Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

The Sphere book is clearly not physical evidence of Mike forging the diary. It proves absolutely nothing.

That could have been me talking, David. I think I love you.

I love the fact that the red diary and the Sphere book are now said to be things which prove Mike forged the diary - yet when Mike refers to them in his affidavit as proof that he forged the diary they are dismissed as things which do not prove he forged the diary!!!

Well do forgive me, David, but I was waiting for the others to catch on. They always were regarded by others as physical evidence of a Barrett fake, but now you have argued that Anne was in no danger at all from either of these books, and Mike apparently used them in the absence of being able to produce any actual proof, I think we may have reached the same point. Without either of those things to prop up Mike's sorry affidavit of January 1995, I'm at a loss to know what evidence the Barrett hoax theorists are going to use now.

If those two items do not prove that Mike forged the diary – which they clearly do not (and I have never said they do) – then Anne did not need to destroy them or fret about them (and that's if she even knew that the Sphere book – which Smith tells us Barrett did not even possess in March 1992 – was the source of the quote in the diary).

Totally with you, old son. Anne seems to have had no need to tamper with anything at all, to cover their tracks or destroy anything at all, nor indeed to worry about any possibility of Mike being able to demonstrate, with proof, that he forged the diary, with or without her help. There is an obvious reason why that might be, but I don't suppose our views are the same on that one.

It takes us back to my original point. If physical items which would have proved that Mike created the diary (namely the auction receipt, the ink and the pens, the notes... and I can't really think of anything else) had been destroyed in or before April 1992 then there wasn't actually any easy way that Mike could prove that he was involved in the forgery of the diary.

But those things had to exist first, David, and without any evidence for them ever being in the Barrett home, you still have precisely nothing to go on, like the police when their lavatories were nicked.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

How was Mike going to get his hands on any film money? The rights had been sold to Feldman by Robert Smith, very early on.

Well, it appears that Barrett was seeking legal advice on that point. See his affidavit of 5 January 1995 and read between the lines. "My solicitors are now engaged in litigation."

But I'll play along. He has no chance of earning anything.

And Robert Smith convinced Barrett of the necessity of selling him the Diary for £1 (even though Feldy, through a 'front man' offered £15,000), and, in addition, Smith also sold the film rights to Feldman, leaving the Barretts (by your claim) out in the cold.

Hmm. So it would seem that Mike's statement on 5 January 1995 does, in fact, reflect his actual view of things.

"My inexperience in the Publishing game has been my downfall, whilst all around me are making money, it seems that I am left out of matters, and my Solicitors are now engaged in litigation."

Thanks. I am more convinced than ever that Barrett had a clear motive to 'go off message' in 1994-95 and start dropping hints while trying--but failing--to apply "leverage."

And of course those hints were ignored, dismissed, ridiculed, or not even properly investigated--sometimes not even until years later--because, after all, there is very little opportunity to be had in proving the diary is a modern hoax. Jesus wept.

[David Orsam]

If anyone tries to tell you that Murphy's father-in-law, Mr Stewart, couldn't be questioned about the watch because he had dementia, you might want to refer them to page 43 of Inside Story where it is stated:

"Albert Johnson contacted Stewart by phone but the now elderly man, battling with the onset of Alzheimer's Disease, could only recall that he had bought the watch between ten and fifteen years previously from a man who had come into his shop."

This shows the importance of not relying on memory when providing information.

Another question about the watch is: who first saw the scratches? There is no definitive answer to this.

According to Inside Story, whose information was based on an interview of Albert by Howells:

"As Johnson showed his colleagues how to open the back and front ...the light from the window highlighted the scratches inside the back. It was the first time he had noticed them".

But did Albert spot them himself or were they drawn to his attention? It's not clear.

According to Feldman, this is what Albert told him over dinner at a local pub about the discovery of the scratches:

"Albert told his colleagues that he owned a Victorian gold watch and shortly afterwards took it into work to show to them. While they were examining the watch the light from the window seemed to show markings on the inside back."

So "they" were examining the markings. Not clear who saw them first from this account.

Then we have this from Harrison, based on what Albert's colleague, John, told her:

"Albert brought the watch in to show us….We could see the scratches but we couldn’t make them out. The light was bad so we said we'd take it over to the Science and Technology block."

So "we" could see the scratches but again not clear who first pointed them out.

All we seem to have from Albert in his written notes are:

"Bright light coming through window while having break. It was coincidence the letters were seen".

He doesn't say who they were seen by.

So the possibility of someone who knew they were there drawing them to Albert's attention cannot be excluded from these accounts.

[David Orsam]

The slow drip feed of information in a random and disorderly manner continues I regret to note.

Despite the obvious importance of the point and despite Robert Smith stating in his book that the timesheets "put Lyons in the clear as far as finding the diary in Battlecrease House on 9th March is concerned" we are occasionally given snippets, by different forum members, of what Colin Rhodes told Keith Skinner in 2004 in an attempt to show that Lyons is NOT in the clear as far as finding the diary in Battlecrease House on 9th March.

Yet because of the way the information is revealed we don't know if anything has been added or is a result of personal interpretation. For example, when we are told that Colin Rhodes was "left scratching his head" was this something that Rhodes said (or did) or was it Keith's interpretation of what Rhodes was saying or doing or is it a third party interpretation and Colin Rhodes was not scratching his head at all? We just don't know because we have not been provided with a full account of the information obtained by Keith Skinner from Colin Rhodes in 2004.

I would have thought this would be a perfect example of information which Keith Skinner could provide us so that we finally know what is going on.

We are told that Eddie "suddenly" went "AWOL". But is this true? Is this actually what Colin said? We are also told for the first time that individual timesheets which must have existed in March 1992 were NOT disclosed by Colin Rhodes to Keith Skinner in 2004. Why not?

What we seem to be told now is that there was some outstanding work after 7th March at Skelmersdale which was not completed until the period 13th to 17th March, presumably because Lyons had gone AWOL, the implication, I assume, being that he was fully occupied trying to sell the items they have found in Battlecrease.

But what I find a mystery is if there was work outstanding at Skelmersdale as at 9th March, why were Eddie and Jim at a loose end that day so that they were sent to Battlecrease? Or is the argument that for some reason there was no work to be done between 9th and 12 March and it was ready to resume on Friday 13th? But if that's the case why was there a pause on 9th March, the work having been full time until 7th March?

[David Orsam]

I think that what I have been saying about Mike's failure to produce evidence that could have proved he wrote the diary, or had some involvement in its creation, is crystal clear.

I haven't been making a positive point at all, merely responding to a claim that Anne must have been terrified in 1995 that Mike would produce some conclusive evidence and also to a claim that Mike should easily have been able to produce some evidence.

All I've said is that if a receipt for the scrapbook was destroyed or lost and if the ink and pens (and any receipts for them) were also destroyed, along with any research notes or other notes, then there simply would have been no physical evidence that Mike could possibly have produced which would or could have proved that he forged the diary or had some involvement in its creation.

That might well have been his dilemma in the face of so many people asking him to provide proof. He simply couldn't do it because there was nothing in his possession that could prove it.

I don't know what is difficult to understand about this simple point.

[caz]

Another classic example of doublethink today. On the one hand Mike Barrett is incapable of forging the diary but if he DID forge it then one has to explain every single word of the text because it all must have a deep and connected meaning due to Mike being so sensible and efficient as a writer!

I didn't recognise this at first, David old sport, and had to go back and check that day's posts, because what I actually wrote was this:

There must have been a reason for every line in that diary, unless you think Mike was drunk when he helped compose it and put down the first thing that came into his head.

I thought it was fairly obvious that it is my opinion that the author was fully aware of their own reasons for writing what they did, throughout the 63 pages. You have Mike as the potential [even probable?] author, in which case you either agree that he was fully aware of what the words were supposed to mean, or you disagree, and think the diary is made up of words and phrases that were as 'inexplicable' and 'meaningless' to its author as they are to you, and were presumably only put there to help fill up those same 63 pages. If this was Mike, was he in his cups at the time or just a glutton for punishment? Not for him, just a few sides of paper to cover Michael "De Quincey" Barrett's Confessions of an Arsenic Eating Jack the Ripper, so he could stick to the few facts he'd read up on and leave the reader with nothing to find either 'inexplicable' or 'meaningless'.

Too easy. Much more fun to ramble on for 63 pages, just as though he were writing down his own thoughts, for himself, which only he would understand, or need to understand, and would certainly not require explaining to another living soul.

Wait - perhaps the author wasn't quite so dumb after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

I get it, David. I really do. In other words, Mike's advert was perfect for forgery purposes, but because he obviously couldn't say that's what he wanted it for, he was aware there was every chance he'd be sent something that was completely 'useless' for forgery purposes.

Was the advert not equally perfect for finding out how easy it would have been for anyone to have obtained something similar to what he had been shown - an old diary from the right period, the 1880s [as the physical book appeared to be and the date at the end was claiming for it] - and used it for a wind-up, which would of course have also required the 30-odd pages of handwriting [a minimum of 20 pages?], covering 60-odd sides of paper, to have been blank?

And wasn't the little red 1891 diary, when it eventually arrived, also perfect for reassuring Mike that no, books like 'the' diary were not exactly growing on trees in 1992?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

You don't think you may have misread what Shirley wrote, David? You actually think Caroline was a witness to Tony telling her Dad he was getting on his "f*cking nerves" etc etc, when she was at primary school, and was able and willing to relate this over a year later to Shirley Harrison?

Or is it more likely that all Shirley meant is that Caroline remembered her Dad, the day after bringing this old book home, going down with her to Fountains Road, to drop her off at her school there, and telling her he was going "to see a man about a diary", and it was Mike who filled Shirley in with the sweary brush-off he was given, which could just as easily apply to Eddie Lyons getting fed up with Mike's questions and scepticism?

In fact, I'd be surprised if Tony would ever have used the f word in front of young Caroline, assuming they ever met, as he had three daughters of his own and Liverpudlians in my experience [don't groan at the back there] may swear in the company of other men, but are quite puritanical when it comes to hearing or using bad language when women or children are present. If a naughty word does slip out it is usually accompanied by a profuse apology or at least a "pardon my French". Besides, would Caroline not have been in school whenever Mike saw Tony, whether that was in the pub before he became housebound, or later when Mike was supposedly running errands for him? Is there any other evidence, apart from Shirley's somewhat ambiguous account above, that Caroline was ever in Tony's company? He died in August 1991, during the school summer holidays, while the Barretts said they were on holiday in York, so that may or may not have had a bearing on what Caroline would have registered about his death and when it had happened.

So that's that.

Very far from it, David. You have yet to explain how Caroline could have recalled Tony telling her Dad in 1991: "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", if Tony didn't give it to him, because they both knew full well it wasn't real and wasn't even written yet. Her Dad could hardly have been asking Tony about any book or diary he had brought home the day before, if it was only acquired at auction at the end of March 1992.

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!"

Well obviously I believe Melvin was on the right lines here [as he was when he confidently asserted that Mike didn't have 'the capacity' to author the diary], and that Caroline was influenced by the well-rehearsed tale told by her Dad, and not contradicted by her Mum, about his mate Tony Devereux giving him the diary and saying no more about it. But if, as you have said, it's 'crazy' to think she was so unaware of Tony's death and when it had occurred that she thought her Dad was pestering him in March 1992, she would also have known if the guardbook had not arrived in Goldie Street [with or without the handwriting in it] until months after Tony's death, meaning that her parents would have had to ask her to tell deliberate lies about the whole thing, while inviting her to go with her Dad to the auction for the publishing rights that June, just three months later.

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.

I agree it might well be useful if Caroline would only agree to speak to James.

But if you think she was lying through her teeth for her parents' sake, by pretending to recall something that never happened [because it would be 'crazy' to think she could have been unaware that Tony had died much too early to have been pestered about a diary she only saw for the first time in March 1992], I'm wondering what you'd expect her to say about it now, never mind remember after 25 years.

"Oh yes, the 'dead pal' story was well-rehearsed. I had to learn it off by heart before they would let me anywhere near the diary people with all their questions. I knew Tony died months before I first saw that old book, but I was just a child. What's my confession worth?"

Now that might suit both of us, David, but what are the chances?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

For the person who continually keeps trying to downplay Mike Barrett's journalistic efforts (and, yes, I do mean you John G!) please note that Celebrity was not a "teenage magazine". It was a magazine aimed at adults.

[David Orsam]

To say "There must have been a reason for every line in that diary" is just more pure nonsense. There is no reason whatsoever for this to be the case.

My suggestion is that the author wanted to introduce Lowry into the narrative and needed a reason to do so. I'm suggesting that the author did not want to be specific about anything because it could trip him or her up. Consequently, a mystery was created about what the incident involving Lowry actually involved but the author didn't need to resolve it because it's not a proper novel. It just needed to sound like a realistic incident. Every line does not need to have a reason at all other than to fill space.

And really, if one accepts that the diary is a forgery and not the genuine thoughts of Maybrick, then it MUST be the case that the author wrote about an incident that was both inexplicable and meaningless because, in the case of the Lowry incident, we cannot, as readers, explain it and it has no obvious meaning.

[David Orsam]

As I've already said more than once but now have to repeat, the advert was not suitable for Mike in any way "for finding out how easy it would have been for anyone to have obtained something similar to what he had been shown" for two very obvious reasons.

Firstly, if Mike suspected the big black diary was a forgery when shown it, he couldn’t possibly have known it was from the period 1880-1890. For all he would have known, it dated to 1820 or 1920 or 1940 or 1980. So, if he was suspecting a forgery, surely what he would have wanted to know was how easy it was to get hold of a big black leather bound diary which LOOKED old (or could be made to look old). Because that is what he would have been shown on 9th March if the theory is correct.

Secondly, Mike would have had to have believed that Victorian diaries could only be obtained through second hand book dealers, and specifically through Martin Earl, so that he had no idea that one could possibly pick one up in another way, such as at an auction. The perverse nature of this line of argument, followed logically, would mean that even if evidence was found that Mike Barrett attended a Portus & Rhodes auction on 31 March 1992 we would no doubt be told that he was simply continuing his investigation as to how easy it was to obtain a Victorian diary!

I would add that reassurance that the diary was "not exactly growing on trees" wouldn't have got Mike anywhere. The only question would be: could the electricians have got their hands on an old looking blank or partly used diary? They only needed to find one! A more pointless exercise than asking a single book dealer if he could get hold of any and then, after being told that only one was available, accepting it and agreeing to pay for it when it wasn't even in the requested time period (so he didn't need to buy it), would be hard to think of.

The only sensible conclusion about Mike's advert was that he wanted a Victorian diary to create a forged Victorian diary.

As to that, the advert was perfect and to say that Mike was "aware that there was every chance he'd be sent something that was completely 'useless' for forgery purposes" is to speculate in unwarranted fashion about Mike's knowledge of Victorian diaries.

If he believed that Victorian diaries did not have dates on every page (and for reasons I have previously explained, such as the fact that, when people write diaries, some days they have a lot to say and some days nothing, it makes perfect sense for diaries not to bear the dates on every page – and there are many such Victorian diaries which do not do so) then he would have expected that any diary he obtained would be potentially suitable.

There is, of course, always a risk in anything but Mike might well have expected that he would get offered multiple diaries and could choose the best of them. In the end, he was only offered one. That is life and no-one could possibly have predicted the outcome.

[David Orsam]

One thing I have not done is misunderstand what Shirley wrote. I will repeat it here:

"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.""

If Caroline remembered her dad going to Tony's house AND pestering him about the origins of the Diary she must have gone with her dad to Tony's house because how else would she have known about the pestering?

As for whether she or Mike was the source of the quote "You are getting on my Fvcking nerves" it reads as if the source was Caroline although we are told by someone who never knew him that Tony wouldn't swear in front of an 11 year old girl - but that is no more than a guess based on absolutely nothing.

Harrison continues:

"Caroline remembers clearly how her Dad continued to pester Tony for information on the telephone."

When I say "so that's that" I mean that the theory that such conversations really did take place but that Caroline somehow confused Tony Devereux for Eddie Lyons is dead in the water.

If Caroline was 11 in 1992 she will be 36 or 37 now and, believe it or not, adults in their late 30s think very differently to pre-teenage girls so she might just be perfectly happy to spill the beans now about everything she remembers about the diary. Until she is asked directly we will not know.

[Sam Flynn]

For the person who continually keeps trying to downplay Mike Barrett's journalistic efforts (and, yes, I do mean you John G!) please note that Celebrity was not a "teenage magazine". It was a magazine aimed at adults.

Indeed, but fairly lightweight nonetheless.

[caz]

The only person who claims to have possibly seen scratches on the watch prior to the newspaper stories turns out, we are told, to be a dealer in stolen goods and a liar to boot!! Sadly, therefore, it becomes impossible to believe that he really did see any scratches. His story doesn't make sense anyway. According to a 2017 article by Richard Cobb, Murphy "claimed to have seen the scratches himself and tried polishing them out". Yet, in his written statement, Murphy said that the markings in the watch were "not markings I would have taken notice of". Well either he saw them and tried to polish them out (in which case he took notice of them) or he didn't.

I wonder what Murphy could possibly have had to gain from saying any of this - apart from your disapproval, that is.

If you had seen the watch for yourself, you might have understood the difference between seeing the faint scratches inside and trying to polish them out, before putting it on sale, and then having it pointed out by Albert that the scratches had revealed themselves under the microscope to be words and initials. I am not in the least surprised by what Murphy said, having seen it for myself. If all he could see when Albert showed him were those same scratches he remembered seeing the year before, it's pretty obvious he couldn't have taken notice of what they represented, or he might have examined them more closely before trying to polish them out!

For some bizarre reason we are told that if the scratches weren't on the watch in July 1992 then the "only alternative" is that Albert put them there. Is this right? Was the watch in the personal possession of Albert for the entire period between July 1992 and May 1993 or in a locked safe? Are we sure no-one else had access to that watch?

Albert said he bought it as an investment for his granddaughter, and put it away in a drawer until a discussion at work about gold watches prompted him to take it in and show his colleagues. He also said that his half-brother Robbie wasn't even aware that he'd bought the watch until the markings were discovered inside. You have to accuse Albert at the very least of lying about this if he knew the watch could have been tampered with between July 1992 and May/June 1993.

Because the story of the discovery of the scratches is not suspicious at all. Albert and his work colleagues - presumably either fellow security officers or fellow caretakers - just happened to be having a discussion about whether 18 carat gold existed in the Victorian period - as you do - and as pure luck would have it, what do you know, Albert had an 18 carat gold watch at home. So no possibility of Albert being set up to bring the watch into work.

Set up by whom? One of his colleagues then? Or perhaps the Antiques Roadshow people who supposedly triggered the discussion with a feature on gold watches of different carats? Any idea who could have engineered this funny little joke at the expense of Albert and his little granddaughter, and how they did it?

And then when Albert did bring the watch in, the scratches just happened to catch the light while one of his colleagues was looking at it and these scratches which are, we are told, otherwise invisible to the naked eye, could magically be seen. So, again, no chance of one of Albert's colleagues being involved in an attempt to draw the scratches to Albert's attention.

For what possible gain?

Now here's the good bit. Albert just happened to have instant access to a microscope, as well all do, so that he could examine the watch. This was either in the college's "science and maths" building (Inside Story) or the "Science and Technology block" (Harrison). It's great that Albert and his colleagues had access to a Science and Technology block in a college which means we can certainly rule out those scratches being applied by someone in the college within the Science and Technology block.

Are you saying someone could have done this without Albert's knowledge and approval? Because it makes no sense otherwise. As I said on another thread, even Mike would not have been insane enough to return to Outhwaite & Litherland with his recently hoaxed diary tucked under his arm, to show them and pester them with questions about its new contents, yet that is what Albert and Robbie must have done if they knew the markings had been recently put inside the watch when they returned - more than once - to the jeweller.

Love,

Caz
X

[Busy Beaver]

I had sincerely thought that this Diary had been chucked on the fire 130 years ago.

Busy Beaver