Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[APerno]

You know what would have been great, if someone had had the good (evil) sense to simultaneously forge a diary that exonerated James Maybrick. Then supporters and deniers would have had to support one forgery while trying to debunk the other.

I love Ripper hoaxes and pranks; it's my favorite part of the Ripper universe.

Chicago, 1892: "He found a door, knocked, and entered a room full of men, some young, some old, all seeming to speak at once, a few quite drunk. A coffin at the center of the room served as a bar. The light was dim and came from gas jets hidden behind skulls mounted on the walls. Other skulls lay scattered about the room. A hangman's noose dangled from the wall, as did assorted weapons and a blanket caked in blood. These artifacts marked the room as headquarters of the Whitechapel Club. . .The club had a custom of sending robed men to kidnap visiting celebrities and steal them away in a black coach with covered windows, all without saying a word." From The Devil in the White City

You know these kidnapped celebrities ended up at the Club with a drink in one hand, a good cigar in the other, and a broad on their laps, and it was one of the best nights of their lives.

All I get is to listen to you guys argue. The Ripper universe just isn't what it use to be.

[rjpalmer]

Ike -- you really ought to take 58 minutes out of your life and listen to the podcast of Mike Barrett on Radio Merseyside on 13th and 20th of September 1995.

This is a rehabilitated Barrett, now on the wagon, once again a Diary believer, who is trying to "walk back" his confessions, and doing a miserable job of it. The interviewer catches him in lie after lie.

Barrett first claims that the only time he ever confessed was to Harold Brough, following a binge with two bottles of scotch. It was just drunk-talk. But when the interviewer brings up a certain signed affidavit where Barrett also confessed, Mike denies its very existence. Pressed further, Mike then claims this affidavit only had to do with his ex-wife's provenance story and his need to see any appropriate documentation. This gibberish makes no sense whatsoever, obviously, so the interviewer presses him even further, and mentions the significant date of January 5th. Mike now knows he is "caught out"--the interviewer has seen the confession affidavit!---so Mike changes his explanation yet again, claiming that he signed a paper that he didn't even read. Mike even suggests the confession was doctored and changed from the one he had signed (!), which, of course, would implicate his own lawyer, whom he had previously lavished with praise.

What you and Keith seem to be insinuating is that Barrett only told wild porkies when he was in 'confessional' mode. Such is not the case. Here is Barrett, diary believer, sober, "playing nice" with Robert Smith and Doreen Montgomery, caught in a long string of verifiable horse-pucky. And as for your suggestion that Mike would be the greatest actor in the world to pull this off...uh, listen for yourself. Messrs. Olivier, Branagh, Brando, and Day-Lewis have very little to fear!!

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=228

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith, let me see if I can word this correctly.

In law, the concept of "discovery" means that both sides of a pending case will freely exchange any and all relevant documentation that will be brought up in court. And it doesn't matter if the documentation hurts or helps one's own "side" of the case--the other side has a legal right to that information, so they can prepare the appropriate defense or prosecution, and not have surprises "sprung" on them, thus allowing the trial to proceed in an orderly and fair-minded manner with the single and unified goal of getting at the truth.

So, if Lord Orsam was going to argue that the handwriting in the Diary resembles Anne Graham's, he would be required to allow any skeptics access to the handwriting samples he has obtained, so they could be examined and assessed--and, of course, he would be required to do this even these samples hurt his own argument.
Similarly, if Ike, Shirley, or anyone else alludes to the Diary's typescript found on the Amstrad word processor as nothing more than an innocent transcript that had been typed up quickly and presented to Doreen Montgomery at her request, the correct, required, and gentlemanly thing to do from a legal standpoint would be to release the transcript to the other side of the aisle for examination--even if it might ultimately hurt their own beliefs or arguments.

This is the principal behind "discovery."

And yes, you are undoubtedly correct: the entrenched Diary Doubters would examine this typescript in order to test their own theories that it shows signs of revision and composition, but, alas, that is the risk one has to allow if we are to have a fair-minded examination of the facts. And since you only wish to get at the truth--no matter where it leads--it is unclear to me why this has remained an apparent hurdle. But, it's your choice. I won't press the matter further.

By the way, my sole purpose in revising this thread was to bring everyone's attention to the passage in Ripper Diary that recount's Barrett's statement at Camille Wolff's gathering in 1999. Barrett stated that the diary did not physically exist when he first called Doreen Montgomery in March 1992. What struck me, if my memory was correct, is that he stated the same thing to Gray back in 1994. (I am still attempting to confirm this). Further, the "11 day" span he alludes to also agrees with his confession of January 1995. The most relevant point, however, is that this statement is seemingly confirmed by the documentation provided by David Orsam in the first two posts on this thread. How on earth could the addle-minded and supposedly clueless Barrett have known this would be the case unless he had lived through it, and it had some basis in fact? I think this point deserves very careful consideration, because it goes to the heart of the questions of Who? When? And why?

No one has commented on this, nor seems to even appreciate the implications. But I see know that Lord Orsam himself has been following this thread, and his response can be found here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/theelevendays.htm

Cheers.

PS. As for Anne Graham, it was reported in Ripper Diary that she has washed he hands of the affair. Further, you hinted on these boards back in 2006 or so that she held "Ripperologists" in contempt. Yet, more relevant than any of this, it was recently reported that Shirley Harrison tried to touch base with Anne a year or two ago, and as soon as the Diary was brought up, the call was quickly terminated. Your friend James J. to me, in a post on these boards, that he had no luck in contacting Anne. So I don't hold out much hop on that score. But I'll tell you what. I plan on being in the UK in 2021. If you're still around and interested, how about if you, I, James, Lord Orsam, Caz, and Ike, etc., hoist a glass of ale (or mineral water) down the boozer and invited Anne to accompany us and put this thing to bed once and for all? In the words of the great Yogi Berra, these conversations tend to be like "déjà vu all over again," and wouldn't it be nice to find some resolution?

[Iconoclast]

What a trooper.

I see it as more of a calling than a mere service to mankind ...

[Harry D]

On the contrary, my role here is to stop people from providing misinformation, misdirection, and plain mendacities against the scrapbook in order that people are not swayed inappropriately towards belief that the scrapbook was some kind of brilliant hoax.

What a trooper.

[Iconoclast]

You wouldn't still be here if that were the case.

On the contrary, my role here is to stop people from providing misinformation, misdirection, and plain mendacities against the scrapbook in order that people are not swayed inappropriately towards belief that the scrapbook was some kind of brilliant hoax.

[Harry D]

Hi Keith,

Personally, my beliefs were already very entrenched, but now they are even entrenchier than they were.

Also personally, I feel blessed that I know the truth. I'd hate to go to my grave wondering who Jack was.

Ike

You wouldn't still be here if that were the case.

[Iconoclast]

I wish my beliefs were entrenched because I’m sure I would have a quieter life simply by resting on all of the strikes against this document and settling back cosily into the position of it’s a modern hoax because Mike Barrett confessed. Repeatedly I have maintained that it makes no difference to me whether the Diary is authentic or a modern hoax. I just would like to know the truth.

Hi Keith,

Personally, my beliefs were already very entrenched, but now they are even entrenchier than they were.

Also personally, I feel blessed that I know the truth. I'd hate to go to my grave wondering who Jack was.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

You’ll no doubt have listened to the tape where Mike explains he faked the Watch as well and offering to explain to Alan how he did it?

Well that certainly keeps it all nice and simple: Mike Barrett forged the markings in the Maybrick watch as well as writing the diary - if I'd only known!

Does anyone happen to know if Mike ever got anywhere near the Turin shroud?

Or the Dead Sea scrolls?

Et cetera.

Ike "I'm Honestly Not Surprised" Iconoclast

[jmenges]

Hi Keith.

PS. Before Orsam's banishment from this site, I seem to recall that he released what he believed to to be several relevant documents, including personal correspondence between Barrett and Graham. He did this despite your own entrenched beliefs--presumably because he understands the legal concept of "discovery," and had hopes that you would have had the innate ability to view them objectively, fairly, and critically. Anne Graham is not talking--we both know this--so the public is entirely in the debt of those who had been granted access to her in the 1990s. You need not further worry about me, Keith, but the public might respond with a jaundiced eye if there is any hint of "gatekeeping."

I do indeed remember the personal correspondence between Mike Barrett and Anne Graham which David posted on to the Message Boards. I have no idea of what the legal concept of “discovery” means but I did wonder why David did not reveal the whole letter(s) for context. I’m not even sure whether he gave the date(s)? Were not the letters meant to prove that similar expressions and idiosyncracies were to be found in the text of the Diary? Was this what David – and presumably yourself – considered to be relevant? I don’t recall them even mentioning the Diary but will go back and check.

I have a stash of personal letters going the other way from Mike to Anne which Anne gave to me, one of them, as I recall, telling Anne he had a sample of Caroline’s DNA and would use this to prove she was not descended from Florence Chandler and therefore had nothing to do with Jack The Ripper. So the story had taken a very curious twist from the Diary which they jointly created together. No doubt this can be easily explained away by Mike’s KS or emotional stress or triple bluff or whatever other permutation you choose to employ. And guess what Roger – for all I know you may be right. How David came by Anne’s letters I do not know – although I would hazard a guess that Mike gave them to Alan Gray who was working in tandem with Melvin Harris. If you listen to the Alan Gray tapes carefully you can hear Mike handing over all sorts of documents to Alan in an attempt to prove his case that he had forged the Diary. Anything and everything – except what Alan wanted – hard forensic evidence or a coherent explanation of the mechanics of the forgery. You’ll no doubt have listened to the tape where Mike explains he faked the Watch as well and offering to explain to Alan how he did it?

Alan pleads with Mike to spare him having to sit and hear how easy it was for Mike to do this – but Mike drives on. I know Mike also offers to take Alan to the shop where he bought the Watch but even that isn’t easy – and a worn down Alan Gray cannot be bothered to ask Mike how he engineered it so that it would come into Albert Johnson’s possession. Incidentally, does the legal concept of “discovery” mean you are perfectly entitled to publish a living person’s personal correspondence in the public domain without seeking their permission? I was once accused by one of David’s many supporters of scraping the bottom of the barrel by putting up on the Message Boards an extract from the Court Case between Anne Graham and Mike Barrett which had appeared in a local Liverpool newspaper. It touched on the reasons and motive for Mike threatening to kill his ex wife which was all to do with the Diary. I thought that was relevant because it directly referenced the Diary . However, I noticed that no such criticism came David’s way when he published personal extracts from Anne’s letters to Mike which had not appeared in the public domain and did not reference the Diary – although I stand to be corrected on this point.

Don’t run away from this Roger. You are better than that. I wish my beliefs were entrenched because I’m sure I would have a quieter life simply by resting on all of the strikes against this document and settling back cosily into the position of it’s a modern hoax because Mike Barrett confessed. Repeatedly I have maintained that it makes no difference to me whether the Diary is authentic or a modern hoax. I just would like to know the truth.
And if, perchance, the “old book” was removed from Battlecrease House on March 9^th 1992, then my very next question would be, was it there on March 8^th 1992?

How do you know Anne Graham isn’t talking? Have you approached her yourself? What questions would you ask her – apart from clarification around the transcript?

Best Wishes

KS

[rjpalmer]

You're stretching so far here you're in danger of pulling a muscle. Anne's story is perfectly consistent with what she and Barrett claimed. No need to create imagined smoking guns.

Stiff upper lip, Old Chap, stiff upper lip. There was less smoke in the air at Waterloo.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith.

Thanks. With one exception, I have never viewed the early researchers/handlers of the Diary with suspicion, nor have I ever accused them of dishonesty. For instance, I never agreed with Melvin Harris's assessment that Shirley Harrison was a "practiced evader." I have reassured you on this point many times, but you refuse to accept it. As far as I could tell, Shirley genuinely believed the diary was an old document, possibly written by James Maybrick, and it was to her credit that she published information potentially damaging to her own beliefs, particularly in the Blake edition of her work. I am not Melvin Harris; I didn't even know Melvin Harris, but in the few times you and I have discussed the diary you invariably summon his ghost, in order to rather strongly imply that I am accusing you of something that I have never accused you of.

I'll pass your message on to David B. You're not inclined to release the transcript to unfriendly eyes, because of their entrenched position that the diary is a modern fake. But this disinclination should not be taken as a sign that you are protecting the diary from unwanted critical scrutiny. That is only an unfair characterization that he, I, and perhaps others are secretly harboring. Got it, Keith! But it sounds rather paradoxical, doesn't it? Have a good summer---or what is left of it.

Cheers, RJP

PS. Before Orsam's banishment from this site, I seem to recall that he released what he believed to to be several relevant documents, including personal correspondence between Barrett and Graham. He did this despite your own entrenched beliefs--presumably because he understands the legal concept of "discovery," and had hopes that you would have had the innate ability to view them objectively, fairly, and critically. Anne Graham is not talking--we both know this--so the public is entirely in the debt of those who had been granted access to her in the 1990s. You need not further worry about me, Keith, but the public might respond with a jaundiced eye if there is any hint of "gatekeeping."

[jmenges]

What interests me is Anne Graham's discussion of this typescript. She is paraphrased as saying it was "produced very quickly" (p. 200 Ripper Diary)

Why "very quickly"? Why was the speed relevant? Are there significant textual discrepancies between the Diary proper and this typescript, and she is "explaining" those discrepancies by stressing it was thrown together "very quickly"? And if so, could any meaning be gleaned from these discrepancies? How do we know they aren't relevant?

Roger – the reason I did not follow through on my promise to post the transcript is because it was becoming clear to me that whatever material I was putting up on the Message Boards, in the spirit of being helpful, was either being ignored or clinically dissected from the entrenched position the diary was a modern hoax. The overall impression being created and left like a bad odour was the diary investigators had failed to spot things or had spotted them and did not pursue because of some hidden agenda to continue pimping an obvious hoax . You describe yourself as a suspicious fellow – fair enough – but when that suspicion bleeds through to a suspicion that the authors of Inside Story were not presenting the facts objectively and were putting a spin on the tone of the book in favour of the diary being an old document, I take exception. You are on record as saying why should you believe anything Anne Graham suggests and that you don’t trust the woman. Okay – contact and interrogate Anne Graham yourself.

There are “textual discrepancies between the Diary proper” and the transcript and – yes – meaning could be gleaned from the discrepancies. They are open to interpretation. But they will only be relevant for you if they support your determination to prove this document to be a modern hoax created by Mike and Anne Barrett, Billy Graham and Tony Devereux.

KS

[Iconoclast]

P.S., Ike.

Being the suspicious person that I am, this phrase also jumped out at me (also page 200):

"Michael Barrett, who claimed he had undertaken the [typescript] in order to bring it to London and show Doreen Montgomery, was a poor typist, [Anne] said, and she was compelled to retype it, checking back against the original every so often."

Again, what is the purpose of this explanation?

I don't know if Scotland Yard had the ability to check the Amstrad for evidence of composition or revision, or whether they even attempted it, but if Anne was worried that it was possible, then could this be a 'cover story' which would help explain away any evidence that the original text had been revised over time?

You're stretching so far here you're in danger of pulling a muscle. Anne's story is perfectly consistent with what she and Barrett claimed. No need to create imagined smoking guns.

[Iconoclast]

I won't scold you for sleeping in the back of the classroom, Ike.

But you're assumption here is wrong. Keith Skinner informed us sometime ago that the transcript of the Diary, said to have been typed up on the Amstrad, was 29 Pages in Length. 40 sides would have done quite nicely, thank you very much.

We also don't know exactly what Barrett requested from Martin Earl, we only known how Martin Earl interpreted it, and what he placed in the subsequent advertisement. If Barrett had requested a Diary from the 1880s, then the request for an 1880-1890 diary would have filled the bill. Earl presumably didn't know that whichever Barrett ordered the Diary was planning a time sensitive hoax.

So this transcript that amounted to 29 pages would, I assume, be 29 pages of A4 material? Obviously, you have said that we do not know what Barrett requested, but Earl it would appear thought that any Victorian diary would have done (as he delivered a wholly inadequate one - didn't even get the year right) so one assumes that Barrett did not think to specify the size of diary he needed nor be specific about the year-range that was acceptable.

This - I surely don't have to clarify - is "not good enough" (to use Martin Fido's dismissive expression). A man capable of creating the Maybrick scrapbook is not a man who makes these kind of monumental mistakes; and - remember - this was well before the imagined stroke and the convenient Korsakoff's Syndrome, so anti-diarists who believe Barrett was the hoaxer have to accept that he acted as he did in the soundness of mind which was cunning enough to create the greatest hoax in history and then act out for two years that he was just the guy next door who found the thing.

"Not good enough."

Ike