Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[James_J]

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

Good morning Phil.

Thank you for the above post. You are quite right to question the veracity of the "biscuit tin" - and your reservations about its existence are valid. These are lines of inquiry which Keith, Caroline and myself have all spent considerable time investigating - regardless of whether they prove to be true or not.

With respect to your above post - I'm wondering whether you might be able to clarify a few points for me. You write; "No the watch wasn't found under the floorboards. And therefore there was no blasted biscuit tin. And yet...that...those lies are still being pushed around."

• Could you perhaps clarify why the biscuit tin information is reliant or resting upon the watch also being found beneath the floorboards?
  
  
• What evidential support have you obtained which confirms, to the best of your knowledge, that the biscuit tin never existed?
  
  
• Who exactly are pushing these "lies" around?

You also write: "If the tin story is crap..Then the 'found under the floorboards' story is crap too. All of it."

I'm sorry to burst the bubble Phil - but that simply isn't the case. Not at all. Pure and simple.

The allegation that the diary was discovered and removed from beneath the floorboards of Mr. Dodd's house neither starts nor ends with Alan Davies - who introduced the "biscuit tin" & "gold ring" elements into the narrative. Mr Davies did not factor into this story until after Paul Feldman's investigation in 1993 - when other colleagues from Portus & Rhodes had been pointing fingers. In short - Mr. Davies could be mistaken and that would not rule out the possiblity that the diary was discovered beneath the floorboards.

This issue of the biscuit tin seems to have been a real sticking point for you. In light of that, might it not be beneficial for you to speak with Mr. Davies himself, and raise any concerns you have about the truthfulness of his account directly with him?

Setting those issues aside - yes, do feel free to ask me anything.

Best wishes, James.

[James_J]

Morning all, just passing this along from KS :-


TO R.J.PALMER

Roger – your questions in post # 1022 noted and logged. You will forgive me, I hope, for not addressing, just yet, these queries and observations. We still have unfinished business relating to previous posts.

Coming to your post #1023 where you ask why the manuscript/typescript of the Diary found on Barrett’s word processor has never been made available and query why Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison nor the authors of Inside Story have never reproduced it in our respective books. I didn’t know that anyone was calling for it to be made available, even though you say it is a key point that needs to be resolved. Certainly, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever approached the authors of Inside Story which was published fifteen years ago in 2003. Perhaps you did? You will have a record if this is the case I’m quite sure. Who actually ‘found’ the manuscript/typescript on the word processor Roger? I was aware of its existence in June 1992 and I sent photocopies to Martin Fido on June 17th 1992 and Paul Begg on August 13th 1992. As to why Paul (Feldman), Shirley or the authors of Inside Story never reproduced the document, I can only speak for Inside Story. You had the opportunity of asking Paul Feldman yourself whilst he was still alive. Perhaps you did? Shirley, you still have the opportunity of asking. As for Inside Story, my copy is eighteen pages long and annotated with my own notes and some of Robert Smith’s. (You have the figure of “...approximately 40 pages in length” in mind and I was curious as to why?).

I don’t think Seth, Caroline or myself ever discussed whether we should reproduce the document, (with all my annotated scribbles) in our book. In fact I’m not even sure whether Seth or Caroline have ever seen a copy of the manuscript/typescript. I have no record of ever having given them a copy. I could be wrong. We do of course, as you know, reference the word processor on pages 68 and 85 of Inside Story although only in the context of Barrett’s research notes and Barrett’s denial to the police, in October 1993, that he owned a word processor. I recall discussing this with Paul Feldman and Paul, rather sheepishly, telling me he had advised Mike not to tell the police he had a word processor. Paul thought he would be helping Barrett. Quite how this would help him I have no idea and I remember thinking at the time it was the most crass and idiotic thing Paul could have done. But as Paul looked so contrite with the self realisation of the ramifications of his friendly advice to Mike, I didn’t bother pursuing it.

It could be worth you also asking Robert (Smith) as to why he didn’t reproduce the manuscript/typescript in his own recent book. But again, perhaps you have already done so?

Best Wishes
Keith



TO R.J.PALMER

Roger. A rapid PS to my above post. There is a reference to the transcript on page 200 of Inside Story although I was sure we had drawn attention to the claim it had been ‘found’ on Barrett’s word processor – and had we done so, there would have been a source. For some reason, I am associating this source with something that Nick Warren may have written in Ripperana? If there is a hard source then we should really have included this piece of information in Inside Story. As you say, it is a key point. Am I correct in believing you were in touch with Melvin Harris and therefore may know more about the origins of this rumour?, Nick and Melvin worked together closely on trying to prove their, no doubt honestly held beliefs, that the diary was a modern hoax. Melvin, I seem to recall, once described anybody who disagreed with his thinking as part of a seedy conspirancy. He certainly referred to me as Paul Feldman’s Henchman!

Best Wishes
Keith

[Phil Carter]

Good morning Phil.

Thank you for the above post. You are quite right to question the veracity of the "biscuit tin" - and your reservations about its existence are valid. These are lines of inquiry which Keith, Caroline and myself have all spent considerable time investigating - regardless of whether they prove to be true or not.

With respect to your above post - I'm wondering whether you might be able to clarify a few points for me. You write; "No the watch wasn't found under the floorboards. And therefore there was no blasted biscuit tin. And yet...that...those lies are still being pushed around."

• Could you perhaps clarify why the biscuit tin information is reliant or resting upon the watch also being found beneath the floorboards?
  
  
• What evidential support have you obtained which confirms, to the best of your knowledge, that the biscuit tin never existed?
  
  
• Who exactly are pushing these "lies" around?

You also write: "If the tin story is crap..Then the 'found under the floorboards' story is crap too. All of it."

I'm sorry to burst the bubble Phil - but that simply isn't the case. Not at all. Pure and simple.

The allegation that the diary was discovered and removed from beneath the floorboards of Mr. Dodd's house neither starts nor ends with Alan Davies - who introduced the "biscuit tin" & "gold ring" elements into the narrative. Mr Davies did not factor into this story until after Paul Feldman's investigation in 1993 - when other colleagues from Portus & Rhodes had been pointing fingers. In short - Mr. Davies could be mistaken and that would not rule out the possiblity that the diary was discovered beneath the floorboards.

This issue of the biscuit tin seems to have been a real sticking point for you. In light of that, might it not be beneficial for you to speak with Mr. Davies himself, and raise any concerns you have about the truthfulness of his account directly with him?

Setting those issues aside - yes, do feel free to ask me anything.

Best wishes, James.

Hello James

Thanks for the reply.

Let us start at the start shall we?


1)It is entirely obvious to all that is is highly unlikely a gravely ill James Maybrick would have been able to lift the floorboards. It is beyond belief that a person in his physical condition could do it. Therefore..IF James Maybrick wrote the Diary..it wasnt he who deposited it there..in a biscuit tin.
But there is more...
2) Said tin not only contained the Diary..we are told..originally..a ring was in it. Nobody had..to my knowledge ever seen such a thing. But there is more...
3) Somewhere along the way..the ring becomes a watch. The very watch mentioned to be connected to the Diary itself. .via the 'initials' of the women killed. Albert Johnson did not state..as far as I know..That said watch came from a biscuit tin under the floorboards. Do tell me if Im wrong?
But there is more...
4) it..the watch..is a ladies watch. Not a man's watch. Now all sorts of fanciful ideas to explain that point have come out over the years..yet the problem is that a wealthy man like James Maybrick would far more likely to own a man's watch and use that. Sorry..but that is quite clear. But there is more..
5) KS suggests that the biscuit tin story is a ruse. The polite way he called it.."taken with a pinch of salt". If that is true..that it is a falsity..NOTHING about the floorboards or the story about them can be correct. Why? Simple. The electricians did not find a biscuit tin with anything in..no Diary..no watch..no ring. The tin did not exist. If it did, someone would have kept it for re sale. Victorian biscuit tin boxes are collectors items. Also..there was no mention of a lid. (Which is quite a logically needed item due to protection of the Diary (made of paper)..the watch (mechanical). If a person is going to hide a biscuit tin under floorboards they are hardly likely to leave a paper object open to all sorts of woodlice, earwigs, dust mites or even small beetles to munch into and burrow about in. But there is more...
6) Should this so called Diary actually had rested in an open biscuit tin for 100 years..the tin would have some corrosion or had been physically affected by it's surroundings. Even if it wasn't..the outside of the 'Diary' would be affected by lying on or sides touching the metal, tin..for 100 years. No such physical impairment has occurred to the Diary. The Diary was..outwardly..in pristine condition..With only a load of pages having been ripped out. ANY tear in 100 year old paper would show. But there's more...
7) The owner of the property is adamant that had such an item have been there..he would have seen it himself at some stage. Questioning the veracity of this statement could be taken as insulting. The gentleman in question has nothing to lose by sticking to his guns. That comment should be respected..not questioned. But there is more...
8) You have stated I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that you have if not spoken to at length..interviewed the electricians. In that interview/chat.. the placement of the watch came up. I may be mistaken..but from written comments made on a rival forum pre conference last year Robert Anderson claimed to have it from a 'reliable source" that the tin box existed. Reliable source? From a person who claims was one that either knew of..or purloined the item himself?

And you wonder why I have real issues with this blasted biscuit tin. .that has never been seen..measured..described..or any known details have been forthcoming...yet has been pushed around as a truism?
Recently? By at least one pro diarist? With all the details expected that I believe?

James. You are a nice polite fellow. And I don't wish to infer anything personal..but I was around 25 years ago and saw the backlash and nastiness this blasted so called Diary produced. Do yourself a favour. Remember some of us are Grandma's who are pretty good at sucking eggs. We know how it works.

Some of us saw this Diary for what it is years ago. And anniversary peddling of it now does not help one iota. Especially if the story gets changed to suit the next promotion.

That is my last word on the subject. Because it has taken 4 hours to reply to you. .non stop. My energy levels are low. Therefore..
I will not answer further to you nor anyone on the matter..no matter how many 'mistaken points' are raised against this post. It is truly sad to see this mess rising again by some just to keep a wheel on the wagon.
Guess what?

This Diary story should be with it's wheel-less wagon.

Ditched




Phil

[Abby Normal]

Good morning Phil.

Thank you for the above post. You are quite right to question the veracity of the "biscuit tin" - and your reservations about its existence are valid. These are lines of inquiry which Keith, Caroline and myself have all spent considerable time investigating - regardless of whether they prove to be true or not.

With respect to your above post - I'm wondering whether you might be able to clarify a few points for me. You write; "No the watch wasn't found under the floorboards. And therefore there was no blasted biscuit tin. And yet...that...those lies are still being pushed around."

• Could you perhaps clarify why the biscuit tin information is reliant or resting upon the watch also being found beneath the floorboards?
  
  
• What evidential support have you obtained which confirms, to the best of your knowledge, that the biscuit tin never existed?
  
  
• Who exactly are pushing these "lies" around?

You also write: "If the tin story is crap..Then the 'found under the floorboards' story is crap too. All of it."

I'm sorry to burst the bubble Phil - but that simply isn't the case. Not at all. Pure and simple.

The allegation that the diary was discovered and removed from beneath the floorboards of Mr. Dodd's house neither starts nor ends with Alan Davies - who introduced the "biscuit tin" & "gold ring" elements into the narrative. Mr Davies did not factor into this story until after Paul Feldman's investigation in 1993 - when other colleagues from Portus & Rhodes had been pointing fingers. In short - Mr. Davies could be mistaken and that would not rule out the possiblity that the diary was discovered beneath the floorboards.

This issue of the biscuit tin seems to have been a real sticking point for you. In light of that, might it not be beneficial for you to speak with Mr. Davies himself, and raise any concerns you have about the truthfulness of his account directly with him?

Setting those issues aside - yes, do feel free to ask me anything.

Best wishes, James.

Hi James
Who was the first person to bring up the Battlecrease/diary/floorboards story?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith. Just now catching your latest with the morning brew. Tone is sometimes difficult to express and let me apologize if my last post sounded accusatory. I have zero interest in bringing up old grudges, and I have no animosity whatsoever towards the Diary investigators pro or con. I don't see them as 'henchmen,' I see them as just a wide range of personalities interested in a literary mystery. I am more likely to question my own motives as to why, after all these years, I still take an interest in a document that I have dismissed as an obvious hoax.

Perhaps I should have added that Chris Jones and Melvin Harris also never reproduced the Barrett transcript of the diary in their books. Nor Nickell, nor Rendell, nor Chittenden. No judgment is attached; it is simply a statement of fact. And perhaps I am also misremembering people having shown interest in this transcript, but I do think it has been kicked around over the years, but no one has squeezed much out of it. A pity. Barrett's "research notes," by contrast, have been reproduced several times on the internet.

I would have thought that it would be rather obvious that I am interested in confirming the length of this transcript because on or around March 9, 1992 Barrett sought out a blank Victorian Diary, or, rather, a mostly unused diary with "at least 20 blank pages." That is the theme of this thread, "Acquiring a Victorian Diary." By 20 blank pages I take this to mean 20 blank sheets. Double-sided means 40 pages of text could be written on 20 blank pages/sheets. The transcript of the Diary reproduced in Shirley Harrison's Blake edition (2001) was, I believe, exactly 40 pages in length, but you might want to confirm that for yourself, as I am going on memory. In brief, I am simply curious if Mike and/or Anne's transcript, taken from the Amstrad 8256 was approximately the same length. It seems like it must have been, but I'd just as soon not leave it to speculation. If Barrett requested twenty blank sheets and the transcript on the Amstradt was 120 pages in length, I may draw certain conclusions.

Let's me just say this. You have now stated several times, Keith, that you will be perfectly happy if it turns out that the Diary is a modern concoction created by one or more of the Barretts! I am simply trying to help you reach that conclusion, and I must say I am having a hard time of leading you to water! You don't seem to want to go there. It just seems very obvious to me, that if we are to willingly and happily explore the possibility that the Barretts had a hand in the creation of the Diary's text, then this transcript would be a key piece of evidence, and a comparison between it and the transcript reproduced by Shirley might also prove to be a worthwhile exercise. Who knows? But, if you don't think this would be worthwhile, then, by all means, let's drop it. Perhaps just scanning a single sheet of this transcript might be of interest to the readers here.

Anyway, thanks for all of your cooperation and good will. I think I am going to dial it way back. It sounds like the conversation is getting personal, and I should probably find a better way to spend my free time. I am quite literally in a hut in the South Pacific, and cannot access my library or notes, so I can be of limited help. The only Ripper related items I have here in the jungle are by Hainsworth, Wojtczak, and Wood, whose suspects are Druitt, Chapman, and Father Christmas. Besides, I belong to a country that commits a horrific mass killing at least twice a month, and no one--certainly no politician or 'profiler'--has a clue as to why this is happening. I am starting to sour to what I might call "lesser" avenues of research when it comes to why crimes of this sort actually occur. The answer to the Ripper mystery lies in a completely different direction than what is being currently pursued. And our clocks are ticking. Cheers, RP.

By the way, nowadays a transcript found on a personal computer or "word processor" could be checked for evidence of composition and revision. I have no idea if the Amstrad 8256 was ever tested. Good Luck in your Search.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith, I can't leave you without asking one last question. Did you and Paul Feldman ever seriously consider "Mr. Big"? I used to have a shadowy correspondent named "Secret Scholar," who suggested, implied, or perhaps only joked about the diary having been written by a Ripperologist with connections to Liverpool. Have you come across that sort of thinking? Some names that came up included CG, PB, and RWE!! I never took any of it too seriously. Here's an example of Secret Scholar: "There's one man who has produced books on Maybrick and on JtR, whose family knew the Maybricks, who has forensic and literary ability and who also has used quotes from Crashaw in other works on true crime. He also comes from Liverpool. Richard Whittington-Egan." Cloak and Dagger stuff. My money is on AG. Have a good weekend.

[Hunter]

Whittington-Egan's style is so fluid and unique compared to the pitiful prose and syntax in the 'diary' that I would suppose this would be the act of an ultimate chameleon.

[David Orsam]

Thanks for this Pinkmoon.

Many thanks for taking the time to speak with me this morning - a really engaging discussion.

I think that this post touches on something which you have mentioned to me on several occasions - specifically relating to Michael Barrett, and your recollections of meeting him in Southport circa 1999.

I'm just wondering, for the benefit of the other posters/readers, whether you might be able to recount your experience of meeting Mike and listening to his claim that he had "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub"? It is intriguing that Mike would then qualify this account with the caveat; "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched"? Every detail is important.

Following on from that :-

• If Mike's assertion is true, how do we square that with Mike's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995?
  
  
• Do you have any suggestion as to why Mike called himself 'Mr. Williams" on his first approach to Doreen Montgomery - on the same day that work was going on at Riversdale Road, in the same room which had served as JM's bedroom?

I'm sure that many here would be very interested to read your account.

Might I suggest that the only thing that will be (potentially) useful is for pinkmoon to post Mike Barrett's exact words about the diary, as best as he can remember them, without any elaboration or interpretation.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for your post #1004 Gut. (I’m giving up asking people for their real names!) The answer to your question about why a third party (James) continues to post on my behalf, now that my application to join the Casebook Forum has been approved, can be found in my post #948 to David Orsam on February 2nd 2018. Here’s what I wrote:-

“The fault is all mine because of my inability to, at the moment, comprehend how to put up posts for myself on the Forum now that I am a member. I think I explained that the other night I spent three hours composing a message to you in a small rectangular box – only to see it disappear before my eyes after trying to send it - and then staring at a notice which said I wasn’t logged in and hadn’t been recognised! That defeated me and rather than go through all that ordeal again, I asked James whether he would very kindly continue posting on my behalf until I managed to work out what I was doing wrong”

I thought I had logged on!

Several people were kind enough to offer me suggestions as to how to overcome my technical inability. But that wasted three hour stint so frustrated me that I decided to ask James if he could continue to be my postman until such time as I could go it alone. I should be meeting James in a few weeks time when he has promised to take me through the process of what to do. I just thought it fairer to acknowledge, (via James), peoples direct questions to me and give a full accurate response where I am able to immediately do so without reference to my files, (most of which are presently in storage), rather than keep people waiting.

Hope this answers your question as to why I am still at cadet status – where I’m quite happy to remain incidentally!

Why not try baby steps Keith? Start with a short one line test post and see if that works. If you always tick the "Remember Me?" box when signing in you should be fine.

[David Orsam]

Not sure about that, Observer.

John - according to Feldman:

"I contacted the company's owner, Mr Rhodes. He said that he had never heard any whispers from his staff about anything unusual happening on the premises. He went as far as to say that one electrician had found a Victorian newspaper and asked if he could keep it."

[David Orsam]

Setting those issues aside - yes, do feel free to ask me anything.

Does that only apply to Phil, James? Or is anyone free to ask you anything? If so, there are some unanswered questions (which I asked of you) in the following posts:

#385

#386

#387

#388

#389

#831

There are also some questions which I posed generally in #851 and #852 and #853. Your responses would be welcome.

[David Orsam]

You also write: "If the tin story is crap..Then the 'found under the floorboards' story is crap too. All of it."

I'm sorry to burst the bubble Phil - but that simply isn't the case. Not at all. Pure and simple.

The allegation that the diary was discovered and removed from beneath the floorboards of Mr. Dodd's house neither starts nor ends with Alan Davies - who introduced the "biscuit tin" & "gold ring" elements into the narrative. Mr Davies did not factor into this story until after Paul Feldman's investigation in 1993 - when other colleagues from Portus & Rhodes had been pointing fingers. In short - Mr. Davies could be mistaken and that would not rule out the possiblity that the diary was discovered beneath the floorboards.

You know, James, I don't think that Phil is quite as far off the mark as you seem to think.

If we leave aside Feldman's offer to Mike that Eddie Lyons would say that he found the diary in Battlecrease in 1989, no-one other than Alan Davies has ever claimed to have any knowledge of a diary being found in Battlecrease, let alone Jack the Ripper's diary.

Your reference to "other colleagues from Portus & Rhodes….pointing the fingers" is no more than the speculations of a couple of electricians in support of Feldman's theory that the electricians must have found the diary while doing electrical work. Other than Davies, there are only two relevant individuals, as I understand it:

1. Arthur Rigby who never saw or was actually aware of anything being discovered in Battlecrease although he had a notion of something being thrown into a skip and enjoyed a ride to Liverpool University one day. But no knowledge of a diary.

2. Brian Rawes who, you tell me, only remembers being told of a book (or something) being found but, as that was all in July, it's far too late for it possibly being a diary found in March.

So, while you might not like it all, the fact of the matter is that the only source of a story which involves finding a diary under the floorboards of Battlecrease is Alan Davies, who is also the only person who recalls being told (by an unidentified person) that it was found in a biscuit tin. If the biscuit tin story collapses then I think it's fair to say that the whole Alan Davies/Dodgson/Wright Smith story also collapses due to a serious credibility issue. No biscuit tin and there is effectively no evidence from any electrician to support the discovery of a diary in Battlecrease in March 1992.

[David Orsam]

Coming to your post #1023 where you ask why the manuscript/typescript of the Diary found on Barrett’s word processor has never been made available and query why Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison nor the authors of Inside Story have never reproduced it in our respective books. I didn’t know that anyone was calling for it to be made available, even though you say it is a key point that needs to be resolved. Certainly, to the best of my knowledge, nobody ever approached the authors of Inside Story which was published fifteen years ago in 2003. Perhaps you did? You will have a record if this is the case I’m quite sure. Who actually ‘found’ the manuscript/typescript on the word processor Roger? I was aware of its existence in June 1992 and I sent photocopies to Martin Fido on June 17th 1992 and Paul Begg on August 13th 1992. As to why Paul (Feldman), Shirley or the authors of Inside Story never reproduced the document, I can only speak for Inside Story. You had the opportunity of asking Paul Feldman yourself whilst he was still alive. Perhaps you did? Shirley, you still have the opportunity of asking. As for Inside Story, my copy is eighteen pages long and annotated with my own notes and some of Robert Smith’s. (You have the figure of “...approximately 40 pages in length” in mind and I was curious as to why?).

Keith - Is it possible for the full transcript to be made available (with or without annotations)?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith. Something else occurred to me. I apologize for not giving direct citations, for the reason already given. No questions involved, so rest easy! Just consider it a footnote.

If I recall correctly, the discovery of the transcript on the Amstrad was met by the Diary Debunkers as a 'sinister development.' Joe Nickell's name comes to mind and I have a vague mental image of Larry King. Shirley Harrison responded by stating that Barrett had created this text to make it easier for him to study the Diary during the span that he was supposedly trying to discover the author. I am quite certain she has stated this more than once. So this would date to a time shortly after Mike first received the artifact from Devereux. Hell, I dunno. This is probably a mythical event, so unless you have a date, let's call it October 1991. Yet, much later, and I think it was Caroline Morris who said this, it was revealed that the Barretts were required by the terms of their contract with the publisher to produce a transcript of the Diary's text for use by Harrison and Montgomery. This is apparently the transcript you received in June 1992. So, do you see a problem? Are we talking about the same transcript? You see, it seems to me there is a slight contradiction or confusion between Shirley's statement and Caroline Morris's statement as to why the transcript was produced, when it was produced, or even whether there could be more than one transcript that was produced or discussed. Is the document Barrett created to study the Diary the same transcript that he handed over as part of his publishing contract and in turn is this the same document found on the Amstrad that caused Joe Nickell so much momentary excitement? Clearing up the matter might prove useful to those studying these events. Merely a suggestion. Thanks for confirming the transcript you received in June 1992 was 18 pages in length, as printed from the Amstrad. I think that's the first I have ever heard this precise number.

[James_J]

Evening all, just passing this along from Keith :-

To R.J.Palmer

Roger. Many thanks for your two latest posts (#1040 and #1041). Before I forget – I’ve just found the reference in Inside Story to the transcript of the Diary being found on the word processor. I thought we had included it. I’m not sure if you have a copy of the book with you in your Robinson Crusoe hut in the South Pacific, but here’s what we wrote on page 69:-

“Just a few weeks after Scotland Yard had concluded its investigation,[which occurred in October 1993 – KS], Shirley Harrison was sent to the US to participate in a coast-to-coast promotional tour for the book. She soon found herself being interviewed on the highly popular Larry King show along with Kenneth Rendell. The man whose report had so wounded the status of the Diary had another blow to deliver. He had, he told Harrison on air, just heard of a ‘sinister development’ from the UK. A word processor had been found, he told Harrison, with a transcript of the Diary on disc. Rendell had been told this news by Scotland Yard, Harrison understood, though the detectives had not found (nor even searched for) Barrett’s word processor during their interview with him. Barrett, as Harrison explained to Rendell on air, had his own explanation for the disc. Back in March 1992, when he was due to take the Diary to Doreen Montgomery, he claimed he had decided that it would be a good idea to type out a transcript of the Diary which would be easier to read. His own attempt at typing was so poor that it was eventually typed by Anne, a secretary by profession, while Barrett dictated. For the sceptics, whose numbers had grown considerably by this time, this was yet more proof that the Diary was a fake.”

I am fairly certain the detective, (DS Thomas) leading the investigation had no contact with Rendell, but it’s a point I can check. If I am correct, it raises the question of who would have told Rendell about a word processor being ‘found’ with a transcript of the Diary on a disc? And for what reason?

I can add a couple of observations Roger. I had many conversations with Anne and made a note that on May 31st 1995 she had told me, (and I quote from my notes) the transcript was made after they were in a “go” situation, (my terminology). It was done fast – Mike’s typing, etc was hopeless so Anne had to redo it. Mike read it and Anne typed it, checking back against original every so often, as she believed that it should be same as original.”

This is partly supported by a letter Doreen Montgomery sent to Sally Evemy (Shirley Harrison’s researcher) on April 22nd 1992 where Doreen writes:-

“Shirley and I agreed, that to save time, I would send you a typed script of the Diary. Shirley has one, too.”

I’m assuming that Mike must have brought a copy with him on that first visit to London on April 13th 1992.

I do not, of course, overlook the references to the word processor and writing of the diary in Mike Barrett’s sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995, where Barrett places the creation of the narrative to a period after late January 1990 and its completion whilst Tony Devereux was still alive – although Barrett states that Devereux died late May, early June 1990. In fact he died on August 9th 1992.

Finally, absolutely nothing personal in any of this Roger. The moment unpleasantness or perceived animosity creeps into these exchanges is the moment to pull out because it will all spiral downwards. Every point is worth considering, (in my opinion) and weighing up against the hard facts that have been established pertaining to the investigation.

So please don’t leave the party!

* One other point Roger for information purposes. I did, contrary to what I said in my earlier post, send a copy of the transcript to Caroline on June 22nd 2005. Have just found the note!


Best Wishes
Keith