Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

And of course if the watch was stolen in March 1992, and taken across the Mersey to Wallasey, one could understand if any jeweller receiving it in good faith, but with no questions asked, might not be particularly eager to admit later when this happened and under what circumstances, when the purchaser returned to ask all sorts of questions, as we know Albert did.

Well, Caz, okay, fair enough, but is it now officially okay to call the Battlecrease provenance "the Nest of Liars" theory? Keith is obviously determined to put William Graham and Tony Devereux in the "modern hoax" frame, 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."

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?

http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/pdf%20files/Watch%20-%20Murphy%20statement.pdf

[caz]

As I have repeatedly said, in asking for a diary from the period 1880-1890 I don't believe Mike was hoping for a diary with 1885 or 1888, or whatever year, blazened all over it. He wanted a diary with no dates in which to write the text. The key thing was to get a bound volume with paper from the period which would fool scientific tests. He most certainly did not want two separate diaries for 1888 and 1889 (a ridiculous idea).

So why did he not ask for one? If someone had spent quite some time researching and composing the text, Mike would have had the same amount of time to work out what was needed to house it. And if he couldn't be trusted on his own with this task, the person who had done all the hard work could simply have told Mike exactly what to ask for. And yet we both know what his enquiry produced - an actual diary with the year 1891 printed inside - and we both know it would have been 'useless for forgery purposes'.

Did the actual forger(s) not know what Mike was like? Did they merely trust him to make the right kind of enquiry to produce the right kind of result?

As I said before, money wasn't everything. What I meant was that money wouldn't have been the only issue. There was also the time and effort already spent by the forger(s) before Mike supposedly got round to finding out if anyone would actually be interested in seeing the fruits of their not inconsiderable labours. And then he had to wait to see if his enquiry for a Victorian diary would bear fruit - which would have been rather unlikely given the wording of the advert and, as we know, how it was interpreted.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Keith. I'm sending you a private message. No response needed. Have a great evening.

[David Orsam]

I think I'm getting the hang of this Diary Defending business now.

Murphy was telling the truth about having seen the scratches BUT he was lying about the amount of time the watch had been in his possession.

He is both an honest and a dishonest witness and you can choose which bits of his recollection are honest and which are dishonest at your own discretion.

Very good, let's carry on.

[David Orsam]

Well, Caz, okay, fair enough, but is it now officially okay to call the Battlecrease provenance "the Nest of Liars" theory? Keith is obviously determined to put William Graham and Tony Devereux in the "modern hoax" frame, 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.

Let's not forget his wife, Suzanne, and his father-in-law, Mr Stewart, both of whom confirmed the watch had been in the family for years.

[David Orsam]

8 April letter

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

A very reasonable assumption on your part David. We know that Doreen wrote to Mike immediately following their telephone conversation on 10 March so it is a very fair assumption that the only other letter she wrote to him followed a further conversation between Mike and someone at Rupert Crew on 8 April. It certainly seems obvious that arrangements were made to meet on that day, hence directions to the office were sent. There is precisely no evidence that Mike called Rupert Crew at any time between 10 March and 8 April - so no reason to use the word "finalised" - and we now have all the correspondence.

If we further assume that Doreen and Shirley were not prepared to meet Mike on a Saturday and that Mike couldn't go during the week because he had to pick up Caroline from school, I wonder if Doreen was puzzled as to how Mike was planning to visit York on 12th or 13th March, both weekdays. Perhaps she figured that he was able to ensure that Caroline would be somehow picked up from school without him.

[David Orsam]

If Anne's reason for wanting the diary placed in a safe in a bank in April 1992 was because she was afraid her husband had nicked the diary, it must be regarded as extraordinary that she waited until February 1993 to ask him if he had done so, in public, with researchers within earshot.

In fact, one might regard it as an absurd notion. Mind you, the police, if they had raided the Barretts' home, would never have found the paperwork relating to an item in a safe in a bank. It was a genius plan on Anne's part to have it hidden but not so hidden that there was not a paper trail back to her husband.

No, what we have here is an insight into the truth, without the gloss later added. Anne wanted to protect the diary not burn it.

[David Orsam]

As I have repeatedly said, in asking for a diary from the period 1880-1890 I don't believe Mike was hoping for a diary with 1885 or 1888, or whatever year, blazened all over it. He wanted a diary with no dates in which to write the text. The key thing was to get a bound volume with paper from the period which would fool scientific tests. He most certainly did not want two separate diaries for 1888 and 1889 (a ridiculous idea).

For the benefit of those with comprehension difficulties, I might add that the advertisement that was placed in Bookdealer was precisely likely to result in Mike obtaining a bound volume with paper from the period. As I have said, if Mike's understanding was that Victorian diaries did not have dates printed on every page - a very reasonable understanding and one which is in line with many diaries of the period - then his advertisement for a diary from 1880-1890 was going to get him exactly what he was after: a bound volume with blank pages from the very historical period in which the diary was supposed to have been written.

Short of asking for a diary he could use to create a forged Jack the Ripper diary I do not know what else he could have asked for which would have been more likely to produce the desired result.

[David Orsam]

I see that the question is asked "Did the actual forger(s) not know what Mike was like? Did they merely trust him to make the right kind of enquiry to produce the right kind of result?"

Well the only actual forgers Mike has identified are Tony Devereux (dead) and Anne (his wife). I have never mentioned any other possible forgers. But if there were others I have no idea why they needed to "trust" Mike to make the right kind of enquiry or do anything else. Has no-one ever considered the possibility that Mike might have been running the show? That the diary was his idea. That the idea of turning Maybrick into the Ripper was his idea. That the idea of taking it to a publisher was his idea. Perhaps he got someone else to do the hard work of drafting the text and doing whatever minimal "research" was necessary for the project but he was driving it all along. One thing we do seem to know about Mike is that he was very imaginative and perhaps it was his imagination that created the diary. So it's not necessarily a question of anyone trusting Mike, it's could just be a question of him doing what he wanted to do.

[David Orsam]

I think everyone on this forum can distinguish between spending "time and effort" on a project and actually spending hard cash on it. I have repeatedly said that it can make sense not to spend cash on a project until you are certain it will bear fruit and there has never been a sensible response to this.

[David Orsam]

I have noted this ridiculous sentence which is worth repeating:

"And then he had to wait to see if his enquiry for a Victorian diary would bear fruit - which would have been rather unlikely given the wording of the advert and, as we know, how it was interpreted."

The absolute opposite is true. Mike was asking primarily for a blank (unused) Victorian diary from the period of the Ripper murders. That was the perfect wording for what he was after. If he could not get a blank one then he wanted one with a minimum of 20 blank pages. I don't suppose he imagined it would be a doddle to find such an item. Hence he didn't just restrict his request to an unused, completely blank, diary. And hence he was prepared to accept one outside of his preferred date range.

But it seems clear to me and I think to everyone who has sensibly considered the matter that the advertisement was perfectly worded and entirely consistent with someone looking for a genuine Victorian diary which could be used to create a fake Victorian diary.

[David Orsam]

Coming to post #1267 which is your response to David’s question about the Alan Gray tapes. There are two statements you make Roger which puzzle me.

The first...

“I have genuine sympathy and understand completely why Keith or Shirley would finally throw up their hands in disgust and conclude that he [Barrett] knew absolutely nothing.”

Is there a source for this Roger? To the best of my knowledge I haven’t drawn any conclusions about the series of Alan Gray tapes and their worth or meaning?

Keith, I can't speak for what has influenced RJ – and I appreciate that I am, at my peril, now getting into what seems to be a rather sensitive area - but I certainly did notice that on 21 January 2018 you posted in this thread via James:

"I will just end by saying that Caroline (Caz) expresses and articulates my thinking clearly and accurately. I seldom read a post where I disagree with what she has written."

I was somewhat surprised by that statement at the time (and was almost tempted to quote lots stuff to you that she has posted to ask if you agree with it or not) but one thing that is clear from her posts is that she strongly believes that Barrett was presented with a diary of JTR on 9 March 1992 about which he was told absolutely nothing, not even that it came from Battlecrease or was supposedly written by Maybrick.

That being so, it must be that Caz concludes that Barrett "knew absolutely nothing", in which case, if she expresses and articulates your own thinking clearly and accurately, you must surely also conclude that Barrett knew absolutely nothing – and, that being so, it must mean that nothing on the tapes has made you change your mind - so why would it not be reasonable for RJ to say that this must have been your conclusion from listening to the tapes (and I would add that RJ here appears to have been trying to make a point in your favour)?

Now, perhaps I'm being unfair to you but perceptions are important and if you are prepared to stand by your statement that Caz's posts express and articulate your own thinking clearly and accurately then I can't help feeling that it is not unreasonable for people to assume that Caz's conclusions are also your conclusions and you can't, I would suggest, be surprised if people draw inferences about what your own beliefs are even though you haven't expressed them yourself. That is surely one of the dangers of aligning yourself so closely with another poster's opinions. Am I wrong?

Anyway, rather than interrogating RJ, might it not be easier to tell us what your conclusion actually was on listening to the tapes. I mean, having heard them (which I assume you have?), do you think Barrett knew absolutely nothing about the diary?

Also, are you in a position to confirm or deny what RJ thinks he has heard on the tapes, namely (1) that Barrett mentions Ryan's book and (2) that Barrett says the diary didn't exist when he telephoned Doreen?

[David Orsam]

An interesting comment about Michael Barrett which seems to contradict the general view many people seem to have about him. It is by Shirley Harrison in her 2003 book (p.266):

"Michael Barrett is no fool. Like Winnie the Pooh, his spelling is ‘wobbly’ in the extreme, but he has a taste for quoting Latin phrases culled from a classical dictionary and a knack of collecting snippets of knowledge from the library."

[James_J]

Evening all, just passing this along from KS

TO R.J.PALMER

Thank you for your post #1278 Roger. I’m a bit uneasy about you sending me a private message, (which I haven’t yet read), presumably referring to discussions we are having in public? I don’t think David Orsam would approve either, especially on a thread which, as he has had occasion to point out, he started.

Casting back to your post #1276 to Caroline and your comment:-

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

As previously explained Roger, it is not me who has put them there but Mike Barrett in his sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995. Are you saying I should ignore this because it conflicts with my preferred option the Diary did come out of Battlecrease? I may not believe Mike’s confession but, as David points out in his post #1262, when discussing about there being no evidence outside of Anne and her daughter Caroline, that anyone had ever heard of the Diary until Mike made his first call to Doreen’s office...

“Whether that evidence is true or not is another matter but it exists.”

It’s exactly the same, as far as I can see, with Mike’s sworn affidavit and all I am doing is accommodating and not ignoring Mike’s statement.

Best Wishes
KS

[David Orsam]

I don’t think David Orsam would approve either, especially on a thread which, as he has had occasion to point out, he started.

I did indeed start this thread (I'm glad someone has noticed). I'm not sure I really want to issue a general prohibition against members sending each other private messages but I will if I have to.