Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Hi Henry--And don't forget, on that very busy day we also need to make time for Mike to squeeze in a call to Pan Books. According to his agent, Doreen Montgomery, Mike initially attempted to sell the Diary directly to Pan, who told him to 'find an agent,' hence his call to her on March 9th. So when did Barrett call Pan?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz--Over the years, you've read quite a lot into the apparent fact that Anne Graham had initially refused to cash her royalty cheques. This is somehow offered up as "proof" that she wasn't involved in the creation of the diary, since she didn't try to cash in on it. Correct me if that's not your thinking.

Yet, in reality, isn't it likely that Anne was just following legal advice? She had recently left Barrett, who just as recently had confessed to perpetrating a hoax. Not long before, the police had been round. The threat of jail was real, or perceived to be real. If she knew the diary was a modern fake, then she would have been a fool to cash the cheques, as it may well have put her in legal jeopardy. As far as I see, if anything, her refusal suggests that she damn well knew exactly how the diary was created, and was probably scared silly.

But, I don't think I really have anything further to add to the diary threads. As far as evidence goes, it's not as "sexy" as the purchase of a blank Victorian diary, but I personally believe that Barrett coming up with correct citation of the Richard Crashaw quote proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he was involved in writing the text. In the years before Google, there was simply no way in Hades that Mike came up with that citation through "research." Have a good weekend.

[David Orsam]

And what, I wonder, does one make of Anne's reaction to Mike's reported claim in June 1994 that he had forged the diary?

According to the Liverpool Daily Post of 27 June 1994, which ran a headline "HOW I FAKED THE RIPPER DIARY", this is what Anne said:

"This is bull****. He told me he got the diary from Tony Devereux and that is all I know. He is now trying to get at me because I have left him. The whole thing is an absolute nightmare. But I will fight like a tiger to protect myself and my family against anything he says."

I have difficulty understanding this reaction if she either thought the diary had come from Tony Devereux or had been stolen from Battlecrease and given to Mike. In respect of the latter, a forgery story at least protected Mike from a charge of handling stolen goods. I also have difficulty in understanding this reaction if she knew the diary had been in her family for years and she had given it to Tony to give to Mike.

In all these scenarios, I just can't see how Mike claiming to have forged the diary was an attempt to get at Anne (or why she would have believed it was), nor why she felt she needed to fight like a tiger to protect herself and her family from Mike's claims. I mean, sure, if the diary had been in her family for years it damaged her own interests if it was thought a forgery but the whole point was that Mike didn't know this so how could he have been using the forgery claim to get back at her? Furthermore, in the very same quote she says that Mike told her he got the diary from Tony and that this is "all I know". Those are not the words of someone who felt she was ever going to reveal that she knew the diary had been in her family for donkey's years because it was such a blatant lie.

A certain person who, I believe, is well aware of this problem told us earlier in this thread (#54):

"I wouldn't claim to know how Anne's mind was working in the Spring/Summer of 1994, but as a woman who has been divorced myself, I can only imagine her reaction to Mike telling the papers that he had forged the diary himself! She must have worried initially that everyone would think she knew and had kept quiet."

I don't find that at all realistic. Mike was claiming at this time that HE and he alone had forged the diary. What kind of paranoid spouse would think that this meant that they were also implicated? I mean, seriously, Mike claims that he forged the diary, and was, as he said at the time, the greatest forger in history, and Anne is thinking that this means he is saying that she was also involved in the forgery?

It doesn't compute for me. But what certainly does compute is that if Anne actually had been involved in the forgery, then Mike's admission in a newspaper was way too close to the bone and her quoted response in the newspaper makes perfect sense. Equally, if their daughter had been aware of the forgery and had deliberately misled researchers about the Tony Devereux story it was potentially an attack on her too and Anne's reaction is understandable.

At the very least, Anne's reaction is perfectly consistent with the story that was subsequently to emerge in Mike's affidavit in January 1995. And I would say it is difficult to reconcile with any of the other scenarios.

One other point to note is that, following the Liverpool Daily Post story in late June 1994, it was the very next month (July 1994) that Anne suddenly confessed that the diary had been in her family since at least the 1960s and that she had given it to Tony to give to Mike. So from telling a reporter that she knew no more than that Tony had given it to her husband she was now effectively admitting that she had lied about that and knew a lot more of the story. Was she doing this, as has been claimed because she was under so much pressure to give Feldman a bogus story? Or was she being more calculated than this in order to deflect attention away from a forgery claim which had the potential to damage her and her family greatly?

[David Orsam]

Hi Henry--And don't forget, on that very busy day we also need to make time for Mike to squeeze in a call to Pan Books. According to his agent, Doreen Montgomery, Mike initially attempted to sell the Diary directly to Pan, who told him to 'find an agent,' hence his call to her on March 9th. So when did Barrett call Pan?

To which I would add, what time of day did he call Doreen?

[David Orsam]

Found under the floorboards - 1889 material!!!

An newspaper from 1889 and some old cigarette packets have been found under the floorboards of Buckingham Palace during renovation work:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/evening-standard-newspaper-from-reign-of-victoria-found-under-buckingham-palace-floorboards-a3744511.html

It is not known if an electrician made the discovery nor whether he mentioned to a colleague that it could be important.

[David Orsam]

You mean from notes taken by Harrison? I doubt the conversation was recorded on tape. The same with most of the other conversations. All we have are the participants' memories of what was said.

Did I suggest the conversation was recorded on tape? And I'm fairly sure you're not one of the book's authors. Perhaps the best course is to allow one of the book's authors (and it seems we might have two of them of this on this forum shortly) to reveal whether there is a written record of Harrison's telephone conversation with Whay, and whether this record reveals any more information than was published in Inside Story, rather than you speculating about it.

[Scott Nelson]

Yes, of course. How foolish of me.

[David Orsam]

No problem Scott.

[Phil Carter]

Excuse my tardiness in perhaps not being up to date on this subject..but I have some questions I would really like direct and truthful answers to if anyone knows them? Thank you.

1. We have recently been told the Diary was found in a biscuit tin.
a) What was the the colour of the tin?
b) What was the size of the tin?
c) What was the shape of the tin?
d) What was the make of the tin (the company that produced the biscuits)
e) What happened to the tin?

2. We are told the Diary was wrapped in paper when handed on.
a) was the paper wrapped on the book when in the tin itself?
b) was the paper added after the tin was opened?
c) if the answer to (2b) is no.. were there any biscuit crumb residue on the book from the tin?
d) if the answer is yes to (2b) who wrapped it, when and where?
e) what type of paper? If it was newspaper, from what year?
f) why was there a need to wrap something in a sheet/piece of paper when the Diary was fully protected and already hidden from view in the biscuit tin in the first place?

3. Why has nobody..and I mean nobody, explained any of the above either at the conference last year or in the very ample time since?

4. Does it not strike anyone else that this series of "explanations" we are expected to believe makes the whole story even more unbelievable? Perhaps it is just my old mind being cynical...

Thank you in advance for any responses. Direct..truthful responses please.

Happy New Year


Phil

[Observer]

Hi Phil

Happy New Year to you to

rjp, made a comment not too long ago to the effect that our friends across the pond seemed to have been missing out on their biscuit rations. It seems we Brits have unusually large biscuit tins in comparison to the American ones. Considering the size of the diary he rightly wondered if there were biscuit tins in the LVP which could accommodate the diary. He was promptly informed by an experienced smoke and mirror devotee that, yes, tins of such size were available in the LVP. I was sceptical that the answer to this comment was a tad too quick for the the smoke and mirror devotee to have checked out if indeed biscuit tins in the LVP, were large enough to accommodate the diary, and so i did a check. I must admit I didn't do an extensive search, but I couldn't find a reference to tins of the size which would be capable of holding the diary. Task for the weekend. Find a reference revealing whether a biscuit tin was in existence, in the LVP, which would accommodate the diary

Observer

[David Orsam]

I can’t answer any of your questions, Phil, but perhaps it might be helpful if I set out the evidence relating to the biscuit tin as I understand it.

Only one electrician has ever claimed to have been told that a biscuit tin was discovered under the floorboards of Battlecrease. This is Alan Davies who supposedly mentioned this piece of information to Alan Dodgson in an APS shop in Bootle in late 1992 (although we were originally told it was in late 1991).

Who told Alan Davies about a biscuit tin? Well the only name suggested by Davies has been Brian Rawes but Rawes has been adamant that he knew nothing about any biscuit tin. Davies’ actual words, when recently interviewed by James Johnston, were:

“I remember it was Brian [Rawes] or someone, telling me that it was in a tin under the floor.”

So it could have been anyone who told him and this seems to have excited Robert Smith who wonders in his book if it was Eddie Lyons who mentioned the biscuit tin to Davies. But, if that was the case, one would have thought that Davies would remember being told about the discovery by the person who actually made it.

Ultimately, then, the person who supposedly told Davies about the biscuit tin is unknown.

As for the contents of the biscuit tin, Davies is supposed to have told Dodgson in late 1992 that it contained two items: a leather bound diary and a gold wedding ring. However, when interviewed by James Johnston recently, his memory appears to have improved and he now thinks he remembers a watch being in the tin too:

Thus, he told JJ:

“Yeah, I remember a watch I think”

However, at the same time, he confirmed that this was all second hand information and that “I never seen anything”.

Given that we don’t know who the source of the biscuit tin story was and how reliable that person was, it could easily all have been a wind-up or an exaggeration of an existing story. Given also that the date of the APS shop conversation was, initially, wrongly stated to be late 1991 and is now stated to be late 1992, establishing the exact date is crucial because it seems it was in early 1993 that the theory that the diary had been found under the floorboards in Battlecrease was developed and this could have been known to the electricians (or some of them) which could thus have been the basic source for the "discovery of a diary under the floorboards" story apparently told by Davies to Dodgson and which had grown in the telling to include a biscuit tin.

[James_J]

Morning all,

Great to see that the debate has not ended, and some important questions being raised.

I shan't stay long (I've got some travelling to do) - but I've just been asked to place a holding message on behalf of Mr. Keith Skinner.

Keith has applied to join the forums, and will soon be able to answer these questions directly. For all parties concerned, this is fantastic news!

Keith has been involved with this story since 1992 - and I think it is fair to say, nobody has a better knowledge of the case.

Best wishes as always, JJ.

[Abby Normal]

Morning all,

Great to see that the debate has not ended, and some important questions being raised.

I shan't stay long (I've got some travelling to do) - but I've just been asked to place a holding message on behalf of Mr. Keith Skinner.

Keith has applied to join the forums, and will soon be able to answer these questions directly. For all parties concerned, this is fantastic news!

Keith has been involved with this story since 1992 - and I think it is fair to say, nobody has a better knowledge of the case.

Best wishes as always, JJ.

That’s great news!

I’ll ask him the first question.
Welcome mr. skinner.

Do you believe the diary is an old hoax, new hoax or real deal and why?

[James_J]

Hi Abby, Just passing this on from Keith.



Abby Normal



Thank you for your welcome and questions. Although I’m not

officially on board yet – and it is of course subject to the

Administrators approval as to whether my application is

accepted – I’ve asked James if he can smuggle in my response!



At the Liverpool Conference I gave my position as follows –

that I did not believe James Maybrick penned the Diary

and neither did I believe it was physically written by Michael

Barrett. I hear the arguments that JM’s handwriting could

have altered if internal and external influences were at

work. The same observation must therefore apply to Michael

Barrett. From memory I think I am correct in recalling that

Mike J.G. put up a post where he argued that, although an

individual’s personality might dramatically change under

abnormal circumstances and extreme psychological trauma

and that person’s handwriting have no resemblance to his

normal, conventional style, nevertheless certain characteristics

might remain consistent – letter formation and structure – spacing –

spelling maybe. I don’t know if this is correct but Mike J.G’s

post was one which chimed very much with my thinking – although

he expressed it far better than I could. We now have copious

examples of Maybrick’s formal hand and in a perfect world,

with funds available, I would be pushing for an expert, scientific

comparison analysis of the many examples we have of

Maybrick’s formal handwriting against the handwriting in

the Diary.



Do I believe the Diary is an old hoax?

Do I believe the Diary is a new hoax?

Do I believe the Diary is the real deal?



I cannot, I’m afraid, answer any of those questions. I can’t get that far

because the Diary is still a suspect document without a provenance.

Up until circa 2004 I accepted Anne Graham’s story, albeit it with reservations

as there was no evidential support. But, for me, it was the only game

in town. Mike Barrett had failed to conclusively prove he faked the

Diary. His sworn affidavits still stand though and cannot be ignored.

Moreover, Anne’s story, no matter how strange the circumstances

and motive for her secreting the Diary to Mike via a third person who

she hoped would not reveal it came from her, at least took the

chain of transmission back to Tony Devereux and then back to her.

That is where the trail ended for me in 2002. In 2004, Bruce Robinson

commissioned me to help with the research on his book and very much

as a side issue just asked me to take another look into the Diary’s

provenance. We discussed the stories associated with the electricians.

I had not been part of Paul Feldman’s investigation into the electricians

and had accepted Paul’s conclusion that they were just a bunch of shysters

out to fleece him for whatever money they could. But I had never fully

bothered myself with the reasons why Paul had eliminated the electricians

from his enquiries. It was only when I had sight of the timesheets and saw

the coincidence of that March 9th 1992 date( when work, apparently

involving floorboards being lifted in the room where James Maybrick died)

on the same day that Michael Barrett (using a false surname of ‘Williams’)

telephoned a London Literary Agent claiming he had the Diary of Jack The

Ripper, did I wonder whether the two events might be connected.) That was

the moment I began to seriously wonder why Paul Feldman had taken the

electricians out of the frame?



Somewhat feebly I always return to Paul Begg’s three key questions posited

in 1992:-



Who wrote the Diary?

When was it written?

Why was it written?



I’m sorry if you don’t find my reply satisfactory but perhaps it will give you

a glimpse into my position. I hope so.



What is your own answer to your three questions?



Best Wishes, Keith.

[James_J]

Also - passing this on from K.S.

It's good to know that no "case" was made in Inside Story.

But let's examine that for a moment. This is from pages 167-8 of Inside Story commenting on Mike Barrett's account in his January affidavit of buying the scrapbook at Outhwaite and Litherland:

"According to Shirley Harrison, Kevin Whay, a director of Outhwaite and Litherland, gave it little credence. Having searched through the company's files and archives on both sides of the alleged sale date, Whay confirmed that 'no such description or lot number corresponding with Barrett's statement exists. Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes.' In a telephone conversation with Harrison soon after Barrett's affidavit was made public, Whay went further. 'Anyone who tells you they have got a lot number or details for such an album from us is talking through their hat.'"

Now it might be interesting if the full account of the telephone conversation between Harrison and Whay could be posted by one of the book's authors and we can all see if it was reported in the book in a fair and unbiased fashion.

KS received this memo from Shirley on 16.1.1995. I’m reproducing in full as the memo refers to two conversations and if I omitted the first conversation questions, understandably, would be asked as to why I had done this.


MEMO FROM SHIRLEY HARRISON

TO ROBERT [SMITH] DOREEN [MONTGOMERY] PAUL[FELDMAN]


THIS IS A RECORD OF TWO CONVERSATIONS.


(1) From Mike Barrett on Sunday January 15th 1995 at 7.00 p.m.


“Good evening, Shirley. I apologise for phoning you at a weekend. I have had Robert’s letter (telling him of his financial situation) but can’t reply because I can’t use my hand. Are you coming up on Wednesday. Good because I have a lot to say – the diary is 100% genuine you know. I can tell you all about Mrs Hammersmith too – and she proves it is 100% genuine. I have known about her since you did your Granada broadcast – they rang me. They didn’t ring you and I know all about her relatives too. I’ll tell you all about it on Wednesday.” There was a lot more – but repeats about anne [sic] and Caroline and wanting to see Anne etc etc – “no animosity” of course.


(2) With Mr. Kevin Waye [sic] – one of the seniors at Outhwaite and Sutherland [sic], auctioneers on Monday morning, January 16th.

He said that as far as he knows there have been no enquiries about the purchase of the album in which the diary is written. Between 1990-1991 they held about 300 or more auctions and items such as an old photo album would have been in a job lot marked “miscellaneous items.” There would quite likely be several “Mr Williams” or “Mr Jones” as a lot of people use a pseudonym when buying at auctions. “Anyone who tells you they have got a lot number or details of such an album from us “is talking through their hat.”

I am going to see him, with Sally [Evemy] on Thursday morning.

END OF SHIRLEY HARRISON MEMO


For information, that which appears highlighted in red, was not included in Inside Story. But neither was it deliberately excluded. I can’t now remember why it was not reproduced in its entirety – and whether its detail supports or weakens Mike Barrett’s claim! However, in April 1999, I interviewed Mike Barrett at the Cloak & Dagger Club in London in front of a crowded room. Mike had made it known he would produce the auction ticket and that, effectively, would have killed off the Diary. When I asked him to let everybody see it – he refused. I have a feeling he said that he was worried he might be arrested or that it was back in his hotel room and that he would post it to us. However, from that moment on we never heard anything more about the auction ticket.


The following extract appears on page 315 of The Diary Of Jack The Ripper – Shirley Harrison – 1998.


(3) On January 30th 1997 Doreen Montgomery received the following statement from Kevin Whay, director of Outhwaite and Litherland. ‘Having searched through our files and archives on either side of the alleged sale dates I can confirm that no such information or lot number corresponding with his [Barrett’s] statement exists. Furthermore we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes.



Best, K.S.