Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[pinkmoon]

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.

I certainly will but my opnions will certainly upset people who subscribe to the maybrick claw hammer theory

[pinkmoon]

I met mike barrett lots of times the first time at the height of his alcoholism he was virtually a street drinker when I first made his acquaintance .He told me he pinched the diary from.some workmen but in what form he kept saying ask your self in what form the book was in also he stated many times (along with the I.R.A crap) that he and his wife concocted it via the amstrad word processor.On one occasion when mike popped into me he had some papers with him that dealt with the research fees that had been claimed against the revenue from the book sales these amounts asked for by some very well known names in the ripperology world I was quite frankly appalled these people knew very early on that the diary was fake but kept quite purely for the money .I still cant believe this diary rubbish is still been debated especially when barrets resesrch notes are dated before he even had taken possesion of the diary!!!!!..Last time I saw mike was about a year before he died he spouted of again about what form the diary was in when he pinched it.What I actually believe happened is one of the workmen who attended battlecrease acquired a book/photograph album from some where on his travels not necessarily from battlecrease and mike took it of him with the promise of some form of payment but never did pay up or maybe he simply pinched it of him.

[pinkmoon]

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.

Best wishes, James

Mr williams quite obvious really mike was trying to pass of a fake as genuine he might well have expected this to fall at the first hurdle so why would he give his real name.

[David Orsam]

I met mike barrett lots of times the first time at the height of his alcoholism he was virtually a street drinker when I first made his acquaintance .He told me he pinched the diary from.some workmen but in what form he kept saying ask your self in what form the book was in also he stated many times (along with the I.R.A crap) that he and his wife concocted it via the amstrad word processor.On one occasion when mike popped into me he had some papers with him that dealt with the research fees that had been claimed against the revenue from the book sales these amounts asked for by some very well known names in the ripperology world I was quite frankly appalled these people knew very early on that the diary was fake but kept quite purely for the money .I still cant believe this diary rubbish is still been debated especially when barrets resesrch notes are dated before he even had taken possesion of the diary!!!!!..Last time I saw mike was about a year before he died he spouted of again about what form the diary was in when he pinched it.What I actually believe happened is one of the workmen who attended battlecrease acquired a book/photograph album from some where on his travels not necessarily from battlecrease and mike took it of him with the promise of some form of payment but never did pay up or maybe he simply pinched it of him.

Pinkmoon, do you remember me suggesting that you post Mike Barrett's exact words about the diary as best as you could remember them without any elaboration or interpretation and you replied saying that you "certainly will".

You've rather fallen down at the first hurdle because, amongst the elaboration and interpretation in your post, you haven't actually provided a single word that you can remember Mike Barrett saying to you.

See, according you now, Mike told you that "he pinched the diary from some workmen". But those can't be his words because he wouldn't have spoken of himself in the third person. Did he say "I pinched the diary from some workmen"?

But then we have a problem because James thinks that you told him that Mike said to you that he "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub".

So what is correct according to your memory? Did Mike say "I pinched the diary from some workmen" or did he say "I pinched the diary from workmen in a pub?". Or did he say something else and the expression "pinched the diary" are your words, not his?

Then we have James thinking that Mike asked you: "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched?" although you now don't seem to remember him saying the words "when it was pinched", at least not on the first occasion. You remember him asking you: "In what form? Ask yourself in what form it was in?" Is that correct?

Then, in a later conversation, he asked you "In what form was the diary in when I pinched it?" Is that right?

Then when it comes to other conversations you still haven't told us what Mike actually said in his own words about concocting the diary. If I was to take it from your post, you seem to remember Mike saying "Me and my wife concocted it via the Amstrad word processor". Is that right? Did Mike use the words "concocted" and "via"?

And was he telling you that he concocted the diary while also asking you what form it was in when he pinched it?

You see we need to know what you actually remember. Not your opinions on what he meant or what you think he was trying to say. If you can't actually remember what he said then please just say so. There will be plenty of time for you to offer your opinions later.

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon, do you remember me suggesting that you post Mike Barrett's exact words about the diary as best as you could remember them without any elaboration or interpretation and you replied saying that you "certainly will".

You've rather fallen down at the first hurdle because, amongst the elaboration and interpretation in your post, you haven't actually provided a single word that you can remember Mike Barrett saying to you.

See, according you now, Mike told you that "he pinched the diary from some workmen". But those can't be his words because he wouldn't have spoken of himself in the third person. Did he say "I pinched the diary from some workmen"?

But then we have a problem because James thinks that you told him that Mike said to you that he "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub".

So what is correct according to your memory? Did Mike say "I pinched the diary from some workmen" or did he say "I pinched the diary from workmen in a pub?". Or did he say something else and the expression "pinched the diary" are your words, not his?

Then we have James thinking that Mike asked you: "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched?" although you now don't seem to remember him saying the words "when it was pinched", at least not on the first occasion. You remember him asking you: "In what form? Ask yourself in what form it was in?" Is that correct?

Then, in a later conversation, he asked you "In what form was the diary in when I pinched it?" Is that right?

Then when it comes to other conversations you still haven't told us what Mike actually said in his own words about concocting the diary. If I was to take it from your post, you seem to remember Mike saying "Me and my wife concocted it via the Amstrad word processor". Is that right? Did Mike use the words "concocted" and "via"?

And was he telling you that he concocted the diary while also asking you what form it was in when he pinched it?

You see we need to know what you actually remember. Not your opinions on what he meant or what you think he was trying to say. If you can't actually remember what he said then please just say so. There will be plenty of time for you to offer your opinions later.

No he didnt use the word concocted one of his constants was that he and his wife forged it and that he pinched it from workmen another constant was that shirley harrison knew it was bollocks but went along with it for the money and he did say ask yourself what form the diary was in when I got it .have to point out that every sentence mike said contained the f word at least twice and he was very fond of the word bollocks .

[rjpalmer]

Keith -- Sorry for the long post. I promise it will be my last for awhile. I see now that I am still pondering the same questions I was nearly 13 years ago.

From the pen of Caroline Anne Morris, Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 11:32 am:

"There is absolutely no doubt that a typed version of the diary text was produced on Mike Barrett's word processor, a copy of which reached Keith Skinner on June 4 1992... My understanding is that one of the earliest responsibilities taken on by the Barretts was to produce a transcript of the diary for Doreen, Shirley and her chosen researchers to consult. (Now, the length of time that elapsed between 'producing' it, as in typing it, and 'producing' it, as in handing it over, is anyone's guess.) "

Caz further adds, the following day, after consulting Shirley Harrison:

"Shirley responded to my questions and said my statement was correct. She wrote:

We certainly asked Mike to produce a transcript."
____

End of Caz's comments. So Far, So Good. The Barrett produced the transcript as part of the publishing agreement.

But hold the phone:

Here's what I wrote to Caz in repsonse, and some of these questions are still not resolved:

RJP Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 1:27 pm

"On Nov., 1993 Shirley Harrison & Kenneth Rendell had a joint appearance on the Larry King Show. Rendell stated that there had been a sinister development, that the police, armed with a warrant, found a word processor in Barrett’s home with the Diary on it. (Harrison, pocket books paperback, p. 272)

Harrison responds: “The police did not have a warrant. The WP was hardly ‘found’ it was on the dining room table.” (Ibid. p,272) (Remember this, because we’ll be coming back to it eventually).

A few months later, Nick Warren, writing to Doreen Montgomery mentions the unusual discovery on Mr. Barrett’s W.P.

Montgomery writes to Warren on 8 May, 1994:

“Of course we know what the SFS found--a transcript of the Diary! There’s nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”

(SFS=Serious Fraud Unit)

Now hold the phone. Multiple Questions. Are we not getting two different stories???

If the argument is currently running (see your statement above) that this transcript was typed up at the request or "agreement" of Doreen Montgomery and the ladies at Crew Literary Agency, why on earth didn’t Montgomery say this? Why didn’t she say something like, “Why Mr. Warren, of course Mike had a transcript of the Diary!..it was agreed that he and his wife would create a typescript for our benefit.” The contractual agreement could then have been produced showing this. But clearly, this wasn’t the understanding of why the typescript was produced as of May, 1994.

Enter Paul Begg.

Author: Paul Begg Casebook Message Boards Archives
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 06:03 pm **
“Hi Martin
Your understanding is pretty much the same as mine. I likewise thought or probably more right I assumed it to be a copy made at the request of Doreen Montgomery, and only later did I understand it to have been a copy made by Mike.”

So independently, we have two sources with the seeming belief that this ‘typescript’ actually preceded Barrett’s arrival at Crew, and at no time was this made at the request of Doreen Montgomery... It was made by Barrett, for Barrett. Doreen's own statement suggests this, and Paul Begg seems to agree with it.
***

But does any of this raise a troubling question?

Why is it now stated or more rightly claimed that the typescript was created by an "agreement" with Crew? Where did this idea come from? The answer, as far as I can tell, is rather suprising. Or am I missing something? It appears that it’s genesis can be traced to Anne Graham a number of years after the fact.

In 1995, a full year after Montgomery wrote to Nick Warren, Anne Graham was subjected to an interview. Graham, now seperated from Barrett, and unable to compare notes with him, tells her version of the where the typescript came from.

The gist of this interview is recorded in the following note made by Keith Skinner, dated May 31, 1995: (this comes from a posting on the Old Casebook Archive).


"Anne said that the transcript [of the Diary] was made after they were in a 'go' situation. It was done fast. Mike’s typing was hopeless so Anne had to redo it. Mike read it [i.e., from the Diary] and Anne typed it [i.e., the original transcript] checking back against original, every so often, as she believed that it should be same as original."

(My emphasis is underlined).

As far as I can fathom ---and the truth is far from clear--something rather strange is going on. If it was known that typescript was created "by agreement" with Crew, why is Keith asking Anne Graham about it? One can only conclude that there was still some mystery as to when and why the typescript was created. Hence the questions put to Anne in 1995.

Yet, it certainly seems that Graham’s version of events directly contradicts Barrett’s earlier version as reported by Montgomery. Montgomery clearly believed Barrett bought the word processor specifically to transcribe the diary and study it; Graham was now stating that the typescript was not made until the Diary was ready ‘to go’ to a literary agency, as part of the contractual agreement.

Is there any reason why we should now accept Anne's revision?"

Finis.

[pinkmoon]

Pinkmoon, do you remember me suggesting that you post Mike Barrett's exact words about the diary as best as you could remember them without any elaboration or interpretation and you replied saying that you "certainly will".

You've rather fallen down at the first hurdle because, amongst the elaboration and interpretation in your post, you haven't actually provided a single word that you can remember Mike Barrett saying to you.

See, according you now, Mike told you that "he pinched the diary from some workmen". But those can't be his words because he wouldn't have spoken of himself in the third person. Did he say "I pinched the diary from some workmen"?

But then we have a problem because James thinks that you told him that Mike said to you that he "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub".

So what is correct according to your memory? Did Mike say "I pinched the diary from some workmen" or did he say "I pinched the diary from workmen in a pub?". Or did he say something else and the expression "pinched the diary" are your words, not his?

Then we have James thinking that Mike asked you: "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched?" although you now don't seem to remember him saying the words "when it was pinched", at least not on the first occasion. You remember him asking you: "In what form? Ask yourself in what form it was in?" Is that correct?

Then, in a later conversation, he asked you "In what form was the diary in when I pinched it?" Is that right?

Then when it comes to other conversations you still haven't told us what Mike actually said in his own words about concocting the diary. If I was to take it from your post, you seem to remember Mike saying "Me and my wife concocted it via the Amstrad word processor". Is that right? Did Mike use the words "concocted" and "via"?

And was he telling you that he concocted the diary while also asking you what form it was in when he pinched it?

You see we need to know what you actually remember. Not your opinions on what he meant or what you think he was trying to say. If you can't actually remember what he said then please just say so. There will be plenty of time for you to offer your opinions later.

No he didnt use the word concocted one of his constants was that he and his wife forged it and that he pinched it from workmen another constant was that shirley harrison knew it was bollocks but went along with it for the money and he did say ask yourself what form the diary was in when I got it .have to point out that every sentence mike said contained the f word at least twice and he was very fond of the word bollocks .As for pinching it from the workmen in the pub i assumed he meant the electricans .I do hope you are not trying to make out im making this up .

[rjpalmer]

Hi Pink Moon. Do you recall what year(s) Barrett was claiming this? Thanks.

[pinkmoon]

Mike barrett never gave me a time line .

[John G]

Pinkmoon, do you remember me suggesting that you post Mike Barrett's exact words about the diary as best as you could remember them without any elaboration or interpretation and you replied saying that you "certainly will".

You've rather fallen down at the first hurdle because, amongst the elaboration and interpretation in your post, you haven't actually provided a single word that you can remember Mike Barrett saying to you.

See, according you now, Mike told you that "he pinched the diary from some workmen". But those can't be his words because he wouldn't have spoken of himself in the third person. Did he say "I pinched the diary from some workmen"?

But then we have a problem because James thinks that you told him that Mike said to you that he "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub".

So what is correct according to your memory? Did Mike say "I pinched the diary from some workmen" or did he say "I pinched the diary from workmen in a pub?". Or did he say something else and the expression "pinched the diary" are your words, not his?

Then we have James thinking that Mike asked you: "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched?" although you now don't seem to remember him saying the words "when it was pinched", at least not on the first occasion. You remember him asking you: "In what form? Ask yourself in what form it was in?" Is that correct?

Then, in a later conversation, he asked you "In what form was the diary in when I pinched it?" Is that right?

Then when it comes to other conversations you still haven't told us what Mike actually said in his own words about concocting the diary. If I was to take it from your post, you seem to remember Mike saying "Me and my wife concocted it via the Amstrad word processor". Is that right? Did Mike use the words "concocted" and "via"?

And was he telling you that he concocted the diary while also asking you what form it was in when he pinched it?

You see we need to know what you actually remember. Not your opinions on what he meant or what you think he was trying to say. If you can't actually remember what he said then please just say so. There will be plenty of time for you to offer your opinions later.

Apologies for interjecting here David, but haven't you set Pinkmoon something of a Labour of Hercules? I mean, with respect, how on earth is he expected to remember the exact words of a conversation he had in a pub with a bloke a quarter of a century ago?

[David Orsam]

No he didnt use the word concocted one of his constants was that he and his wife forged it and that he pinched it from workmen another constant was that shirley harrison knew it was bollocks but went along with it for the money and he did say ask yourself what form the diary was in when I got it .have to point out that every sentence mike said contained the f word at least twice and he was very fond of the word bollocks .As for pinching it from the workmen in the pub i assumed he meant the electricans .I do hope you are not trying to make out im making this up .

I'm not trying to suggest anything pinkmoon. I'm trying to establish what Mike Barrett actually said to you but I really don't think we can take it any further. The danger, you see, is that you are using your own words rather than Mike's, possibly based on things you've read in books, and that after all this time you don't really remember what he said to you.

[David Orsam]

Apologies for interjecting here David, but haven't you set Pinkmoon something of a Labour of Hercules? I mean, with respect, how on earth is he expected to remember the exact words of a conversation he had in a pub with a bloke a quarter of a century ago?

In my post, which you quoted John, I said to pinkmoon "If you can't actually remember what he said then please just say so". He hasn't done that so I really have no idea if he remembers exactly what Mike said to him or not. The problem is that earlier in this thread we had James posting "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 was unclear from the use of quotation marks if were being given Mike's words or pinkmoon's words. Did Mike say "took the diary" for example which pinkmoon has changed in his mind to "pinched"? I have no idea. Did Mike say it happened in a pub, or is that pinkmoon's assumption based on what he had previously read in books? Again, it seems to be impossible to say.

[pinkmoon]

I'm not trying to suggest anything pinkmoon. I'm trying to establish what Mike Barrett actually said to you but I really don't think we can take it any further. The danger, you see, is that you are using your own words rather than Mike's, possibly based on things you've read in books, and that after all this time you don't really remember what he said to you.

I know what was said to me if you choose to disbelieve me that's up to you ive got nothing to hide unlike most people involved with the diary/watch/buscuit tin.

[pinkmoon]

As for workmen the only workmen ive ever known connected to this pantomine are the electricians from battlecrease

[pinkmoon]

And yes after nearly 20 years I might not remember ever word of barretts drunken ramblings to the letter but I have told what I know with integrity which is a word not associated with the dear diary .