Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - by Herlock Sholmes 36 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - by Trevor Marriott 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Pcdunn 5 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - by j.r-ahde 5 hours ago.
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - by Abby Normal 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (65 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (19 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (6 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Jack's early inspiration? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-18-2017, 11:22 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,914
Default Acquiring A Victorian Diary

I have tracked down the advertisement placed on behalf of Mike Barrett for an unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890 which had to have a minimum of 20 blank pages.

It was placed by Martin E. Earl in Bookdealer, the trade weekly for books wanted and for sale, issue No. 1044, dated 19th March 1992. An image of the advertisement is reproduced below.

The request for this diary appears in a long advert - in the BOOKS WANTED section - with a further (by my count) 86 requests by Earl for various books (one can see a couple more in the below image) in a total of (by my count) 104 lines. The way it worked was that bookdealers were given a special rate of 22.5p per line. Given that the ad for the diary was over two lines, it would have cost Martin Earl only 45p to place the ad for the diary, which I assume was included in his margin when he sold the 1891 diary to Barrett.

On that basis, it seems likely that Mike Barrett never even knew of the existence of this advertisement (and was probably never asked to pay for it). It was simply a cheap way that a bookfinding company like Earl's would find obscure books on behalf of its clients.

In 1992, Martin E. Earl was based in Oxford. His address and two telephone numbers were provided at the top of the advertisement. The company trading as Martin E. Earl in 1992 appears to have become H.P. Bookfinders in 1995.

According to the Casebook transcript, Mike Barrett in his affidavit of 5 January 1995 said that his wife used "a firm in the 1986 Writters (sic) Year Book" to find the diary (although he could not remember their name). By this he must have meant The Writers' & Artists' Yearbook 1986 (which is certainly how Shirley Harrison transcribes it in her book).

However, The Writers' & Artists' Yearbook 1986 does not include entries for any bookfinding companies (so that there is no entry for Martin E. Earl or, obviously, H.P. Bookfinders). Consequently, Martin E. Earl's details were not found by either of the Barretts in there. However the contact details of Rupert Crew Limited (of which Doreen Montgomery was a director) and also of Pan Books, which Barrett is supposed to have contacted before contacting Doreen, are both to be found in the Yearbook. Perhaps Barrett got confused when he came to write his affidavit.

We can be certain that either Mike or Anne DID locate and contact Martin E. Earl in March 1992 so that the error with recalling how he (or she) did so would appear to be a good example of an innocent mistake of recollection.

Finally, I can confirm that in March 1992 Outhwaite & Litherland held auctions once a week, every Tuesday, so that the first auction held after Barrett would have received the 1891 diary would have been on Tuesday, 31 March 1992. The auction (like other auctions in that month), held at Kingsway Galleries, Fontenoy Street, Liverpool, was described in antique magazines as being for "Victorian, Edwardian & modern furniture and effects". It started at 10.30am. Had Barrett taken 11 days to forge the diary as he claims in his affidavit and, had he started work on 31 March, the writing would have been finished on 10 April. He went to see Doreen in London on 13 April.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-18-2017, 12:40 PM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,225
Default

Hi David,

What do you make of Anne Graham's check that she made out to Martin Earl for 25 to pay for the diary being dated 18 May 1992 and that the auctioneers have denied that they conduct their sales like Barnett says and failed to locate a Lot number or description of an item such as Barnett claims he bought?

Thanks

JM
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-19-2017, 02:28 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmenges View Post
Hi David,

What do you make of Anne Graham's check that she made out to Martin Earl for 25 to pay for the diary being dated 18 May 1992 and that the auctioneers have denied that they conduct their sales like Barnett says and failed to locate a Lot number or description of an item such as Barnett claims he bought?

Thanks

JM
Oh dear ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-19-2017, 06:38 AM
jmenges jmenges is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,225
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Oh dear ...
What? Asking for an opinion on something gets me an 'Oh Dear...' ?

That phrase is handed out like free candy in Ripperology but it's been a long long time since I've been awarded one myself.

Thanks

JM
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-19-2017, 11:19 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmenges View Post
What do you make of Anne Graham's check that she made out to Martin Earl for 25 to pay for the diary being dated 18 May 1992 and that the auctioneers have denied that they conduct their sales like Barnett says and failed to locate a Lot number or description of an item such as Barnett claims he bought?
Hi JM,

To answer your questions:

1. There is no doubt (as relayed in 'Inside Story', p. 237) that the 1891 diary was sent to Mike Barrett by Martin E. Earl on 26 March 1992. It would, no doubt, have included an invoice for payment, presumably to be paid within 30 days. The invoice was not paid by the end of April and so I assume a chasing letter was sent which resulted in Anne Graham paying by cheque on 18 May 1992.

2. It is true that Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite & Litherland, has said of Barrett's account of purchasing the Victorian scrapbook in an O&L auction that, "we do not have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes". Unfortunately he did not explain what the problem with Barrett's account was. In his affidavit, Barrett says that after his winning bid, "I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid 50. The ticket was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased." On this forum back in August, a poster, who was an antique dealer based in the north of England during the 1990s, and who said the method employed by the auction houses he attended during that time was nearly identical, confirmed that if you replace the word "ticket" with "receipt" in Barrett's affidavit then Barrett's account would be generally consistent with how auction houses worked at that time. So it is possible that Kevin Whay was misled by a poor choice of word by Mike Barrett.

3. Kevin Whay also stated that a search of O&L's records was carried out "on both sides of the alleged sale date" and found that "no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett's statement exists". The problem here is that in his affidavit Barrett identified the sale date as being in January or February 1990. So that means that the search of O&L's records would have been carried out on either side of Jan/Feb 1990. Which naturally suggests that the records of the O&L auction carried out on 31 March 1992 would not have been searched.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-19-2017, 01:26 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmenges View Post
What? Asking for an opinion on something gets me an 'Oh Dear...' ?

That phrase is handed out like free candy in Ripperology but it's been a long long time since I've been awarded one myself.

Thanks

JM
I wouldn't take it personally. You obviously haven't been following The Greatest Thread of All is all ...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-21-2017, 05:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Finally, I can confirm that in March 1992 Outhwaite & Litherland held auctions once a week, every Tuesday, so that the first auction held after Barrett would have received the 1891 diary would have been on Tuesday, 31 March 1992. The auction (like other auctions in that month), held at Kingsway Galleries, Fontenoy Street, Liverpool, was described in antique magazines as being for "Victorian, Edwardian & modern furniture and effects". It started at 10.30am. Had Barrett taken 11 days to forge the diary as he claims in his affidavit and, had he started work on 31 March, the writing would have been finished on 10 April. He went to see Doreen in London on 13 April.
Excellent work, David. Now wouldn't it be good if we had any independent witnesses to where the Barretts were, and what they were actually doing (or not doing), between Tuesday 31st March and Sunday 12th April 1992?

With Mike and Anne's help, you have narrowed down the time frame for the diary's actual creation admirably.

It's going to be an eventful year, all things considered. Two conferences, one in London in August, t'other in Liverpool in September, both featuring the 25th anniversary of the diary's emergence in 1992, and the ongoing questions surrounding its origins.

All this, despite the 'crucial' ad, requesting a diary with blank pages, having been in the public domain for nearly a decade.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-21-2017, 01:21 PM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
2. It is true that Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite & Litherland, has said of Barrett's account of purchasing the Victorian scrapbook in an O&L auction that, "we do not have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes". Unfortunately he did not explain what the problem with Barrett's account was. In his affidavit, Barrett says that after his winning bid, "I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid 50. The ticket was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased." On this forum back in August, a poster, who was an antique dealer based in the north of England during the 1990s, and who said the method employed by the auction houses he attended during that time was nearly identical, confirmed that if you replace the word "ticket" with "receipt" in Barrett's affidavit then Barrett's account would be generally consistent with how auction houses worked at that time. So it is possible that Kevin Whay was misled by a poor choice of word by Mike Barrett.
I find it utterly risible to suggest that the director of an auction house didn't recognise a description of the auction process undertaken at his own business purely because Barrett used the word 'ticket' instead of 'receipt'.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2017, 01:37 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
I find it utterly risible to suggest that the director of an auction house didn't recognise a description of the auction process undertaken at his own business purely because Barrett used the word 'ticket' instead of 'receipt'.
As I've already mentioned, a member of this forum, who was was an antique dealer based in the north of England during the 1990s, has agreed that, if the word 'ticket' is replaced with the word 'receipt', then Barrett's account is generally consistent with how auction houses worked at that time.

So did Outhwaite & Litherland conduct their auctions in a radically different manner to other auction houses? Unfortunately, Kevin Whay did not explain how O&L conducted their auctions and in what respect that was different to the manner described by Barrett.

In the circumstances, I don't think my suggestion is 'risible'. If O&L did not hand tickets to winning bidders it might well have prompted Whay to dismiss the account.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-23-2017, 12:18 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,914
Default

One question that might be asked is: when did Martin Earl submit the advertisement to Bookdealer?

Well Bookdealer was published every Thursday and the instruction to advertisers of "Books Wanted" was this:

"Lists to appear once only should be addressed to Bookdealer, PO Box 1082, Winscombe, Avon BS24 6BX to arrive first post Wednesday for inclusion in the next week's issue."

What I think this means is that to get his ad into the issue dated 19th March 1992, Martin Earl needed to get his list to Bookdealer by first class post on Wednesday 11th March 1992. This in turn means that the latest he could have sent his list by first class post would have been on Tuesday 10th March 1992.

Given that Mike Barrett spoke to Doreen Montgomery on 9th and 10th March, then if we assume that the advert was placed in response to his conversations with Doreen, Mike wasted no time in contacting Martin Earl. In fact, if I have correctly interpreted the Bookdealer's instructions, he must have done so almost immediately after speaking to Doreen.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.