Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

So now we're supposed to believe that Anne's fear in June 1994 when Mike went public with his forgery claim is that Mike would claim that Anne collaborated with him in forging the diary!!! But then, of course, Anne knew Mike better than anyone else. Indeed, she was the one who "tidied up" his articles for Celebrity magazine and "tidied up" his so-called "research notes". Perhaps she knew full well that she had also "tidied up" the diary and her role in that tidying up was inevitably going to be made public.

[David Orsam]

Mind you, if Anne was really so worried that the diary was stolen property, the forgery story would have come as blessed relief to her knowing that Mike wasn't capable of it, that he could never prove it and that no-one could possibly believe his story in any case - yet it would divert attention away from it being thought of as stolen. And, of course, if she knew him as well as we are told she did, she would have known that after accusing her of collaborating in the forgery he would then quickly change his story (again and again) and end up going back to the Tony Devereux story, which is what happened.

If any of this argument is ridiculous it's no more ridiculous than the one already presented.

[rjpalmer]

KS: It was only after Devereux’s death that Mike started to try and make sense of the narrative. On March 9th 1992, Mike telephoned Pan Books who in turn referred him to Doreen Montgomery.

Hi Keith: I'm a little dull-witted. To be clear, this last sentence is part of your 'interpretation' or your 'scenario' and is not a statement of fact, correct? You are not claiming that you were able to independently verify that "On March 9th 1992 Mike telephoned Pan Books"? Not a trick question. I'm just making sure. Thanks.

Hi Caz: You ask a reasonable question. Am I suggesting this is Barrett's donkey photo from the L & O album? I decline to answer, but here's a bit more and you can decide for yourself.

The photograph was taken at the 'Horses Rest,' Broadgreen Street, Liverpool, on January 16, 1937. This was acreage owned and operated by the R.S.P.C.A. [Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals]. The grounds included a 'Pets Cemetery' where, among the tombstones, the rescued donkeys roamed and grazed.

The headstone reads:

In Loving Memory of CHUBBY, The Dear and Affectionate Little Friend of
H & M Pennell. Died November 24, 1927. "In Hope."

The actual grave appears quite small. A cat or a small dog, perhaps.

Feel free to look around, but to save time, you might accept my word that photographs of graves with donkeys standing next to them are as rare as hair on codfish.

I've found exactly one. Had it been taken in Mexico City, Paris, Palm Springs, or Hanoi, I wouldn't have blinked. It was taken in Liverpool. I blinked.

This from the Hull Daily Mail, 4 Feb 1937:

"Officials of the R.S.P.C.A. are busy digging up coffins in the famous Pets' Cemetery, at Broad Green, Liverpool, for transfer to Halewood, Lancs., the ground at Broad Green [Broadgreen Road] having been acquired for building purposes. Up to now the bodies of 140 pets, including dogs, cats, canaries, parrots, and monkeys, have been removed."

Notice the photo dates to Jan 16th; the graveyard is in the process of being moved on Feb 4; a connection to the photo shoot?

A copy (?) of the photograph turns up --in all places--the Austrian Achives. Whether this is the original, a postcard, etc., I do not know. One citation lists it as a 'news photo.'

From a Liverpool newspaper? Again, I don't know. All I know is that Barrett's claim of this most idioscyncatic image: 'a grave with a donkey standing next to it' is now considerably more credible, since, in the 1920s and 1930s, there really was a graveyard in Central Liverpool where the donkeys roamed, grazed--and stood--next to the headstones. I'm assuming it would be going too far to suggest that the L & O album was originally the property of Mr. H. Pennell, owner of "Chubby?"

Cheers, RP.

P.S. It sounds like the next go-around could be "The Trial of the Maybrick Diary: A Civil Case" Graham v Dodd v Smith v Dodd v Graham v Lyons v the Estate of Pennell v Graham v Smith. All five plaintiffs claiming ownership. Graham awarded £1 and damages.

[James_J]

Hi Keith: I'm a little dull-witted. To be clear, this last sentence is part of your 'interpretation' or your 'scenario' and is not a statement of fact, correct? You are not claiming that you were able to independently verify that "On March 9th 1992 Mike telephoned Pan Books"? Not a trick question. I'm just making sure. Thanks.

Evening all. Another message passed along from KS.



To R.J.Palmer



KS wrote...

“On March 9th 1992, Mike telephoned Pan Books who in turn referred him to Doreen Montgomery.”



R.J.Palmer responded...


“Hi Keith: I’m a little dull-witted. To be clear, this last sentence is part of your ‘interpretation’ or your ‘scenario’ and is not a statement of fact, correct? You are not claiming that you were able to independently verify that “On March 9th 1992 Mike telephoned Pan Books”? Not a trick question. I’m just making sure. Thanks.”


Thank you Roger. I don’t consider you at all “dull-witted” and welcome any observation which makes me re-evaluate anything I have written and drives me back to source. I try not to push any scenario Roger. If I offer an interpretation of known facts, (which can only ever be my opinion anyway), or cautiously advance a speculative line of reasoning, I will always try and signal this so as to avoid any misunderstandings. In this instance I appear to have failed, so my apologies.


The following from The Diary of Jack the Ripper – Shirley Harrison – 1993 (hbk) – page 7.


“He [Mike] rang a paperback firm in London and invited the publisher to visit Liverpool and read the document. London publishers are not easily enthused, though, hearing with regularity from legions of would-be-writers with earth shattering discoveries.


‘Find yourself a literary agent,’ the publisher told Mike, and directed him to Doreen Montgomery of Rupert Crew Ltd in London.”


And the following from Inside Story – 2003 – page 8.


“Barrett claimed to [Martin] Howells [who directed Paul Feldman’s documentary, The Diary of Jack the Ripper] that, in comparing the information he had researched on the murders with material from the Diary, everything seemed to tally. But he had little idea of how to proceed further. He decided to seek help. Looking on his bookshelves, he found a number of books he owned were published by Pan Books. He called them up and told them of his discovery. They, in turn, advised him to seek out a literary agent and recommended Doreen Montgomery. Michael Barrett then made his fateful telephone call.”


I understand from Shirley Harrison that Doreen Montgomery tried to find out from Pan Books who had referred Mike to her, but without success.


It is not known for absolute certain when Mike Barrett telephoned Pan Books although I concede that Inside Story gives the impression Mike telephoned Doreen on the same day. I have a feeling that Mike may have given that impression also on the video and in conversation with me – and possibly other people. Will try and firm up that point.

Best Wishes, Keith

[Hunter]

Referring to previous post:

And all of this was supposed to happen during the course of one day? Mike must have been one hell of a researcher. I admit it has been a long day but what am I missing here? Or is it just pick and choose what to believe from him or what not to believe based on where one wants to go with this...And in that case, is that objective research?

[James_J]

Referring to previous post:

And all of this was supposed to happen during the course of one day? Mike must have been one hell of a researcher. I admit it has been a long day but what am I missing here? Or is it just pick and choose what to believe from him or what not to believe based on where one wants to go with this...And in that case, is that objective research?

Morning H unter, passing this on from KS:

TO HUNTER


Thank you for your post (#650) which I take to be a reaction to what I wrote in post #649?


Apologies if I have misunderstood.


Could you please clarify - all of what was supposed to have happened during the course of one day?


Thank you.


Best Wishes, KS

[pinkmoon]

start at the beginning

Start at the beginning of this diary rubbish and ask yourselves a very simple question "why would a cash strapped mr and mrs barrett purchase an amstrad word processor in 1986"

[Observer]

Start at the beginning of this diary rubbish and ask yourselves a very simple question "why would a cash strapped mr and mrs barrett purchase an amstrad word processor in 1986"

If the answer to your question is "in order to provide a tool on which to store the text for a blatant forgery, that is, the Maybrick Diary, then you have me puzzled. I believe you are on record as saying that you have met Mike Barrett, and in your opinion he was incapable of producing the Diary

[pinkmoon]

If the answer to your question is "in order to provide a tool on which to store the text for a blatant forgery, that is, the Maybrick Diary, then you have me puzzled. I believe you are on record as saying that you have met Mike Barrett, and in your opinion he was incapable of producing the Diary

Mr barrett on his own wouldn't be capable of writing the diary but im pretty certain that mrs barrett played a large part in its production.Its quite possible the barretts started out with the intentions of writing a book on the maybricks somewhere along the line it mutated into the diary that we all know and love today.

[Kaz]

Mr barrett on his own wouldn't be capable of writing the diary but im pretty certain that mrs barrett played a large part in its production.Its quite possible the barretts started out with the intentions of writing a book on the maybricks somewhere along the line it mutated into the diary that we all know and love today.

You've changed your tune. Wasn't that long ago you PM'd me with this :-

Hi kaz,have you had any direct connection wih the diary have you ever met anyone connected to it as you know I met Mr Barrett quite a few times my theory is that he pinched it from someone who pinched it themselves.I do believe that the diary was removed from battlecrease by workmen who then met Mr Barrett in the saddlers pub and that is where it came into Mr Barrett s possession.cheers jason."

[Observer]

I agree. However, in my opinion I believe you are another individual who has judged the book by it's cover. I believe Mike Barrett was capable of producing the Diary. Come on, we're not talking about the finest literature that's ever been produced using the English language. I'd put it somewhere between The Beano, and The Dandy. Apologies to Beano, and Dandy fans

[Observer]

You've changed your tune. Wasn't that long ago you PM'd me with this :-

Oh dear

[Sam Flynn]

To be fair, the Beano and the Dandy contain fewer spelling mistakes and grammatical howlers.

[StevenOwl]

I agree. However, in my opinion I believe you are another individual who has judged the book by it's cover. I believe Mike Barrett was capable of producing the Diary. Come on, we're not talking about the finest literature that's ever been produced using the English language. I'd put it somewhere between The Beano, and The Dandy. Apologies to Beano, and Dandy fans

What about the fact that the Diary contains several throwaway references to everyday things/events in the life of the Maybricks which, between 1989 and 1992, could only be obtained from documents buried in rarely accessed archives? I find it hard to believe that old Bongo managed to do that all on his tod.

[Graham]

To be fair, the Beano and the Dandy contain fewer spelling mistakes and grammatical howlers.

Much more informative and satisfying reads, too. And they have pictures.

Graham