Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

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.

No, on refreshing my memory, that's true - albeit only because she was working - and Mike came to London with Caroline. But she did come down to London with Mike in October 1993 to attend the book launch.

[James_J]

From KS

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?

TO HUNTER

Hunter – thank you for your post #1134.

Your interpretation of Doreen’s April 22nd letter to Sally as “confirmation bias” is one way of reading it of course and I don’t think you’ve missed anything. I suppose I come at it from a different direction and suggest that what Doreen is doing, as a Literary Agent, is taking a punt on a property which might or might not turn out to be a successful commercial venture. If you remember, one of the first things Shirley Harrison did when she met Mike in London with the diary on April 13th 1992, was to take the diary to the British Museum and also an antiquarian bookshop opposite the Museum who both gave favourable if guarded reactions in writing. (See pp 8-9 of Inside Story). So, as it hadn’t fallen at the first hurdle, Doreen is prepared to invest a little bit of her time and the Agency’s money in trying to interest prospective publishers in the property. I’m not sure how far you would have expected Doreen to go in attempting to authenticate the document and how much expense you would have expected her to incur? When Robert Smith bought the publishing rights he had a clause in the contract which stated that if the diary proved to be a fake, then the deal was off. I imagine most publishers would have protected themselves in the same way. Obviously it would be in everybody’s best interests if the commercial venture was successful but Doreen had no way of divining this was going to be the case. However, that is just my take on the situation.

Coming to your other point about reference books on the Ripper and Maybrick suggested by Mike Barrett. What evidence is there that Mike Barrett mentioned the name of James Maybrick to Doreen Montgomery on either March 9th or March 10th 1992? At some point between March 9th 1992 and April 13th 1992 he must have done of course because it is implicit in Shirley’s description of their first meeting. And Shirley confirmed to me last September that she had been aware of the name of Mike’s suspect by the time they met in Doreen’s office, although she couldn’t remember precisely when she was told!

Best Wishes
Keith

[David Orsam]

No, on refreshing my memory, that's true - albeit only because she was working - and Mike came to London with Caroline.

Actually that was for the auction in June when he came with Caroline. In April he seems to have come on his own. Mind you, shortly after that, he and his wife signed a collaboration agreement with Shirley so it seems that Anne could collaborate with her husband when she needed to.

[David Orsam]

What evidence is there that Mike Barrett mentioned the name of James Maybrick to Doreen Montgomery on either March 9th or March 10th 1992? At some point between March 9th 1992 and April 13th 1992 he must have done of course because it is implicit in Shirley’s description of their first meeting. And Shirley confirmed to me last September that she had been aware of the name of Mike’s suspect by the time they met in Doreen’s office, although she couldn’t remember precisely when she was told!

Has Doreen ever been asked what Mike said to her during the first two telephone calls?

Presumably she is the source of the comment in Inside Story that Mike described the dramatic effect the discovery of the diary had already had on his life and that of his family, and his growing conviction, after some initial research that it was the real thing? Or was that information all extracted from the letter of 10th March?

[Hunter]

Your interpretation of Doreen’s April 22nd letter to Sally as “confirmation bias” is one way of reading it of course and I don’t think you’ve missed anything. I suppose I come at it from a different direction and suggest that what Doreen is doing, as a Literary Agent, is taking a punt on a property which might or might not turn out to be a successful commercial venture. If you remember, one of the first things Shirley Harrison did when she met Mike in London with the diary on April 13th 1992, was to take the diary to the British Museum and also an antiquarian bookshop opposite the Museum who both gave favourable if guarded reactions in writing. (See pp 8-9 of Inside Story). So, as it hadn’t fallen at the first hurdle, Doreen is prepared to invest a little bit of her time and the Agency’s money in trying to interest prospective publishers in the property. I’m not sure how far you would have expected Doreen to go in attempting to authenticate the document and how much expense you would have expected her to incur? When Robert Smith bought the publishing rights he had a clause in the contract which stated that if the diary proved to be a fake, then the deal was off. I imagine most publishers would have protected themselves in the same way. Obviously it would be in everybody’s best interests if the commercial venture was successful but Doreen had no way of divining this was going to be the case. However, that is just my take on the situation.

Thank you for your reply. It certainly makes it more understandable. I reckon that while I can see her exchanges with Michael being positive and upbeat, I would have thought that her initial exhanges with Shirley Harrison and her associate would have projected a more guarded approach considering that she had initiated the contact and the fact that hoaxes had recently been perpetrated on other historical figures.

Coming to your other point about reference books on the Ripper and Maybrick suggested by Mike Barrett. What evidence is there that Mike Barrett mentioned the name of James Maybrick to Doreen Montgomery on either March 9th or March 10th 1992? At some point between March 9th 1992 and April 13th 1992 he must have done of course because it is implicit in Shirley’s description of their first meeting. And Shirley confirmed to me last September that she had been aware of the name of Mike’s suspect by the time they met in Doreen’s office, although she couldn’t remember precisely when she was told!

I'm not sure if there is evidence that Barrett mentioned Maybrick initially, other than what he later said how he figured it out, and I am not where I can access my own notes or references at the moment, but somehow I was under the impression that the second book he mentioned "Murderer's who's who...", which I believe Odell was also the co-author (circa 1989) had chapters on both the Ripper murders and the Maybrick case? My aging memory could be faulty and if so I stand to be corrected.

Nevertheless, despite the scrutiny we are imparting, all of the information you are willingly sharing is greatly appreciated and I understand is no small task.

Thanks

[John G]

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

Sorry, David. I did miss your earlier post regarding the earliest known use, in everyday day language, of "one-off". It seems clear that it was commonly used in the 1960, therefore presumably, as a "modern forgery", The Diary could theoretically have dated from this period.

[Pcdunn]

Real source of the photo album?

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.

Maybe that story is only half fiction. Perhaps the photo album that became the Diary had belonged to Anne's family, but without the text in it. After all, there is very little evidence that Mike's story about the auction purchase of the book is true, as has been discussed here. When the red diary proved too small, they had to fall back on a substitute.

[John G]

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.



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.



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.

Okay, maybe short pieces of writing would be more apt. In fact, just out of interest, and bearing in mind that some articles can amount to several pages- particularly in scientific publications- what was the length of Mike's longest article? Was it as long as any of the articles in the latest edition of Riperologist, for instance?

In any event, we cannot know has to what extent Anne may have exited Mike's work-any such conclusions must amount to mere speculation.

Interesting comment concerning Anne's knowledge of The Diary. Do we know what time period she claimed to be first aware of its existence? And who was the source of the information, i.e. from whose interview with Anne did this information derive? This is obviously important, i.e. on the basis that the earliest known common usage of "one-off" appears to be from the 1960s.

I would just add, in the "who was the author of the Maybrick diary thread" Chris George stated, "Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s", 'but surely only at the behest of Paul Feldman who promulgated the fantasy that the diary came from Anne's family's. See post # 187.

[James_J]

No, on refreshing my memory, that's true - albeit only because she was working - and Mike came to London with Caroline. But she did come down to London with Mike in October 1993 to attend the book launch.

TO DAVID ORSAM

Indeed Anne did accompany Mike to London on October 3rd 1993 for the press launch of the book the following day. And walked out on him, with Caroline, exactly three months later - on January 2nd 1994. It was the prelude to the most extraordinary year I have ever lived through!

Best, KS

[James_J]

Passing this on from KS

TO HUNTER

Thank you for your post #1145.

Shirley Harrison makes the point in all editions of her book that both she and Doreen Montgomery were cautious and had their suspicions from day one, being very aware of the ‘Hitler diaries’. As Shirley writes in the 2003 Blake edition of her book...

“Of course I hoped the Diary was genuine – indeed, I was sure it was – but had there been, at any stage, proof positive that it was a forgery I would have stopped work.”

Which goes for me and everybody I worked with on the project – including Paul Feldman. I would not have wanted to be associated with people who were pimping, for financial gain, a document they knew to be a modern, (post 1987), hoax and were aware of the identity(ies) of the people responsible for its creation.

Gaute and Odell’s The Murderers’ Who’s Who (first published in 1979) does include brief entries, (not chapters) for the Ripper and Maybrick, amongst about 150-200 other entries. It would have been significant if Mike Barrett had indicated to Doreen that the entry to look closely at was for Florence Maybrick. Doreen’s memo to Shirley of March 10th 1992 gives no indication this had been the case? You’ll also know from Mike’s own Research Notes, compiled and collated between August 1991 and July or August 1992, that Mike footnotes only three books:-

Jack The Ripper: Summing Up And Verdict (Wilson & Odell – 1987)

Jack The Ripper: The Mystery Solved (Paul Harrison – 1991)

Tales Of Liverpool (Richard Whittington-Egan – 1967)

The notes do include references to the Liverpool Echo, probate records and Punch...

“Check for copy of ‘Punch’ around Sept, 1888 onwards – the first three letters of his surname – ‘Turn around three times, and catch whom you MAY’ – nothing to date.

[I would note here that this particular Punch illustration appears in Don Rumbelow’s 1975 publication (as a quarter page plate) and in Don’s 1987 hardback edition. It also appears, strikingly, on the rear cover of Martin Fido’s The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack The Ripper (1987) but not in Martin’s 1988 softback edition.]

Mike’s Research Notes list about 8 “QUESTIONS ON MAYBRICK” which he appears to attempt to answer – including the one re Punch. The last question recently caught my attention, which I hadn’t previously registered – or don’t think I had...

“Where was Knowsley Buildings? To date cannot find”

It only interested me because, as you’ve probably read, in the transcript of Martin Howells interview with Mike Barrett in Liverpool in September 1993, (recently posted in full by James), Mike makes several references to Knowsley Buildings in Tithebarn Street, Liverpool where, historically, James Maybrick had his offices.

(page 25) [In response to a question by Martin about what were Mike’s feelings that maybe the diary did come from somewhere in Battlecrease House]... “I don’t think it did. I honestly do think that it came from Knowelsey [sic] Buildings...

(page 27) “Where was the diary found? It was found in Knowsley Buildings in Liverpool and I can prove, well I can’t prove, no I can’t prove. But Knowesley [sic] Buildings was only knocked down, and I’ve got a photograph and everything in 1969.”

On September 13th 1995, Mike Barrett still held to this belief in an interview he gave to BBC Radio Merseyside, eight months after his sworn affidavit of January 1995 that he had created the diary along with his wife, father-in-law, and Tony Devereux – and naming his daughter, Caroline, as a witness to part of this hoax.

Not sure where that gets us Hunter beyond knowing the fate of Knowsley Buildings which I’m quite sure you were busting a gut to know and now feel your life is complete! Chris Jones in his excellent The Maybrick A to Z (2008) has an entry on Knowsley Buildings which ends...

The Knowsley Buildings were demolished in the 1960s and a new modern office block named Silk House Court was built on the site. One person who worked in this new office block was Anne Graham, the ex-wife of Mike Barrett.

I remember Paul Feldman becoming very excited when he discovered about Anne working on the site of James Maybrick’s old offices, believing this was the key to everything as it conclusively welded Anne Graham to James Maybrick. Others, including myself, weren’t too sure.

Best Wishes
Keith

[David Orsam]

Okay, maybe short pieces of writing would be more apt.

I can't see how that makes any difference. You seem determined to get the word "short" in there somewhere.

In fact, just out of interest, and bearing in mind that some articles can amount to several pages- particularly in scientific publications- what was the length of Mike's longest article? Was it as long as any of the articles in the latest edition of Riperologist, for instance?

It's a bit late to be asking me how long his articles are. I thought you already knew, considering you've been calling them "short". You will, I am sure, appreciate that I won't be wasting my time identifying Mike's longest article, counting up the words in it and then counting up the words in a Ripperologist article in order to make a meaningless comparison.

Interesting comment concerning Anne's knowledge of The Diary. Do we know what time period she claimed to be first aware of its existence? And who was the source of the information, i.e. from whose interview with Anne did this information derive?

Anne left a long message addressed to Doreen, Shirley, Robert and Paul Feldman on Paul Feldman's answering machine on 31 July 1994, setting out that she first saw the diary in about 1968 or 1969. She then gave additional information in a recorded interview.

This is obviously important, i.e. on the basis that the earliest known common usage of "one-off" appears to be from the 1960s.

I'm not sure what you mean by "earliest known common usage". Anne's story was that the diary was given to her father by her step- grandmother on Christmas Day 1950 in a suitcase containing various books and documents. I disagree with Sam Flynn, incidentally, that it is from the 1980s that the usage of the "one off" expression "really takes off in print". I think he is being misled by his methodology. It took off much earlier than that.

I would just add, in the "who was the author of the Maybrick diary thread" Chris George stated, "Anne claimed to have first seen the diary in the 1960s", 'but surely only at the behest of Paul Feldman who promulgated the fantasy that the diary came from Anne's family's. See post # 187.

I don't know what the word "behest" means in this context. There is no reason, as far as I am aware, to think she did not offer this story about the origin of the diary of her own free will. Post #187 in this thread was by me and relates to a different subject.

[John G]

I can't see how that makes any difference. You seem determined to get the word "short" in there somewhere.



It's a bit late to be asking me how long his articles are. I thought you already knew, considering you've been calling them "short". You will, I am sure, appreciate that I won't be wasting my time identifying Mike's longest article, counting up the words in it and then counting up the words in a Ripperologist article in order to make a meaningless comparison.



Anne left a long message addressed to Doreen, Shirley, Robert and Paul Feldman on Paul Feldman's answering machine on 31 July 1994, setting out that she first saw the diary in about 1968 or 1969. She then gave additional information in a recorded interview.



I'm not sure what you mean by "earliest known common usage". Anne's story was that the diary was given to her father by her step- grandmother on Christmas Day 1950 in a suitcase containing various books and documents. I disagree with Sam Flynn, incidentally, that it is from the 1980s that the usage of the "one off" expression "really takes off in print". I think he is being misled by his methodology. It took off much earlier than that.



I don't know what the word "behest" means in this context. There is no reason, as far as I am aware, to think she did not offer this story about the origin of the diary of her own free will. Post #187 in this thread was by me and relates to a different subject.

I think I'm perfectly entitled to refer to the articles as "short", and I would take exception to any suggestion that I'm intentionally trying to mislead. In this context, everything's relative. For instance, there are articles in scientific journals which amount to dozens of pages, whereas I doubt any of Mike's articles amounted to more than a page or two. Still, if you're going to maintain that qualifies as medium size in comparison, which you're perfectly entitled to do, what more can I say?

The whole argument is academic anyway. The real point concerns quality. As I've noted, I believe the diary, if a hoax, was extremely well written, and this is a view that is clearly shared by the renowned criminologist Professor David Canter: in terms of demonstrating literacy skills, it certainly can't be compared with a few trivial celebrity articles, which in any event, could conceivably have been extensively edited by Anne.

By "earliest common usage", I meant the time period, i.e. the 1960s, in which the phrase entered the public consciousness and was generally used.

[David Orsam]

I think I'm perfectly entitled to refer to the articles as "short",

How are you entitled to do this if you don't actually know how long they are?

and I would take exception to any suggestion that I'm intentionally trying to mislead.

I haven't said that at all. I have said you seem determined to describe them as "short".

In this context, everything's relative.

Absolutely. That's why I asked you in #1121

"Why do you keep calling them short articles?

Short compared to what?"

You didn't answer other than to say War and Peace and Davina Commedia and then reference my forum posts.

For instance, there are articles in scientific journals which amount to dozens of pages, whereas I doubt any of Mike's articles amounted to more than a page or two. Still, if you're going to maintain that qualifies as medium size in comparison, which you're perfectly entitled to do, what more can I say?

I haven't made any comparison between Mike's articles and articles in scientific journals. You must be imagining that.

I said that Mike's articles were of average length for the type of magazine they were published in.

The whole argument is academic anyway. The real point concerns quality.

Well it's you that has repeatedly been calling the articles "short". I assume you had a reason for doing it. I wasn't saying anything at all about their length.

As I've noted, I believe the diary, if a hoax, was extremely well written, and this is a view that is clearly shared by the renowned criminologist Professor David Canter: in terms of demonstrating literacy skills, it certainly can't be compared with a few trivial celebrity articles.

I've never made any such comparison. Some time ago you asked for evidence that Mike was a journalist and I provided it.

[Sam Flynn]

Regardless of length, the diary isn't very well written, despite what Prof Canter might have said.

[John Wheat]

Regardless of length, the diary isn't very well written, despite what Prof Canter might have said.

I agree Sam any random idiot could have written it and indeed did write it.