Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Observer]

It’s all part of the mystery......wooooooo

Mystery or not, why knock it? At least questions are being answered.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith. Referring to Post #976.

I've read my fair share of 'true crime' over the years, and I can safely say that I've never come across a single case where someone hired a private detective to prove his own guilt!

The scenario you suggest is, I dare say, 'unique in the annals of crime.'

The question I would raise is whether your characterization that Barrett hired Gray in order to 'help him prove he had forged the Diary,' is what some might consider "spin," in so far as it implies that Barrett was so utterly clueless about the origins of the Diary that he would need to hire a detective in order to concoct a false confession.

But I hope this isn't what you are implying, or is it?

If so, can you point to any instance where Gray can be shown doing this? That he was helping Mike concoct false evidence?

Yes, I am familiar with the interviews, and the information was clearly flowing from Barrett to Gray--not the other way around. Further, what Mike was saying often went straight over Gray's head. Gray didn't appear to be a student of either the Maybrick case nor the Whitechapel Murder case, and thus would have been a singularly poor choice for concocting a false confession, if that is indeed what your are suggesting.

If we look at 1994/5 from Mike's angle, his wife and child were 'missing,' he felt he was being 'hoodwinked' about the Diary, his royalties were being held up, and Feldman was harassing and threatening him. Whether any of these claims are true or merely Mike's paranoia I cannot say, but from Mike's angle any of these would have been reason enough to hire a P.I.

I have no reason to doubt Paul Begg's assessment that Barrett hated Feldman, but this tells us absolutely zero about the veracity of Mike's affidavit, because if he was the hoaxer and was 'coming clean,' (or threatening to do so) it would have achieved exactly the same thing. Is this not so?

Finally, I believe Gray was hired for different reasons, but over time--and at Barrett's bidding--the affidavit was created as 'leverage' against Feldman and, perhaps, Smith. Mike was quite simply pissed (in the American sense, Caz!) and wanted to strike a blow. And, of course, Barrett did prove inside knowledge of the Diary's origins with his account of Martin Earl and the purchase of the potential raw materials (since verified) and his remarkable citation of the Crashaw quote. RP

[rjpalmer]

Keith, one other minor question. The manuscript/transcript of the Diary found on Barrett's word processor has been discussed for nearly 20 years on this site but has never been made available, and neither Feldman, Harrison, nor you, Morris, nor Linder, have reproduced it in your books. How long was this manuscript, if I may ask? Was it approximately 40 pages in length?

I think everyone would agree that this is a key point that needs to be resolved. Thanks.

[Phil Carter]

Perhaps it is me.. being totally dense..forgive me. .but...

Keith Skinner has suggested..WAY back in this thread..the 'biscuit tin story' should be taken with a "pinch of salt".

Ok. Let's do that. It isn't true. So?

It means that no Diary..ring..or watch can possibly have been found under the floorboards..because there wasn't a tin to find them in.

So whomever has peddled this ruse from the start and onwards..up to very recently (last summer to my knowledge) is guilty of peddling untruths.
Worse..the basis of the story expands into the story of the Diary itself. If the electricians did NOT find a tin with watch or ring or Diary in from under the floorboards..if any author or commentator has pushed the story as true.. then it is only right that such people stand up and be taken into account for their comments and/or actions.

Maybe it is me. Maybe I'm being obtuse and dense. But I do know this..it is high bloody time this form of shenanigans in this field stops..once and for all.

As Simon Wood rightly surmises..before all of this nonsense. No person close to death would have the energy to pull up floorboards..nailed floorboards. It is a total joke to believe that could happen. Therefore.. ANY story re floorboards emanating after such an improbable action is totally worthless.

Imho some people have a heck of a lot to answer for. Promoting rubbish to carry on this farce further is tantamount to sacrilege.

Perhaps Im just being too hard on the poor little s*ds.
perhaps not.....


Phil

[John G]

Hello Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the biscuit tin story depend entirely on the hearsay account of Alan Davies, who wasn't even present when the diary, or whatever it was, was supposedly discovered under the floorboards?

Fair point about Maybrick being far too infirm to lift, and presumsbly nail back down, the floorboards.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Phil. On March 9, 1992, at the time of this alleged sighting under Dodd's floorboards, the Maybrick watch was sitting in the window of a jewelry shop in Wirral. Ronald Murphy, the shop's owner, signed a statement confirming this, and he had already owned the watch for a couple of years. If someone said they saw it under floorboards in March '92, they are lying.

Thus, Albert's coincidental purchase of the Maybrick watch in July 1992 -- only 4 months after the floorboards "had been lifted for the first time in 100 years!"--must be written-off as yet another amazing chronological coincidence, unless both he and Murphy are also allowed into the 'nest of liars.' I'm not sure how this one will pay out.

I think the Diary supporters may have soured to the biscuit tin story on realizing the difficulty of squeezing a 12 x 8 scrapbook into a 9 x 6 tin, though at least one champion of the Leeds report appears to still believe this is theoretically possible.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the biscuit tin story depend entirely on the hearsay account of Alan Davies, who wasn't even present when the diary, or whatever it was, was supposedly discovered under the floorboards?

Fair point about Maybrick being far too infirm to lift, and presumsbly nail back down, the floorboards.

well
hiding under the floor boards isn't that big a deal. he could have had loose ones where he used deliberately to stash stuff.

but this is a trifling matter compared to the zero provenance battlecrease scenario and that he woudnt have stashed it anywhere because the author says he wants it to be found. he would have just left it out.

oh and because it implies maybrick wrote the diary!!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Phil. On March 9, 1992, at the time of this alleged sighting under Dodd's floorboards, the Maybrick watch was sitting in the window of a jewelry shop in Wirral. Ronald Murphy, the shop's owner, signed a statement confirming this, and he had already owned the watch for a couple of years. If someone said they saw it under floorboards in March '92, they are lying.

Thus, Albert's coincidental purchase of the Maybrick watch in July 1992 -- only 4 months after the floorboards "had been lifted for the first time in 100 years!"--must be written-off as yet another amazing chronological coincidence, unless both he and Murphy are also allowed into the 'nest of liars.' I'm not sure how this one will pay out.

I think the Diary supporters may have soured to the biscuit tin story on realizing the difficulty of squeezing a 12 x 8 scrapbook into a 9 x 6 tin, though at least one champion of the Leeds report appears to still believe this is theoretically possible.

Hi RJ
whats the big deal with the watch? coudnt anyone buy an old watch and scratch something on it? I mean the diary was already known by then, no?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Abbey. That would be a good question for Keith, Caz, and Iconoclast.

[Iconoclast]

Hi RJ
whats the big deal with the watch? coudnt anyone buy an old watch and scratch something on it? I mean the diary was already known by then, no?

Well, since RJP has asked, the most obvious implausible in your mooted version of events is the microspcopic fragments [I would need to check my phraseology here but I'm in a hurry] which indicated the etchings were made many tens of years earlier.

Someone once said that that was easy to fake.

Naturally!

[Iconoclast]

Hi Abbey. That would be a good question for Keith, Caz, and Iconoclast.

Such salubrious company, by the way - it's got quite a ring to it!

'James Was Your Boy' by O'noclast, Morris, and Skinner.

When are we going to get started, guys?

I've got an old Olivetti and some Tesco 80gsm if that would help.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the biscuit tin story depend entirely on the hearsay account of Alan Davies, who wasn't even present when the diary, or whatever it was, was supposedly discovered under the floorboards?

Fair point about Maybrick being far too infirm to lift, and presumsbly nail back down, the floorboards.

Hello john G,

Thanks for the reply
You see..Ive got a major problem...before the last Conference certain pro Diarists were pushing the idea of tge biscuit tin..and..the watch being contained therein.
So pro Diarists are pushing 'heresay' to keep the story rolling along?

Oh my. Like I said.. its about time someone stopped this methodology of trying to promote rubbish. Once and for all.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil. On March 9, 1992, at the time of this alleged sighting under Dodd's floorboards, the Maybrick watch was sitting in the window of a jewelry shop in Wirral. Ronald Murphy, the shop's owner, signed a statement confirming this, and he had already owned the watch for a couple of years. If someone said they saw it under floorboards in March '92, they are lying.

Thus, Albert's coincidental purchase of the Maybrick watch in July 1992 -- only 4 months after the floorboards "had been lifted for the first time in 100 years!"--must be written-off as yet another amazing chronological coincidence, unless both he and Murphy are also allowed into the 'nest of liars.' I'm not sure how this one will pay out.

I think the Diary supporters may have soured to the biscuit tin story on realizing the difficulty of squeezing a 12 x 8 scrapbook into a 9 x 6 tin, though at least one champion of the Leeds report appears to still believe this is theoretically possible.

Hello rj,

Thanks for your reply,

No the watch wasnt under the floorboards. And therefore there was no blasted biscuit tin. And yet..that..those lies.. are still being pushed around. See post above.

As regards how the watch story will NOW play out. .ask James Johnson. Didn't he 'interview' the electricians? Maybe Im mistaken?

Re the tin. If the tin story is crap..Then the 'found under the floorboards' story is crap too. All of it.

And there we stand. Crap being pushed as truth.

Sad isnt it?



Phil

[Phil Carter]

oh and because it implies maybrick wrote the diary!!

yup..hole in one Abby...but...

Don't tell Robert Anderson..he has stated a few days ago on another rival site...that Michael Maybrick wrote it.
strange...because before that book appeared..he was backing James Maybrick.

That same pro Diarist who pushed the biscuit tin story pre conference.


Thanks for your reply..appreciated.


Phil

[martin wilson]

Are the Mrs Maybrick diaries available? Supposedly touted about in 1889, three small volumes bound by a blue silken cord.
Or Marie Belloc Lowndes diary with entries concerning James Kelly (Dissertations The Roots File by Melvyn Harris)?
No agenda, just curious.