Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[Spider]

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?

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

[Iconoclast]

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.

I think you do me a disservice, Roger. I'm confident (though not certain) that I myself pointed our readers to this series of broadcasts in one of the active Maybrick threads just a matter of a few weeks ago (I don't recall which), though I may be confusing myself with my latest updates to Society's Pillar in which I write [p95]:

Rather critically, Barrett took part in a Radio Merseyside broadcast (aired on September 13 and 20, 1995) during which he very soberly, articulately, and even rather self-effacingly deconstructed the hoax confession he had made over a year earlier [42]. Those who persist in clinging to Barrett’s alcohol-induced confession that he created the Maybrick scrapbook – if sincere – need to qualify his inability to provide a cogent account of how he created the hoax along with his later sober rejection of it.

In terms of context, would anyone in all seriousness tout a drunken confession to anything as having greater validity than a sober reaffirmation of what drink rejected unless one is psychologically drawn towards the former over the latter? At best, one might strip out the alcohol and argue that the two claims simply cancel one another out; but to continue to give credence to the confession over the rejection of the confession simply points the finger at the commentator and begs the question of what could possibly motivate them to cling so desperately to that which was so rapidly and enduringly disavowed?

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.

Catching Mike Barrett in a lie was not unique to any given period of time post the breakdown of his marriage. It seems that for as long as he managed to grasp any opportunity to stay in the limelight, he fell prey to his own weak ego, independent of what that day's version of 'the truth' happened to be.

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.

I can only take from this that you are implying that Mike's retraction of his 'honest' confession was insincere because of the 'lies' you feel he was peddling when retracting his confession in a radio interview. We are all welcome to take Barrett's post-1994 comments with a very large pinch of salt. That includes his retraction, of course, but I keep raising this as a reminder to all that "the forger confessed" was only a - relatively brief - part of Walter Mitty's long autobiography which he started at some point in 1994.

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!!

No, you are quite right, and I'm really surprised to see that you failed completely to see the irony of my suggestion in the first place. Of course Mike Barrett wasn't the greatest actor of all time. He didn't need to be between 1992 and 1994 (when his consistent story started to break down) because neither was he the greatest forger of all time. He was telling the truth between 1992 and 1994, and then his faculties started to fail him and his 'truth' became whatever he thought he would like to say in the moment he said it. Before then, he was not an actor, nor a forger. He certainly became an actor on a stage after 1994's meltdown, but never once a forger, never mind the greatest of all time.

[jmenges]

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.

Roger – 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. Mike did not think to bring with him the O&L auction ticket which four years later, in April 1999, he brought with him to the C&D meeting in London to have another go at putting an end to the Diary once and for all – but failed to produce. Common to the January 1995 Affidavit and the July 1995 meeting and the April 1999 C&D meeting is Mike’s determination to destroy both the Diary and Paul Feldman who he blames for everything that has gone wrong in his life since the beginning of 1993. Added to which Feldman is now working with Mike’s wife, from whom he is separated, to find the evidence to support Anne’s story the Diary has come through her family. 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. So against that highly charged and emotional background – complicated by KS syndrome – in the Autumn of 1995, Mike decides the best way to destroy both the Diary and Feldman is to have faith in the Diary he and Anne have jointly created and put out an appeal that everybody should be working together. 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, (and by extension therefore no stain on his daughter) has incensed him. So it is a bit of a peculiar interview Mike gives, but I’m sure you will be able to rationalise it allowing you find the emotional context to be of any relevance.

However – are you saying these two Radio Merseyside interviews of Mike Barrett should be listened to from the perspective of Mike’s January 1995 Sworn Affidavit being true, (along with his earlier confession to Harold Brough in June 1994) and that he is now trying “walk back” his confessions because he had decided to become a Diary believer? In other words because it is so full of gibberish and contradictions and contains nothing of value, it should be ignored?

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?

KS

[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.