Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Correction to the above. purchases=purposes. I pulled a you-know-who.

It has occurred to me, Keith, that Mike's claim of the disks being destroyed by his sister would mean that this alleged destruction would have taken place after June 1994. There is no confirmation of this story, of course, and no reason whatsoever to accept it without evidence, but it does kind of, sort of, leave one wondering where the idea took hold that the disk(s) were still in the Barrett household in November 1993 as reported by Kenneth Rendell. Mike seems to date his "stashing the evidence" to when the Diary was finished, allegedly in April 1992 (or earlier, if one only goes by the Jan 1995 performance, and not his revelation at Camille Wolff's). Then again the maroon diary was still kicking around all that time, and allegedly the Sphere Guide. So around and around we go, without a hint of closure, but then, I am merely a "commentator," as you put it--not even a commentator worthy of that dishonorable title without quotation marks thrown in! So no worries on my end.

Anyhow, I'll be off for a few days or longer. The local library's queue for Rubenhold's book finally left me holding the goods, and I'm still only half-way through Monaghan and Cawthorne's masterwork, and I owe a certain somebody a bit of research. So my Ripperological plate is full, and I've no more time for Bongo, at the moment, let alone Sir Jim. Good luck. I'll peek in if I can.

[rjpalmer]

Finally – I may be mistaken – but I seem to recall seeing a photocopy of the receipt for the Amstrad, (faxed through to me from Shirley Harrison), prior to Mike handing it to Alan Gray in the summer of 1994. This is just an impression from memory though so, unless I can back it with the actual fax, is worthless. Does not Barrett give a date in his January 1995 sworn affidavit of when he purchased the word processor which conflicts with the date on the actual receipt?

KS

It's not a wilderness without mirrors, Keith.

As usual, Barrett's memories were not entirely accurate, but considering his mental state in January 1995, I'll give him a half a cigar.

"I had actually written the "Jack the Ripper Diary" first on my word processor, which I purchased in 1985, from Dixons in Church Street, Liverpool City Centre. The Diary was on two hard back discs when I had finished it. The Discs, the one Photograph, the compass, all pens and the remainder of the ink was taken by my sister Lynn Richardson to her home address, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. When I asked her at a later date for the property she informed me that after an article had appeared in the Daily Post, by Harold Brough, she had destroyed everything, in order to protect me."

The processor was bought at Dixon's, but not in Liverpool City Center, but in Garston. It wasn't 1985, but 3 April 1986.

A discrepancy, Keith, but not as big of a discrepancy of what he had told you and Shirley Harrison in 1992-94, when he dated the purchase to shortly after Anthony B. Devereux's death in August 1991 in order to "launch himself into extensive research, intending to write the story of the diary himself." (Harrison, p. 7-8)

One rather obvious explanation for this wild tale is that Barrett was post-dating his purchase of the Amstrad by 5 years and 3 months in order to make it appear as if this "former chef and scrap metal dealer" had bought the wp for research purchases after he had received the Diary, thus disguising the fact that he was a freelance writer, as documented by Lord Orsam, who shows that Mike had been using the wp to write up articles, etc., for a good long while.

What you seek can be found here, including the Dixon's receipt.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...word-processor

[Iconoclast]

Admittedly, [Mike] could have been lying through his teeth.
KS

Only on a day with a 'Y' in it, Keith.

Ike

[jmenges]

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.

Thank you Roger. Your cliché is more apt to what I sometimes feel when reading some of the ‘contributions’ to the ongoing discussions about the Diary on the Message Boards!

What is often forgotten is that none of us knew how any of this was going to play out from day to day. None of us could divine the future. Had I been more astute, alert, intelligent or a trained investigator blessed with the research skills and perceptive qualities of many who post on these boards, I would have asked Feldy ‘how’ he thought he was helping Mike? As it was, I didn’t – and now Paul Feldman is dead. Therefore, because of my lack of experience and ‘bungling’ (Melvin Harris’s favourite word when describing me as Feldman’s ‘henchman’) I have created a fertile breeding ground for your blunt questions – from which I do not flinch. I still see Feldman’s slight embarrassment at telling me what he had advised Mike, perhaps realising that he done a stupid thing. You are quite right to explore your suspicion about what other “instructions/advice Paul Feldman may have doled out to other participants in the mystery, particularly Anne Graham and Robbie Johnson.” All I can say with utmost sincerity is no matter how foolish some of Feldman’s actions may have been – no matter how bizarre his theories – they all sprung from his 100% belief in the authenticity of this document. Nobody I worked alongside – in either camp – ever voiced their suspicion that Feldman was pimping it. And I have repeatedly said that if I knew he was concealing evidence or information which conclusively exposed the Diary to be a modern hoax, then I would have revealed it and walked off the project. It was no big deal for me to be wrong then and it’s no big deal for me to be wrong now. I have often read in the past that evidence is being held back out of friendship to me because, once disclosed, it would damage my supposed reputation. I would have hoped that truth outweighed friendship in this respect. And what value friendship if I am meant to be aware of this crucial information and have carried on regardless? I could not look that person in the face and neither would I expect he/she to want to have anything further to do with me.

It is true that, somewhat uncharitably, I did wonder if Melvin Harris had been Rendell’s source – and I note the same thought had occurred to you. Yet, according to what we wrote in Inside Story(p.69) Rendell’s source, (predicated on Shirley Harrison’s understanding), was Scotland Yard. Had I been Shirley I would have pressed Rendell for a name and details of the conversation. But is not the deeper point Roger, why questions about Mike’s word processor should be so significant or relevant in the first place? What prompted the question? I cannot remember anybody being suspicious about Mike having a word processor. And pp 84-85 of Inside Story summarises my taped interview with Mike Barrett in Liverpool Library on April 14th 1994 when I asked him about the word processor. Admittedly, he could have been lying through his teeth.

Finally – I may be mistaken – but I seem to recall seeing a photocopy of the receipt for the Amstrad, (faxed through to me from Shirley Harrison), prior to Mike handing it to Alan Gray in the summer of 1994. This is just an impression from memory though so, unless I can back it with the actual fax, is worthless. Does not Barrett give a date in his January 1995 sworn affidavit of when he purchased the word processor which conflicts with the date on the actual receipt?

KS

[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

[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.

[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?

[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).

[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

[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]

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

[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]

"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

[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.

[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.