Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

TO ABBY NORMAL

But where is the proof Mike was lying Abby?

What was he lying about?

Why would Mike go into a Solicitor’s Office to make a sworn affidavit, presumably on oath - and lie?

Do you know how this all works Abbey? I’ve never made a sworn affidavit but if I wanted to put on record that David had told me he was a life long supporter of Chelsea, do I just phone up a Solicitor, make an appointment, go along and see him/her, swear the affidavit, have it witnessed, pay the fee, take away a copy of the affidavit and distribute copies at Stamford Bridge? And that’s it. I’m not required to provide any evidential support for my affidavit? The fact I have sworn it in a Solicitor’s Office is proof enough of my veracity?

Is it just me or has this thread taken a very weird turn?

Has Keith Skinner just asked why Mike Barrett would tell a lie in a sworn affidavit?

Presumably, Keith, you do think Mike was lying in his affidavit (or might well have been) because you told me earlier that if you were put on the spot and had to choose between Mike being involved in creating the diary and the diary being discovered in Battlecrease you would choose the diary being discovered in Battlecrease.

Just as a matter of fact though: yes, the way you have summarised the making of an affidavit is exactly how it is done. There is no requirement to provide evidential support. But signing it in this way doesn't in itself prove its veracity. And didn't Mike swear a number of affidavits saying different (contradictory) things?

[Bridewell]

What I find improbable is that the diary was under floorboards for a century or so before being discovered. Was there central heating installed in the property at some point ? Almost certainly. Had it been rewired? Probably at least 3 or 4 times. All without anyone lifting the floorboards and finding an artefact which had been there all the time? Not impossible of course - but most unlikely IMHO.

[harry]

Would any soliciter be able to take an affidavit? I always believed such a statement had to be sworn to in front of a person legally entitled to hear it,such as a magistrate.

[GUT]

Would any soliciter be able to take an affidavit? I always believed such a statement had to be sworn to in front of a person legally entitled to hear it,such as a magistrate.

A solicitor can witness the swearing of an affidavit.

I’m not sure what you mean by “a person legally entitled to hear it”.

[John G]

Would any soliciter be able to take an affidavit? I always believed such a statement had to be sworn to in front of a person legally entitled to hear it,such as a magistrate.

It includes any person authorized to administer oaths and affidavits, which is to say any person appointed by the Lord Chancellor to be a commissioner for oaths: see Commissioner for Oaths Act, 1889. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ted?view=plain

Here is the relevant list: http://www.commissionerofoaths.co.uk

See also: Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 32 9.1 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...rt32/pd_part32

I would note that all practicing solicitors are commissioners for oaths, meaning that any solicitor may administer an oath and take affidavits.

[John Wheat]

The Dairy is clearly a modern forgery deal with it.

[Henry Flower]

The Dairy is clearly a modern forgery deal with it.

You're just trying to butter-up Mr Orsam, it's a bit cheesy. I can really milk this joke if you want. Sorry - sometimes my sense of humour makes me want to s-cream. I'll stop now - don't want to yog-hurt your feelings.

[caz]

This thread has basically become a thread where a few crackpot posters come up with more and more outlandish statements as to how the diary came into Mike's possession and then sensible posters point out how ludicrous these scenarios are only for the crackpots to come up with more outlandish statements and the whole cycle continues. This leads me to two conclusions. 1. Mike isn't wasn't as stupid as some would have you believe and 2. you can't reason with crackpots.

Could you not think of something more original and insulting than 'crackpot'? It gets old very quickly.

Rather like the ink Mike is meant to have applied to the paper in early April 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[James_J]

Passing this along from KS

Hi mr skinner
I guess you didn’t see my winky thing to indicate I was being sarcastic.
The diary defenders, or at least those who don’t believe Barrett was capable of being involved, just say he lied in his affidavit.

Personally to me his sworn confession of hoaxing it should have put the lid on this farce along time ago.

Could you pleas explain why you still believe it’s an open question? What will it take to convince you that it’s a modern forgery and or it was written partially by Barrett?
Why haven’t you denounced this as a modern hoax?

Also, why is it taking so long for you to get on here?

I apologize for my bluntness.

TO ABBY NORMAL

Thank you for your observations and I acknowledge that, for you personally, Mike’s various confessions and his sworn affidavit was sufficient proof that he was involved in creating this diary. It is those same confessions and sworn affidavits that give me pause because, in some places where the detail can be tested, it doesn’t seem to chime? I take on board here the criticism that the investigation into obtaining independent corroboration of Mike’s claims may have been deficient and – at this distance in time – we are attempting to reopen these lines of enquiry. Is it reasonable to expect full factual accuracy when swearing an affidavit? And why the need to make one? Simplisticly, I’ve always thought that if Mike had been responsible – or been involved with – creating a fake diary and wanted to be believed, then it would have been very easy to explain the mechanics of the forgery? It would have all fallen into place quite easily and naturally.



You reasonably ask why haven’t I denounced the diary as a modern hoax which presupposes I know it to be a modern hoax. I don’t Abby. But your question touches on Phil’s observation about Stewart (Evans) seeking to protect a friend’s reputation because of something which Stewart had seen or heard whilst he was in Paul Feldman’s office circa 1993. If I am reading Phil correctly then the inference is that Stewart has witnessed something which satisfied him that Paul Feldman knew the diary to be a modern hoax – and Stewart’s friend was aware of this but continued to be involved with the project? Is that how you interpret Phil’s information?


I don’t know why it is taking so long for me to be able to post in my own right. I sent my application to the Administrators on January 19th. At the back of my mind though I seem to recall reading the Administrators advising that applications can take up to 3 weeks to process and to be patient.

Bluntness and direct questions are fine Abby.

Best Wishes, Keith

[James_J]

Hilarious, Henry. Somebody buy this chap a pint!

Keith - As you know, after Tony Devereux's death in 1991, when Tony's daughters were cleaning out his effects, they found Mike Barrett's personal copy of Liverpool Tales by Richard Whittington-Egan. Is that your understanding?

The book contains a short section about the Maybrick case, and this, of course, would date to a time before March 1992. Since a hoaxer would obviously try to hide his knowledge, doesn't the mere fact that Barrett's book turned up in a locaton where he could not retrieve it or conceal it --the Devereux home -- speak rather loudly about his reading habits prior to March '92? Or is this another weird coincidence from which no meaning can be gleaned?

TO R.J.PALMER

Roger. To swiftly answer your question off the top of my head and without checking

back to my reference material to confirm factual accuracy...

The essence of what I remember about Tales Of Liverpool is that Mike’s copy was given to the Scotland Yard investigating officer in October 1993 by Tony Devereux’s daughter who had been loaned it by Devereux when she visited him in 1992. From what I was able to ascertain when I spoke with the daughter, she was pregnant and saw the book in Devereux’s house and asked her father if she could borrow it. Devereaux said yes but to bring it back because it belonged to “Bongo” (Mike Barrett). It never was returned because Devereux died in August 1992. I’m pretty sure that, with the daughter’s assistance, I was able to narrow down the date when she would have borrowed the book because it related it to her pregnancy. Summer comes to mind but – without going back to my notes – I cannot be sure. As I think I’ve openly said to David, the book is an important piece of evidence for it being the source of some of the Maybrick content of the Diary. Mike references it in his research notes. I’ve by no means discounted it Roger as a pointer to the diary being a modern fake. Mike does name Devereux in his sworn affidavit of January 1995.

We still have unfinished business to resolve in some of your previous posts.

All Good Wishes, Keith

[James_J]

Is it just me or has this thread taken a very weird turn?

Has Keith Skinner just asked why Mike Barrett would tell a lie in a sworn affidavit?

Presumably, Keith, you do think Mike was lying in his affidavit (or might well have been) because you told me earlier that if you were put on the spot and had to choose between Mike being involved in creating the diary and the diary being discovered in Battlecrease you would choose the diary being discovered in Battlecrease.

Just as a matter of fact though: yes, the way you have summarised the making of an affidavit is exactly how it is done. There is no requirement to provide evidential support. But signing it in this way doesn't in itself prove its veracity. And didn't Mike swear a number of affidavits saying different (contradictory) things?

TO DAVID ORSAM

And here’s me thinking you were going to sue me for defamation of character by associating your name with Chelsea!


Yes. Quite right. I am looking for reasons why Mike Barrett would tell a lie (or lies) in a sworn affidavit? Personally, I do believe he was lying but I could be as wrong as you are right in your belief that Mike was involved in the creation of a fake diary – if I’m representing your belief fairly?

I believe you are right about Mike swearing a number of affidavits saying different (contradictory) things and I am looking these documents out to confirm our mutual recollection is correct. If so, this is probably one of the reasons why the unreliability of Mike’s claims have been mentioned.

If I was put on the spot and had to choose between Mike being involved in creating the diary and the diary being discovered in Battlecrease then, yes, I would choose the diary being discovered in Battlecrease on March 9th 1992. Which is not synonymous with saying that James Maybrick wrote the diary or that he was Jack The Ripper. If one ever got that far in conclusively establishing the diary was found under the floorboards in the room where James Maybrick died in 1889, then the next question would be – was the diary there on March 8th 1992?

I’m assuming that if you shared the same spot as me, you would choose Mike being involved in creating the diary against the diary being discovered in Battlecrease?

I will just insert here that, up until 2004, however difficult to accept and being extremely aware that it lacked any evidential support, Anne Graham’s story of the diary being in her family since circa 1943, was where I rested. By definition, Anne and her father’s testimony, linked it to Mike’s account of it being handed to him by Tony Devereux in the Spring of 1991. The coincidence of the timesheet evidence with its implication of floorboard activity going on in Battlecrease on the same day as Mike, (using a false surname) telephoned a London Literary Agency to announce he had the diary of Jack The Ripper has given me a new line of investigation to explore. Coincidences do happen, I agree and that is what it all may reduce down to in the end.

Best Wishes, Keith

[StevenOwl]

I will just insert here that, up until 2004, however difficult to accept and being extremely aware that it lacked any evidential support, Anne Graham’s story of the diary being in her family since circa 1943, was where I rested. By definition, Anne and her father’s testimony, linked it to Mike’s account of it being handed to him by Tony Devereux in the Spring of 1991.

Hi Keith - can I ask, just out of interest, were you present the first time Billy Graham was interviewed in relation to the Diary? And either way, given your shift in thinking post-2004, do you now believe that Billy was primed for that interview by Anne?

Cheers, Steven

[John Wheat]

Could you not think of something more original and insulting than 'crackpot'? It gets old very quickly.

Rather like the ink Mike is meant to have applied to the paper in early April 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

Crackpot does fit to a tee though which is why I used the term.

[John Wheat]

You're just trying to butter-up Mr Orsam, it's a bit cheesy. I can really milk this joke if you want. Sorry - sometimes my sense of humour makes me want to s-cream. I'll stop now - don't want to yog-hurt your feelings.

I'm not trying to butter up Mr Osram I'm just stating what is true.

[Abby Normal]

Passing this along from KS





TO ABBY NORMAL

Thank you for your observations and I acknowledge that, for you personally, Mike’s various confessions and his sworn affidavit was sufficient proof that he was involved in creating this diary. It is those same confessions and sworn affidavits that give me pause because, in some places where the detail can be tested, it doesn’t seem to chime? I take on board here the criticism that the investigation into obtaining independent corroboration of Mike’s claims may have been deficient and – at this distance in time – we are attempting to reopen these lines of enquiry. Is it reasonable to expect full factual accuracy when swearing an affidavit? And why the need to make one? Simplisticly, I’ve always thought that if Mike had been responsible – or been involved with – creating a fake diary and wanted to be believed, then it would have been very easy to explain the mechanics of the forgery? It would have all fallen into place quite easily and naturally.



You reasonably ask why haven’t I denounced the diary as a modern hoax which presupposes I know it to be a modern hoax. I don’t Abby. But your question touches on Phil’s observation about Stewart (Evans) seeking to protect a friend’s reputation because of something which Stewart had seen or heard whilst he was in Paul Feldman’s office circa 1993. If I am reading Phil correctly then the inference is that Stewart has witnessed something which satisfied him that Paul Feldman knew the diary to be a modern hoax – and Stewart’s friend was aware of this but continued to be involved with the project? Is that how you interpret Phil’s information?


I don’t know why it is taking so long for me to be able to post in my own right. I sent my application to the Administrators on January 19th. At the back of my mind though I seem to recall reading the Administrators advising that applications can take up to 3 weeks to process and to be patient.

Bluntness and direct questions are fine Abby.

Best Wishes, Keith

Thanks Keith
I’ll stay out of the Phil question for now, except to say it would be interesting to know what happened to lead Stewart to believe the diary was a hoax.

Re your response to DAVID.. why do you think it came out of battlecrease? When and who first suggested it did?

And what’s to preclude Barrett to have hoaxed it and had one of the electricians place it in battle crease and or say they found it there?