Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

James, some more previous forum posts from pinkmoon (my bold in all cases):

28 February 2014

"Hi kaz,you will get no sense out of Mr Barrett at all however once he slipped up and the conclusion I came to was that he had pinched the diary from someone who had pinched it themselves I might be wrong but that is the conclusion I came to."

17 March 2014

"I honestly believe the diary was removed from battlecrease by workmen and then ended up in Mr Barrett s hands.When you do a timeline of events the only connection Mr Barrett has with battlecrease is by drinking in the saddlers pub with the workmen from battlecrease."

21 March 2014

"I think he pinched it from one of the workmen who drank in the pub the story concerning Tony was used when Tony died so Mr Barrett could then claim ownership of the diary and profit from it this is just my opinion I have no proof of this."

28 March 2014

"very hard to take anything Mr Barrett says seriously he has told me a lot of obviously tall stories the man is a fruitloop."

21 September 2014

"I have no doubt that the diary came out of battlecrease and the only link between Mr Barrett and battlecrease is Mr Barrett drinking in the same pub as the workmen from battlecrease."

5 May 2015

"think there is no doubt that the catalyst for this diary was the work men from battlecrease drinking in Mr Barretts second home maybe the conversation gave an idea for an attempt at forgery or something was handed over we will never know but the only definate connection to Mr Barrett and battlecrease is the workmen."

1 August 2016

"I dont think mike barrett actually wrote the diary but im pretty sure he was in the same room when it was written."

20 September 2016

"Mike barrett did not write the diary but he certainly was in the room.when it was written."

18 December 2016

"I met mike barrett a few times from what I gather from our meetings was that the diary was written shortly before its "discovery" mike barrett didnt write it but im pretty convinced he was in the room when it was written I dont know who wrote it for sure but I have an idea who did."

Most of that speaks for itself but you will note pinkmoon's own repeated use of the words "pinched" and "workmen" - so whether, when he spoke to you, he was recollecting what Mike told him or was giving you his own interpretation of what he thought Mike was saying, or even his theory of what happened, is very much open to debate. In May 2015, he seems to have abandoned the "pinched diary" theory and it's become either a forgery or it was "handed over". His sudden insistence in 2016 that Mike Barrett was in the room when the diary was written is something that you will no doubt be very keen to get to the bottom of.

[David Orsam]

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.

Keith, just to repeat an earlier question. Is it possible that this transcript can be made available?

[Abby Normal]

To anyone who thinks MB pinched the diary from someone.

If this is the case, isn’t strange we hear no outcry from anyone who he stole it from?? Especially considering it’s fame and worth?

[James_J]

Thank you for the observation David. I'm afraid some of our posts may be overlapping here?

Pinkmoon did mention to me that Mike had told him the diary was forged and that he had been in the room when the document was written. Pinkmoon also factored Barrett's purchase of the word processor into this.

As for my initial post - I'm hoping it is quite clear which element of Pinkmoon's account I wanted to focus on:

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.

To which Pinkmoon very kindly responded:

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.

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.

I am interested to hear more from Pinkmoon on what led him to the conclusion that Mike had taken a book/photograph album from one of the workmen who attended Battlecrease. I was given the impression that this was based on what Mike had told him, rather than an opinion which Pinkmoon formed of his own accord.

Best wishes, James.

[James_J]

Also - just passing this along from KS

TO DAVID O.

I have no problem with the transcript being put up for anyone who is interested in seeing it David – annotations and all. If I had the technical nous I’d put it up this evening immediately after Chelsea go through to the sixth round.

As it is, I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for a few weeks until after I have met with James, (who I hope will scan it on my behalf) and offloaded some more tapes and material on to him – including the original red/maroon/ burgundy/ Victorian diary – a black & white photograph of which can be seen between pp. 152-153 in Inside Story.

Best Wishes
Keith


* I will be more than happy to scan these materials and share them on the forums. Best, JJ

[Observer]

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.

Hi James a few question I hope you'll be able to answer.

Who is in possession of the timesheet for 9th March 1992?

Who compiled the worksheet?

Has the person who compiled the worksheet, if indeed this person has been identified, confirm that they did indeed compile said timesheet?

Who took the phone call when Mike Barrett called on 9th March 1992?

Was the phone call logged?

Until you can confirm the above, with respect, I do not think think sweeping statements like the one's above should be made

thanks

regards Observer

[David Orsam]

Pinkmoon did mention to me that Mike had told him the diary was forged and that he had been in the room when the document was written. Pinkmoon also factored Barrett's purchase of the word processor into this.

As for my initial post - I think it is quite clear which element of Pinkmoon's account I wanted to focus on:

To which Pinkmoon very kindly responded:

I for one am interested to hear more from Pinkmoon on what led him to the conclusion that Mike had taken a book/photograph album from one of the workmen who attended Battlecrease.

Well then I do find it very strange James: Pinkmoon informs you that Mike told him that he witnessed the diary being forged and you seem to have no interest in finding out more about this, as evidenced by post #1101. You didn't even bother to quote what pinkmoon told you in that post.

On the other hand, you obviously are interested in his claim that Mike told him that he pinched the diary from some workmen to the extent that you asked him to repeat it on the forum.

I do hope you are approaching this investigation with an open mind and are not just interested in any information which suggests a Battlecrease provenance while ignoring information which suggests the contrary.

[David Orsam]

I have no problem with the transcript being put up for anyone who is interested in seeing it David – annotations and all.

That's great, thank you Keith.

If I had the technical nous I’d put it up this evening immediately after Chelsea go through to the sixth round.

Has that not already (flukily) happened?

[James_J]

Thank you Observer for the questions.

1. The timesheets are with Keith, as far as I'm aware. The timesheet for 9.3.92 is reproduced in Robert Smith's book.
   
   
2. I'm fairly sure that Colin Rhodes completed the weekly timesheets. I need to double check this when I next meet with Keith - so expect more on this soon.
   
   
3. Mike's initial phone call was recieved by an assistant at Rupert Crew on 9.3.92. See Inside Story.
   
   
4. Doreen Montgomery wrote to "Mike Williams" on 10.3.92. The first stanza of the letter reads:

Dear Mike Williams

Thank you for phoning yesterday – and today – and for letting me
know about the intriguing Diary which is in your possession, which
appears to be by the real Jack the Ripper.

I'm hoping that answers your questions Obeserver.

Best wishes, James.

[James_J]

Well then I do find it very strange James: Pinkmoon informs you that Mike told him that he witnessed the diary being forged and you seem to have no interest in finding out more about this, as evidenced by post #1101. You didn't even bother to quote what pinkmoon told you in that post.

On the other hand, you obviously are interested in his claim that Mike told him that he pinched the diary from some workmen to the extent that you asked him to repeat it on the forum.

I do hope you are approaching this investigation with an open mind and are not just interested in any information which suggests a Battlecrease provenance while ignoring information which suggests the contrary.

Thank you for this David.

I'm afriad there may be a slight misunderstanding here - and I would not want to give the impression that I'm being selective in which issues or questions I seek to investigate. I share Keith's position on this - and it does not really matter to me where this diary came from - so long as we can establish the truth.

I've talked to Pinkmoon about the word processor on several occassions - and I'm keen that Pinkmoon should also discuss that on the boards. However - Pinkmoon's account still rests upon Barrett pinching or taking the physical document from the workmen who (possibly) attended Battlecrease House. For me that has to be the starting point for us with respect to Pinkmoon's account - hence I am asking him to address that specific area with as much detail as possible.

That's great, thank you Keith. Has that not already (flukily) happened?

Apologies for the confusion David - the postman left the message at the sorting office!

Also - TO OBSERVER - Keith will respond to your post #1086.

Best wishes, JJ

[Observer]

Thanks James, yes that answers my questions in full

I have only two books dealing with the Maybrick Diary affair, Paul Feldman's book, and the original "The Diary Of Jack The Ripper",hence my questions. Perhaps i should try and obtain the other books dealing with the subject.

Colin Rhodes, like so many participants in the Maybrick saga has now passed on I believe. Is that the case? If he did indeed make out the timesheet, is there any way which this can be authenticated? Forgery, there's a lot of it about you know.

Might I add if all of the above can be authenticated 100 per cent, then I must draw the conclusion that, yes, in my opinion, it's down to coincidence.

Regards Observer

[James_J]

Thank you Observer,

I'm very glad to have been of help.

Paul Feldman's book was the first in my collection, and still makes for an interesting read. I would definitely recommend getting your hands on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story (Sutton Publishing, 2003) - which, for me, was by far the most helpful and objective.

Colin Rhodes sadly passed away just before Christmas. I was informed by his son Graham only a few weeks ago. I have no reason to suspect that the timesheets have been tinkered with. Both Colin and Graham were and have been tremendously generous and helpful over the years.

Thanks again for the questions.

Best wishes, James.

[Observer]

Ok, Thanks for that James.

Forgive my scepticism. Paul Feldman believed that the Electricians were trying to work a flanker. In my opinion he was probably correct in that assumption.

I believe Mike Barrett left behind more smoking guns than the Jesse James gang in full flight. In my opinion he was a major player in the production of the Diary.

Regards Observer

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith. Much appreciated. I think we now have it sorted.

When the Barretts first came to London with the Maybrick Diary on April 13, 1992, they also brought with them a 29 page typescript (transcript) of the diary's text. (A4 paper to my fellow dumb Yanks is roughly similar to our 8 1/2 by 11). When or why this was produced we don't precisely know; Barrett claimed it was for his own research, while Graham claimed it was to make a more "professional" presentation to the literary agency. The contradiction is perhaps not all that important. What we do know is that this typescript was not made at the request of the agents or the publishers; the contract was not draw up until approximately two weeks later, April 30, 1992:

"IT IS AGREED that the Owner will make available to the Author with mutually agreed safeguards for research purposes the Diary and his own research notes...."

No mention of a typescript, but why would there be? It was already presented two weeks earlier. The idea that this was created at the request of the publishers or the literary agents was just a mistaken assumption, later corrected. Got it. Many thanks, RP.

[pinkmoon]

To anyone who thinks MB pinched the diary from someone.

If this is the case, isn’t strange we hear no outcry from anyone who he stole it from?? Especially considering it’s fame and worth?

Not if they pinched it themselves