Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post
    Every word of your reply I agree with except for the comment about the “useless Victorian diary” which presupposes Mike’s sole purpose in acquiring an “Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages” was to write – or have his wife or father-in-law – write the text of the diary in ink? As we know, what was presented to Doreen Montgomery in London on April 13th 1992 was a hardback Victorian scrapbook, approximately 11 inches by 8.5 inches, which originally contained 128 pages, but now had only 80 pages. 63 of these contained the diary’s narrative and there are 17 unused pages at the end of the scrapbook. I can see the logic of your thinking if Mike’s expectation was to receive a large diary spanning the decade 1880-1890, remove the years 1880 – 1887, commence the narrative mid 1888 (in the hope those pages were unused) and have a minimum of 20 blank pages at the end of the diary to cover the remaining 19 months from May 1889 to the end of December 1890. Then indeed what he received, on or shortly before March 28th 1992, would have been, unarguably, useless.
    I'm not sure it wasn't useless full stop Keith. What use did Mike put the diary to? What conceivable use (other than forgery) could he have put it to?

    So my question to you would be: If we assume that Mike didn't want to forge a Victorian diary, what possible use did the diary have for him? This is a question that I would be interested in your answer to.

    I rather doubt, incidentally, that Mike's expectation was to receive a diary spanning a decade. My assumption would be that he expected a single year diary but that the evidence of the actual year to which the diary related would either not be present or could be removed or, ideally, would be consistent with an 1888-89 authorship.

    While I look forward to finding out why the diary was not useless for Mike, I still agree that my post could have been worded better and so I repost it below:

    Everything that Mike says does, indeed, need to be treated with extreme caution – he was clearly a person with a vivid imagination - but amongst all the uncertainty we do have one hard and undisputed fact which is that an advertisement on behalf of Mike Barrett was placed in a specialist bookdealing magazine dated 19 March 1992 asking for an unused or used Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages and Mike received a completely blank but small (and useless for the purposes of forgery) Victorian diary in response to this advertisement on or shortly before 28 March 1992. The JTR Diary itself was not produced, or known to have been seen by anyone outside the Barrett family, until 13 April 1992. Those are the facts we have and it is up to us to use our brains as to what those facts mean.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post

      There are some other hard facts to accommodate – allowing you attach any importance or significance to them?

      On March 9th 1992, Mike Barrett, using the surname of Williams, Telephoned Doreen Montgomery’s office to inform them he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

      On March 9th 1992, there is evidential support of work being undertaken in the rooms used as a Bed Room and Dressing Room by James Maybrick in 1889, which involved the use of “15 Floor Board [ABC1?] Protectors.”
      The thing is, I feel that some electrical work taking place in Battlecrease on the same day that Mike made his telephone call can be explained as coincidence, whereas I am at a loss to explain his evident desire to obtain a Victorian diary with blank pages.

      Regarding the facts you have posted, I'm wondering if there are more facts available. Thus:

      On March 9th 1992, Mike Barrett, using the surname of Williams, Telephoned Doreen Montgomery’s office to inform them he had the Diary of Jack the Ripper. What time of day was the call made?

      On March 9th 1992, there is evidential support of work being undertaken in the rooms used as a Bed Room and Dressing Room by James Maybrick in 1889, which involved the use of “15 Floor Board [ABC1?] Protectors. What time of day were the floorboards lifted?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by James_J View Post
        On March 9th 1992, there is evidential support of work being undertaken in the rooms used as a Bed Room and Dressing Room by James Maybrick in 1889, which involved the use of “15 Floor Board [ABC1?] Protectors.”
        Hi Keith,
        This may be a silly question, but wouldn't floor-board protectors be used to protect floorboards that were in place, e.g. whilst moving heavy items across them, rather than ones that had been removed?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by James_J View Post
          "The timesheet for 9.3.92 records that both Arthur Rigby and James Coufopoulos were tasked with installing the wire for the storage heaters on the 1st floor of the house. According to Colin Rhodes, this definetly would have necessitated the removal of floorboards on the first floor. We can also see that '15 floorboard protectors' are listed under 'materials' on the timesheet. According to Colin Rhodes - these were essentially plates that were used to protect raised floorboards.
          Thought it might be helpful if I cited the above extract from one of James Johnston's posts at this point.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
            Correct.

            Mike was given ample opportunity to prove he wrote it, and failed dismally.

            Real Paul Feldmans book, the final chapter.
            I was being sarcastic. Where's your proof Mike didn't fabricate the diary?

            Comment


            • Evening all, just passing this along from KS :-


              TO R.J.PALMER

              Roger. Thank you for your further two posts #926 and #927. I am logging your questions but do not want to respond to them until my own questions to you, which have been generated by your questions to me, have been answered. Then we can move on from a position of understanding and acknowledging the reasons behind each other’s questions and responses – if not agreeing with or being satisfied by the answers. What I would like to avoid are unanswered questions from both of us floating around on the Message Boards.

              That said, I would like to respond to the observation you made in post #926 about my very seeming intent “on adding William Graham to the ‘nest of forgers.’ It wasn’t me that included his name in the team Roger, it was Mike Barrett in his sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995. You go on to ask...”Isn’t it fairly psychologically transparent that a bloke might throw a few jabs in the direction of his soon-to-be-ex father-in-law when ‘coming clean’?” Well, possibly it is Roger and possibly that was Mike’s intention. I suppose it depends on their relationship. All I am reasonably sure about is that when Mike made that sworn affidavit on January 5th 1995, his wife had already commenced divorce proceedings on June 27th 1994. What I am certain about is that William Graham ,Mike’s father-in-law, had just died from a heart attack a couple of months earlier on November 12th 1994.

              Best Wishes, Keith

              Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

              Comment


              • TO DAVID O.

                I think our posts are overlapping David as poor James frantically works overtime as my postman.


                Responding to points raised in your post #932.

                The time of day Mike made his telephone call to Doreen Montgomery’s office on March 9th 1992? I simply do not know David but I pushed hard to find out from Doreen who, I seem to recall, got in touch with her secretary, (who by then had left her) and who took the initial call from Michael ‘Williams’. (Do you have any suggestions for why Mike should have used a false surname?) I know I have a record of my exchanges with Doreen, so will look these out and give you the precise detail of what I was told by Doreen – and the date I made my enquiries. I note that you feel the electrical work being done in Battlecrease, on the same day that Mike made his telephone call, can be explained away as coincidence. As I’ve previously said, that is what all of this may reduce down to – a strange coincidence, no more, no less.

                I am not, incidentally, avoiding answering your very reasonable question about why else would Mike have sought to acquire a Victorian diary with a minimum of twenty blank pages – if not for forgery purposes. I promise you I will address it – as with all of your questions.

                I think and hope I have been very careful not to say that floorboards were lifted on March 9th 1992 and that it is a definite fact the diary was discovered underneath these floorboards. All I am confident about is that floorboard protectors were on the timesheet as materials required for wiring for socket and storage heater on the 1st floor. The late Colin Rhodes, whose firm was handling the job, confirmed to me that floorboards would have been lifted. I have no idea at what time of day this might have occurred – if it did occur on that day. It is a fact that Arthur Rigby, one of the electricians named on the timesheet, will not meet with me.

                You very reasonably ask me whether there are more facts available – to which I am pleased to say yes. In August 2004 (I think it was) I was given permission by Doreen to examine her meticulously maintained files pertaining to the Diary. I photocopied a series of memos and letters from Doreen to Shirley and Mike covering the period from the point of Mike’s initial contact (March 9th 1992) up to (and beyond I think) their first meeting in London on April 13th 1992. I should explain here my examination of Doreen’s file was at a time I was working for Bruce (Robinson) and my research material rightly belonged to Bruce. With the lifting of Bruce’s embargo last year, enabling Robert to use the timesheets in his book, I am able to share this correspondence with you. It is something which has been long on my mind to do – and I’m happy to do just that in the spirit of openness. I would have done it sooner but I think you are aware of the personal tragedy in my life in December 2016 which impacted on me throughout last year. In Inside Story we briefly refer to Doreen’s letter to Mike of March 10th 1992 which was the only letter I had ever seen at the time we were writing Inside Story in 2002. Because of my technical incompetence I’ll transcribe the material. I am due to meet with James early next month and I will give to him the original Victorian diary so he can scan it onto the board in its entirety.

                Best Wishes, KS

                Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                Comment


                • TO JOSHUA ROGAN

                  Thank you Joshua. It’s not a silly question and perhaps the function of floorboard protectors were simply for that purpose of protecting the floorboards when heavy objects were dragged across them. I don’t know. I’m not an electrician and have never installed storage heaters. I can only suppose if that had been the reason they were required as part of the materials for wiring the sockets and storage heaters, I would have been told by Colin Rhodes? But my supposition is not good enough and I thank you for highlighting this possibility. It shouldn’t be too difficult for me to find out. Easier than posting messages for myself!

                  Best Wishes Keith

                  Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                  Comment


                  • Thanks, James. Slow news day here, and I can give you one immediate response .

                    Martin Howells has a somewhat important typo on PAGE 19 (which is repeated on pg. 40). Highlighted in green, Barrett saying: "The Times. O.K.? The Australian press, TBS..."

                    What Barrett actually states is "CBS."

                    There is a TBS in the US (Ted Turner's network) but it was CBS that produced a short segment on the Maybrick Diary on its famous news show "60 Minutes." 10:52 on the tape clearly states "CBS."

                    This is only important because what Barrett is claiming is that his interviewers at 60 Minutes were trying to "break" his story and "put words in his mouth."

                    Regarding Barrett's important call to Doreen, as discussed on pages 15-16 of the transcript. Mike clearly and unequivocally compresses at least two days into one day. His initial call to Doreen (March 9) and his actual discussion with Doreen (March 10th) did not happen at the same time, as he implies. So there is no guarantee from his statement that the call to Pan Books was on the same day that he initially called Crew, nor has this been verified, as you evidently know. It is also pretty obvious that Howells caught Barrett in a lie about "Liverpool Tales" on pages 13-14, but, somewhat strangely, drops the matter.

                    Thanks again. I will get back to answering Keith's questions (once I figure out what they are) next time around. Enjoy your weekend. RP

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Keith Skinner View Post
                      Do you have any suggestions for why Mike should have used a false surname?
                      Just to answer this, Keith, I can't think of a better reason than provided in Inside Story, p.2:

                      "He had decided to conceal his true identity until he was sure his story would be taken seriously".

                      Thanks in advance for all the new material.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                        I was being sarcastic. Where's your proof Mike didn't fabricate the diary?
                        You haven't got any proof then? What a surprise.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                          You haven't got any proof then? What a surprise.
                          Yep, answered that one as well. Just read the Barrett transcript and see if you wish to change your bullshit story, sir.

                          PS Name the film!
                          Iconoclast
                          Soldier of Fortune, Man of Peace, Destroyer of Images, Nice Guy, Genius

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                            Yep, answered that one as well. Just read the Barrett transcript and see if you wish to change your bullshit story, sir.

                            PS Name the film!
                            It's not proof of anything. My story is not bullshit. The **** and bull story where James Maybrick is Jack is though.

                            Comment


                            • Evening all, apologies for the slight delay on passing these on :-

                              From KS

                              Thank you Roger for your post #939 and for correcting the TBS versus CBS error. I should have picked up that Mike was referring to CBS as I even have a tape of the CBS interview! The original transcript wasn’t prepared by Martin incidentally. It was done by Michele Kimche who produced Paul Feldman’s documentary. Paul told me afterwards that my request had cost him a lot of money!

                              I suspect Martin may have drilled into Mike more about Tales of Liverpool if he had known for certain that Tony Devereux had possessed Mike’s copy of the book. Martin’s question was predicated on hearsay information and as Mike effectively denied having ever loaned his book to Tony Devereux, I’m not quite sure how much further Martin could have taken that line of enquiry? Do you read something into Martin “strangely” dropping the matter? As I have always maintained, Tony Devereux’s possession of Mike’s book is a powerful strike for the Diary being a modern hoax. It is material evidence. Mike footnotes it in his Research Notes dated August 1991, refers to in in his September 1993 interview and implicates Tony Devereux in his sworn affidavit of January 1995.

                              I note your observation around the Pan Books issue and agree with you it has never been verified that Mike did call them. I have been told that both Doreen Montgomery and Robert Smith did attempt to find out the name of the person who referred Mike to Rupert Crew Literary Agency, but without success. I also agree with you there is no evidence to show when Mike made the call to Pan Books – and this could support an assertion, I believe you made, that Mike was trailing the Diary around several publishers before he contacted Doreen Montgomery?

                              Two questions in this post for you Roger!

                              All Good Wishes

                              Keith

                              Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                              Comment


                              • Passing this along from Keith.

                                Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                Hi Keith,
                                This may be a silly question, but wouldn't floor-board protectors be used to protect floorboards that were in place, e.g. whilst moving heavy items across them, rather than ones that had been removed?

                                TO JOSHUA ROGAN

                                Thank you Joshua. It’s not a silly question and perhaps the function of floorboard protectors were simply for that purpose of protecting the floorboards when heavy objects were dragged across them. I don’t know. I’m not an electrician and have never installed storage heaters. I can only suppose if that had been the reason they were required as part of the materials for wiring the sockets and storage heaters, I would have been told by Colin Rhodes? But my supposition is not good enough and I thank you for highlighting this possibility. It shouldn’t be too difficult for me to find out. Easier than posting messages for myself!

                                Best Wishes

                                Keith

                                Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X