25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm quite active on a few Manson discussion sites. Bugliosi is not well respected by many students of the Manson case. He definitely played some shifty games during that case, and there are things in Helter Skelter that have been proven to be not quite true. But nevertheless I think he did an amazing job during that trial, and HS is still one of the most riveting true crime books you can read.

I didn't realise that Henry. Are there people around who believe that Manson was innocent?

[Sam Flynn]

HS is still one of the most riveting true crime books you can read.

Absolutely! Aside from Sugden's magisterial book on JTR, Helter Skelter is the one true crime book I've returned to again and again. Superbly written, and a riveting read.

[Abby Normal]

I didn't realise that Henry. Are there people around who believe that Manson was innocent?

Squeeky Fromme

[rjpalmer]

I wonder if the Diary Gods are going to let us see the so-called invoice which proves that Mike bought the Word Processor in 1986. Or does one need to rant and rave into the ether and ask what they have to hide before it is produced?

David, I don't think Shirley Harrison ever had this receipt. If memory serves, the receipt for the Amstrad 8256 was actually uncovered by Allan Gray, a private detective that briefly investigated Barrett's forgery claims. This information was then released to the public by Melvin Harris. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the way it 'went down.'

Barrett, besides making these alleged research notes, also produced a typed transcript of the Diary. Roughly 13 years ago I tried to get to the bottom of the exact origins of this transcript, but could never sort it out, as two (or three) variations were making the rounds. In one version, Barrett had produced the transcript sometime before March 1992 in order to study the Diary (Doreen Montgomery's version); in another, he and Graham were obliged to produced a transcript of the Diary as part of the book deal (Harrison's version). If you are into ancient history, click and scroll:

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/17306.html

Gray recorded a number of audio tapes of Barrett's rambling confessions, and 12 or 15 years ago I listened to part of them. I deserve some sort of prize, because they were one painful listening experience. One of Barrett's claims is that the Diary didn't even physically exist until after his original call to Montgomery, which is supported by your research into the maroon diary, since, directly after that call, he seems to have kicked-the-ball in motion with Martin Earl on or about the same date.

What I am wondering is whether Shirley Harrison has anything in her notes to confirm that Barrett had previously contacted Pan Books about the Diary. This was her claim, I assume she looked into it? Remember that nugget? If Barrett did contact them, when did he? If it was before the 9th, the electrical provenance has a shocking problem. Pan allegedly told Barrett to get a literary agent, hence his call to Doreen on March 9th. Can Harrison undermine the 'new' floorboards provenance by showing that Barrett had, in fact, contacted Pan before March 9th? Or does she have it down as having happened the same day? Or is it merely a vague claim? It's like trying to make sense of a bucket of eels.

[David Orsam]

David, I don't think Shirley Harrison ever had this receipt. If memory serves, the receipt for the Amstrad 8256 was actually uncovered by Allan Gray, a private detective that briefly investigated Barrett's forgery claims. This information was then released to the public by Melvin Harris. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the way it 'went down.'

That seems perfectly possible but Shirley must have received a copy of it at some stage because we were told earlier in this thread that a receipt for a word processor purchased from Dixons and dated 3rd April 1986 was faxed to Keith Skinner from Shirley Harrison on 22nd February 1995.

A question mark was also raised earlier in this thread as to whether the word processor could have been second-hand (as we have been told it was) if it was bought from Dixons. Sight of the receipt should answer that question and tell us what Mike paid for it.

[David Orsam]

Barrett, besides making these alleged research notes, also produced a typed transcript of the Diary. Roughly 13 years ago I tried to get to the bottom of the exact origins of this transcript, but could never sort it out, as two (or three) variations were making the rounds. In one version, Barrett had produced the transcript sometime before March 1992 in order to study the Diary (Doreen Montgomery's version); in another, he and Graham were obliged to produced a transcript of the Diary as part of the book deal (Harrison's version). If you are into ancient history, click and scroll:

https://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/17306.html

Gray recorded a number of audio tapes of Barrett's rambling confessions, and 12 or 15 years ago I listened to part of them. I deserve some sort of prize, because they were one painful listening experience. One of Barrett's claims is that the Diary didn't even physically exist until after his original call to Montgomery, which is supported by your research into the maroon diary, since, directly after that call, he seems to have kicked-the-ball in motion with Martin Earl on or about the same date.

Yes I read the "ancient history" before reading the paragraph after the link above and I was immediately struck by you saying this in 2005:

"In one of Barrett's ramblings to Alan Gray he stated that the diary didn't even physically exist when he contacted Doreen."

I thought that was quite extraordinary because it fits in perfectly with Mike's claims in his affidavit that the text of the Diary took 11 days to write out and that the scrapbook wasn't purchased until after he had taken receipt of the maroon diary. Yet Mike was also saying in his affidavit that this all took place in 1990 so it was hardly a calculated lie or part of a carefully contrived story.

I since read your subsequent paragraph where you make the same point but I do find that quote very interesting as I was unaware that Mike had ever said it.

Also interesting is the uncertainty around the origins of the transcript that you set out in 2005 but, as usual, the response is that Barrett lied about everything.

[rjpalmer]

It's possible I still have the audio tape. I plan on looking when I return to the States in a couple of weeks. It may take a few pints to get through it again.

[David Orsam]

What I am wondering is whether Shirley Harrison has anything in her notes to confirm that Barrett had previously contacted Pan Books about the Diary. This was her claim, I assume she looked into it? Remember that nugget? If Barrett did contact them, when did he? If it was before the 9th, the electrical provenance has a shocking problem. Pan allegedly told Barrett to get a literary agent, hence his call to Doreen on March 9th. Can Harrison undermine the 'new' floorboards provenance by showing that Barrett had, in fact, contacted Pan before March 9th? Or does she have it down as having happened the same day? Or is it merely a vague claim? It's like trying to make sense of a bucket of eels.

I've had a quick look to track down the origins of this story. I don't see it in the original Shirley Harrison publication in 1993 but the Independent on Sunday of 29 August 1993 reported that Barrett had "telephoned Pan Books and been told to get an agent."

Feldman in 1997 stated that Barrett was given Montgomery's name over the telephone "by Pan Books when he tried to sell them the publishing rights."

In her 2010 book (and possibly in earlier editions of the Diary book after 1993) Harrison said: "So he rang Pan Books because he had some of their paperbacks at home and asked if they would like to publish his story. London publishers are not so easily enthused and advised Michael to get himself a literary agent, recommending Doreen Montgomery".

One thing I would point out is that if Mike or Anne owned, or had access to, a copy of the 1986 Writers and Artists Yearbook (as Mike claimed in his affidavit) he would have been able to locate the telephone numbers of both Pan Books and Rupert Crew Literary Agency in that (but, ironically, NOT of HP Bookfinders, or Martin E Earl, as he says in his affidavit).

[David Orsam]

It's possible I still have the audio tape. I plan on looking when I return to the States in a couple of weeks. It may take a few pints to get through it again.

Cool, a transcript of that part of the tape to hear Mike's exact words will be very welcome.

[Henry Flower]

I didn't realise that Henry. Are there people around who believe that Manson was innocent?

Yes, there are some who believe Tex Watson was the driving force for the murders, for his own drug-related reasons.

I think they're wrong, and it's usually quite apparent that they're being selective with the evidence. Cherry-picking. Others say the HS motive was sensationalist bs that even other prosecutors thought Bugliosi was over-egging, even if Manson was the mind behind the spree.

I think they're wrong.

I know this is OT so that's all, I promise

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, there are some who believe Tex Watson was the driving force for the murders, for his own drug-related reasons.

I think they're wrong, and it's usually quite apparent that they're being selective with the evidence. Cherry-picking. Others say the HS motive was sensationalist bs that even other prosecutors thought Bugliosi was over-egging, even if Manson was the mind behind the spree.

I think they're wrong.

I know this is OT so that's all, I promise

Understood Henry. Thanks for the info. Another book that I need to re-read

[David Orsam]

Some of the muppets on JTR forums recently commented on my article about Robert Smith's book. I'm not a member of JTR forums, and it's unseemly to respond to posts on JTR Forums on Casebook, so my response to the muppets can be found here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/responsetothemuppets.htm

There was also, for some reason, a response on JTR Forums to my post earlier in this thread about Rod McNeil's ion migration test and I have responded to this in a separate article here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/responsetoatwit.htm

[MrBarnett]

Some of the muppets on JTR forums recently commented on my article about Robert Smith's book. I'm not a member of JTR forums, and it's unseemly to respond to posts on JTR Forums on Casebook, so my response to the muppets can be found here:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/responsetothemuppets.htm

There was also, for some reason, a response on JTR Forums to my post earlier in this thread about Rod McNeil's ion migration test and I have responded to this in a separate article here:

www.orsam.co.uk/responsetoatwit.htm

What a charmer you are, Orsam - a real credit to the field.

[David Orsam]

What a charmer you are, Orsam - a real credit to the field.

Well, Gary, I didn't mention you by name but it was, of course, you who said of my article about Robert Smith's book:

"The primary purpose of the piece seems to be to show how clever the author is."

What an outrageous, unpleasant and absurd comment that was. As if I need to show anyone how clever I am! It's almost as absurd a comment as when Tom Wescott called you "petty and jealous" for questioning the hospital record he produced in his book. Feel free to challenge my arguments and conclusions by all means but it's quite wrong and unacceptable of you to impugn my motives in such a manner.

[Hunter]

"...I rather thought that this was the most important point I made in the article but no-one in JTR Forums seemed to want to discuss it..."

Perhaps, since you appear to be interested in what is posted about your article in JTR Forums you could join and respond directly instead of choosing a circular route of response?