Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Abby Normal]

Biscuit tins, mourning donkeys and lifted floor boards.alas, Is this what ripperology has come to?

: )

[Sam Flynn]

Biscuit tins, mourning donkeys and lifted floor boards.alas, Is this what ripperology has come to?

Well, at least the mourning donkey might be another nail in the coffin of the "old hoax" Diary theory.

[John Wheat]

Biscuit tins, mourning donkeys and lifted floor boards.alas, Is this what ripperology has come to?

: )

This thread has become a bit of a joke.

[David Orsam]

Hi Keith. I appreciate your contribution, but with all respect, what is the relevance of posting yet again Kevin Whay's search of the receipts at O & L? Why should any intelligent person consider this evidence of anything, or wish to draw a conclusion based on it, since the search was so obviously flawed?

In fairness to Keith, RJ, he posted that record of the Whay/Harrison telephone conversation in response to a specific request from me for it to be posted. It goes to the issue of whether Inside Story had revealed all the known information about the auction, which itself goes to a more pertinent issue of whether James Johnston should be revealing the full transcripts of his interviews with the electricians, something which he is inexplicably refusing to do.

[Observer]

Hello Observer,

A quick look into LVP biscuit tins in GB show predominantly Huntley and Palmer biscuits. In differing shapes and sized and coloured tins.
A rather additional point. .nobody..as far as I can recall, has ever mentioned the lid of the biscuit tin. You see..we haven't even been told if there WAS one!

Good luck with your research.. you will be surprised by the different shapes.



Phil

Hi Phil

Yes, I've had another look at the various shapes and sizes, it's amazing what some of those tins sell for. I'll be keeping my eyes open next time I visit charity shops etc. As David Orsam has stated though, there doesn't appear to be much truth regarding the Diary being found in a biscuit tin.

Personally, I believe anything those electricians have said regarding the finding of the Diary in Battlecrease House, should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Observer

[David Orsam]

the Diary is still a suspect document without a provenance.

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?

Hi Keith,

As you may or may not appreciate, I am very surprised by the above comments. You probably recall that back in November 2016 I was told on this forum that you found the Battlecrease provenance "so compelling". In response, I said that I was unconvinced that you held this opinion and there was a huge (and somewhat ludicrous) controversy about this subsequently.

Your comments yesterday strike me as a very long way from saying that the Battlecrease provenance evidence is compelling. Have I read you wrong on this?

If, however, you do think that the Battlecrease provenance is compelling, could you kindly explain what you mean by this, and why you think it is compelling?

[Observer]

Wow 19992, wats that near on 18000 years.

Well I guess they’ll still be arguing over the diary then.

Hahaha indeed.

[David Orsam]

(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.

Thank you for posting this Keith. In fairness to all, including Scott Nelson, I should say that you freely emailed this extract from Shirley's attendance note to me a couple of years ago. So I'm not a psychic genius in knowing that it existed and, of course, it was not something that was ever being withheld from me personally. However, as it was sent to me privately I didn't feel it was proper for me to post it or even reveal that I had it.

Now, I don't think I am saying anything controversial when I say that it's seems obvious that the authors of Inside Story did not think that Mike Barrett was telling the truth about purchasing the album at an O&L auction. You have yourself mentioned Mike's refusal to produce his auction ticket (which I assume you have done to show that you think he is lying) and one of your co-authors has made clear on this forum that she does not believe Mike's story about the purchase of the album from O&L in his affidavit.

Indeed, to emphasise the point, two quotes have been included in Inside Story from Kevin Whay even though they both say essentially the same thing. They have, in rather misleading fashion (albeit accidentally and unintentionally misleading I should say), been included in the book in reverse chronological order.

Whay's first comment in January 1995 was this:

"Anyone who tells you they have got a lot number or details of such an album from us “is talking through their hat"."

Then two years later in January 1997 he said this:

"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 exist."

In Inside Story the Jan 1997 quote is reproduced first followed by the Jan 1995 quote. But, like I say, they are both saying essentially the same thing and one wonders why it was felt necessary to include the earlier Jan 1995 quote.

For the 1995 quote should have puzzled any independent observer. How could Whay have concluded that Mike had not obtained the album from an O&L auction two years before searching the company's files and archives?

But more than this, would there have even necessarily been a record of the sale and purchase in O&L's files and archives? For Shirley's attendance note records him saying this:

"items such as an old photo album would have been in a job lot marked “miscellaneous items.”"

Doesn't that mean that a search of the company's records might not even have revealed any mention of an old photo album? Naturally, it depends on what information is in their files and archives but surely that was an obvious problem which might have foiled any search for the album in the company's records.

Secondly, Shirley's note reveals that "There would quite likely be several “Mr Williams” or “Mr Jones” as a lot of people use a pseudonym when buying at auctions". If one was being wholly fair in presenting both sides of the story, surely this information should have been included in the book because it supports Mike's story in his affidavit that he was able to make the acquisition under the name of Williams.

I think it is fair to say that Inside Story was quite influential in disparaging Mike's story of the acquisition of the album yet two important facts had been omitted namely that the album would been marked in the auction as a "miscellaneous" item rather than as an album and it was possible to make bids and obtain items at the auctions using false names.

Then we come to the separate issue of precisely which records of O&L were examined. Whay, in 1995, was clearly focussed on the period 1990-1991 when he said "Between 1990-1991 they held about 300 or more auctions" . So when he said in 1997 that the company's records had been examined "on both sides of the alleged sale date" he would appear to have been regarding the alleged sale date as having been in 1990.

Yet, I was told by one of your co-authors on this forum last year:

"So you think we only asked O&L about the year 1990, do you? We trusted Mike that much, by the early 2000s, that we went by one of the dodgy dates he had come up with over the years and didn't think to ask the kind of questions that would have given us a definitive answer as to whether Mike's version of events could have taken place at O&L - ever?

I'm afraid you really must think everyone but Mike was incompetent then."

The thing about this comment is that I see no evidence in Inside Story that the authors of Inside Story asked any questions of O&L about Mike's acquisition of the album. Everything appears to have been left to Shirley Harrison. And her questions do appear to relate only to the 1990-1991 period. Did the authors of Inside Story make any further enquiries? If so, what was revealed?

Anyway, in conclusion, let me make clear that my purpose of requesting that the Harrison note be posted was not to criticise the editing decisions of the Inside Story authors but to demonstrate the importance of having ALL relevant information made available to independent people or researchers to be able to examine. And the reason I want to make this point is because James Johnston doesn't think he has any obligation to release the full text of the transcripts of his interviews with electricians (suitably redacted in respect of private or confidential information) whereas I think he does owe it to Maybrick diary studies to release the full transcripts.

Btw Keith, any joy in finding the lost copy of the invoice of the purchase of Mike's word processor?

[James_J]

Hi Keith. I appreciate your contribution, but with all respect, what is the relevance of posting yet again Kevin Whay's search of the receipts at O & L?

Afternoon RJ, just passing this on from KS:

Thank you R.J.


The “relevance of my posting yet again Kevin Whay’s search of the receipts at O&L” was because David Orsam had written in post #505


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.

__________________
Orsam Books


Accordingly, as one of the authors of Inside Story, I responded to David’s request which I considered to be reasonable and fair.

Why do you assume I was posting it as “evidence of anything” or expecting people to draw conclusions based on it? I’m aware there are conflict in dates with Mike’s sworn affidavit of 5 Jan 1995. I want to know why Mike is muddled. You may not think these details important. I do. Mr Kevin Whay, a Director of Outhwaite and Litherland, states that O&L “do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he [Barrett] describes”


Why does Kevin Whay dispute Mike Barrett’s description of the way O&L conduct their auctions? I don’t know. Twelve or thirteen years ago when you wrote to O&L to check the accuracy of Barrett’s account, did you ask them to comment on or test the veracity of Mr Whay’s account?


Three times Mike Barrett comes back to that January 1990 date in his sworn affidavit. On the second occasion he states, “I feel sure it was at the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite and Litherland.” You attest I “must be painfully aware that Barrett is in a muddled [sic] about his dates.” It certainly looks that way, especially if we are accepting that on March 9th 1992, Mike Barrett did not have a diary in which to have somebody, (himself, his wife, his father in law – all implicated in his sworn affidavit, along with Tony Devereux who had died in August 1991), in which to transfer his text. But his telephone calls to the late Doreen Montgomery’s office on March 9th 1992 and March 10th 1992 made it necessary for him to obtain a diary, although there is no evidence to suggest that Mike was under any pressure to take the diary to London. It is not known when that April 13th 1992 date was agreed on or fixed – although there is a copy of a letter dated April 10th 1992 in Doreen Montgomery’s file addressed to Michael Barrett (on March 10th 1992 Doreen had sent a letter to Michael Williams) to confirm meeting 11.30-12 on Monday 13th April 1992. Predicated on the fact that on Thursday March 26th 1992, the maroon diary, (although glancing at it in front of me, I’m not so sure if it isn’t burgundy) was despatched from HP Bookfinders to Mike and reached him before the weekend, only to be rejected, then it gives Mike around eleven or twelve days to strike lucky at O&A and prepare the fake diary. And as I believe David has noted in the sworn affidavit, Mike states that it took Anne and himself 11 days to write the diary. (I have to admit that, cynically, I did wonder whether Mike might have still been blotting the ink on the morning he left Liverpool for London, but considered that an unworthy thought.)


Well – perhaps it did happen like that R.J. You have confirmed the appropriate O&L receipts have now been pulped, so that line of investigation is now lost to us. Michael Barrett refused to hand over to me – or anybody else, including Alan Gray, the retired detective who was trying to help Mike to prove that he, (Mike) created the diary – the auction ticket which would have put an end to this controversy 19 years ago. Had I been involved with the checking of O&L’s records then I would have widened the search parameters through to April 12th 1992 – although I don’t think anybody seriously considered that ink had met paper as recently as late March or early April 1992. Standing against that, of course, was Baxendale’s solubility test which indicated modernity but this result was thrown into doubt by by Eastaugh’s analysis of the ink. You could be spot on though with your conclusions R.J. and interpretation of events. And that March 9th 1992 time sheet evidencing work going on in Battlecrease House involving floorboard activity in the room James Maybrick died in May 1889, nothing more than a strange coincidence.


But I come back to seeking an explanation for that 1990 date. Mike implicates Tony Devereux in his sworn affidavit as one of those involved in creating a hoax diary. This places it before August 1991 when Devereux died. Chris George has noted that 1989 was the centenary of Florence Maybrick’s trial and indeed the anniversary did not go unmarked in Liverpool as her trial was restaged in St George’s Hall. I don’t think it is known how long Michael Barrett had been interested in Jack The Ripper but I think I have a faint memory of Anne telling me they had both watched the Michael Caine 1988 television drama, Would it be reasonable to speculate that the close proximity of those two events might have been the catalyst for giving Mike the idea that James Maybrick could be an ideal candidate for Jack The Ripper? And that Mike’s idea began to take shape in 1990?

Best Wishes

KS

[James_J]

This from K.S



TO PHIL CARTER


I was on the panel at the recent Liverpool Conference and the subject of the alleged ‘biscuit tin’ was never raised from the floor. Had we been asked about it, then I would have given “Direct...truthful responses”. Could you clarify why myself or any of my fellow panellists might have given indirect, untruthful responses please?


On a point of information...you say that:-


“We have recently been told the Diary was found in a biscuit tin.”


Are you able to identify the source of that statement for me please?


This is only meant to be a holding reply, kindly posted by James, until such time as my application to join the Boards is either accepted – or rejected. I assume nothing. But I will briefly say that I have never given much credence to the story of the Diary being found in a biscuit tin. However, it has now become part of the historical record and should, quite rightly, try and be accounted for and explained. And by ‘explained’, I do not mean pages of endless speculation arguing over the colour, size, shape, make and fate of the tin. My methodology is very similar to David Orsam’s – although our conclusions may differ – and when there is a difference, I will re-evaluate every step of the way the reasons why I have reached an alternative interpretation to David’s.


So, in the ‘case of the missing biscuit tin’ I will build on David’s previous post # 555 and try to identify the genesis for when this item first entered into the story.


Finally, I could not resist a gentle smile when I read:-

“...and Liverpudlian working men aren’t shy of making a bob or two from items that fall conveniently into their laps.”


Best Wishes, KS

[David Orsam]

Predicated on the fact that on Thursday March 26th 1992, the maroon diary, (although glancing at it in front of me, I’m not so sure if it isn’t burgundy)

Keith, as you have the 1891 diary in front of you, are you able to answer a few questions about it?

1. In his affidavit, Mike says: "it was of no use, it was very small.". Does that explanation make sense to you from looking at the diary?

2. Is the diary partly used or unused?

3. Either way, how many blank pages does it contain?

4. Does the diary have the year 1891 printed or marked on every page (or most pages) or is it just on the cover?

There's no rush to answer these questions and no need to trouble James Johnston while he is "travelling", I'm happy to wait until you are an approved member in order to hear directly from you.

and reached him before the weekend, only to be rejected, then it gives Mike around eleven or twelve days to strike lucky at O&A and prepare the fake diary

Well hold on. As a matter of simple mathematics, if the diary reached him before the weekend then he must have received it on Friday, 27th March 1992. Including that Friday, doesn't that actually give him 17 days to Sunday, 12th April to find an old diary and prepare the fake diary in preparation for taking it to London on Monday 13th? Or are you thinking that he couldn't have struck lucky at O&L until Tuesday 31st March (the next auction day) which, if he (or him and Anne, or him and others or just others) had started preparing the fake diary that very day, would then have allowed 13 days to create the forgery (or exactly 11 days to Friday 10th April, when the meeting on the Monday appears to have been confirmed for the first time in writing)?

[James_J]

From KS:


TO DAVID ORSAM


Thank you David.


I’ll have to make this my last response prior to becoming an accredited member otherwise I’m going to be banned before I’ve even joined – and will probably take poor James down with me!


Will try and be succinct.


“The Diary is still a suspect document without a provenance.”


A statement of fact. I banged on and on about this at the Liverpool Conference and openly argued against some of my fellow panellists that, until the provenance and historical status of this document can be determined, it was pointless to try and authenticate it from its internal content.


I do find the possibility of a Battlecrease provenance “so compelling”. But that does not mean I accept it. I don’t. But if I’m put on the spot and have to choose from: (a) Michael Barrett, Anne Graham, Tony Devereux, William Graham being co-conspirators and co-creators of the diary; (b) The diary being in Anne Graham’s family since circa 1943; (c) The diary being discovered in Paul Dodd’s house on March 9th 1992 – then I will choose (c) because I find the factual information and circumstantial evidence more supportive of this conclusion.

Equally, I acknowledge that same factual information and circumstantial evidence can be interpreted differently and endorse other possibilities. Abby Normal told me that from everything she had heard, Mike Barrett forged the diary with possibly help from others and that in her opinion it is a no brainer. That’s fine and Abby has Mike Barrett’s sworn affidavit upon which to base her conclusion – even down to identifying the “others” implicated by Mike. I would not seek to try and persuade anybody – including yourself – to my way of thinking. From the many posts you have put up on the Message Boards around this subject, I know that which I find “compelling” (the coincidence of the March 9th 1992 date and Barrett’s association with one of the electricians (via The Saddle) employed by Portus & Rhodes to do occasional work at Paul Dodd’s house in Riversdale Road (Battlecrease). You do not. But that’s okay. It matters not a jot to me whether, ultimately, I am proved right or wrong. Truth is what is important. I’ve experienced first hand the people and dynamics of this story over the past quarter of a century and undoubtedly this has impacted on my thinking and reasoning. At the same time I have done my best to remain detached and objective. I have not ruled out the diary could be modern hoax created by Mike Barrett and others. I have not ruled out Anne Graham’s story. I do not ignore the fact that Mike Barrett’s copy of Tales From Liverpool was in the possession of Tony Devereux when Tony died in August 1991. I do not ignore the fact that it was Mike Barrett who identified the Crashaw quote. I do not ignore Mike’s sworn affidavit. I do not ignore Baxendale’s solubility test. I do not ignore the etymological work you have done on “...a one off instance...”I do not ignore the fact of how much Mike Barrett hated Paul Feldman and would have walked to India and back if that’s what it took to destroy Feldman. As it was, all Mike had to do was conclusively prove he faked the diary. Not much to ask for. He had nothing to lose having already dramatically reduced the sales of the book by disclosing to the Liverpool Post that he had faked the Diary, fooled everybody and was the world’s greatest forger.


I’ve rambled on for far too long. Forgive me Administrators. Forgive me James. I will just end by saying that Caroline (Caz) expresses and articulates my thinking clearly and accurately. I seldom read a post where I disagree with what she has written. So if this old man with a hobby can bring anything material or constructive to the discussion, I’ll gladly do so.

Best Wishes, KS.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for your response Keith.

All I can say is that it would appear that the whole 2016 controversy was based on a misunderstanding surrounding the meaning of word "compelling". I thought it was being used in what I regard as the primary dictionary definition sense of "not able to be refuted" or "irresistible" or "overwhelming". But from what I can make out from your posts, you seem to mean no more than the alternative definition of "evoking interest" or "attention". Or perhaps you were saying that the Battlecrease provenance seems to be the most convincing explanation to you, out of all the explanations, as long as you are put on the spot. Had I known you were saying only this, my responses in 2016 would have been rather different.

Btw, I think you will find that Abby Normal's gender is not as you understand it.

[David Orsam]

Actually, Keith, I do have one more thing to say in response. A question (for you to ponder when you are a proper member): Why do you think Mike went to the trouble of trying to obtain, and indeed actually obtaining, a genuine Victorian diary in March 1992?

[James_J]

From KS:

TO DAVID O


Mathematics was always my weak point at school!


And I should really have said (because that is what I meant) “and reached him by Saturday March 28th 1992...”

I’m now looking at a calendar for 1992. From Friday March 27th 1992 until Monday April 13th 1992 is 18 days.


I had not even factored into my computation it had been established that Tuesday March 31st was the next auction day. What I had in my mind was one of your posts where you had narrowed down the time of the diary’s creation to around eleven or twelve days – and you had noted that was the amount of time stated by Mike in his sworn affidavit. As I say, I completely overlooked you had fairly factored in the March 31st 1992 date and lazily assumed that the period from March 27th 1992 to April 13th 1992 was about eleven or twelve days.

But a statistic I am confident with is 4-0 and currently third!

The red/maroon/burgundy diary...

I am going to ask James if he could very kindly scan the original diary and reproduce on the Message Boards for everybody to see. I had it with me at the Liverpool Conference anticipating a question might come up about it but it didn’t. (I also took along with me the copy of Mike’s Sphere book which he
claimed was in his loft as part of the consignment sent to him by Sphere books at the time of the Hillsborough Disaster.)

The year 1891 does not appear on the velvet cover.

On first page inside – ornately printed – is:-

DE LA RUE’S

IMPROVED

INDELIBLE DIARY

AND

MEMORANDUM BOOK



1891



Etc. Etc. Etc.

You might be able to find one on the internet for comparison purposes?


You might even have one!

Mike’s statement in his sworn affidavit “it was no use, it was very small” makes absolute sense in the context of him requiring it for somebody to physically write up the narrative text he had created.

Three, sometimes four, sections to a page for daily entries with the month and year printed on top of each page.

Each page blank.

That’s it. Time for my daily homage to Eden Hazard!

Best Wishes, KS