Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

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.

It's not a question of disbelieving you pinkmoon but just look at how you expressed yourself in a PM to Kaz which she quoted earlier in the thread (with my bold):

"Hi kaz,have you had any direct connection wih the diary have you ever met anyone connected to it as you know I met Mr Barrett quite a few times my theory is that he pinched it from someone who pinched it themselves.I do believe that the diary was removed from battlecrease by workmen who then met Mr Barrett in the saddlers pub and that is where it came into Mr Barrett s possession.cheers jason."

You see, there you expressed it as your theory that Mike "pinched" the diary from someone. You also refer to "workmen" but add in the notion of this being in "the saddlers pub". So you are mixing your own opinions with what are presumably vague memories of what Mike said to you and we end up with a mish mash where it's impossible to separate your words and thoughts form those of Mike's.

[David Orsam]

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

Right, but how do you "know" this? It's what you've read in books isn't it?

That's precisely what I'm not interested in (and I don't think anyone else is either). I just wanted to know what Mike told you, or at least what you remember him telling you.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;440880]It's not a question of disbelieving you pinkmoon but just look at how you expressed yourself in a PM to Kaz which she quoted earlier in the thread (with my bold):

"Hi kaz,have you had any direct connection wih the diary have you ever met anyone connected to it as you know I met Mr Barrett quite a few times my theory is that he pinched it from someone who pinched it themselves.I do believe that the diary was removed from battlecrease by workmen who then met Mr Barrett in the saddlers pub and that is where it came into Mr Barrett s possession.cheers jason."

You see, there you expressed it as your theory that Mike "pinched" the diary from someone. You also refer to "workmen" but add in the notion of this being in "the saddlers pub". So you are mixing your own opinions with what are presumably vague memories of what Mike said to you and we end up with a mish mash where it's impossible to separate your words and thoughts form those of Mike's.[/QUOTE
Private messages obviously not very private on case book obviously !!!!!!.barrett did mention many times he had pinched it from workmen .

[David Orsam]

barrett did mention many times he had pinched it from workmen .

Many times?

Okay, let me remind you of what you have posted on this forum in the past. All bold is mine:

23 September 2013

"He did let slip one little thing once and I'm wondering if it might be what this 2007 information is.It's only right to point out that meeting and talking to Mr Barrett was extremely frustrating and he is not the most reliable person in the world."

22 January 2014

"Mr Barrett has told lots of far fetched stories about the diary to me and lots of other people over the years.He told me lots of different stories all revolving round him been this master forger the one thing that he always said was all he wanted was to raise a few hundred quid to buy a decent greenhouse he never expected this to become so big.Mr Barrett is a loon he is not capable of forging anything and anyone with any sense would not get him involved with anything at any level"

8 April 2014

"I think I know how Mr Barrett obtained the diary like I said before I have no proof just a gut feeling when I spoke to him so I do not buy the Tony story or mrs Barrett s story"

16 September 2014

"You have to take my word for it that I don't know the true story of the diary what I will say meeting Mr Barrett face to face has led me to form my own theories however I have no proof and I don't think we will ever know the truth."

[pinkmoon]

Many times?

Okay, let me remind you of what you have posted on this forum in the past. All bold is mine:

23 September 2013

"He did let slip one little thing once and I'm wondering if it might be what this 2007 information is.It's only right to point out that meeting and talking to Mr Barrett was extremely frustrating and he is not the most reliable person in the world."

22 January 2014

"Mr Barrett has told lots of far fetched stories about the diary to me and lots of other people over the years.He told me lots of different stories all revolving round him been this master forger the one thing that he always said was all he wanted was to raise a few hundred quid to buy a decent greenhouse he never expected this to become so big.Mr Barrett is a loon he is not capable of forging anything and anyone with any sense would not get him involved with anything at any level"

8 April 2014

"I think I know how Mr Barrett obtained the diary like I said before I have no proof just a gut feeling when I spoke to him so I do not buy the Tony story or mrs Barrett s story"

16 September 2014

"You have to take my word for it that I don't know the true story of the diary what I will say meeting Mr Barrett face to face has led me to form my own theories however I have no proof and I don't think we will ever know the truth."

Yeah and ?

[David Orsam]

Yeah and ?

Well, in the first quote you said that Mike let one little thing slip "once". That can only be that he pinched the diary from workmen. But now you claim he told you this "many times". So it wasn't something he let slip "once" was it?

In the second quote you say that he told you "lots of different stories" about him being a master forger. So he's telling many times that he pinched it and many times that he forged it? Is that right? About how many times did you actually meet him?

In the third quote you say that you have a "gut feeling" as to how Mike obtained the diary. Well that wasn't quite accurate was it? Because your belief was directly based on what Mike had told you wasn't it?

In the fourth quote you say you have formed your own theories as a result of meeting Mike. So is your belief that Mike pinched the diary from workmen a theory of yours or is it something that Mike actually told you?

[pinkmoon]

Well, in the first quote you said that Mike let one little thing slip "once". That can only be that he pinched the diary from workmen. But now you claim he told you this "many times". So it wasn't something he let slip "once" was it?

In the second quote you say that he told you "lots of different stories" about him being a master forger. So he's telling many times that he pinched it and many times that he forged it? Is that right? About how many times did you actually meet him?

In the third quote you say that you have a "gut feeling" as to how Mike obtained the diary. Well that wasn't quite accurate was it? Because your belief was directly based on what Mike had told you wasn't it?

In the fourth quote you say you have formed your own theories as a result of meeting Mike. So is your belief that Mike pinched the diary from workmen a theory of yours or is it something that Mike actually told you?

Perfectly entitled to form my own theories . unlike most people who get involved in the diary debate at least ive met and talked to the barrett lots of times.

[David Orsam]

Perfectly entitled to form my own theories . unlike most people who get involved in the diary debate at least ive met and talked to the barrett lots of times.

Sure but what about your 2013 post in which you said "He did let slip one little thing once and I'm wondering if it might be what this 2007 information is."

Can you confirm for us what the little thing was that Mike Barrett let slip to you once?

[Observer]

Hi Pinkmoon

Seeing as Mt Orsam seems to have logged off(I didn't want to interrupt the exchanges you were having with him) I wonder if you would answer some questions I have regarding your acquaintance with Mike Barrett.

How did you first come to meet Mike Barrett, did he approach you or did you approach him?

You say you met him many times, where did the actual meetings take place, in a pub at his house, at your house?

Why do you suppose Mike Barrett let you into his secrets?

To the best of your knowledge are you aware of any other persons(regarding the origins of the Diary) who Mike Barrett confided in?

Were there any other persons in attendance when Mike Barrett disclosed the origins of the Diary with you?

Thank you

Regards Observer

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pinkmoon

Seeing as Mt Orsam seems to have logged off(I didn't want to interrupt the exchanges you were having with him) I wonder if you would answer some questions I have regarding your acquaintance with Mike Barrett.

How did you first come to meet Mike Barrett, did he approach you or did you approach him?

You say you met him many times, where did the actual meetings take place, in a pub at his house, at your house?

Why do you suppose Mike Barrett let you into his secrets?

To the best of your knowledge are you aware of any other persons(regarding the origins of the Diary) who Mike Barrett confided in?

Were there any other persons in attendance when Mike Barrett disclosed the origins of the Diary with you?

Thank you

Regards Observer

Can I pm you later I have a few things to attend to at the moment

[Observer]

Yes of course Pinkmoon, no problem.

Regards Observer

[James_J]

Afternoon chaps.

Just catching up with the latest discussion.

To Pinkmoon - don't feel at all perturbed by David O's reaction to your account.

There are many here who value your contribution, and would be extremely interested to hear more about your recollections of meeting with Mike Barrett.

I have always found our conversations, both on the forums and in person, to be really engaging - even though we share different opinions on the diary. I for one do not think that "after all this time you don't really remember what he [Mike Barrett] said to you."

I'm just wondering, for the benefit of the other users, might you be able to share some of your answers to the questions which Observer has already put to you?

How did you first come to meet Mike Barrett, did he approach you or did you approach him?

You say you met him many times, where did the actual meetings take place, in a pub at his house, at your house?

Why do you suppose Mike Barrett let you into his secrets?

To the best of your knowledge are you aware of any other persons(regarding the origins of the Diary) who Mike Barrett confided in?

Were there any other persons in attendance when Mike Barrett disclosed the origins of the Diary with you?

I will add just one more question to this :-

Do you read any significance into Mike Barrett making his initial phone call to Doreen Montgomery on the same day work was being done in Battlecrease House in the room used by James Maybrick as a bedroom in 1889? Or do you feel this is just a strange coincidence?

Excited to hear more from you.

Best wishes and thanks again, JJ.

[David Orsam]

To Pinkmoon - don't feel at all perturbed by David O's reaction to your account.

There are many here who value your contribution, and would be extremely interested to hear more about your recollections of meeting with Mike Barrett.

I have always found our conversations, both on the forums and in person, to be really engaging - even though we share different opinions on the diary.

Out of interest, James, when you spoke to pinkmoon on the morning of the 15th Feb, did he mention to you that Mike Barrett stated many times to him that he (Mike) and his wife concocted the diary via the Amstrad word processor? If so, is there any reason why you didn't mention it in your post #1101 asking him to recount his experience of listening to Mike and saying that every detail is important? If he didn't mention it, did your conversation with him get cut short?

[James_J]

Also - passing this along from KS


TO R.J.PALMER

Roger – my thanks for your most recent posts and let me immediately say how pleased I am you are staying the course. I truly welcome all of your questions Roger and if I turn some of them back on you, it is only because I want to know what has motivated and shaped them. There is such a volume of material out there, (often conflicting and inconsistent), spread over 25 years that I personally cannot always remember what has been written and when. But please disavow yourself of the notion, (if indeed you ever held it), that right from the beginning of the diary project people were working in close harmony sharing information with each other. We wanted to bring that out very strongly in Inside Story. It touches on one of the queries you raised in your long (and welcome) post #1056 about the note I had scribbled to myself on May 31st 1995, concerning what Anne had told me about preparing the transcript. (All of this is difficult to be 100% accurate about, as regards timing, without my 1992-1995 files to hand – probably about 20 Lever Arch Binders!) Against the background of really bad relations going on between Paul Feldman in the one camp and Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery in the other, information was not being shared. I was in the unique position of having a foot in both camps but because I was being paid by Paul Feldman, there was, I always felt, an element of suspicion attached to me from the Robert/Shirley/Doreen camp! Now, returning to the transcript, I can’t see where I have stated “...that this transcript was typed up at the request or “agreement” of Doreen Montgomery and the ladies at Crew Literary Agency...” When Doreen wrote to Sally Evemy on April 22nd 1992, to the best of my knowledge, there was no contractual agreement in place between Rupert Crew Literary Agency and Michael Barrett. I only knew about this letter when I saw it in Doreen Montgomery’s file on August 3rd 2004, (whilst working with Bruce Robinson who commissioned the research) along with the other sequence of letters which I promised David I would put up on the Message Boards, now that Bruce has lifted his embargo as of around May or June of last year (2017). But clearly there was still some mystery, (to me anyway), as to the circumstances of how and when the transcript had been prepared, even after I had spoken with Mike about it, (and taped the conversation), the previous year in Liverpool on April 14th 1994. (I here bear in mind Roger your opinion that Mike would have only been telling me what he wanted me to know – the same game as he had played, on his own admission, with Alan Gray.) In my conversation with Anne on May 31st 1995, it was obviously still on my mind, which is why I asked her, (as I did many times), to just talk me through what had been going on in the Barrett household from the point Mike brought the diary home after having been given it by Tony Devereux. I must have included a question about the transcript for me to have jotted down Anne’s reply. I know I remember Anne telling me that, after her trying to dissuade Mike from taking the diary to London, (she claims that when she gave the diary to Devereux to give to Mike and tell him (Mike) to do something with it, she only ever had in mind that he would perhaps use it as the basis to write a story – and the last thing in the world she anticipated was that he would begin to investigate it or interest a publisher a publisher in the original document. Which he started to do, (research the diary), after Devereux’s death in August 1991, for which there is the evidential support of his Research Notes, which of course do conflict with his sworn affidavit of January 1995.

I know that people who have met Anne Graham find this very difficult to believe as she is a bright, intelligent lady and would have surely realised the potential value of a family heirloom. She may not have connected it to Maybrick although she did know the Granny Formby association with the Maybrick trial. But against this seemingly irrational behaviour of secreting, via a third party, the diary to her husband, has to be factored in the state of her marital situation and relationship with Mike. I had wanted to know why it had taken Mike about 5 weeks to take the diary to London to which I think Anne said it was just to do with arrangements for Caroline. But Anne had also told me how hard she tried to persuade Mike to drop the idea of bringing in people from the outside to examine the diary as she feared it would lead to the discovery that she had given it to Devereux to give to Mike, on the basis their marriage was at a point where Mike had lost all of his self esteem and was rejecting anything that came from Anne in her efforts to restore it. I remember Anne telling me that, once she had resigned herself to the reality that Mike was definitely going to take the diary to London, she thought the business appointment might as well be done professionally with an accompanying transcript. This is why I had assumed Mike had taken a copy of the transcript, printed off from his word processor, with him to London on April 13th 1992.

I had no intention of going on at such length Roger but before I sign off and let you clean your hut, I owe you an apology. The correct length of the manuscript is 29 typed A4 pages and not 18 as I foolishly stated. It was only this morning I realised my error. I had been referring to an incomplete photocopy of my original photocopy, if that makes sense.

Sorry to have cherry picked your many questions. I selected those I felt I could deal with swiftly without reference to source material. Four hours later and it didn’t quite work out like that!

Best Wishes
Keith

[David Orsam]

I for one do not think that "after all this time you don't really remember what he [Mike Barrett] said to you."

For clarity, you are, I think, quoting me here, when I said:

"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 said it was a danger, so you have taken my words out of context. I wasn't saying that he doesn't really remember. But pinkmoon's response to my post was this:

"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 ."

I was trying to establish which of Barrett's drunken ramblings pinkmoon actually could remember. So far he hasn't confirmed that he remembers anything that Mike actually said to him in 1999 or thereafter.