Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    Can you shed some light on the 1999 Cloak & Dagger Club appearance?
    I'll leave that to Mr. Menges and the original organizers. I don't recall if I have ever heard this recording--I probably haven't. My original post referred only to the rendition of Mike's appearance given in Ripper Diary, and was merely pointing out that it wasn't strictly true that this was the first time that Barrett had said that the diary was created in only 11 days. Mike's sobriety/lack thereof had nothing to do with the original comment; the point was that Mike was oddly consistent in this one strange detail, since he also mentioned the 11 day span in his 1995 confession. As Orsam points out in his first two or three posts on this thread, the 11 day scenario seems generally consistent with the purchase date, arrival, and subsequent rejection of the 1891 diary, and the next auction held by Outhwaite & Litherland. I appreciate that that is a trail some are unwilling to trek, but was interesting to me.

    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    If he had KS, he appears to have become one of the relatively small percentage who not only 'recover' from it but who go on to live reasonably long lives.


    Did he recover?? There was a poster here a year or so ago who knew Barrett near the end, and he stated that he was indistinguishable from a street drunk.



    P.S. I had to reread your post to make sure I understood you. It is unfortunate, when discussing the Diary, that Keith Skinner and Korsakoff's Syndrome share the same initials, though certainly not the same attributes. :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    If memory serves, Ike, this was revealed by Shirley Harrison in the Blake edition of her work, which is the one people should be reading, as it contains info not available in the earlier editions. The diagnosis came shortly after Mike's admission to the Fazakerley Hospital. Nick Warren also alludes to Korsakoff's Syndrome, albeit ironically, in Ripperana, No. 11. I say ironically, because this is the same issue where a startlingly focused Barrett reveals that 'O Costly Intercourse of Death' can be found in Christopher Rick's book...a surprising piece of scholarship coming from a man generally associated with a bar stool. I humbly suggest that it would have been far easier for Barrett to have located the quote in the small number of books gathered together in the Goldie Street home than in the tens of thousands of volumes in the Central Liverpool Library. But I'm far from convinced that Barrett's syndrome was an act (if that is what Warren was implying). I have listened to too many hours of his mad ramblings not to conclude that he suffered from some strange disorder. Reminds me a bit of one of my relatives suffering from dementia. He had no idea anymore when he was or was not telling the truth. My opinion.
    I do have her Blake paperback (first published in 1998) as well as the original hardback. A private email has directed me to another edition of the paperback so I'm sure I'll track it down either from what I have or what I will order if I need to. If he had KS, he appears to have become one of the relatively small percentage who not only 'recover' from it but who go on to live reasonably long lives. Either way, KS could be used to explain his behaviour 'change' up to the point at which he confessed or simply provide clarification around why he confessed (to something he hadn't done).

    Can you shed some light on the 1999 Cloak & Dagger Club appearance? As I had understood it, Mike was largely there under his own steam (there was no hidden agenda in getting him onto the stage) and that he had made numerous claims that 'tonight would be the night' when he finally nailed the hoax. For example, he had promised to produce the O&U receipt for the purchase of the scrapbook (which would have been staggering as he had - I think I'm right in saying - never previously mentioned he had it; not even in his affidavit). I could refer to Inside Story to check this, but I'm sure my memory does not let me down. I'm certain I'm right in saying this, and I'm definitely certain that Mike singularly failed to produce this or any other proof of his master hoax. Which was surely no surprise to anyone?

    Cheers,

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    But I'm far from convinced that Barrett's syndrome was an act (if that is what Warren was implying). I have listened to too many hours of his mad ramblings not to conclude that he suffered from some strange disorder. Reminds me a bit of one of my relatives suffering from dementia. He had no idea anymore when he was or was not telling the truth.
    That would be congruent with Korsakoff's Syndrome, which is similar in many ways to dementia.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Ike-- another thing. The red diary produced by Anne G. was from 1891, not 1890, so technically it fell outside the parameters of the original advertisement in Bookdealer. I doubt that means much, other than shows the difficulty in coming up with a blank or largely blank diary from the late Victorian era.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I was unaware that a GP or specialist had diagnosed Barrett with Korsakoff's Syndrome. This (I think) is news to me. Can you provide a source for this, please?
    If memory serves, Ike, this was revealed by Shirley Harrison in the Blake edition of her work, which is the one people should be reading, as it contains info not available in the earlier editions. The diagnosis came shortly after Mike's admission to the Fazakerley Hospital. Nick Warren also alludes to Korsakoff's Syndrome, albeit ironically, in Ripperana, No. 11. I say ironically, because this is the same issue where a startlingly focused Barrett reveals that 'O Costly Intercourse of Death' can be found in Christopher Rick's book...a surprising piece of scholarship coming from a man generally associated with a bar stool. I humbly suggest that it would have been far easier for Barrett to have located the quote in the small number of books gathered together in the Goldie Street home than in the tens of thousands of volumes in the Central Liverpool Library. But I'm far from convinced that Barrett's syndrome was an act (if that is what Warren was implying). I have listened to too many hours of his mad ramblings not to conclude that he suffered from some strange disorder. Reminds me a bit of one of my relatives suffering from dementia. He had no idea anymore when he was or was not telling the truth. My opinion.

    Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-14-2019, 02:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I'm rather surprised you're willing to admit that, Ike. The Barrett I heard circa 1995 was diagnosed with Korsakoff's Syndrome. Taking him in front of the public would have been akin to bear-baiting and couldn't possibly have achieved anything worthwhile other than make Barrett look like a fool.

    Personally, having listened to several hours of Mike's (private) ramblings, I am of the opinion that he was constitutionally unable to tell a straight story--drunk or sober-- which is not the same thing as saying that he didn't at one time know where the Diary came from, or that he was simply "putting on an act." I don't think it was an act. The trouble is that from this murky, frustrating sea of endless mad rambling and obvious contradiction, once-in-a-blue-moon he spat out two or three things that have every appearance of 'inside' information--the existence of the red diary and the correct citation of the Crashaw quote, for instance--and no one has given a credible explanation of how he was able to do that unless he was involved. An alternative explanation, however, is that he wasn't involved, but had 'found out things' about the involvement of someone else at the Goldie Street address.
    Hi Roger,

    For clarity, I was suggesting that Barrett's confession was entirely drink-induced, so it shouldn't come as any surprise to you that I would say so - but perhaps you interpreted my comment differently?

    I would give you the Crashaw poem. That Barrett 'found' it is unexpected, other - of course - than for the facts that he was looking for it (so he clearly didn't simply stumble upon it) and that he had ample time on his hands to do so in a library which was likely to eventually provide a solution. It has been said that he had the Sphere volume in his attic (a post-Hillsborough donation) which is very suss, but it has also been said that he simply bought a second hand copy once he knew which book he would find the poem in. I would give you the Crashaw poem, but with significant reservations.

    The red Victorian diary is not 'insider knowledge'. He bought one and that doesn't appear to be in doubt. Quite why he needed about 20 blank pages is unclear, but so is why he would accept one from 1890, nor why - if he had already written the text - he asked for just 20 pages (40 sides) in what turned-out to be a very small diary given his 'needs'.

    I was unaware that a GP or specialist had diagnosed Barrett with Korsakoff's Syndrome. This (I think) is news to me. Can you provide a source for this, please? I agree that around 1995 Barrett would have many of the features of KS, but I doubt that would have increased the probability of his having hoaxed the Maybrick scrapbook, so I guess all that would do is point towards him knowing the person who did, which is what your final point implies. I guess the only person alive who knows for certain the status of the Maybrick scrapbook as far back as 1968 is now realistically the only person who can solve this mystery one way or t'other.

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    I think you could easily 'chunk' this one up a level or two instead. Anyone who claims what Barrett claimed and then goes to the C&D Club and gets himself plastered is sending out a very clear message that it was the 'plastering' that made him claim what he claimed in the first place.
    I'm rather surprised you're willing to admit that, Ike. The Barrett I heard circa 1995 was diagnosed with Korsakoff's Syndrome. Taking him in front of the public would have been akin to bear-baiting and couldn't possibly have achieved anything worthwhile other than make Barrett look like a fool.

    Personally, having listened to several hours of Mike's (private) ramblings, I am of the opinion that he was constitutionally unable to tell a straight story--drunk or sober-- which is not the same thing as saying that he didn't at one time know where the Diary came from, or that he was simply "putting on an act." I don't think it was an act. The trouble is that from this murky, frustrating sea of endless mad rambling and obvious contradiction, once-in-a-blue-moon he spat out two or three things that have every appearance of 'inside' information--the existence of the red diary and the correct citation of the Crashaw quote, for instance--and no one has given a credible explanation of how he was able to do that unless he was involved. An alternative explanation, however, is that he wasn't involved, but had 'found out things' about the involvement of someone else at the Goldie Street address.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-14-2019, 01:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    exactly ap.
    but i guess we'll get twenty pages of debate on how drunk he was on particular night, including weight to alcohol consumption innebriation charts, speech and language experts and reams of eyewitness and earwitness testimony.
    yippy! this is is cutting edge stuff!
    I think you could easily 'chunk' this one up a level or two instead. Anyone who claims what Barrett claimed and then goes to the C&D Club and gets himself plastered is sending out a very clear message that it was the 'plastering' that made him claim what he claimed in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by APerno View Post

    IMO that goes beyond "suggestive" - that is the kind of circumstantial evidence that moves a jury beyond reasonable doubt
    exactly ap.
    but i guess we'll get twenty pages of debate on how drunk he was on particular night, including weight to alcohol consumption innebriation charts, speech and language experts and reams of eyewitness and earwitness testimony.
    yippy! this is is cutting edge stuff!

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I only know what I read in the papers.

    "A minder from among the ranks of Ripperologists, Andy Aliffe, was assigned to keep Barrett in check, at least until his talk at the Cloak and Dagger Club the next evening..." Ripper Diary, 234.

    I suppose Mike's minder may have allowed him to get drunk just before being questioned by Keith Skinner, but that would seem more akin to the methodology of Alan Gray or Paul Feldman. I have no idea.

    Either way, regardless of what Barrett or Graham said on various occasions, someone in that household tried to buy a genuine Victorian Diary 'with at least twenty blank pages' in the weeks before any credible person ever set eyes on the Maybrick Diary, and the timing is more than suggestive.
    Anyone who was there will confirm that Mike was well and truly plastered. Andy Aliffe would no doubt have done his best, but he wouldn't have been able to stop Mike from drinking. All he could have done, and the best he was probably expected to do, was to limit Mike's intake and make sure he was capable of standing and talking after a fashion.

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I only know what I read in the papers.

    "A minder from among the ranks of Ripperologists, Andy Aliffe, was assigned to keep Barrett in check, at least until his talk at the Cloak and Dagger Club the next evening..." Ripper Diary, 234.

    I suppose Mike's minder may have allowed him to get drunk just before being questioned by Keith Skinner, but that would seem more akin to the methodology of Alan Gray or Paul Feldman. I have no idea.

    Either way, regardless of what Barrett or Graham said on various occasions, someone in that household tried to buy a genuine Victorian Diary 'with at least twenty blank pages' in the weeks before any credible person ever set eyes on the Maybrick Diary, and the timing is more than suggestive.
    IMO that goes beyond "suggestive" - that is the kind of circumstantial evidence that moves a jury beyond reasonable doubt

    Leave a comment:


  • jmenges
    replied
    Originally posted by jmenges View Post

    This rather chaotic C&D appearance was presented as a Question and Answer session with Keith Skinner. Barrett repeatedly boasts that he "conned" Doreen Montgomery "just like Paul Newman in The Sting".
    He practically yells at the audience "I created the Diary- FULL STOP."
    I would be very surprised to learn that Mike was sober that evening.

    JM
    In case anyone is wondering- or writing elsewhere (Orsam) - why I said I'd be surprised to learn Mike was sober that evening...I have a recording of this Cloak and Dagger meeting. I'll be releasing it before too long and everyone can make up their own minds as to Barrett's state of mind.
    I was not there, and I'm undecided as to whether Mike Barrett was involved in creating the Diary.

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by jmenges View Post
    I would be very surprised to learn that Mike was sober that evening.
    I only know what I read in the papers.

    "A minder from among the ranks of Ripperologists, Andy Aliffe, was assigned to keep Barrett in check, at least until his talk at the Cloak and Dagger Club the next evening..." Ripper Diary, 234.

    I suppose Mike's minder may have allowed him to get drunk just before being questioned by Keith Skinner, but that would seem more akin to the methodology of Alan Gray or Paul Feldman. I have no idea.

    Either way, regardless of what Barrett or Graham said on various occasions, someone in that household tried to buy a genuine Victorian Diary 'with at least twenty blank pages' in the weeks before any credible person ever set eyes on the Maybrick Diary, and the timing is more than suggestive.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmenges
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I did notice the following passage in Ripper Diary, pg. 235. It was a statement made by an apparently sober Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger Club in April 1999.

    "There was another deviation from earlier accounts. Barrett told the assembled guests that he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary."
    This rather chaotic C&D appearance was presented as a Question and Answer session with Keith Skinner. Barrett repeatedly boasts that he "conned" Doreen Montgomery "just like Paul Newman in The Sting".
    He practically yells at the audience "I created the Diary- FULL STOP."
    I would be very surprised to learn that Mike was sober that evening.

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Finally, I can confirm that in March 1992 Outhwaite & Litherland held auctions once a week, every Tuesday, so that the first auction held after Barrett would have received the 1891 diary would have been on Tuesday, 31 March 1992. The auction (like other auctions in that month), held at Kingsway Galleries, Fontenoy Street, Liverpool, was described in antique magazines as being for "Victorian, Edwardian & modern furniture and effects". It started at 10.30am. Had Barrett taken 11 days to forge the diary as he claims in his affidavit and, had he started work on 31 March, the writing would have been finished on 10 April. He went to see Doreen in London on 13 April.
    As stated elsewhere on this thread, I have a memory of Barrett telling Gray in one of the tapes that the diary did not physically exist when he called Doreen Montgomery on 9 March 1992. I haven't yet been able to confirm that, and I may be mistaken, but I did notice the following passage in Ripper Diary, pg. 235. It was a statement made by an apparently sober Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger Club in April 1999.

    "There was another deviation from earlier accounts. Barrett told the assembled guests that he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bait, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just eleven days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary."

    I'm not sure I agree that this was a 'deviation.' As 'Orsam' notes, Barrett also mentions the 11 day span back in his 1995 confession. It's a curious detail. If the scrapbook was obtained on 31 March, as seems logical, and he spent April 1st cutting out the pages and cleaning the manufacturer's sticker off the cover with linseed oil and letting it dry, the actual transcription would have commenced on 2 April. 2 April-12 April is 11 days inclusive. Barrett took the train to London and met Doreen on 13 April.

    Would Barrett have the wherewithal to realize this timing would 'fit' with the details discovered much later by Orsam?

    Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-07-2019, 02:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X