Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

Thank you for this David.

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

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

I don't follow this at all I'm afraid James. Are you saying that Pinkmoon's understanding, as explained to you, is that Mike Barrett was in a room while the diary was forged on his Amstrad Word Processor, that the diary then ended up in the hands of workmen (possibly, as you say, but by no means necessarily from Battlecrease) from whom Mike Barrett then pinched it?

Because, if so, that makes no sense whatsoever. But if that is what you are saying I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned in your post #1101. And surely the starting point is the creation of the diary. So that's the very first thing I would have expected you to address. Your keenness for pinkmoon to discuss the issue of the word processor has not so far extended to you asking him directly to do so, in contrast to the issue of the pinching of the diary.

[David Orsam]

When or why this was produced we don't precisely know; Barrett claimed it was for his own research, while Graham claimed it was to make a more "professional" presentation to the literary agency.

Let's not forget that in Inside Story, Barrett's purported reason for creating the transcript (in March 1992) was said to be to make it "easier to read", not for his own research but for providing to Doreen.

What we do know is that this typescript was not made at the request of the agents or the publishers; the contract was not draw up until approximately two weeks later, April 30, 1992

But, in theory, couldn't Doreen have asked him on the telephone on 9 or 10 March 1992 to bring the Diary to London and, if possible, a transcript of it?

[James_J]

Evening David. Thank you for the observations and apologies for any confusion.

I don't follow this at all I'm afraid James. Are you saying that Pinkmoon's understanding, as explained to you, is that Mike Barrett was in a room while the diary was forged on his Amstrad Word Processor, that the diary then ended up in the hands of workmen (possibly, as you say, but by no means necessarily from Battlecrease) from whom Mike Barrett then pinched it?

Just to clarify - my understanding of Pinkmoon's position is that Mike pinched the physical document (then a photograph album/scrapbook?) from workmen and was then present when the content of the diary was written into that stolen document. It is for this reason that I am keen for Pinkmoon to discuss Mike's supposed aquisition of the physical document from the workmen, before moving onto the word processor etc.

Apologies for any confusion. Given that Pinkmoon has spoken to Mike about the provenance of the diary, I'm keen that he should be given ample opportunity to discuss his recollections.

** Also - I think that I should probably clarify that Keith's post was sent last night and was not posted by me until this evening. That explains the one liner reference to it being left at the sorting office!

Best wishes, James.

[James_J]

Ok, Thanks for that James.

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

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

Regards Observer

Many thanks Observer.

I just want to let you know that Keith will supplement my own answers to these questions.

In the meantime, could I possibly put the following question to you?

* In view of your suggestion about the timesheet being possibly falsified or doctored, whether we should check with the late Colin Rhodes' son (Graham) whether this would have been likely, when and by whom? Also, would this suspicion extend to all of the other timesheets which Keith was given? i.e. - for Skelmersdale?

We're happy to do this in pursuit of the truth, but would obviously need to give some reason to Graham Rhodes for our enquiry. Or we can, presumably, put you in touch with Graham directly? Or pass on a message to him on your behalf?

Best wishes, James.

[rjpalmer]

But, in theory, couldn't Doreen have asked him on the telephone on 9 or 10 March 1992 to bring the Diary to London and, if possible, a transcript of it?

Hi David. Well, to be a little nit-picky, my understanding is that Doreen never actually talked to Mike alias Williams on March 9th. She wasn't in, and "Williams" did not leave his phone number (!) "Williams" called back the next day. This was her own account, later reposted on the old archives. I wish Doreen would have left some indication of why she wasn't in. A 9 a.m. dental appointment would have been interesting.

But yes, it is theoretically possible that she requested a transcript on the 10th, but, if such was the case, what do we do with the letter she later wrote to Nick Warren?

Doreen Montgomery to Nick Warren, 8 May, 1994:

“Of course we know what the SFS found--a transcript of the Diary! There’s nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”

Doreen herself is claiming that Mike created the typescript for his own use.

From Paul Begg's 2001 statement, it seems to me that everyone assumed this was some transcript made for the use of the research team, and only later was it learned that it was actually something Anne and Mike created sometime prior to April 13th, 1992.

[David Orsam]

Just to clarify - my understanding of Pinkmoon's position is that Mike pinched the physical document (then a photograph album/scrapbook?) from workmen and was then present when the content of the diary was written into that stolen document.

We are entering seriously weird territory here.

What you are saying is not consistent with what pinkmoon has posted on this forum in the past. For example:

29 September 2013

"The workmen from battlecrease admitted to drinking in the saddlers pub which was Mr barretts local or should I say second home.I think this fact was not followed up properly by Mr Feldman I think it might tie the whole thing together it links to some of the constants Mr Barrett told me.If we assume diary is not a modern forgery then what could this information tell us"

3 December 2013

"A few years later I stumbled upon Mr Barrett and I got to know him quite well and I did find him a charming good old fashioned liverpudllian who did have a chronic drink problem though.Meeting Mr Barrett when he was sober lead me to the conclusion he was not capable of forging anything and nobody with any sense would get him involved in any sort of scam let alone use him as a frontman.I firmly believe via my conversations with Mr Barrett that his connection with the diary came via his connection with the saddlers pub where he spent most of his time and came across the workmen who worked on battlecrease house.I now firmly believe that the diary was produced during Florence maybricks trial by whom I do not know for what purpose maybe to generate some money for someone it was never unleashed after the trial and thus resided for years in battlecrease and found its way to Mr Barrett.Hand on heart I would love it to be genuine and to have an answer to this mystery however it is not."

I don't know why Mike was assuming the diary was not a modern forgery but was produced during 1889, during Florence Maybrick's trial, if his understanding has always been that Mike was present when the diary was written.

As we've seen, when he wrote a PM to Kaz he said this:

"Hi kaz,have you had any direct connection wih the diary have you ever met anyone connected to it as you know I met Mr Barrett quite a few times my theory is that he pinched it from someone who pinched it themselves.I do believe that the diary was removed from battlecrease by workmen who then met Mr Barrett in the saddlers pub and that is where it came into Mr Barrett s possession.cheers jason."

Nothing there at all about the most crucial aspect of someone forging the Jack the Ripper diary into a twice stolen scrapbook. How could pinkmoon have written to Kaz in the above terms while believing the diary to be a modern forgery witnessed by Mike Barrett?

It's obvious to me that pinkmoon is not going to give you any useful information and that this line of inquiry is a complete waste of time.

[David Orsam]

** Also - I think that I should probably clarify that Keith's post was sent last night and was not posted by me until this evening. That explains the one liner reference to it being left at the sorting office!

Yes, don't worry, I worked that out some time ago!

[David Orsam]

Hi David. Well, to be a little nit-picky, my understanding is that Doreen never actually talked to Mike alias Williams on March 9th. She wasn't in, and "Williams" did not leave his phone number (!) "Williams" called back the next day. This was her own account, later reposted on the old archives. I wish Doreen would have left some indication of why she wasn't in. A 9 a.m. dental appointment would have been interesting.

Well my only knowledge comes from Inside Story in which it is stated that Mike Williams spoke to Doreen "over the course of two telephone conversations" and from Shirley Harrison's 2003 book which says that Doreen took a call on 9th March 1992. But they could both well be wrong and I have never been quite sure of just when he spoke to her. I've always wondered if there is a "while you were out" message to Doreen on the Rupert Crew file passing on that someone had called her, noting the time of the call.

But yes, it is theoretically possible that she requested a transcript on the 10th, but, if such was the case, what do we do with the letter she later wrote to Nick Warren?

Doreen Montgomery to Nick Warren, 8 May, 1994:

“Of course we know what the SFS found--a transcript of the Diary! There’s nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”

Doreen herself is claiming that Mike created the typescript for his own use.

Well, yes, perhaps but I suppose Mike could have mentioned to Doreen that he was thinking of preparing a transcript on his WP which would allow the diary to be studied more easily and Doreen could have said yes that would be a good idea, please do so.

[John G]

Okay, if I've understood correctly, the latest version of Mike's many ramblings on the subject is that he stole a document/book that would subsequently be transformed into the diary-possibly by means of trickery -from one of the Battlecrease electricians: maybe utilizing skills he acquired as a secret agent?

Anyway, there are, of course, numerous problems with this version. Firstly, if he'd already acquired a suitable document-see Post #1 of this thread-why go to the trouble of stealing another?

Secondly, how did he manage to meet the electrician, considering that there's no evidence of any connection between himself and the Battlecrease workmen?

Thirdly, did the electrician consider the document to be essentially worthless (as suggested by the "skip" story), or something valuable (as suggested by the alternative University of Liverpool account)? If the former is correct, why would Mike need to inveigle the unsuspecting workman out of his possession (although legally, of course, it would be Paul Dodd's possession)? However, if the latter is true, why would anyone attach any significant value to a simple document/book/diary that was subsequently utilized for a practical purpose, i.e. the forged diary was written on the blank pages?

Moreover, if the unwitting electrician was conned out of something he considered valuable, or potentially valuable, I can't see him calmly accepting the situation. And in such circumstances, why would Mike be crazy enough to confront the man and accuse him of lying? Well, according to Feldman this is what happened, but if he was dependent on Mike for the "facts" of this story...


I think all we can know for certain is that Mike certainly knew how to spin a good yarn. However, you do wonder if amongst all this fog an element of what really happened-maybe just a morsel-really exists.

Or as Sir Walter Scott famously put it, "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

[Phil Carter]

You know, James, I don't think that Phil is quite as far off the mark as you seem to think.

If we leave aside Feldman's offer to Mike that Eddie Lyons would say that he found the diary in Battlecrease in 1989, no-one other than Alan Davies has ever claimed to have any knowledge of a diary being found in Battlecrease, let alone Jack the Ripper's diary.

Your reference to "other colleagues from Portus & Rhodes….pointing the fingers" is no more than the speculations of a couple of electricians in support of Feldman's theory that the electricians must have found the diary while doing electrical work. Other than Davies, there are only two relevant individuals, as I understand it:

1. Arthur Rigby who never saw or was actually aware of anything being discovered in Battlecrease although he had a notion of something being thrown into a skip and enjoyed a ride to Liverpool University one day. But no knowledge of a diary.

2. Brian Rawes who, you tell me, only remembers being told of a book (or something) being found but, as that was all in July, it's far too late for it possibly being a diary found in March.

So, while you might not like it all, the fact of the matter is that the only source of a story which involves finding a diary under the floorboards of Battlecrease is Alan Davies, who is also the only person who recalls being told (by an unidentified person) that it was found in a biscuit tin. If the biscuit tin story collapses then I think it's fair to say that the whole Alan Davies/Dodgson/Wright Smith story also collapses due to a serious credibility issue. No biscuit tin and there is effectively no evidence from any electrician to support the discovery of a diary in Battlecrease in March 1992.

Thank you David. VERY much appreciated.
To me it has always been that obvious.

But any pro diarist will try their damndest to maintain the tin box existed..because a) of the statement that the watch was found in it. .even though facts tell us that it cannot have been..it was first observed in a shop window and b) they have recently said it exists through the word of a " reliable source "..yeah..from one who either saw it nicked or nicked it himself. A REALLY Reliable source? Not.

Some people won't answer that. It blows up the biscuit tin story. No watch found in non existant biscuit tin.. screws up the 'found under the floorboards in a biscuit tin ' story.
No floorboards theory?...and guess who is left with an awful lot of explaining to do about promoting the stories of the tin and the "re found location" of the watch?..
Not you and not me my friend..that's for sure.


Its all Jerry Lee Lewis-like...
"C'mon over baby..there's a whole lotta peddling goin' on"



Phil

[John Wheat]

Okay, if I've understood correctly, the latest version of Mike's many ramblings on the subject is that he stole a document/book that would subsequently be transformed into the diary-possibly by means of trickery -from one of the Battlecrease electricians: maybe utilizing skills he acquired as a secret agent?

Anyway, there are, of course, numerous problems with this version. Firstly, if he'd already acquired a suitable document-see Post #1 of this thread-why go to the trouble of stealing another?

Secondly, how did he manage to meet the electrician, considering that there's no evidence of any connection between himself and the Battlecrease workmen?

Thirdly, did the electrician consider the document to be essentially worthless (as suggested by the "skip" story), or something valuable (as suggested by the alternative University of Liverpool account)? If the former is correct, why would Mike need to inveigle the unsuspecting workman out of his possession (although legally, of course, it would be Paul Dodd's possession)? However, if the latter is true, why would anyone attach any significant value to a simple document/book/diary that was subsequently utilized for a practical purpose, i.e. the forged diary was written on the blank pages?

Moreover, if the unwitting electrician was conned out of something he considered valuable, or potentially valuable, I can't see him calmly accepting the situation. And in such circumstances, why would Mike be crazy enough to confront the man and accuse him of lying? Well, according to Feldman this is what happened, but if he was dependent on Mike for the "facts" of this story...


I think all we can know for certain is that Mike certainly knew how to spin a good yarn. However, you do wonder if amongst all this fog an element of what really happened-maybe just a morsel-really exists.

Or as Sir Walter Scott famously put it, "Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Mike is full of **** and fabricated the diary himself.

[John G]

That's certainly one possibility, John. However, my own view is that Mike comes across as being far too erratic and too undisciplined to have been trusted with any creative, or even researching, role-not to mention his questionable literacy skills.

He would, however, have made an ideal frontman. As I say, he certainly knew how to spin a good yarn!

[John Wheat]

That's certainly one possibility, John. However, my own view is that Mike comes across as being far too erratic and too undisciplined to have been trusted with any creative, or even researching, role-not to mention his questionable literacy skills.

He would, however, have made an ideal frontman. As I say, he certainly knew how to spin a good yarn!

The bottom line is the diary is a modern forgery and even if Mike didn't fabricate the diary by himself he was heavily involved in its fabrication.

[John G]

The bottom line is the diary is a modern forgery and even if Mike didn't fabricate the diary by himself he was heavily involved in its fabrication.

Yes, I agree!

[John G]

Hi Pinkmoon,

I wonder if you could clarify something for me. You have revealed that Mike told you several times that he "pinched" the diary. However, was he suggesting that he'd stolen a completed diary, i.e either an old forgery or Maybrick's actual diary; or was he saying that he'd stolen an old document/diary from the workmen, which either himself, or a co-conspirator, then turned into a modern forgery, i.e by removing the written pages and writing on the blank pages?