Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Sam Flynn]

Then you won't mind me quoting Peter Sellers in a Michael Parkinson interview describing another film actor saying 'I seen 'im, I seen 'im, in lower class accent. Not Liverpudlian please note. North London. Cyril Waterman.

Ah! He'd be the inspiration, perhaps, for the character of "Lew", who appeared occasionally in The Goon Show, voiced by Sellers. (See, for instance "The Histories of Pliny the Elder")

[Sam Flynn]

Let's remind ourselves of what Anne said in a single telephone message in 1994:

"I think it was in 1968/69 I seen the Diary for the first time."

AND

"I never seen Tony again."

AND

"I seen Paul the other day..."

I mean, come on, it's an absolute giveaway!!!

Mike Barrett uses a similar construction, this time with the verb 'to do' :

"So I started doing me research and the more research I done the more I seemed to be getting nearer the truth"

[Sam Flynn]

Ah! He'd be the inspiration, perhaps, for the character of "Lew", who appeared occasionally in The Goon Show, voiced by Sellers. (See, for instance "The Histories of Pliny the Elder")

Actually, it was a character called "Cyril"... which would explain his being based on Cyril Waterman. (A fairly similar voice to "Lew", as it turns out, except that the latter was, ISTR, a caricature of Lew Grade.)

[caz]

I see this statement is made:

"To date there is no evidence that anyone had heard about any such diary until Mike made his first call to Doreen's office on March 9th 1992."

This is not correct. Young Caroline said she had heard about the diary prior to such a call being made. Anne said that she had heard about the diary prior to such a call being made. Whether that evidence is true or not is another matter but it exists.

Apologies, David. I should have injected the word 'reliable' between 'no' and 'evidence'.

But I'm not sure Caroline did say that she heard about the diary 'prior to' her Dad's first call to Doreen on March 9th 1992. In fact I don't think she said anything about when she first heard about or saw the diary, did she? Would she even have been aware of his calls to Doreen, or when he made them? Clearly if she was right about the fact that her Dad had pestered Tony Devereux for information about the diary he had just brought home, we've both got a problem, unless he did it via a ouija board. One way to reconcile Caroline's account without accusing her of saying something she knew wasn't true is to suggest she would quite naturally have believed it was Tony, because that's what her Mum and Dad were saying, and unless she was sure how long ago the diary had come into their lives, and could relate this in any meaningful way, in a child's mind, to when Tony was beyond all the usual means of communication, there was nobody but Mum and Dad who could have told her, and if they were both lying about it, her recollection can mean nothing.

But if the statement is supposed to be that there is no evidence that anyone outside of the Barrett family had heard about the diary prior to 9 March 1992 then, Doreen/Shirley/Sally aside, exactly the same is true of the period between 9th March 1992 and 13th April 1992 when Mike managed to keep very quiet about the diary's existence with respect to outsiders.

Except that the two situations may have been rather different if he was specifically asked to keep very quiet about it, as he certainly was later on, for reasons he would have understood if he wanted to be in on an 'exclusive'.

He told Keith in 1994 that back in 1991 he couldn't keep his trap shut about the diary and 'everyone' knew he had 'something', but there is no evidence for this - naturally enough, if he was actually busy with the forgery and managing not to breathe a word to anyone about it [and presumably not letting Caroline witness any of the process, despite what he claimed in his January 1995 affidavit]. And even more naturally if he only set eyes on it in March 1992, with the handwriting already in situ.

One more thing re Caroline's recollection...

If you allow that she did recall her Dad bringing the guardbook home, if not when this was, and pestering anyone about where it had come from, how would you reconcile this with Mike's claim to have got it from the O&L auction after rejecting the little red diary at the tail end of March 1992? Do you see Caroline being tricked by both parents into believing this was 'the diary', and not just the shell, requiring them to fill it over the next 11 days with their prepared forgery? Or do you see them allowing her to witness any of this happening and trusting her to keep very quiet indeed about its transformation with respect to outsiders - particularly all those they allowed her to meet in June 1992, when she accompanied her Dad to London for the two-day auction for the publishing rights? "Oh but Daddy, we saw Mummy writing in this, didn't we?"

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As I have been quoted on the subject, I think it's worth me stating that the little red diary would only have been known to have been useless for forgery purposes once Mike saw it. The advertisement itself was perfect for forgery purposes, especially if by "blank" one really did mean "blank."

So Mike did a perfect job, and it was someone else - in the trade - who totally screwed up.

I see.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Great question, but even after listening to the tapes, one can still ask what their purpose was, and evidently Keith and I have drawn entirely different conclusions about their worth and their meaning! The tapes I heard (and I never had a complete set, I think there were 12 or 14 originally) dated, I believe, to late 1994 and early 1995, mostly 1995, but I would want to recheck this, or perhaps Keith can enlighten you about the exact dates...

Hi rj,

For information, Alan Gray was still fuming about Mike in 1998, when he made a signed statement describing a meeting he had with him in Liverpool on January 18th. You can read more on page 226 of Ripper Diary. Gray told Mike he had 'tried for years to get to the truth of the Diary...'. The £3,000 bill had been run up 'over a long period of time', during which Gray said he had protected Mike, looked out for him and been bodyguard and friend. He told Mike that he couldn't write and couldn't even lie properly these days. He called Mike's story, Daniel the Dolphin Boy, 'a load of rubbish'.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Back on 21 November 2017 we were told:

"IIRC, one of the early rumours was the detail that the diary found under the floorboards was finally sold to a chap in an Anfield pub for £20 [or was it £25?]"

This week (with the sum in question corrected) we are told:

"The rumour was that the diary had been sold for £25 in an Anfield pub."

It's stated as a fact but no source is provided.

I asked for a source on 21 November last year when I posted:

"So now we are told that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £20. Forgive me, but where is the evidence for this assertion? What is the source of it?"

The response, on 22 November, was pathetic:

"What is your evidence that the diary was not sold in an Anfield pub for £25?"

Just a typical diversionary tactic to avoid answering the question.

It seemed fairly obvious to me – and still does – that this supposed rumour is a misrepresentation of Alan Davies' story about what happened to the diary. Thus, as I posted in November:

"As for the story about the diary being sold for £20 or £25, I can't help wondering if someone is getting themselves terribly confused about a story told by Robert Smith that Alan Davies suggested to the manager of the newly opened APS store in Bootle, Alan Dodgson, that "the diary could be acquired for about £25". However, as Alan Davies told Smith when he later tried to locate the diary: "the book had been sold in a pub in Anfield".

Two different things, in other words: 1. an offer by Davies that the diary could be acquired (by Dodgson/Martin-Wright) for about £25 and 2. an earlier sale in a pub in Anfield for an unspecified amount.

After a two week gap it was then claimed that Robert Smith corroborated the existence of the rumour in a private email, even though Smith failed to include it in his book and, as far as I am aware, it has never been published anywhere. So we were told:

"No, David. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't 'switch' in the face of your post or have trouble comprehending anything. I was in fact reminded by Robert Smith in an email referring to the rumour that the diary had eventually been sold in an Anfield pub, that the price mentioned was £25. This was a separate rumour but the basis was the same, hence the same price of £25 in both cases: a diary had emerged from the house and a buyer had initially been sought. If Alan Davies went to APS in Oct/Nov 1992, as appears most likely from the latest information, and mentioned the diary having a suggested sale price of £25, he didn't know it had already been sold back in the March to someone who was going to publish it. He must have heard an early rumour but then been out of the loop for the outcome, which makes sense because he had a bad car accident on June 13th 1992, before anyone [apart perhaps from Eddie] knew what was happening with the diary. After the visit to APS, Davies heard about it having been sold for £25 in a pub in Anfield."

At the end of all that waffle, with its claim that the rumour in question was "a separate rumour" from the Alan Davies story it seems that the story is being sourced to Alan Davies after all!! But, according to Smith, in his book, Davies did NOT say that the diary had been sold for £25 in a pub in Anfield, only that it had been sold in a pub in Anfield, Davies having later suggested that it could be acquired for £25. Clearly Davies could not have known when he said this that it had been sold for £25 in an Anfield pub because, if he believed this, he would not have been offering it for sale to Dodgson.

What should happen is that a certain person should stop repeating that there was a rumour in existence that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £25 without providing any evidence that this rumour actually existed.

[David Orsam]

I repeat: Mike's advertisement was perfect for forgery purposes. But clearly he could not say that he wanted a Victorian diary in order to forge a Victorian Jack the Ripper diary! Consequently, the advertisement could never guarantee success. It couldn’t guarantee success unless he made clear why he wanted it which he obviously could not do. No-one, therefore, screwed up. Mike received a blank Victorian diary but the only one that was available was one that could not be used for forgery, as he would only discover once he received it. It's really, really, simple to understand and is not in any way complicated.

[David Orsam]

Among the crazy notions we are asked to believe by Diary Defenders, is there any crazier than that young Caroline Barrett was wholly unaware that her father's best friend (his only friend according to Anne), who he met in the Saddle every day while in the process of picking her up from school, had died in August 1991? So unaware of this was she that she thought it was Tony that Mike was speaking to on the telephone in March 1992, not Eddie Lyons!!!!

We can dispose of this crazy notion very easily with the help of Shirley Harrison. I've already posted this extract in this thread but posting evidence doesn't seem to make much difference to some people. Harrison said in the 1998 version of her paperback:

"The next day, Caroline remembers, her Dad went down to Tony’s house and pestered him about the origins of the Diary. How long had he had it? All Tony would say was "You are getting on my Fvcking nerves. I have given it to you because I know it is real and I know you will do something with it.""

For Caroline to be able to repeat what Tony had said to Mike in or outside Tony's house, she must have been present with her father when he was speaking to Tony in person which must have been prior to Tony's death in August 1991. She was not in any way likely to confuse Fat Eddie in March 1992 with the figure of the long since dead Tony Devereux.

So that's that. In respect of what was going on I can do no better than to quote Melvin Harris:

"Feldman (p128) tells us that in February 1993 he met Anne together with Mike and their daughter Caroline. At one point Caroline was cross-examined by Paul Begg and Martin Howells. They "were relentless" admits Feldman, and they forced out of her statements that seemed to confirm Mike's story. But did they? Or was the girl going along with a pre-rehearsed family tale? Feldman thinks not: "Caroline told the truth; that is all a kid of eleven can do.” Really? Try telling that yarn to any experienced schoolteacher!"

As I have suggested previously, if James Johnston is going to interview anyone to get to the bottom of this matter, the best person to speak to might well be Caroline Barrett.

[rjpalmer]

admittedly this is probably a stupid question and its probably been brought up a million times before but...but-

if (big if of course) it did come out of battlecrease and MB got his hands on it, could MB, his wife etc., come up with the lie that they got it through her family because they were afraid if they admitted where they got it they could be accused of theft(or receiving stolen property) and not only lose out on any profit but possibly face legal trouble?

could explain a lot.

Uh, no; no it couldn't explain a lot, and you have the chronology wrong. Let's look at it.

In 1992, when the Diary first surfaced, Anne Graham said nothing about the 'in the family' story.

In 1993, ditto. She still states nothing. Not during all the talks with the researchers, the agents, the publishing of Harrison's book, and not during the filming of Feldman's video. Not even during any talk of a 'Battlecrease' provenance.

First half of 1994, more of the same.

In the meantime, Barrett & Graham split. So 'they' are not working together on anything. Then, in the Summer of 1994, Mike contacts the Liverpool Post and confesses to forging the Diary.

Only then does Anne Graham suddenly resurface and, for the first time, claims the Diary has been in her family for years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything 'they' came up with, and certainly nothing to do with any accusations of theft; she is obviously responding to Barrett's confession of forgery and is trying to undermine him.

So your scenario that this 'in the family' story was something 'they' made up to cover the for an alleged theft, does not, unfortunately, even loosely fit the facts, though I'm sure some here might be happy to accept it anyway.

[Abby Normal]

Uh, no; no it couldn't explain a lot, and you have the chronology wrong. Let's look at it.

In 1992, when the Diary first surfaced, Anne Graham said nothing about the 'in the family' story.

In 1993, ditto. She still states nothing. Not during all the talks with the researchers, the agents, the publishing of Harrison's book, and not during the filming of Feldman's video. Not even during any talk of a 'Battlecrease' provenance.

First half of 1994, more of the same.

In the meantime, Barrett & Graham split. So 'they' are not working together on anything. Then, in the Summer of 1994, Mike contacts the Liverpool Post and confesses to forging the Diary.

Only then does Anne Graham suddenly resurface and, for the first time, claims the Diary has been in her family for years. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything 'they' came up with, and certainly nothing to do with any accusations of theft; she is obviously responding to Barrett's confession of forgery and is trying to undermine him.

So your scenario that this 'in the family' story was something 'they' made up to cover the for an alleged theft, does not, unfortunately, even loosely fit the facts, though I'm sure some here might be happy to accept it anyway.

OK thanks RJ

[rjpalmer]

From Mike Barrett's 25 January 1995 affidavit:

On Wednesday 18th January 1995 when they all called at my home I was pressurised by them. Feldman's man Skinner came earlier than the others and started a tape recording off and my very words at the begining (sic) were, "FELDMAN YOU BASTARD GO AND GET ****ED, BECAUSE YOU ARE A BLOODY BIG MAN WITH A HELL OF A LOT OF MONEY AND AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I WILL NEVER GIVE INTO YOU. I REFUSE TO BE BLACKMAILED". The tape carried on as the other three people arrived, Mrs Harrison, Sally Emmy, and a man who said, "he was an Independent Adviser'. I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop. The Independent Advisor never said a word, but the others made it clear to me that if the 'Diary of Jack the Ripper' is genuine I would get my money in June 1995, however due to my Solicitor advising me some time before this meeting, that I had been granted legal aid to take Shirley Harrison to Court, along with Robert Smith and that if I stay quiet I would get my money, so this being the case I decided to collaboarate with these people and Anne's story by supporting the Diary., much to my regret but at the time I did not know what to do.

Caz. Thanks for the Alan Gray quote, but I'm not disputing he eventually gave up on Barrett. I am disputing the simplistic explanation that this was an unflinching, tried-and-true, cooperative effort to expose the diary, when in fact, there are indications that Barrett was all over the map, and had conflicting motives. Check out the sentence in bold. Whatever you feel about the accusation against Keith, Sally, and Shirley, they were not privy to Mike's private conversations with either his lawyer or his estranged wife, so he could, in fact, have been 'got' at. Why shouldn't I accept that it would have dawned on Barrett that he was royally screwing up his own interests? Afterall, he was derailing the film project, was putting his own royalties at risk, and was, of course, shooting himself in the foot. The letter from Gray quoted in Shirley's book (Blake) clearly eludes to a confession-for-profit scheme, so if Barrett decided to stop drip feeding his confession to Gray, it hardly surprises me, since Gray couldn't offer him anything like what he could have made off the Diary.

[rjpalmer]

Hi caz. One last post. Here's one I don't think you and I have ever discussed. Mike again, January 5, 1995.


"When this Diary arrived in the post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."

Yes, it's Mike, and must be accepted with utmost caution, but Keith did, in fact, retrieve the worthless diary from Anne's house a short time later. So, if Barrett isn't lying, why is Anne asking him for it before his January 5th confession? And even stranger, if she asked for it, and ultimately came to possess it, why on earth did Mike hand it over, if this could be a worthwhile exhibit in his "desperate" attempt to prove the diary was a forgery?

I know my answer, but I'd be curious to hear yours. Cheers, RP

P.S. It's clear that not all of Barrett's sworn affidavits have been made public. There are others.

[David Orsam]

I made reference on Tape that the hatred between Ann Barrett and I must stop.

Only just noticed this when RJ posted the above extract from Mike's affidavit. Yet another diaryism.

E.g.

"They will suffer just as I"

"It is I that should question him"

"they deserve that at least from I"

"it is the whoring bitch to blame not I"

[caz]

Well, Caz, okay, fair enough, but is it now officially okay to call the Battlecrease provenance "the Nest of Liars" theory?

Why ask me, rj?

Keith is obviously determined to put William Graham and Tony Devereux in the "modern hoax" frame...

I think you'll find that was Mike.

...so I will remain determined to remind you that your circle of co-conspirators in the Battlecrease theft ring is growing ever wider. Enter one Ronald George Murphy, receiver of stolen goods. It's internally consistent with the rest of your apparent theory, but lacks what some might call "empirical support."

Perfectly fair comment, rj. Which circle is likely to have had the larger number of co-conspirators, would you think? A modern hoax circle or a modern theft circle? And if we exclude Mike's claims as self-evidently unreliable, what "empirical support" have you for a Barrett hoax conspiracy?

But you're quite right. Murphy was vague about precisely when he put the watch in the window in 1992, but--but--he wasn't the least bit vague about having owned the watch for two years in 1992, or that it had been previously owned by his father. So, looking again at his statement, let me say "drawer" instead of "window." Is the difference relevant?

It would be, to my mind, if Albert's watch first appeared in that window a couple of weeks after March 9th 1992 - plenty of time to get it cleaned and in working order. Surely it would have to be another 'one off' instance for anyone in the business of selling gold watches to have left one, with the potential to make £250 or more in 1992, to gather dust in a drawer - or 'draw' [sic] for anything like two years. Did he forget it was there? Or did he alter the word 'weeks' to 'years' in giving the 'second hand' timepiece a 'handy' history that he had no actual evidence for, but hoped wouldn't merit more than a 'second' glance?

Have yourself a nice afternoon.

Love,

Caz
X