a meeting was arranged, with no clear explanation for the delay.

Hi David,

It may be a fair assumption on your part, but these arrangements were not necessarily made and agreed in the course of one telephone call on the same day that letter was typed up and posted, although I accept it's likely the letter to Mike went out as soon as the arrangements had been finalised to the satisfaction of everyone attending, to confirm the meeting in five days' time. It would also only be an assumption that the delay was down to Mike and/or Anne, and not to Doreen's own schedule, or one of the other invited parties. My gut feeling, however, is that daughter Caroline's Easter school holiday dates may have had a bearing on when Mike [on his own] could come to London. If Anne had already booked time off work to spend with Caroline when her school broke up, for example, she may have been unable to take time off during term time to do Mike's school runs while he was in London with the diary. Also, if the transcript was being prepared in the period between March 10th and April 13th, when Anne was at work on weekdays, she may not have been keen to spend all her evenings on it, which could also explain the delay.

22 April letter

"I spoke with Mrs Barrett last evening, and she sounded a very chirpy, friendly woman. I think they are genuine people and her only anxiety in asking her husband to place the Diary with the bank was because of the fact that they have had a couple of burglaries and she is also frightened of fire. Understandable." Hmmmnnn, didn't Anne want to burn the diary and Mike had to wrestle it out of her hands, or something? She sounds very keen for the diary to be kept somewhere safe. Why? Because of its value now that there was money to be made from it?

Alternatively, if she suspected Mike may have nicked it from somewhere, that could explain both her attempt to stop Mike going public with it and a desire not to have it in the house for any longer than necessary, giving fire and burglary as excuses.

Just adding to the speculation.

Love,

Caz
X