Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Graham]

Oooh, salt in the wound, you rotter! I do remember that drubbing and I do remember Andy Carroll. Back with the Toon, I see. Don't mention his name too loudly if you're ever alone on a wet night at chucking-out time in Brum. The banner was a bit naughty, but it didn't matter too much, did it, as your lot were back up again after just the one season in the Chumpionship. The bloke who made the banner also made one taking the mickey out of David O'Leary, which I suppose was fair enough.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Yes Ike, I understand that...but we haven't seen Harry's example yet, have we? I've got the champers on ice, and the caviare ready....

Graham

I was tempted to make a truly crappy joke about this being in anticipation of Villa picking up a point this weekend until my brain informed me of the obvious glass-houses impact this would have in my life so I shan't.

Interestingly, whilst I'm on a Villa theme, did you realise that it is nine years to the day that we beat you 6-0 for our first win back in the Premiership after the banners thing? Andy Carroll hat-trick. Now, whatever happened to him?

PS I'm not blaming you personally for the banners thing, and I'm actually almost over it now. I believe that guy has been banned from entering any home furnishings-related store within 30 miles of Solihull? Personally, I feel he should have done time, but there you go ...

[Graham]

Yes Ike, I understand that...but we haven't seen Harry's example yet, have we? I've got the champers on ice, and the caviare ready....

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Ike, it was our Sam in Post 1781 who showed us the cutting containing the phrase 'one off-sale'. With a totally different connotation to our longed-for and elusive 'one-off'. But the day will come....

Graham

Hi Graham,

Sam's example is from an American publication of 1860 (and this does not contradict Lord Orsam's theory). The one harry is quoting is apparently from a British newspaper of 1871 (and could contradict Lord Orsam's theory depending upon what it actually states).

Cheers,

Ike

[Graham]

Ike, it was our Sam in Post 1781 who showed us the cutting containing the phrase 'one off-sale'. With a totally different connotation to our longed-for and elusive 'one-off'. But the day will come....

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Ike,
As a matter of interest,I did find the use of one off in a British newspaper of 1871. 24-6-1871 .It relates to a one off sale of goods.Page 3 of a180 page edition.

The way you phrase this, harry, seems to indicate that it should be interpreted as "one-off sale of goods" - the alternative doesn't seem syntactically correct otherwise ("a one off-sale of goods") but clearly we need to see it please.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Harry and Sam,

the term 'off-sale' means the sale of alcoholic drinks, and presumably other items too, for consumption or use away from, or 'off' the premises; same meaning as the more modern term 'off-licence'. My old man sometimes used the term 'off-sale' when he nipped round to the 'outdoor' for a couple of bottles on a Saturday night. If Harry's reference has the hyphen between 'one' and 'off', then he's onto something. I rather hope it has.

Graham

It would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons if it did, though at this point I will remind everyone yet again to be cautious as the author of the Maybrick scrapbook did not write "one-off" anything whatsoever and that it is purely the interpretation of those determined to uncover a hoax which leads people to imagine that it should be interpreted with (rather than without) the critical hyphen (metaphorically speaking).

[Graham]

Harry and Sam,

the term 'off-sale' means the sale of alcoholic drinks, and presumably other items too, for consumption or use away from, or 'off' the premises; same meaning as the more modern term 'off-licence'. My old man sometimes used the term 'off-sale' when he nipped round to the 'outdoor' for a couple of bottles on a Saturday night. If Harry's reference has the hyphen between 'one' and 'off', then he's onto something. I rather hope it has.

Graham

[Sam Flynn]

Ike,
As a matter of interest,I did find the use of one off in a British newspaper of 1871. 24-6-1871 .It relates to a one off sale of goods.Page 3 of a180 page edition.

Could you give us a link to the reference, Harry? I ask, because I found an example from an American publication of 1860:



... you'll note, however, that the term referred to here is one "off-sale", not a "one-off" sale.

[Iconoclast]

Ike,
As a matter of interest,I did find the use of one off in a British newspaper of 1871. 24-6-1871 .It relates to a one off sale of goods.Page 3 of a180 page edition.

Hi harry,

Lord Orsam's position is that no-one on the planet in 1888 or 1889 could have conjoined the two concepts of 'one off' (no hypen in the scrapbook, of course) and 'event' or 'instance'. I would ask that you post your source for 'one off sale of goods' as that is clearly not used in the context His Lordship allows. He permits for the use of 'one-off' in a strictly manufacturing context (e.g., 'spoon template, one off the run' or some such jargon) and - by 1903 - 'from a one-off viewpoint' (or was it 'standpoint'?) in relation to the one-off manufacturing process; but he is adamant that the use of 'one off [event]' was not documented until at least the mid-20th century and then only in common written use by around the 1980s. If you have found the use in a British newspaper in 1871 of the expression 'one off sale of goods', I think we will all be back off to the 'Incontrovertible' thread, just for jolly, as you would have dispensed with his theory in one swoop, for clearly if it was used in 1871 in print, how many more times was it used thereafter in written documents and letters and everyday speech?

Amazing work, harry. Let us know the newspaper in question, and - ideally - post a scan of the actual entry.

Cheers,

Ike

[harry]

Ike,
As a matter of interest,I did find the use of one off in a British newspaper of 1871. 24-6-1871 .It relates to a one off sale of goods.Page 3 of a180 page edition.

[rjpalmer]

I just want to try and clarify in my own mind your interpretation of Mike Barrett’s Radio Merseyside interviews on September 13^th and September 20^th 1995. As you know these come 9 months after Mike’s Sworn Affidavit of January 5^th 1995 and 2 to 3 months after the day in July 1995 when he came up from Liverpool to Paul Feldman’s office in London order to put an end to the Diary once and for all. I was present along with Martin Howells.

Hi Keith. Yes. Exactly. Barrett made repeated claims of having hoaxed the diary, beginning in June 1994, and continuing up through July 1995.

But--and this was my main point-- was that the impression that Mike Barrett was trying to leave with the Radio Merseyside listeners and with his interviewer Bob Azurdia?

Hardly. Barrett was trying to falsely assert that his confession was a brief, "one off" statement to Harold Brough, made after a session of binge drinking. I quote from the interview.

BA: Yes, but you had signed a statement to the effect that it was a hoax, not necessarily by you yourself.

MB: It was a Daily Post statement.

BA: Indeed--

MB: And that was the only statement I've ever signed. Only to the Daily Post. No others whatsoever.

So yes, this is Barrett falsely "walking back" what was, in reality, a long string of confessions. He doesn't mention his taped efforts with Alan Gray. He doesn't mention the affidavits of Jan 5^th and Jan 25^th 1995. He doesn't mention your meeting with him in July. He doesn't mention his scribbled notes to Anne Graham. He is trying to leave the impression that there was only one brief confesssion: to Brough, made while drunk. He is being evasive and dismissive. There is no other way of interpreting it.

Here he is again

BA: But is it not the case that on the 5th of January this year you signed a statement, you actually signed a statement in the solicitor's office in Dale Street in Liverpool to the effect that your wife, Anne, had physically written the diaries, you provided the information for her to write and the two of you together with Tony Devereux had conspired the whole thing?

MB: No, that is totally incorrect whatsoever.

But of course, this ISN'T "incorrect." It is precisely what Barrett did do.

Here it is a third time:

BA: Well now, you did say earlier on that you had not signed any other affidavits at all or any other -

MB: The only affidavit I did sign which I think this is where the misconception is, arose, is that I had, I made an affidavit saying that I do not and will not believe Anne's statement until is explained and I had the evidence in front of me.

As for Mike's original rationale for confessing, you write:

In Mike's mind this means the one person he holds most dear, his daughter and whom he has now lost (because of Feldman) is tainted with being descended from Florence Maybrick and therefore carries the stigma of being related to Jack The Ripper. Thus, Mike and Anne have jointly created a hoax which has taken on a life of its own and like Frankenstein's monster (I believe Mike actually says that during the interview) has to be destroyed for the sake of his daughter

Yes, that's Mike's alleged rationale. But Keith, are you suggesting that in June 1994, when Barrett first began confessing (to Brough) that Feldman had already formulated the theory that Anne Graham was related to Jack the Ripper, and Mike Barrett knew about it? Or is the chronology of Mike's rationale entirely wrong? It has always been asserted that Anne Graham only came forward and began working with Feldman after Mike's June 1994 confession in the Liverpool Post. Does this not make Mike's excuse of "I confessed because they said my daughter was related to Jack the Ripper" an obvious anachronism?

Further, it is obvious that the interviewer Bob Azurdia doesn't find Mike's explanation credible. How could a father spare his daughter social embarrassment by falsely confessing to a crime in a statement that would be splattered all over the evening newspapers? The poor kid would be mortified. Is it better to have the world think of her parents as hoaxers, or that her great granddaddy may have been Jack the Ripper?

Anyway, Barrett completely undermines his own rationale by stating several times that he doesn't and won't believe Anne's claims, or Feldman's genealogical evidence, unless it is staring him in the face.

MB: "We have asked for Mr. Paul Feldman, who produced the video, to produce the appropriate documents that he has fit and he has not seen fit to produce them to Shirley Harrison or I or Doreen Montgomery or Robert Smith."
Or, as already quoted earlier:
MB: I made an affidavit saying that I do not and will not believe Anne's statement until it is explained and I had the evidence in front of me.

Mike's now wants us to believe that he falsely confessed to a fraud in order to protect his daughter from an unsupported claim that he, himself, does not believe and won't believe unless the evidence is produced?
How does that one work?

No, I'm sorry Keith. I believe that Mike's stream-of-conscious patter is merely an attempt to "walk back" a SERIES of confessions he had made over a period of nearly a year, and it is obvious that he is being evasive throughout.

But it doesn't seem to be deep concern over his daughter that propels him into action and sparks off the series of Liverpool Radio Merseyside interviews but rather the dismissal of the Diary as a hoax which two authors have just claimed whilst promoting their newly published book on Radio Merseyside. The very thing which Mike wanted to hear and indeed most people believed anyway about the Diary being a fraud

Mike may have enjoyed hearing this back in June 1994, but he clearly doesn't enjoy hearing it here in September 1995 ; for, once again, Mike is donning the jacket of a "true believer".

Why? Is it because of the Evans and Gainey interview? Possibly, but I think Mike reveals a more credible explanation in the course of the interview:

BA: Do you feel that [the Diary] is going to take any more turns at all or will your book be republished yet again?

MB: Oh I should imagine it will be republished because there is talk now of a movie.

BA: Still?

MB: Oh yes, still talk of a movie, yes.

BA: Because surely the feeling was that it was discredited by that story of yours in the Daily Post?

MB: Well if it was discredited then how come just less than a few weeks ago New Line Cinemas stepped in and are offering quite a considerable sum of money to be involved?

BA: In the last couple of months?

MB: It's been negotiated for the last 18 months and that was well before, that was well after the Daily Post, well after the Daily Post, they said they're very, very, interested in making a movie. They're talking about Sir Anthony Hopkins playing the part of James Maybrick.

The way I read this is that Barrett, with the help of Gray, and with the motivation of "getting even" with Smith and Feldman, attempted to sell a true confession of the Maybrick Diary toward the end of 1994. Gray failed to get any publishers or newspapers interested, and, at any rate, his relationship with Barrett completely soured over the following weeks and months.

Meanwhile, Barrett, to his credit, sobers up. Now far more restrained and coherent, Barrett has come to his senses and realizes that his confession has brought his future royalties in jeopardy, with no hope of any other form of compensation.

With a film deal on the horizon, Barrett realizes another edition of the Diary is likely to be published, along with another flurry of public interest. Thus he walks back his confessions, however unsuccessfully, in order to cash in on this new hope in the way of royalty cheques. I'm not saying that Barrett was "put up" to it--he would have realized this on his own--but certainly Smith, Montgomery, and Harrison must have told him many times how damaging his confessions had been to the Diary and how any future sales and/or editions would suffer from it. Thus, Mike was now back "on board."

That's how I interpret it, Keith. How do you interpret it?

Incidentally, do you know for certain that the Solicitor, in front of whom Mike made his Affidavit, was his own Solicitor --or might it have been a different Firm he went to--presumably with Alan Gray?

No. I think you are right. I don't know this was filed with Bark-Jones; it was with a firm of solicitors, D.P. Hardy, Imperial Chambers, Dale Street, Liverpool. Does it matter? I assume you aren't seriously suggesting that D. P. Hardy may have changed Barrett's confession after-the-fact, as Mike implies in the interview? Or do you have some other point in mind?

Incidentally, David O. has made an entire transcript of the Radio Merseyside interview.

It can be found here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...september-1995

Several posters have noted Mike's odd and idiosyncratic use of the word "within" throughout the interview and point out that this same odd usage also appears in the text of the Diary.

[Iconoclast]

Keith Skinner responds:A gentleman I sat next to at the 2017 Liverpool Conference told me he knew Caroline’s teacher at the time (circa 1992-1995) and how much it had affected Caroline at school. Could be all rubbish and pretence of course but she and her mother never did return to the family home after Anne walked out at the beginning of 1994 – and I sometimes wonder if Mike and Anne did create the Diary, was
their daughter an innocent casualty of their duplicity?
KS

Hi Keith,

Here's something that I have always struggled with. There doesn't seem to be any doubt that Caroline was the apple of Mike and Anne's eyes, and quite rightly so, and yet we are to believe that her parents committed fraud whilst she was present (Mike claimed that Caroline was on occasion witness to the hoax being created, if my memory doesn't fail me). This just doesn't ring true to me in any way - that they would gamble their beloved daughter's future happiness for the sake of the King's shilling. They were financially stretched, but we have to believe that - unlike millions of couples who struggle with money - they were willing to get out of their pecuniary challenges by committing a serious crime, a felony which would land at least one of them (possibly both of them) in gaol if they got it wrong in any way. What sort of future would young Caroline have had in that event?

It is for simple, human reasons such as this that the Barretts-as-Master-Forgers theory is so implausible. There are other reasons why that theory fails, but perhaps the simple human one is the most compelling?

Cheers,

Ike "Tears in his Eyes" Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

I've often said that Anne could totally rid us of the smoke and mirrors regarding the origins of the 'Journal'. How nice it would be to finally get some clarity once and for all! The only problem is would she now be believed?
100% genuine article for me all day long

Agreed Spider, and agreed entirely that she would not be believed regardless of whatever she said, which is actually quite fair I guess because we can't have it both ways (we don't believe Mike, so we shouldn't believe Anne or anyone else for that matter unless they can produce evidence to support whatever claims they made or will make).

I don't know what evidence Anne could produce to prove the scrapbook is genuine so all we can probably hope for is that she produces the evidence that proves it is a hoax, but I don't believe that she can (because - like you - I don't believe it is a hoax) so I think we are all going to be left in limbo forever.

Still, I'm 99.9999% certain it is the real deal (slightly short of your certainty but perhaps not by a meaningful amount :-)) so I'm pretty cool with limbo.

Trust you're well, young man.

Ike

[jmenges]

Out of curiosity did their daughter ever comment on the subject?

Keith Skinner responds:

Paul Feldman, in his book, talks about going up to Liverpool at the beginning of 1993 when he became involved in the Diary project.
He took with him Paul Begg and Martin Howells and claims that Paul and Martin relentlessly interrogated daughter Caroline when they were all going out to lunch – Mike and Anne in a taxi – both Pauls, Martin and Caroline in a separate car - as Caroline wanted to
ride in Paul’s smart car! I spoke with Martin (Howells) about this episode a few years ago and he said it was utter bullshit what Paul had written. His recollection was that Caroline had very little to offer and he had come away feeling very flat and disappointed from
their visit to Liverpool to meet with the Barrett family. My understanding is this was a very traumatic and painful time for Caroline because of the rows between her parents, the domestic upheaval created by the Diary and eventual separation of her parents.

A gentleman I sat next to at the 2017 Liverpool Conference told me he knew Caroline’s teacher at the time (circa 1992-1995) and how much it had affected Caroline at school. Could be all rubbish and pretence of course but she and her mother never did return to the family home after Anne walked out at the beginning of 1994 – and I sometimes wonder if Mike and Anne did create the Diary, was
their daughter an innocent casualty of their duplicity?

KS