Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[John G]

I've written and published two books. My parents and sister very kindly helped me with the proof reading and could be said to have "tidied up" both of them. So what? Does it make me incapable of writing them?

Of course it doesn't. But then you're someone with about a million times more credibility than Mike Barrett.

[John G]

It was typed on Mike's word processor but if he wasn't responsible from the note where did he get it from? And who did the research into Maybrick and the Jack the Ripper murders?

Well one possibility is that it was someone close to Mike, someone with literacy skills, someone who had easy access to his word processor. Just a thought.

[David Orsam]

War and Peace. Divina Commedia.

Okay, I'm obviously aware that a teenage magazine article can't be reasonably compared to a novel of the Napoleonic Wars, or an epic poem from the fourteenth century, but honestly David, some of your posts are longer than Mike's articles, and that's not a criticism of you by the way. Anyway, if they were extensively edited by Anne, the whole point becomes largely academic.

But if that's a serious answer John it's ridiculous. You can't compare a magazine article to War and Peace. He wrote magazine articles. Neither short nor long.

And I have no idea what "whole point" you think becomes academic if his articles were edited by Anne. Lots of journalists have their articles edited. As do authors.

The only point about Anne's involvement is that if she helped him with the articles she was capable of helping him with the diary. I'm not sure whether you agree with that or not but I think you do.

[David Orsam]

Well one possibility is that it was someone close to Mike, someone with literacy skills, someone who had easy access to his word processor. Just a thought.

Who had easy access to his word processor though?

And it's got nothing to do with literary skills because Anne has said that she tidied up his note.

It's all about research skills. Someone had to physically do the research for that note to be written. All the evidence is that it was Mike Barrett who did this.

[John G]

Who had easy access to his word processor though?

And it's got nothing to do with literary skills because Anne has said that she tidied up his note.

It's all about research skills. Someone had to physically do the research for that note to be written. All the evidence is that it was Mike Barrett who did this.

I don't think it's disputed that Anne typed up the research notes: "He [Michael Barrett] told us that he made copious notes in the Liverpool library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amstrad. But at this stage Michael had not connected the Diary with James Maybrick." (Harrison, 1998.)

However as you say, the salient point here relates to research, rather than typing skills. And in that regard, it appears that we are reliant on Mike's word that he was responsible for the research and the consequential "copious notes."

[John G]

But if that's a serious answer John it's ridiculous. You can't compare a magazine article to War and Peace. He wrote magazine articles. Neither short nor long.

And I have no idea what "whole point" you think becomes academic if his articles were edited by Anne. Lots of journalists have their articles edited. As do authors.

The only point about Anne's involvement is that if she helped him with the articles she was capable of helping him with the diary. I'm not sure whether you agree with that or not but I think you do.

As to whether it was intended to be a serious answer, you might wish to take another look at the sentence in my post, which you quoted, beginning, ""Okay, I'm obviously aware..."

I agree that if Anne helped him with the articles she could have helped him with the diary. Interestingly, according to Harrison (1998), "Anne has described their already crumbling relationship in those years before the Diary came to London and has said, sadly, that the idea that she and Michael could, by then, have collaborated over anything is absolute rubbish."

Now that may have been the case, however, I do therefore find it odd that, with the relationship in such a state of disrepair, Anne would then take extraordinary steps to get the Diary to Mike, via a third party, in the hope that he would turn it into a novel, and that it would boost his self esteem.

Incidentally, as I've noted previously, if the Diary is a modern hoax of any kind, then Billy Graham's claim that it had been in his family for generations must be a lie. However, Caz argued that this may have been an attempt to protect Anne, who apparently stated that she remembered seeing it in the 1960s.

[John Wheat]

John, you've referred on more than one occasion to Mike's inability to carry out research but have you actually read his 17 page research note on Maybrick and the Ripper murders? It's a perfectly competent note and proves that he was capable of competent historical research.

He must have done some research before fabricating the diary as well David.

[James_J]

From KS

Here, as promised to David Orsam, are the sequence of letters and memos, covering the period from March 10th 1992 to May 12th 1992, that I photocopied from the file of Doreen Montgomery in her office on August 3rd 2004. Shirley Harrison makes reference to the authors of Inside Story (2003) being given free access to Doreen’s files, (Harrison 2003, p.303) which wasn’t strictly true in so far as I didn’t personally examine Doreen’s file myself. Instead, Doreen very kindly responded to our request for information by consulting her file. I should say here that without Doreen’s meticulously maintained record of events , patience and co-operation, Inside Story would have been a far lesser book in being able to accurately date when events occurred. The only letter, (not the accompanying memo) I had in my possession at the time of preparing Inside Story was the one dated March 10th 1992 which I received from Sally Evemy, Shirley’s research partner, on April 1st 1996. This we referred to on page 2 of Inside Story. As previously explained, this material belonged to Bruce Robinson who had commissioned me to see what else could be learned about the diary’s origins. Bruce lifted his embargo on my being able to share these documents last year (2017).


March 10th 1992 – Memo from Doreen Montgomery to Shirley Harrison

My dear Shirley

Our Ripper friend has phoned again today, having had further discourse with his wife (who apparently rules the roost!) and they have decided that we must be entrusted with the diary to check it out for ourselves!

Anyway, I have written him following this second call, and a copy of my letter is attached. I hope you feel it’s okay.

So we must wait and see what happens. He’s off to York on Thursday or Friday, and promises to make contact again, on his return. Meantime, he suggests, if you are [keen? KS] to do some back-ground reading, that you should look at JACK THE RIPPER – THE SUMMING UP AND THE VERDICT by Colin Wilson and Robin O’Dell [sic] in particular, and also MURDERERS’ WHOSS[sic] WHO and FAMOUS CRIMES. I didn’t catch the publishers.



March 10th 1992 – Letter from Doreen Montgomery to Michael Williams

Michael Williams Esq
12 Goldie Street
Anfield
Liverpool L4 4HS


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 can well understand how this diary and its import has affected your lives. Finds of this kind do not grow on trees! And the very nature of its content must assuredly be compelling and at the same time, revolting. It is hard for ‘normal’ people to understand the mind of the psychopath.

Anyway, I am pleased that you have made contact and writer, Shirley Harrison, and I look forward to meeting your wife and yourself, in due course, and to have the opportunity of looking at the diary itself. I appreciate, very much, the confidence you are prepared to place in us, and you may be sure that this will not be misplaced.

[There then follows a history of the literary agency, financial terms of representation and a profile of Shirley Harrison]


April 8th 1992 - Letter from Doreen Montgomery to Michael Barrett

Michael Barrett Esq
[Same Address]


Dear Michael Barrett,

I am so glad the arrangements have been made for us to have a get together on Monday 13th, here at my office, and I look forward to welcoming you at King’s Mews around 11.30-12pm. Shirley Harrison and her partner, Sally Evemy, will be here, so it will give us an opportunity to have a good old natter over a sandwich lunch, And, of course, to enable us actually to see the Diary.

I thought that perhaps we could take a photocopy of this, here at my office, to avoid the original going into any other hands.

Anyway, I hope you have a good journey south, and that we will be able to organise the next phase of the operation satisfactorily.

[Rest of letter taken up with travel directions from Euston to Doreen’s office]



April 22nd 1992 - Letter from Doreen Montgomery to Sally Evemy

Mrs Sally Evemy
[Address]

Dear Sally,

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

I spoke with Mrs Barrett last evening, and she sounded a very chirpy, friendly woman. I think they are genuine people and her only anxiety in asking her husband to place the Diary with the bank was because of the fact that they have had a couple of burglaries and she is also frightened of fire. Understandable.

Anyway, certainly the research Shirley and you are doing suggests that there is a good story, here. Let’s hope so, for all of us!
[Rest of letter of a personal nature]



May 12th 1992 - Letter from Doreen Montgomery to Michael Barrett

Michael Barrett Esq
[Same address]

Dear Michael

I know you are pleased with Shirley’s preliminary outline for the book and, armed with copies of this, I am now approaching publishers to test reaction.

I’m writing to nine publishing houses, initially to see how many of these wish to take part in an ‘auction’ for the book. Obviously, at this stage, I am not revealing any more than Shirley has in the outline: what I am doing is (a) to seek interest and (b) in the event of the interest to bid in our auction, confirmation that all matters relating will remain confidential.

Once we have the latter, and know the likely extent of publishing interest, I think it may well be necessary for you to come to London, to show the diary. In fact, it’s bound to be essential.

In the meantime ,(I know it’s adding to the expense but we can’t make bricks without straw,) will you be kind enough to get the diary from the Bank, or ask the Bank Manager, if he could arrange for it to be photocopied. We shall need to have sample pages photocopied to show the publishers, initially. The typescript you prepared won’t do on its own.

Anyway, keep your fingers crossed! I feel sure we will soon be in business!

Thanks a lot for sending the signed collaboration documents to Shirley.

She’ll be sending one back to you. Keep it safely.

Best, KS

[Hunter]

Thank you, Keith, for sharing this.

From the April 22 letter:
"Anyway, certainly the research Shirley and you are doing suggests that there is a good story, here. Let’s hope so, for all of us!"

Can't help but notice this, along with the effort to get a book published before any real attempt at authentication. Or did I miss something? Confirmation bias right at the start instead of cautious skepticism because it is in everyone's best interest.

And Barrett was suggesting some reference books on the Ripper and Maybrick just one day after it was supposedly nicked from Battlecrease?

[David Orsam]

It was earlier than that John. In fact, it was sufficiently commonly used during the 1960s for there to have been a television programme on Thames TV in September 1969 called "One Off", which was about unique individuals.

John G - Bearing in mind what you posted in another thread today, perhaps you missed my answer to your question.

[David Orsam]

I don't think it's disputed that Anne typed up the research notes: "He [Michael Barrett] told us that he made copious notes in the Liverpool library, which Anne latterly transcribed onto the Amstrad. But at this stage Michael had not connected the Diary with James Maybrick." (Harrison, 1998.)

However as you say, the salient point here relates to research, rather than typing skills. And in that regard, it appears that we are reliant on Mike's word that he was responsible for the research and the consequential "copious notes."

No, that's not true. Anne said that she typed up the document from Mike's manuscript research notes. So we have both Mike and Anne's word that he was responsible for the research (subject to some information and input coming from Shirley Harrison, supposedly).

You say you don't think it's disputed that Anne typed up the research notes but what would you say if I disputed it? The only evidence that she did so comes from Anne herself. So we are reliant on Anne's word here. But you seem to be happy to accept that.

In fact, you have it both ways. You keep saying that Anne tidied up Mike's articles (based on what Anne and, to some extent, Mike have said) but seem to reject that Mike did the research even though that is what both Anne and Mike have said.

Let me put it another way. You have literally no basis on which to say that Mike was incapable of doing basic historical research. You can't possibly have any evidence to show that he wasn't. We have clear evidence that he prepared some basic historical research notes which he provided to Shirley Harrison on the summer of 1992.

Unless you have any evidence that Mike was not capable of doing research you should stop saying that he wasn't.

[David Orsam]

As to whether it was intended to be a serious answer, you might wish to take another look at the sentence in my post, which you quoted, beginning, ""Okay, I'm obviously aware..."

The traditional follow up is "Okay, I'm joking…". If we remove War and Peace and Divina Commedia from the post then you didn't answer my question, save for the comment that some of my posts are longer than Mike's articles. The converse is that most of my posts are shorter than Mike's articles.

The fact of the matter is, in respect of the type of magazine we are dealing with, Mike's articles were of average length. Neither short nor long. Yet you have been repeatedly stating that they were short articles. In doing so, you are clearly adding some sort of bias to try and deprecate the nature of the articles. It's better to try to fit the facts into the overall picture than try to manipulate the facts.

I agree that if Anne helped him with the articles she could have helped him with the diary. Interestingly, according to Harrison (1998), "Anne has described their already crumbling relationship in those years before the Diary came to London and has said, sadly, that the idea that she and Michael could, by then, have collaborated over anything is absolute rubbish."

By her own admission she collaborated with Mike over the production of the typed research notes and, I think, the transcript too. And she went together with Mike to London to present the diary to Doreen.

Incidentally, as I've noted previously, if the Diary is a modern hoax of any kind, then Billy Graham's claim that it had been in his family for generations must be a lie. However, Caz argued that this may have been an attempt to protect Anne, who apparently stated that she remembered seeing it in the 1960s.

There's nothing "apparently" about it. She has given a long and detailed explanation of her knowledge of this diary going back many years, full of realistic sounding memories and events.

[David Orsam]

Thank you very much Keith (and James) for providing the Rupert Crew correspondence. Here are my initial thoughts on what has been provided:

10 March memo

1. "you should look at JACK THE RIPPER – THE SUMMING UP AND THE VERDICT by Colin Wilson and Robin O’Dell [sic] in particular, and also MURDERERS’ WHOSS[sic] WHO and FAMOUS CRIMES". Within 24 hours of allegedly receiving (or just seeing) the diary, Mike has identified three relevant books for Doreen to read.

2. "having had further discourse with his wife (who apparently rules the roost!)". Either that's a lie (presumably to delay seeing Doreen?) or it's true, in which case, I would suggest, this presents a rather different picture about Anne to the one we have been told, at least as it relates to the diary.

3. "I have written him following this second call". Although not 100% certain, it's seems pretty clear that Doreen did speak to Mike on the 9th March

10 March letter

"I can well understand how this diary and its import has affected your lives". Mike has only had the diary in his possession (or knowledge) for 24 hours, if the "timesheet theory" is to be believed. If he didn't get it from Tony we must surely all agree that he's a good and persuasive liar.

8 April letter

"I am so glad the arrangements have been made for us to have a get together on Monday 13th, here at my office". Assuming that Doreen was confirming an arrangement made that day over the telephone, it appears to have been 29 days after the second telephone call that a meeting was arranged, with no clear explanation for the delay.

22 April letter

"I spoke with Mrs Barrett last evening, and she sounded a very chirpy, friendly woman. I think they are genuine people and her only anxiety in asking her husband to place the Diary with the bank was because of the fact that they have had a couple of burglaries and she is also frightened of fire. Understandable." Hmmmnnn, didn't Anne want to burn the diary and Mike had to wrestle it out of her hands, or something? She sounds very keen for the diary to be kept somewhere safe. Why? Because of its value now that there was money to be made from it?

[James_J]

Passing this on from KS :-


TO DAVID ORSAM

Thank you for your initial thoughts and observations David which raise the same questions that have occurred to me.

On the memo of March 10th 1992, I’m not sure what FAMOUS CRIMES publication Mike is referring to? THE MURDERERS’ WHO’S WHO is Gaute and Odell which contains an entry on Jack The Ripper along with entries on maybe a couple of hundred other cases. You say these are three relevant books for Doreen to read, (I think Doreen is suggesting Shirley reads them!) and certainly the Wilson and Odell book is relevant for a comparatively in depth study and overview of the Ripper case. The other two, (FAMOUS CRIMES as of yet unidentified) and THE MURDERERS’ WHO’S WHO would both (presumably) give, background reading about Jack The Ripper. Definitely the MURDERER’S WHO’S WHO does. What is an unknown, however, is whether Mike Barrett gave the name of ‘James Maybrick’ to Doreen Montgomery on either March 9th/March 10th 1992?

Concerning the letter of March 10th 1992. When, (in April 1996) I read this reference to how much the diary had apparently affected the lives of Mike and Anne Barrett, I immediately thought of how supportive this was of Mike’s story that it had been in his possession since the Spring of 1991 and corroborated his story of having obsessively struggled to understand the narrative over a period of eight months since Devereux’s death in August 1991. And gave support to his Research Notes. Either that or it was a clever piece of invention by Mike to bolster his Devereux claim because Mike hadn’t, in truth, been given it by Devereux? Remember, at that time, nobody was aware of the March 9th 1992 coincidence of work being carried out in Paul Dodd’s house in the room which was used by Maybrick as his bedroom in 1889. As you correctly say, it can be interpreted as Mike being a good and persuasive liar – to which I might add, also an example of his creativity?

Incidentally, I accidentally omitted one word in the March 10th 1992 memo. After “JACK THE RIPPER – SUMMING UP AND THE VERDICT by Colin Wilson and Robin O’dell” should be inserted the word ‘Corgi’ which I think must be the 1988 softback edition of the 1987 publication. The book, I believe, that Paul Feldman noted in Mike’s bookshelf when he visited him in February 1993.

Best, KS.


* Just a quick reference point from me (JJ). Feldman notes the Wilson & O'Dell book on Barrett's bookshelf on pg.138.

[James_J]

Also :-

TO DAVID ORSAM

David – I’ve just noticed your post #1137 where you stated that Anne went with Mike to London to present the diary to Doreen. To the best of my knowledge, she didn’t.

Best, KS.