Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[StevenOwl]

Couldn't agree more, Steven. For your forger, you need to look elsewhere (certainly not at the Barretts).

But I think your occasion may be wrong? I am reasonably certain that Mike made his ill-timed comments to the journalist from the Liverpool Post on the day he travelled back from London having met Doreen Montgomery and chums for the first time. Not that it matters, of course - it proves Bongo was high on Amateur Hour either way. If I'm wrong, please clarify for me someone.

Inside Story definitely has Barrett's exchange with Philip Maddox on the day of the auction. For one, he had Caroline with him when it happened, and on his first visit to Doreen MB went alone. And it was Maddox who then put Harold Brough onto Barrett; although PM didn't get Barrett's name from him, MB gave PM enough personal details for Brough to be able to trace him. And then, of course, Barrett denied all knowledge of the Ripper diary when Brough first made contact with him!!

The more I read about Mike Barrett the more I think of the classic Only Fools & Horses line which, I believe, Del Boy says to Micky Pearce; I know when you're lying... your lips move!!!

[Graham]

Ike, StevenOwl is quite correct - check Ripper Diary pages 10 - 11. Barrett muct have thought all his Christmases had come at once on that train journey. If anything shows him in his true light, it's this episode. It's almost I can do that. Gissa job, gissa job. A pantomime scouser, if ever there was one. The Barretts never had anything whatsoever to do with the conception and the writing of the Diary.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Inside Story definitely has Barrett's exchange with Philip Maddox on the day of the auction. For one, he had Caroline with him when it happened, and on his first visit to Doreen MB went alone. And it was Maddox who then put Harold Brough onto Barrett; although PM didn't get Barrett's name from him, MB gave PM enough personal details for Brough to be able to trace him. And then, of course, Barrett denied all knowledge of the Ripper diary when Brough first made contact with him!!

The more I read about Mike Barrett the more I think of the classic Only Fools & Horses line which, I believe, Del Boy says to Micky Pearce; I know when you're lying... your lips move!!!

Accepted, Steven. Bongo told Maddox that his daughter had played the Last Post at a recent legion event, and that's how the Post tracked him down. Prince Myshkin (as we're doing literature today, it seems)! When I think of Mike Barrett, I think of Rodney Trotter's classic line "If I was reincarnated, knowing my luck I'd come back as me".

[Iconoclast]

Ike, StevenOwl is quite correct - check Ripper Diary pages 10 - 11. Barrett muct have thought all his Christmases had come at once on that train journey. If anything shows him in his true light, it's this episode. It's almost I can do that. Gissa job, gissa job. A pantomime scouser, if ever there was one. The Barretts never had anything whatsoever to do with the conception and the writing of the Diary.

Graham

Indeed, Graham. The master-forger cum Britain's greatest ever actor just couldn't help bragging about what he'd found on the doorstep that time he visited a confused Tony Devereux. No forger, no way. Barrett as forger is about as plausible as Newcastle winning at Tottenham this afternoon. Oh, now, hold on a second ...

[Sam Flynn]

The Barretts never had anything whatsoever to do with the conception and the writing of the Diary.

"I seen"... "within", inter alia. I'm not so sure.

[Iconoclast]

People from Liverpool - even a hundred years apart - are not unlikely to use the same colloquialisms. "That guy in 1992 uses some of the same expressions that that guy from 1889 from (the same part) of Liverpool used. That's very suspicious" is not an argument I'd want to put my name to.

[Graham]

"I seen"... "within", inter alia. I'm not so sure.

Sam, "I seen" is as Scouse as you can get, probably always was, and if you can show any reason why it was not in general usage in 1889, I'd be happy to see it. Maybrick was, after all, a Scouser himself, and I'd say there is a very high possibility that he spoke English with a Scouse accent. Or even perhaps tinged with American, as he spent a long time in the USA.

Why do people appear to think that local accents, mannerisms, etc., evolved only recently? The Scouse accent didn't suddenly appear overnight with The Beatles.....however, it became de rigeur in the early 1960's to use Scouse slang. Why "within" is seen as a modernism, I can't honestly fathom.

Graham

[Kaz]

Ike, StevenOwl is quite correct - check Ripper Diary pages 10 - 11. Barrett muct have thought all his Christmases had come at once on that train journey. If anything shows him in his true light, it's this episode. It's almost I can do that. Gissa job, gissa job. A pantomime scouser, if ever there was one. The Barretts never had anything whatsoever to do with the conception and the writing of the Diary.

Graham

Hi, Graham

What is your view on this thread?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/maybrick-james/11202-and-this-is-factual

Particularly the invoice, which surely proves mike indeed 'could write a sick note'

[Graham]

Kaz, it proves nothing whatsoever. I simply cannot accept that Mike could skip from poor, mis-spelled English to the, admittedly somewhat laboured, prose of the Diary. I remain totally unconvinced. (I also note that Lord Orsam has corrected Mike's spelling).

Graham

[StevenOwl]

Hi, Graham

What is your view on this thread?

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...his-is-factual


Particularly the invoice, which surely proves mike indeed 'could write a sick note'

That docket proves that £120 was paid to Barrett by a magazine for contributing several puzzles, but not who actually wrote them. The hand-written scrawl however, proves that if Mike did ever write a sick note it would probably contain several errors of spelling and grammar.

[Graham]

Steven Owl,

I quite agree with you. One of the Diary books, I can't recall which one, included a snippet from a story written by Barrett called "Danny The Dolphin Boy". It may have been good enough for kids, but not I feel any proof whatsoever that Barrett could write English in the manner and style of the Diary.

I'm qualified in English Literature, speak and write reasonably good English, have written articles on my interests for magazines and internet forums, and have a lifelong love of Shakespeare. But could I sit and and compose a 'new' Shakespeare play that could fool the 'experts'? Of course I couldn't.

And I'm also put in mind of an inclusion Shirley Harrison made in The Diary Of Jack The Ripper, page 325, Blake edition. She re-printed an editorial from the Liverpool Citizen of August 1889, as follows:

My own observation - and it is purely personal - is that experts are not particularly large-minded men. They appear to grow so absorbed in their own experiments that broader outside considerations - considerations which influence journalists, lawyers and statesmen - do not greatly affect these gentlemen. They seem to be like experts in handwriting, only in a more scientific and elevated degree, but there is a good deal of the same kind of conjecture and uncertainty in their conclusions.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Why do people appear to think that local accents, mannerisms, etc., evolved only recently?

That's not what's being suggested, Graham. Rather that these are verbal tics that appeared in Barratt's speech and in the diary. He uses "regards" in formal interviews, evidently thinking that this constitutes "proper" English, and the writer of the diary evidently has the same idea in mind. That's not a matter of accent, but a putting on of hairs and graces (like my deliberate insertion of a "posh", but incorrect, "h" in front of "airs" just now).

[Kaz]

That docket proves that £120 was paid to Barrett by a magazine for contributing several puzzles, but not who actually wrote them. The hand-written scrawl however, proves that if Mike did ever write a sick note it would probably contain several errors of spelling and grammar.

Agreed, but no one is suggesting mike undertook the diary task on his own.

I left school with one GCSE, even now i struggle to write a grammatically correct sentence... but i made my first million at 35 and retired at 40.

Mike had more about him than he showed...that much is surely evident thanks to lordies detective work?

[rjpalmer]

First up Roger – I entirely agree with you – our knowledge of these events do remain entirely unsatisfactory. I can only provide the information as I experienced and recorded it at the time. I’m not seeking to persuade anybody to my way of thinking or interpretation of events. The mystery about the Word Processor is why it should ever have been a mystery in the first place? As Shirley says, Mike brought a copy to London with him on April 13^th1992 which clearly came off a Word Processor. Looking at my own photocopy, (which would have been given to me by Robert Smith), I note that I sent a copy to Martin Fido on June 17^th 1992. I do not think Shirley ever had any contact with “Bonesy” – certainly he never mentioned it to me. The only person who did persistently telephone Bonesy to the point of “pissing him off” (Bonesy’s own words) was Melvin Harris and even sent him material. In spite of what Shirley writes about the Amstrad being on the table in the Barretts dining room, Bonesy told me that Mike denied having a Word Processor. I remember also hearing this from Paul Feldman – can still see him sitting at his office desk and telling me – and when I asked why would Barrett lie to the Police, Feldy said because he [Feldman] told him to because he thought that he was helping Mike. I remember thinking there and then that was probably the worst bit of advice Feldman could have given to Mike and I anticipated there would be repercussions. I was right.

KS

Thanks as always, Keith, for your candid account.

Jesus wept.

I'm not sure which cliché would be more apt; that, in researching the Diary, you wandered into a wilderness or mirrors, or that you wandered into a pit of vipers.

We at least know that Barrett did buy a word processor, and that at one point he lied to Harrison about the purchase date and the reason he bought it. Classic Barrett. Nothing is what it appears. The typescript was evidently created on the word processor, but if Bonsey can be believed, Scotland Yard did not find the machine in the Barrett's home. Yet Rendell claims on air that they did. To make matters even more convoluted, Barrett lied to Scotland Yard, and we learn that Paul Feldman instructed him to lie. (Some won't like this--perhaps be angered by it--but to my mind this raises the question of how truly sincere Feldman was in his belief in the Diary). Meanwhile, Harrison ultimately reports to the public that Scotland Yard DID find the Diary--on the Barrett's dining room table--and that Barrett had completely cooperated, which certainly doesn't appear to be true. Ultimately, it appears as if no one's account be entirely trusted--be it Barrett, Harrison, Rendell, Feldman, or (perhaps?) even the memory of Bonsey (?) Perhaps he CAN be believed, but it does leave one wondering about Rendell's source. I reckon you suspect that Rendell was "tipped off" by Melvin Harris. It is possible, I suppose, but how would Melvin have known with certainty about the Amstrad and any alleged disks in November 1993? Did not Gray's discovery of the receipt for the word processor not occur until the following summer, 1994? I'm sorry to say this, Keith, but I can only be blunt. It does leave me wondering what other instructions/advice Paul Feldman may have doled out to other participants in the mystery, particularly Anne Graham and Robbie Johnson. There's less intrigue in a John Le Carré novel.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks as always, Keith, for your candid account.

Jesus wept.

I'm not sure which cliché would be more apt; that, in researching the Diary, you wandered into a wilderness or mirrors, or that you wandered into a pit of vipers.

We at least know that Barrett did buy a word processor, and that at one point he lied to Harrison about the purchase date and the reason he bought it. Classic Barrett. Nothing is what it appears. The typescript was evidently created on the word processor, but if Bonsey can be believed, Scotland Yard did not find the machine in the Barrett's home. Yet Rendell claims on air that they did. To make matters even more convoluted, Barrett lied to Scotland Yard, and we learn that Paul Feldman instructed him to lie. (Some won't like this--perhaps be angered by it--but to my mind this raises the question of how truly sincere Feldman was in his belief in the Diary). Meanwhile, Harrison ultimately reports to the public that Scotland Yard DID find the Diary--on the Barrett's dining room table--and that Barrett had completely cooperated, which certainly doesn't appear to be true. Ultimately, it appears as if no one's account be entirely trusted--be it Barrett, Harrison, Rendell, Feldman, or (perhaps?) even the memory of Bonsey (?) Perhaps he CAN be believed, but it does leave one wondering about Rendell's source. I reckon you suspect that Rendell was "tipped off" by Melvin Harris. It is possible, I suppose, but how would Melvin have known with certainty about the Amstrad and any alleged disks in November 1993? Did not Gray's discovery of the receipt for the word processor not occur until the following summer, 1994? I'm sorry to say this, Keith, but I can only be blunt. It does leave me wondering what other instructions/advice Paul Feldman may have doled out to other participants in the mystery, particularly Anne Graham and Robbie Johnson. There's less intrigue in a John Le Carré novel.

Roger,

As interesting (and I use the word lightly) as all this "He had an Amstrad word processor" business is, I'm not sensing the relevance to either side of the debate for authenticity or forgery. I also had a very similar Amstrad PCW (the 1989 version) in 1992, but I don't see messageboards a-fluttering over that fact. Neither my ownership of one nor Mike's is going to get us any further towards the truth of the matter. Why would it matter if he had a WP and had typed up a version of the scrapbook or if someone else had because he was so crap at it?

Maybe the sun's gone to my head.

Ike