Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Henry Flower]

Timesheets...... timesheets...... scouse scallies..... pinch of salt..... biscuit tin... floorboards evidence.... floored bawds..... flawed, bored...... hmmmmmm.....

*wakes from daydream*

Why did the liar and wannabe writer Mike Barrett go to some lengths to acquire a blank Victorian diary a short time before revealing that he had the diary of Jack the Ripper in his possession?

[Mike J. G.]

Why did the liar and wannabe writer Mike Barrett go to some lengths to acquire a blank Victorian diary a short time before revealing that he had the diary of Jack the Ripper in his possession?

Why, that's easy to explain, Henry: insert absurd scenario here. Merely another coincidence.

I think a lot of the problem rests in the fact that some people just simply cannot reason that it had anything to do with Mike, when that is an absolutely silly thing to hang your hat on. Time and time again, people fool themselves into this kind of thinking merely because they can't fathom that people are far more complex than they're given credit for. Happens all the time, which is why I give examples of various hoaxes in which certain people were not given the benefit of the doubt, and were subsequently ruled to be too daft to have possibly fooled the world. The only people who're too daft are the ones who discount such pranksters as being capable of pulling it off.

[David Orsam]

You gave me his initials and made some excuse for why you couldn't give me any more info, IIRC. If you could PM me the info, I'll go ahead and follow it up, I'm sure he's still around the city. I don't bite.

Hi Mike,

You were, indeed, originally given the initials, T.C., on 6 July 2017 as follows (#3635 in the Incontrovertible thread):

"Two sources, Mike. My informant's initials are TC, but he'd be about 80 by now if he's still with us. Robert Smith's informant was the then landlord of Rigby's, but I can't recall his name if I was ever told it."

Twenty days later you were provided with a name - Tony Carroll - but in passing so it's not surprising that you missed it. Here is the full context (#3810 in the Incontrovertible thread):

"Yep, I realise my evidence is purely hearsay, but Robert Smith had the same experience with a former landlord of Rigby's, which presumably counts for something. It wasn't so much a case of an actual 'nickname', or where my source got his information from; it was merely a spontaneous answer to a casual question along the lines of: "Do you know if there is or was a post house in Liverpool?" [which naturally sounded the same as "Poste House" in conversation]. The reply came back without hesitation: "Yes, that would have been the Old Post Office Pub off School Lane". Now he might have been wrong, but he was an old Scouser and local pub and history buff [name of Tony Carroll actually, if that's likely to make any difference at all, which I doubt], and if he understood that pub to be on the site of Liverpool's early post house, as did Robert's source, I'd be looking for good evidence that this wasn't the case, rather than just your failure to find anyone else with a similar understanding."

Why the name couldn't simply have been provided to you again upon request in this thread I cannot fathom.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

You were, indeed, originally given the initials, T.C., on 6 July 2017 as follows (#3635 in the Incontrovertible thread):

"Two sources, Mike. My informant's initials are TC, but he'd be about 80 by now if he's still with us. Robert Smith's informant was the then landlord of Rigby's, but I can't recall his name if I was ever told it."

Twenty days later you were provided with a name - Tony Carroll - but in passing so it's not surprising that you missed it. Here is the full context (#3810 in the Incontrovertible thread):

"Yep, I realise my evidence is purely hearsay, but Robert Smith had the same experience with a former landlord of Rigby's, which presumably counts for something. It wasn't so much a case of an actual 'nickname', or where my source got his information from; it was merely a spontaneous answer to a casual question along the lines of: "Do you know if there is or was a post house in Liverpool?" [which naturally sounded the same as "Poste House" in conversation]. The reply came back without hesitation: "Yes, that would have been the Old Post Office Pub off School Lane". Now he might have been wrong, but he was an old Scouser and local pub and history buff [name of Tony Carroll actually, if that's likely to make any difference at all, which I doubt], and if he understood that pub to be on the site of Liverpool's early post house, as did Robert's source, I'd be looking for good evidence that this wasn't the case, rather than just your failure to find anyone else with a similar understanding."

Why the name couldn't simply have been provided to you again upon request in this thread I cannot fathom.

Cheers, David!

I only recalled the post Caz sent with the initials. Tony Carroll, eh. I'll try and track him down if possible, I know a few people who've drank at Rigby's for a few decades. Never mind! Just noticed it says he's probably about 80 years old!

Caz, do you have any more info on Tony? I'm genuinely interested to know where he got this info re: the Poste House, because he's the only person who seems privy to such knowledge, when nobody else I've come across has had a clue about such a name, even in the Picton reading rooms!

As I've said before, though, the pub on School lane is the Post Office Tavern, and has never been referred to by anyone I've ever met as "the Poste House." The only nicknames I've come across for that pub are "the Tavern" or, unsurprisingly, "the Post Office."

The spelling of the "Poste House" in the diary is a dead giveaway. They're not talking about any other pub other than the "Poste House." The reason it was likely included is due to a mistake in its history, seeing as it's renowned as an almost ancient pub, yet nobody really realizes that it wasn't always known as "the Poste House," which is what I believe the diarist fell for when he/she included it for added effect.

I'm guessing Tony was merely mistaken when naming the Tavern as "the Poste House" and I'm sure nobody in the Tavern would've known about this nickname, either.

The solution to this is obvious: the diarist was literally referring, mistakenly, to the Poste House. This is only a problem if you believe the diary is an older hoax.

[James_J]

All of which confirms what I thought 25 years ago. Invention and hoax. I will stick by the words of Stewart Evans who has explained in public recently that he was in the office of Feldman at the time and made more than one observation which convinced him then and there this Diary was a hoax..or fake.

And the reason Stewart Evans is reluctant to say exactly what he knows is to protect his friendships and those people's names and reputations. Which I think is mighty noble considering the implications otherwise.

Evening all - just passing this along from KS.


TO PHIL CARTER



Thank you for your post Phil.


Last night I was resolute in my determination that I would wait until I was a ‘proper member’ before responding to any more posts. But you make two important statements which I would be grateful if you could just clarify for me please?



You write...


“All of which confirms what I thought 25 years ago. Invention and hoax. I will stick by the words of Stewart Evans who has explained in public recently that he was in the office of Feldman at the time and made more than one observation which convinced him then and there this Diary was a hoax..or fake.

“And the reason Stewart Evans is reluctant to say exactly what he knows is to protect his friendships and those people’s names and reputations. Which I think is mighty noble considering the implications otherwise.”


Outside of myself, I cannot think of any friends of Stewart who have been very closely involved with the investigation into the Diary from the beginning – and whose friendship and reputation he would want to protect? Forgive me if that sounds arrogant and presumptious. But truly, I simply cannot identify anybody other than myself. Paul Begg worked closely with Feldman from the latter part of 1992 and through 1993. Melvyn Fairclough was on board helping with the research from 1992 to 1997. And Martin Fido was on the perimeter but Martin, as with Stewart, had both very early written the Diary off as a hoax. I may be mistaken but I do not think that Stewart has the same bond of friendship with either Melvyn or Paul than he and I have together.

So I can only conclude it is to me you are referring?

Could you confirm please?

Thank you.

Best Wishes

KS

(If Swansea can hammer Liverpool tonight – not much to ask for – then that will do us very nicely thank you! n.b Mr O.)

[James_J]

Why did the liar and wannabe writer Mike Barrett go to some lengths to acquire a blank Victorian diary a short time before revealing that he had the diary of Jack the Ripper in his possession?

Just to clarify with respect to the 'unusued or partly used diary' - Passing this on from KS:

The request for an:-


“Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages.”


First appeared in BOOKDEALER, No.1004, 19th March 1992.

On December 8th 2004, BOOKDEALER sent me photocopied pages from the March 19th 1992 issue and on their compliment slip they wrote:-


This issue went to press on the 12th March 1992. The previous issue would have gone to press on the 5th March 1992. Therefore, the copy had to have been received by us, either via the post or by fax, some time between the 6th and 12th March, 1992. The ad only appeared in this issue – it was not in Issue No 1043, nor in Issue No 1045.


Martin Earl of H.P BOOKFINDERS wrote to Shirley Harrison on June 23rd 1999 confirming that “...in 1992 we had an inquiry from a Mr Barrett who asked us to locate a Victorian Diary....I can also confirm that this type of request is unusual. As an out of print Booksearch company the majority of inquiries are for published out of print titles.”

Best Wishes

Keith

[David Orsam]

This issue went to press on the 12th March 1992. The previous issue would have gone to press on the 5th March 1992. Therefore, the copy had to have been received by us, either via the post or by fax, some time between the 6th and 12th March, 1992. The ad only appeared in this issue – it was not in Issue No 1043, nor in Issue No 1045.

Thanks for this information Keith. I believe it confirms what I said in #10 namely:

Martin Earl needed to get his list to Bookdealer by first class post on Wednesday 11th March 1992. This in turn means that the latest he could have sent his list by first class post would have been on Tuesday 10th March 1992.

That, at least, is if the Bookseller's rule that lists needed to be received by first post on the Wednesday prior to going to press was strictly applied (and I would certainly have thought that dealers would have wanted to ensure that their lists were received by no later than the Wednesday morning).

A bit of a shame that there doesn't appear to be a record of the date that Mike Barrett first contacted Martin Earl.

[Phil Carter]

Evening all - just passing this along from KS.


TO PHIL CARTER



Thank you for your post Phil.


Last night I was resolute in my determination that I would wait until I was a ‘proper member’ before responding to any more posts. But you make two important statements which I would be grateful if you could just clarify for me please?



You write...


“All of which confirms what I thought 25 years ago. Invention and hoax. I will stick by the words of Stewart Evans who has explained in public recently that he was in the office of Feldman at the time and made more than one observation which convinced him then and there this Diary was a hoax..or fake.

“And the reason Stewart Evans is reluctant to say exactly what he knows is to protect his friendships and those people’s names and reputations. Which I think is mighty noble considering the implications otherwise.”


Outside of myself, I cannot think of any friends of Stewart who have been very closely involved with the investigation into the Diary from the beginning – and whose friendship and reputation he would want to protect? Forgive me if that sounds arrogant and presumptious. But truly, I simply cannot identify anybody other than myself. Paul Begg worked closely with Feldman from the latter part of 1992 and through 1993. Melvyn Fairclough was on board helping with the research from 1992 to 1997. And Martin Fido was on the perimeter but Martin, as with Stewart, had both very early written the Diary off as a hoax. I may be mistaken but I do not think that Stewart has the same bond of friendship with either Melvyn or Paul than he and I have together.

So I can only conclude it is to me you are referring?

Could you confirm please?

Thank you.

Best Wishes

KS

(If Swansea can hammer Liverpool tonight – not much to ask for – then that will do us very nicely thank you! n.b Mr O.)

Hello Keith,

I cannot confirm any name or names, simply because Stewart gave none, and with resolute nobility refused to state any more. I cannot assume, and will not either. Which is something I respect in light of his reasoning.

Yes..Swansea did us a favour. .which means it's all eyes on the game on Wednesday.
Btw.with me .being a native of Teddington, you may recall as I do the tiny greengrocers on the corner of The Causeway ( now long gone Im sad to say). It was owned by my best freind's father. I know the area well. ☺

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Exactly, Phil. I'd have thought a potentially well-preserved Victorian biscuit tin might have been an interesting find even without the diary of Maybrick the Ripper's diary contained within it! But apparently that was just tossed aside.

Hello Mike,

Indeed. From what I gather Keith will answer the questions when he becomes a full member of this forum. I shall be interested in his answers!

Phil

[James_J]

Morning Folks :-

Apologies - but just wanting to add an amendmant to my previous post, which was kindly sent on by KS.

It seemed that Henry F. is under the impression that Mike went looking for a Victorian diary before he contacted Doreen Montgomery - whereas the evidence suggests it was [I]after[I] he made the telephone call on March 9th 1992.


Also, to David Orsam :-

Bookdealer stated on their compliment slip to Keith :-

“This issue went to press on the 12th March 1992. The previous issue would have gone to press on the 5th March 1992. Therefore, the copy had to have been received by us, either via the post or by fax, some time between the 6th and 12th March, 1992. The ad only appeared in this issue – it was not in Issue No 1043, nor in Issue No 1045.”

There is a fax number on Martin Earl’s (H.P. BOOKFINDERS) letter to Shirley Harrison, dated 23.6.1999. Which is not to say that he had one in March 1992.


Apologies for the oversight & best wishes, James

[caz]

Cheers, David!

I only recalled the post Caz sent with the initials. Tony Carroll, eh. I'll try and track him down if possible, I know a few people who've drank at Rigby's for a few decades. Never mind! Just noticed it says he's probably about 80 years old!

Hi Mike,

I didn't meet Tony in Rigby's. You may be confusing him with the former Rigby's landlord, who similarly directed Robert Smith to the Old Post Office pub and not The Poste House, when he asked if there was, or had been, a post house in Liverpool.

Caz, do you have any more info on Tony? I'm genuinely interested to know where he got this info re: the Poste House, because he's the only person who seems privy to such knowledge, when nobody else I've come across has had a clue about such a name, even in the Picton reading rooms!

I can PM you the last address and phone number I had for Tony, in L18, but I'd be grateful if you would be discreet with the info and I'm really not sure he's still with us. He invited me to his 70th birthday party several years ago! If you do manage to contact him, please give him my love.

As I've said before, though, the pub on School lane is the Post Office Tavern, and has never been referred to by anyone I've ever met as "the Poste House." The only nicknames I've come across for that pub are "the Tavern" or, unsurprisingly, "the Post Office."

Now that's interesting in itself, Mike, because the name over the door wasn't the "Post Office Tavern" when I was last there. It was "Old Post Office". It was officially named [in Gore's directory IIRC] "Post Office Tavern" back in 1888, before the tiny pub in Cumberland St was named the "New Post Office" in the 1890s, in recognition of the main post office's relocation to Victoria St. This in turn resulted in the School Lane tavern being renamed "Old Post Office". If people still call it "the Tavern", recalling its name as it was in 1888, I can't see a problem with people having called it "the post house" in older times, recalling its earlier years as the original Liverpool post house/post office. The terms were interchangeable. I have a photo of it from 2004, showing the words above its windows: 'This pub was built on the site of the Old Post Office in the early 1800's'.

The spelling of the "Poste House" in the diary is a dead giveaway...

Well, it gives away the author's habit of adding an e where it doesn't belong, as in 'poste haste', which should be 'post haste', so who knows? They sound identical in conversation.

I'm guessing Tony was merely mistaken when naming the Tavern as "the Poste House" and I'm sure nobody in the Tavern would've known about this nickname, either.

But Tony didn't 'name' the Old Post Office pub "the Poste House". He merely knew it as Liverpool's post house, when asked whether Liverpool had had one and where it was. He wasn't saying this was the pub's 'nickname' in modern times. The 'Poste House' in Cumberland St never was a post house, which is probably why he didn't mention it.

If he was merely mistaken, then so was the former landlord of Rigby's who spoke to Robert Smith. Okay, they both could have been 'merely mistaken', but then again maybe they merely knew something nobody in your circle does.

The solution to this is obvious: the diarist was literally referring, mistakenly, to the Poste House. This is only a problem if you believe the diary is an older hoax.

Not really, Mike. Anything earlier than the mid 1980s would make the diary an 'older' hoax. The Rendell team concluded, rightly or wrongly, that pen went on paper 'prior to 1970'. So even if there was no doubt its author was referring to the Poste House in Cumberland St [which there will always be, assuming we can't ask the author], it wouldn't prove the diary was a late 80s Barrett production.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why the name couldn't simply have been provided to you again upon request in this thread I cannot fathom.

I was tetchy at the time, David. Can't think why. I'd given Mike the info, and he was still making out that I'd only given him a single nameless secret squirrel source for the Old Post Office pub being known as Liverpool's post house. I should have fallen over myself to be friendly and co-operative in return.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why did the liar and wannabe writer Mike Barrett go to some lengths to acquire a blank Victorian diary a short time before revealing that he had the diary of Jack the Ripper in his possession?

Hi Henry,

As has been pointed out, we're not sure which came first: the call to Rupert Crew or the telephone enquiry for a diary for 1880-1890 with at least 20 blank pages. They must have been pretty close together in time, going on the evidence.

I'm still working on the problem of why Mike made such an enquiry in early March 1992, regardless of the diary's true origins. I realise it's only a problem for those of us who struggle with his own one-time claim, to have been trying at that late stage to obtain a suitable book in which to pen his fake diary.

Trying to put oneself in Mike's shoes and guess his motives for doing anything must be a bit like trying to imagine why anyone would want to support Spurs, but we all do it when we speculate on the reason for Mike making that enquiry when he did, based on whether we believe he was heavily involved with creating the diary in March 1992, just when the void beneath Maybrick's old floorboards was coincidentally opening up, or whether we believe he was heavily involved with what the f...ing hell he had just seen down the boozer, and whether it was time to quit alcohol for good.

In the latter scenario, my own thoughts might have been: "This has got to be some scally's idea of a practical joke! An old book signed 'Yours truly, Jack the Ripper'? Do me a favour."

If Mike had thoughts along similar lines, one thing he could have done to test his own suspicions before heading to London and making a complete tit of himself, was to look into the availability of genuinely old diaries with enough blank pages for a prank of this nature. Were they ten a penny, or scarce enough to suggest this one might just be taken seriously? Might that explain his vague 1880-1890 request, if a) this was more of a general enquiry about diaries of the period and if b) he didn't know too much about the ripper at the time, and nothing at all about the significance of the date [the only date] at the end of the diary: 3rd May, 1889? For all Mike may have known on 9th March, 1992, after a quick flip through, the diary could have represented events spanning a few weeks or several years.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think you met Dave at the cricket club talks, hosted by Beadle.

More than likely. I meet many people called 'Dave', whose surnames I don't necessarily get to know. If your Dave [Upton?] remembers meeting me, I don't know whether I should be flattered or mortified. Hope I was behaving myself at the time!

Jeremy Beadle was one of the nicest human beings one could have had the pleasure of meeting. Gone far too soon.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thank you for the reply Keith,

Your comment about 'endless speculation' over the details re the biscuit tin surprises me...

...I dont think the story is true at all..because of the lack of ANY detail pertaining to this biscuit tin. Not even a lid is mentioned. No size..shape..colour..make. .nothing.

Hi Phil,

Just a quick observation. If, for the sake of argument, someone did find something in a biscuit tin, and confided to a workmate: "I found x, y or z in a biscuit tin", but never thought to describe the tin or show it to anyone, not imagining that someone on the internet would one day want to know the ins and outs of it, and now wished he hadn't said anything to anyone about any of it, I guess the biscuit tin would have to remain hearsay evidence, short of torturing an admission and a description out of the finder.

Your questions about the tin itself are therefore only slightly more difficult for anyone here to answer if it didn't exist outside an electrician's imagination.

4-0 to Chelsea.. the stuff we should be playing every week.

Absolutely!

Love,

Caz
X