Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

"When I disposed of the photographs from the Album by giving them to William Graham, I kept one back. This photograph was of a Grave, with a Donkey standing nearby." -- Mike Barrett, 5 January, 1992. [1995 actually - caz]

If you punch the words "donkey in a graveyard" in a Google image search engine, the first photo that comes up is an animal graveyard in...of all places...Merseyside, Liverpool, UK.

See above.

The donkey is mourning the loss of his friend "Chubby." The photo dates to around 1937 and was evidently a "gag" photo that was making the rounds about the time the Royal Airforce was saving the world for democracy. Barrett's album is said to have once had photographs in it. Case closed?

Wonderful, rj.

What do you make of Mike's claim that he kept this particular photo back, and his use of the past tense when describing what it 'was' of?

Did he just have a passing fondness for donkeys - or graves? Or was he planning to keep it as proof that the album had contained post-Victorian snaps?

Either way, he apparently let the photo go. You're not suggesting it ended up on the internet - are you?

Enjoy your afternoon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

'Now as I was young and easy under the Whitechapple boughs'?

Whitechapple... closer to Herne Hill than Fern Hill.

[caz]

Apparently, if I happen to read a post on this forum shortly after it is made I am "just waiting to pounce" and am "like a sad person?". (The normal smear type language we have come to expect.) But that is what happened. I read a post shortly after it was made and then much later noticed it had been amended. Bad luck to the person who tried to quietly delete their mistake but got found out and doesn't like it.

How old are you, David? People submit posts all the time and then take advantage of the editing period allowed to check what they've written and make any amendments as they see fit. If I cared remotely about being 'found out' for any of the amendments or corrections I make to my own posts, I would preview them and do all my editing 'quietly' before submitting, so nobody could ever see what I had changed.

I just found it amusing to think of you reading a post of mine within the editing period. But then I am very easily amused.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Did he just have a passing fondness for donkeys

Equus omnia revelat. Or asinus, as the case may be.

[caz]

The latest nonsense I read today is that

"any deal Mike might have considered, giving a cut of his royalties to Paul Dodd, could only have been a private one between the two of them, on trust"

On trust? Really? Perhaps the Great Misunderstander has never heard of lawyers. Or legal agreements. I suspect that Mike had heard of them.

Mike was evidently being asked to enter into a legally binding agreement with Paul Dodd to give Dodd 5% of his very substantial future royalties in return for Dodd not contesting ownership of the diary. That is what Feldman records.

It was put to Mike by Feldman, yes. And Mike told Feldman to tell Paul Dodd to foxtrot oscar.

Naturally, if Dodd was successful in claiming ownership of the diary he would have owned the copyright thus potentially blocking publication of the book and, in effect, denying Mike 100% of those very substantial royalties that he was expecting.

If Mike knew, or suspected, the diary had been stolen from the house, he also knew that as long as he and the tea leaf denied it, Dodd would have a job successfully claiming ownership of it and depriving him of all the spoils. Possession being nine tenths of the law, and with no proof it was ever in his house, it would have been as difficult for Dodd to claim it had been there with his knowledge as without it.

So, if Mike knew that the Battlecrease provenance was a false story, a rejection of the offer being put to him by Feldman was perfectly understandable.

Understandable, assuming the 5% would have meant more to him than the chance to give his recently faked diary a Dodd-endorsed provenance. The claim was that the diary had come from the house back in 1989, so Mike would have been in the clear by sticking to his story that he had acquired it innocently two years down the line in 1991, never knowing where it had come from. Clearly, had Eddie Lyons 'confessed' to Feldman that he'd stolen it at any point after August 1991, and certainly as late as 1992, Mike's whole 'dead pal' story would have been in tatters if he had gone along with it, false or not.

His rejection certainly does not require Mike to know that the Diary had been stolen and, if Mike actually believed that the diary came from Battlecrease and thought the offer being made was genuine, it would have been sensible for him to accept it because he would possibly have saved 95% of his royalties.

But at what cost to Mike's standing as the man who would be revealing the ripper's identity to the world, courtesy of a diary entrusted to him by a grateful deceased friend back in 1991? He wasn't going to admit he got it from a thief in 1992, shortly before taking it to London, and lose 5% in the process, was he?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Stolen property has to be returned however far down the chain it goes and if the Diary had been stolen from Dodd it was Dodd's property, not Smith's.

Presumably Robert is well aware of this, despite his efforts over the past two decades, to prove the diary was in Dodd's house up until March 9th, 1992.

But, strangely, Mike's denial that it came from Battlecrease, we are told, "doesn't make much sense". Why not? Well, we are told it's because "he wasn't yet in confession mode". Er!! So if Mike is not in confession mode he can't deny that the diary came from Battlecrease?? Does that make any sense at all? The opposing point is that he knew the diary had been forged so, of course, he will deny that it came from Battlecrease.

At the time, Mike was adamant the diary was given to him by Tony Devereux, who died without saying where he had got it from. That's what he needed everyone to believe in April 1993, when he even swore an affidavit to that effect. So he slipped up by denying the possibility of it being in Battlecrease until 1989. How was he meant to know it wasn't? He clearly had his own reasons for not wanting anyone to believe it came from the house, but that's different from claiming to know it didn't.

Love,

Alice in Wonderland
X

[rjpalmer]

What do you make of Mike's...use of the past tense when describing what it 'was' of?

Hi Caz. I think that would be a most interesting question to ask Caroline Barrett.

But, just for a moment, forget the depressed donkeys and the mules in mourning and think it through on a HUMAN level. Perhaps you've had this experience. Way back in childhood, you told a lie. You felt ashamed by it, and, as time passed, it ate away at your insides. You wished to tell your parents the truth, to get it "off your chest," but couldn't quite bring yourself to do it, because you knew they would be so terribly disappointed. In that situation, might you not 'drop a hint'?

KS: I think I have a faint memory of Anne telling me they had both watched the Michael Caine 1988 television drama

I hope I am forgiven for saying so, but is it possible Anne is 'dropping the hint,' and Keith simply isn't listening?

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by David Orsam --
"Stolen property has to be returned however far down the chain it goes and if the Diary had been stolen from Dodd it was Dodd's property, not Smith's."

Presumably Robert is well aware of this, despite his efforts over the past two decades, to prove the diary was in Dodd's house up until March 9th, 1992.

Considering all the bullsh!t that had been slung regarding the providence of this photo album cum diary, it would be understandable for Mr. Smith to latch onto the the best scenario out of what is in whole or part a pack of lies to gain something - financial or personal or both - from his possession of and involvement in this long controversial object he acquired in obvious hopes of some benefit, despite some smaller cowpies he might have to step over?

After all, a Battlecrease providence provides the missing link, does it not? Too bad things still have to be shoehorned in a tight timespot anyway...such is suspect based Ripperology.

[David Orsam]

One other thing about Bookdealer's instructions is that it is stated that lists were printed in the next issue "Strictly in the order received". In the 19th March 1992 issue, the lists for 'Books Wanted' commenced on page 9 and concluded on page 156. Martin Earl's list featured on page 69.

Sorry this requires correction, it should have said page 127, not page 156. So the last part should read:

In the 19th March 1992 issue, the lists for 'Books Wanted' commenced on page 9 and concluded on page 127. Martin Earl's list featured on page 69.

[David Orsam]

Considering all the bullsh!t that had been slung regarding the providence of this photo album cum diary, it would be understandable for Mr. Smith to latch onto the the best scenario out of what is in whole or part a pack of lies to gain something - financial or personal or both - from his possession of and involvement in this long controversial object he acquired in obvious hopes of some benefit, despite some smaller cowpies he might have to step over?

Mind you, as we've been told, he only paid £1 for ownership of the diary so he would hardly suffer a serious financial loss if it was taken away from him.

[David Orsam]

The only question to ask about Mike's rejection of the offer put to him by Feldman is: Does Mike's rejection of that offer suggest that he believed the diary came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease? Or to put the same question another way: Does Mike's rejection of that offer suggest that he was not involved in forging the diary?

Clearly the answer to this question, whichever way it is phrased, is a resounding NO. His rejection of the offer is perfectly consistent with the diary being a recent forgery. That being the case, there isn't much more to say.

But I would add by way of comment that to answer this question in the negative one doesn't have to assume that giving up 5% would have meant more to Mike than the chance to give his recently faked diary a "Dodd endorsed provenance". Leaving aside that the deal did not involve Dodd endorsing anything (the deal was merely for Dodd not to contest ownership), and leaving aside that the expression "perfect provenance" now seems to be abandoned, it must be obvious that on a point of principle, Mike might not have wanted to give up a single penny of his money to someone who didn't deserve it on the basis of what he would have known to be a phoney and thoroughly bad provenance.

And, in any case, if the electrician continued to claim that he found the diary in 1989, Mike would have had a Battlecrease provenance for the diary in the public domain (and one that was perfectly consistent with his Tony Devereux story) without having to give up a penny. As he didn't even own the diary at this time what did he really have to lose? If it is said that he wouldn't have wanted to risk 100% ownership transferring to Dodd then his motivation would have been exactly the same if the diary HAD come up from the floorboards in March 1992. In other words, if the Battlecrease provenance was genuine and Mike was worried that Dodd might end up owning the diary due to anticipated financial loss, then giving up just 5% might have made sense if Dodd's ownership could have stopped him making ANY money from the diary.

Finally, it's pointless to say that Mike wasn't going to admit getting the diary from a thief in 1992 because that wasn't what he was being asked to accept. The deal from Feldman was very clear. It was based on an electrician admitting that he had taken the diary from Battlecrease in 1989. So Mike could have stuck with his Tony Devereux story if he had wanted to accept the deal. But his rejection of it simply cannot help us in knowing if the diary was a recent forgery or not.

[johns]

What do you make of Mike's claim that he kept this particular photo back, and his use of the past tense when describing what it 'was' of?

He may have used "was" instead of "is" accidentally. I work with a guy who uses incorrect words all day long. "Let's see where we am" is one of his favourite phrases. Doesn't mean anything really.

[Sam Flynn]

He may have used "was" instead of "is" accidentally.

It's safe to assume that, given that it was taken circa 1937, the photograph's subject definitely was a "was" by the time MB found it in the scrapbook

Besides, I don't find it particularly odd to say something like: "Ten years ago I found a photograph in my bottom drawer. It was of Elvis". It doesn't mean that I no longer have said photo.

[Henry Flower]

It's safe to assume that, given that it was taken circa 1937, the photograph's subject definitely was a "was" by the time MB found it in the scrapbook

Besides, I don't find it particularly odd to say something like: "Ten years ago I found a photograph in my bottom drawer. It was of Elvis". It doesn't mean that I no longer have said photo.

At last. The obvious answer. Well done Gareth. The majority of people are less than precise in their vocabulary, especially when talking aloud. People who are talking about something that happened in the past tend to continue using the past tense for the duration of the sentence, or even the paragraph. Gareth's example is bang-on. Maybe Caz has been watching too many detective dramas, and has seen too may husbands of 'missing' wives give their guilt away by describing the wife in the past tense.

By the way, Gareth - what's the provenance of this alleged Elvis photo? How did it get into your drawer? Who owned the drawers before you? Highly suspicious that you mention it now, only a couple of weeks after the 83rd anniversary of his birth. Trying to cash-in, Gareth?

Red flags everywhere. Not buying it, not at all.

Gareth: taking my cue from the 'Namesakes Series' of audiobooks described in 'This Is Spinal Tap', how about Fern Hill, read by Benny Hill?

[Henry Flower]

I hope I am forgiven for saying so, but is it possible Anne is 'dropping the hint,' and Keith simply isn't listening?

The Michael Caine drama? The one where Abberline is given entirely spurious prominence in the hunt for the Ripper, becoming the killer's nemesis? That one?

Now what the hell could connect that with the Diary???