Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

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

  • Evening RJ - Passing this along from KS

    TO R.J.PALMER

    Thank you for your posts Roger and answers to my questions. I hadn’t forgotten your query about Alan Gray’s extraordinary relationship with Mike Barrett. Am I correct in believing you might have some of the tapes Alan recorded, documenting his four year investigation made with – and on behalf of Mike – to try and secure the proof that Mike created the diary? Their conversations are quite illuminating.

    The source for Mike employing Alan to help him with his quest are the tapes themselves. On the tapes, you can hear Alan becoming more and more frustrated because his invoices are not being paid by Mike. On page 226 of Inside Story we wrote...

    “Barrett’s credibility had been stoutly defended by the Liverpool private detective Alan Gray since he first became embroiled in the story, [1994], supporting him against what he perceived was a conspiracy to defraud Barrett of money and credit by those in the Diary team. But unpaid accounts and Barrett’s erratic behaviour had destroyed the relationship. By the beginning of 1998 Gray felt so strongly about his former employer that he felt compelled to swear an affidavit describing a meeting in Liverpool with him. By now his disillusionment was total.

    Noting that Barrett was clearly under the influence of drink, Gray tells him that he has tried for years to get the truth of the Diary: ‘I have protected you and looked out for you, been bodyguard and friend over a long period of time in which you run up a bill with me of over £3,000.’ Gray describes Barrett as a ‘Rat, Scum and the biggest liar I have ever met.’ ‘Well, Alan, ‘ Barrett allegedly [?] replied, ‘You have to tell the tale right, it’s just like fishing, you play the line then just pull them in. I told you just what you wanted to know. I knew what you wanted to hear and then I had you believing.’

    Which absolutely supports your ‘chamelon’ decided opinion!

    You are completely right about Maurice Chittendon being the source for the “Mike trailing the Diary around several publishers claim before he contacted Doreen Montgomery.” Well remembered. I dug out my correspondence file with Chittenden and note that I had emailed him on October 13th 2002, asking for clarification about what he had written in The Sunday Times of July 3rd 1994, in the light of Barrett’s confession to having forged the diary. Here’s what he wrote...

    “For months he [Barrett] haunted the publishing houses of London, clutching a black ledger in his hand.”

    And here’s what I wrote to Maurice Chittenden...

    “How many months? Which London publishing houses? In my ten years close involvement with this project, I know of no evidential support or corroboration for this statement. I am sure you would not have irresponsibly invented this tiny detail which has such significant and important connotations. Perhaps your source was Michael Barrett himself? I would be grateful for clarification of this point please.”

    I never received a reply.

    It’s true that I did voice considerable frustration at the seeming lack of documentation surrounding Mike Barrett’s early contact with Doreen Montgomery – and the apparent failure to pursue lines of enquiry into what Mike had been doing between the time he first telephone Doreen on March 9th 1992 and met with her in London on April 13th 1992? Why had it taken so long given Mike’s impetuous nature? But, in hindsight, perhaps this was an unfair criticism because nobody knew how all of this was going to play out.

    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


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      Hi All,

      This is all very fascinating.

      Who put the diary under the floorboards in the first instance?

      Regards,

      Simon
      James Maybrick.
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Thanks Iconoclast,

        I thought someone might say that.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Thanks Iconoclast,

          I thought someone might say that.

          Regards,

          Simon
          Well at least he didn’t say Jack the Ripper. Lol.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Hi Iconoclast,

            So Maybrick signed the diary, got up from his sick bed, fetched a claw hammer, tore nails out of a floorboard, prised it up, secreted the diary [biscuit tin optional], hammered the floorboard back into place without attracting any attention, and then returned to his sick bed to die?

            Have I got this scenario vaguely correct?

            Regards,

            Simon
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Hi All,

              This is all very fascinating.

              Who put the diary under the floorboards in the first instance?

              Regards,

              Simon
              Nobody.

              Comment


              • Just passing this along from KS. Apologies for the slight delay on this one.

                TO JOHN G.

                Thank you John and swiftly responding to one of your points in #960.

                Maybrick’s signature does not appear in the Diary and neither does the surname Maybrick appear anywhere in the narrative. It is signed ‘Jack the Ripper’. It is only by deductive reasoning that the author of the Diary has been identified as James Maybrick.

                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


                • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                  Hi Iconoclast,

                  So Maybrick signed the diary, got up from his sick bed, fetched a claw hammer, tore nails out of a floorboard, prised it up, secreted the diary [biscuit tin optional], hammered the floorboard back into place without attracting any attention, and then returned to his sick bed to die?

                  Have I got this scenario vaguely correct?

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  I think that's what some are suggesting

                  Comment


                  • Hi John,

                    You don't sound too convinced.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi Iconoclast,

                      So Maybrick signed the diary, got up from his sick bed, fetched a claw hammer, tore nails out of a floorboard, prised it up, secreted the diary [biscuit tin optional], hammered the floorboard back into place without attracting any attention, and then returned to his sick bed to die?

                      Have I got this scenario vaguely correct?

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Erm, how would I know, Simon? I'm not in the habit of observing the dying days of a Liverpool cotton merchant living in the late Victorian period, I'm afraid.

                      Can anyone who was there in Battlecreasde House help Simon out on this one, guys?

                      Mad Ike (but not that mad)
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                        Just passing this along from KS. Apologies for the slight delay on this one.

                        TO JOHN G.

                        Thank you John and swiftly responding to one of your points in #960.

                        Maybrick’s signature does not appear in the Diary and neither does the surname Maybrick appear anywhere in the narrative. It is signed ‘Jack the Ripper’. It is only by deductive reasoning that the author of the Diary has been identified as James Maybrick.

                        Best Wishes
                        Keith
                        Hi Keith,

                        Many thanks for the reply and the clarification you provide.

                        This is really interesting. My source was the Daily Telegraph, 6th August, 2017: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...irmed-genuine/

                        Robert Smith is quoted as saying: "Barrett had a highly impetuous nature. Just seeing or being told about the signature at the end of the diary would have been enough for him to reach for the phone."

                        I had assumed that he'd been referring to Maybrick's signature, but obviously not. In fact, presumably he was referring to the assertion at the end of the diary, "I give my name that all know of me, so history do tell, what love can do to a gentle man born. Yours truly, Jack the Ripper."

                        Smith also goes to claim that Mike wasn't very literate, and that his only literacy achievement was to write occasional puzzles for a children's magazine.

                        This is, of course, obviously incorrect, because he also wrote articles for a celebrity magazine, although they may have been "tidied up" by Anne.
                        Last edited by John G; 02-13-2018, 11:05 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post
                          This is, of course, obviously incorrect, because he also wrote articles for a celebrity magazine, although they may have been "tidied up" by Anne.
                          As discussed elsewhere all Mike Barrett's literary achievements including the Photo album would have been before his stroke.

                          We are judging him after a brain injury...saying "Mike Barrett is not very literate" may be like saying "Michael Schumacher is a bad driver".
                          My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                          Dave.

                          Smilies are canned laughter.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
                            As discussed elsewhere all Mike Barrett's literary achievements including the Photo album would have been before his stroke.

                            We are judging him after a brain injury...saying "Mike Barrett is not very literate" may be like saying "Michael Schumacher is a bad driver".
                            But is there any confirmation that he'd had a stroke? If so, when did this incident occur? Did he say whether he'd suffered a major stroke or a transient ischemic attack?

                            I would note that Mike was a colourful character who, according to Shirley Harrison, made a number of extraordinary claims after the affidavit: that he was a member of MI5; that he'd foiled an IRA attack; that he'd been awarded the Queen's medal for gallantry; that he was dying (within the next hour); that he was impotent; that he had cancer; and that he was going to live in Russia and America.
                            Last edited by John G; 02-13-2018, 11:53 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Ike,

                              How do you think the diary got under the floorboards?

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                                But is there any confirmation that he'd had a stroke? If so, when did this incident occur? Did he say whether he'd suffered a major stroke or a transient ischemic attack?
                                Neither, he simply said a stroke and he mentions it twice.

                                As David Osram pointed out in another thread it is mentioned in "Inside Story on page 67"

                                "Barrett in particular had not been bearing up very well. Harold Bough, who had first contacted him back in April [1993], had seen a dramatic change, as he reported in the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 September 1993. Only forty-one, Barrett had aged visibly over the last few months and now walked with a stick, the result, he told Bough, of a stroke which left him with limited use of his right side and which blamed on the stresses and strains involved in living with the Ripper story."

                                I would note that Mike was a colourful character who, according to Shirley Harrison, made a number of extraordinary claims after the affidavit: that he was a member of MI5; that he'd foiled an IRA attack; that he'd been awarded the Queen's medal for gallantry; that he was dying (within the next hour); that he was impotent; that he had cancer; and that he was going to live in Russia and America.
                                That's fine, I accept he could have been faking it....but if he was he was playing the "long game" doing it and going to the trouble of "walking with a stick" and "limited use of the right side" and somehow "ageing visibly".

                                I would have thought for the "Diaryists" that him faking it is far more problematic to their cause and if he did in fact have a stroke as it could be used to cover any gaps in his story or even some of his behaviour.

                                Stroke or no stroke it brings even more problems for people who claim this is anything other than a modern forgery.
                                Last edited by DirectorDave; 02-13-2018, 12:40 PM.
                                My opinion is all I have to offer here,

                                Dave.

                                Smilies are canned laughter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X