Acquiring A 20th Century Word Processor

[David Orsam]

Once we take into account that the basic text of the Diary was drafted in 1991 (because 1990 is a fairly obvious typo)

Contrary to popular Diary Defender belief I don't just make things up.

I have seen a copy of Mike's affidavit with "1990" corrected to "1991" throughout, along with other obvious typos. I don't know who did it - possibly Alan Gray although I really can't say - but it would be odd if it was an unauthorized correction (because how would the person making the corrections have known that 1990 was a typo?) and that is what leads me to think that 1990 was indeed a typo and was intended to be 1991 (even though I obviously think that should have been 1992).

Here's an extract from the corrected affidavit:

[caz]

I guess I don't get it. Apparently Keith Skinner, Robert Smith, Caz Morris, Paul Begg, and other people that have met Mike Barrett don't see him as a forger.

That's because he's not, rj. And I could have sworn David was claiming only recently that nobody around here believes Mike actually forged the diary.

All the effort appears to be going into making Anne the prime suspect these days.

I guess both Barretts deserve all they get, but does history not deserve better? Have you ever stopped to think you might have got this completely wrong? And would you care?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

My goodness, one only has to spot an error in Inside Story and one of the authors goes into full meltdown!!!

No-one was criticising any of the authors of Inside Story for making a mistake, that would be ridiculous.

The issue was that the mistake, having been identified, was not acknowledged but was being said, in effect, to be irrelevant and utterly inconsequential. Thus we were told sarcastically "I'm sure those ten days would have made all the difference to Voller's opinions."

I pointed out the hypocrisy of this kind of statement allied with a compulsion to correct Director Dave's claim that 30th October 1995 was a bank holiday, as if THAT would have made any difference Voller's opinion.

The issue here is that once a mistake is identified it should be acknowledged and, if possible, corrected whether it is a big mistake or a little one.

For example, only the other day I noticed that I had made a dating error of a letter by Sir Charles Warren in an online article and corrected it, on this forum, from 23 October 1888 to 22 October 1888. Did that single day make any difference to the content or significance of Warren's letter? None at all. But it was a mistake and therefore needed to be corrected (and will also be corrected in the online article) regardless of its importance.

It's perfectly obvious that one person on this forum simply will not admit calmly, openly and without attempting to create distractions that they too sometimes make mistakes. I find it sad that they must be so insecure they just can't do it without at the same time having to point out mistakes in others in a pathetic attempt to justify their own.

I still don't know whether the meeting with Voller was on 20th or 30th October 1995 and no clarification has been provided on this point. If the authors of Inside Story, or any of them, don't know the date of the meeting then perhaps they can simply say so.

I thought I'd addressed this, David. My time line shows the meeting was in fact on Friday 20th October 1995, as on page 206 of Ripper Diary. I have corrected the 30 to 20 on page 168 of my own copy with a red felt tip pen after thrashing myself soundly with birch twigs.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We have a new addition to the canon of incomprehensible posts today as I find #91 impossible to understand. By which I don't mean that I don't understand the words, I just don't understand the purpose other than to simply fill space, giving the appearance of being a response while saying nothing worthwhile. I have already provided a clear and sensible explanation for the dating errors in Mike's affidavit, namely that it was drafted by Alan Gray who was confused by what Mike had told him, and Mike either didn't read it properly or at all before signing it. As I have said, it is "perfectly plausible and a perfectly reasonable suggestion."

Once we take into account that the basic text of the Diary was drafted in 1991 (because 1990 is a fairly obvious typo), possibly with the assistance of Tony Devereux, but was transcribed into the recently acquired scrapbook during an 11 day period in March/April 1992, after the failure of the attempt with the little red Diary, everything makes sense.

I think David must be in denial. A 'typo' is typically an unintended error due to a one off instance of carelessness. I don't call it a typo when the year 1990 features repeatedly throughout Mike's account of the forgery process, with the purchase of the red diary thrown in, giving the distinct impression that this too was in 1990, when everything else was happening:

'Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary...

...At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me, its a good idea, if you can get away with it...

...I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland...

...It was about 11.30am in the morning when I attended the Auctioneers...

...Anne and I went to town in Liverpool and in Bold Street I bought three pens, that would hold fountain nibs, the little brass nibs. I bought 22 brass nibs at about 7p to 12p, a variety of small brass nibs, all from the 'Medice' art gallery.

This all happened late January 1990 and on the same day that Anne and I bought the nibs we then decided to purchase the ink elsewhere and we decided to make our way to the Bluecoat Chambers, in fact we had a drink in the Empire Pub in Hanover Street on the way.

Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound.

We were now ready to go and start the Diary. We went home and on the same evening that we had purchased everything, that is the materials we needed, We decided to have a practise run and we used A4 paper for this, and at first we tried it in my handwriting, but we realised and I must emphasie (sic) this, my handwriting was to (sic) disstinctive (sic) so it had to be in Anne's handwriting, after the practise run which took us approximately two days, we decided to go for hell or bust.

I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript. This pose was later filmed by Paul Feldman of MIA Productions Limited.

Several days prior to our purchase of materials I had started to roughly outline the Diary on my word processor.

Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper. Much to my regret there was a witness to this, my young daughter Caroline.

During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severly (sic) ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

Ah right, gotcha, but yes good point about Martin Earl not coming forward despite the publicity. I still can't think why Mike wanted a diary with those specifications other than to forge a Victorian diary.

[rjpalmer]

To RJ Palmer: I'd never heard of this before. Can you tell us any more about it?

My apologies if I sounded cryptic. I don't there is anything new here.

One argument kicked around in 2005 was that Mike & Anne's purchase of the maroon diary must have been innocent because they went through a bookseller and Anne ultimately paid for the purchase with a personal cheque, thus leaving a "paper trail." Since they didn't try to hide the purchase, it MUST have been innocent. (the argument ran).

In truth, such was not the case. I think all I was pointing out is that despite all the publicity the Maybrick Diary received in 1993-1994, Martin Earl never came forward.

When Shirley Harrison eventually contacted Earl he did remember the request for a Victorian Diary because it was so 'unusual,' but that doesn't mean he ran to the police, or put two and two together when (or if) he saw the name 'Barrett' splashed in the newspapers.

We also kept hearing that maybe this otherwise innocent Liverpool couple merely "wanted to see what a Victorian Diary looked like."

If such were the case, why didn't they simply bring the maroon diary along with them to London in April 1992 and hand it to Doreen Montgomery? "Here's something we very recently purchased, maybe it will help for comparison purposes." After all, one of the first things Shirley Harrison did was bring the Maybrick scrap album around to booksellers, the British Museum, etc., to see if it was a Victorian era album. Yet, neither then, nor in two long years---even when the Diary's paper was being tested---did Mike and Anne ever mention this "innocent" purchase.

The obvious explanation is that they were trying to keep it a secret.

I guess I don't get it. Apparently Keith Skinner, Robert Smith, Caz Morris, Paul Begg, and other people that have met Mike Barrett don't see him as a forger.

But Barrett is the bloke who was standing on the sidewalk when the building exploded, and Barrett was the one who was trying to buy a stick of dynamite 5 weeks earlier. And of course, Barrett is also the one who tried to keep his career as a literary hack a secret by lying about the purchase date of the pc/wp.

Like it or not, he sounds like the prime suspect.

[DJA]

Interesting I too sold these things, I’d always been told it was a W/P.

But turns out it was a P/C according to the receipt.

It included, here in Aus at least, Locoscript (think that was the one) W/P software and ran its own propriety operating system.

It was at the time (again I can only speak for Aus) seen asa cheaper alternative to say a MS PC or something like an IBM or Olivetti W/P.

Australian distribution was via AWA.

In Victoria,Billy Guyatt's secured exclusive rights.

[David Orsam]

To RJ Palmer:

Hi RJ,

I was reading through some archived posts recently and noticed that on 8 June 2005 you posted:

I seem to recall that shortly after Mr. Barrett revealed the existance of a certain blank maroon diary (some three years after the fact) a real-life honest-to-goodness bookseller was traced and did remember a very curious purchaser named Barrett, who made the highly "unusual request" roughly six weeks before anyone laid an eye on the Maybrick diary. This man (the bookseller) was utterly unknown. He never came forward, and never would have come forward except for the fact that he was traced. It still remains one of the only independently verified actions of Barrett before he showed up in London. And a curious one at that.

I'd never heard of this before. Can you tell us any more about it?

[David Orsam]

My goodness, one only has to spot an error in Inside Story and one of the authors goes into full meltdown!!!

No-one was criticising any of the authors of Inside Story for making a mistake, that would be ridiculous.

The issue was that the mistake, having been identified, was not acknowledged but was being said, in effect, to be irrelevant and utterly inconsequential. Thus we were told sarcastically "I'm sure those ten days would have made all the difference to Voller's opinions."

I pointed out the hypocrisy of this kind of statement allied with a compulsion to correct Director Dave's claim that 30th October 1995 was a bank holiday, as if THAT would have made any difference Voller's opinion.

The issue here is that once a mistake is identified it should be acknowledged and, if possible, corrected whether it is a big mistake or a little one.

For example, only the other day I noticed that I had made a dating error of a letter by Sir Charles Warren in an online article and corrected it, on this forum, from 23 October 1888 to 22 October 1888. Did that single day make any difference to the content or significance of Warren's letter? None at all. But it was a mistake and therefore needed to be corrected (and will also be corrected in the online article) regardless of its importance.

It's perfectly obvious that one person on this forum simply will not admit calmly, openly and without attempting to create distractions that they too sometimes make mistakes. I find it sad that they must be so insecure they just can't do it without at the same time having to point out mistakes in others in a pathetic attempt to justify their own.

I still don't know whether the meeting with Voller was on 20th or 30th October 1995 and no clarification has been provided on this point. If the authors of Inside Story, or any of them, don't know the date of the meeting then perhaps they can simply say so.

[David Orsam]

We have a new addition to the canon of incomprehensible posts today as I find #91 impossible to understand. By which I don't mean that I don't understand the words, I just don't understand the purpose other than to simply fill space, giving the appearance of being a response while saying nothing worthwhile. I have already provided a clear and sensible explanation for the dating errors in Mike's affidavit, namely that it was drafted by Alan Gray who was confused by what Mike had told him, and Mike either didn't read it properly or at all before signing it. As I have said, it is "perfectly plausible and a perfectly reasonable suggestion."

Once we take into account that the basic text of the Diary was drafted in 1991 (because 1990 is a fairly obvious typo), possibly with the assistance of Tony Devereux, but was transcribed into the recently acquired scrapbook during an 11 day period in March/April 1992, after the failure of the attempt with the little red Diary, everything makes sense.

[David Orsam]

Okay so here's a challenge to all members of this forum. Please explain to me in plain English the meaning of last two paragraphs of #65 and the meaning of what was said after the word "Naughty" in #68. If no-one can do it then we can safely assume it can't be done.

I see that no-one has managed to do this and I'm perfectly satisfied that it's not humanly possible.

[caz]

Mike's affidavit - in David Orsam's own words

Oh I do love this:

"Either Mike was getting everything wrong then, or the affidavit was not even in his words because Alan Gray composed it from what Mike had told him and Mike didn't read it through properly to see how badly Gray had mangled everything. I don't give two hoots which it is, but either way it doesn't help make it any more a reflection of reality."

The implication, apparently, is that if Mike had read through his affidavit "properly" he would have been able to ensure that it was a "reflection of reality". Seriously? This from the person who tells us (in so many words) that Mike had no grasp on reality.

No, the suggestion is that Alan Gray interrogated Mike and, on the basis of his answers, drafted his affidavit which was accurate to the extent that it was based on what Mike had told him but messed up the chronology, either because Mike had not been clear about it or Gray had misunderstood it. This strikes me as perfectly plausible and a perfectly reasonable suggestion but Diary Defenders don't like it because it provides a sensible explanation for why there are be dating errors in the affidavit. The Diary Defenders love the dating errors because they can use them to undermine the basic story being told in that affidavit. Once the dating errors are explained it causes them a real problem.

But the dating errors have not been 'explained', David. How could they be, without Mike or Alan Gray here to explain them? Were you not the one who initially suggested Alan Gray may have drafted the affidavit, and that Mike may have signed it without reading it through carefully enough? Allowing it was Mike's signature on it, isn't that what you are still suggesting? That Mike was not 'clear' about the chronology, or that Gray had misunderstood it? Either Mike read it through and didn't notice the mess Gray had made of it, or he didn't read it through - or worse, from your point of view, he read it through and agreed with it! Which one are you going to plump for?

If your 'Diary Defenders' love those dating errors, are you saying everyone else hates them? If so, it would be enormously helpful to you, and to all those who believe in the 11 day creation, if you could rewrite Mike's affidavit, correcting his dates where appropriate, to what he obviously intended them to be, and what they would have been, if only he had been clearer when talking to Gray, or if only Gray had been paying closer attention. That way, we'll all know exactly what we are meant, or not meant to believe.

The way I see it, the one element which sticks out most like a sore thumb is the little red diary, because Gray most likely had no clue that it was obtained two years too late to have any possible relevance to a forgery supposedly created over 11 days in early 1990 - a date seemingly set in stone in the affidavit for the whole forgery process, including the purchase of all the materials. Had Gray known the enquiry which produced the red diary hadn't even been made until mid-March 1992, he'd surely have advised Mike not to mention it in conjunction with all the forgery related events from two years earlier!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I just love the way that the person who suggests that it's irrelevant whether the meeting with Voller was on 20th October or 30th October, because those ten days would have made no difference, was nevertheless completely unable to resist the temptation - or should that be the compulsion - to correct Director Dave's claim that 30th October was a bank holiday.

What difference would it make if the meeting was on a bank holiday or not? None at all but surely it's important to get history right. Or is the world's leading expert on the Diary saying that dates of meetings now don't matter and if a book on the subject identifies two different dates for a meeting it's perfectly fine and we don't need to worry about the actual date?

In fact, of course, the difference could, in theory, be important, even critical, if we were trying to set out a chronological sequence of events and there was an event between 20th and 30th October 1995 which was relevant to the Diary, especially one involving Voller. I don't say that I am aware of such an event only that such a thing is possible, and could become known in the future, hence why it's a good idea to use accurate dates as opposed to inaccurate ones.

But if one of the authors of Inside Story doesn't care about getting the facts right regarding the story of the Diary who am I to argue?

Oh do get a life, David. Seriously, if this is the only such error you have identified in our book, congratulations to us both are in order. All I meant was that Voller's stated opinions would - or at least should - have been the same, whether he saw the diary for the first time on 20th October 1995 [the correct date according to my timeline, and a Friday] or on 30th, which was a Monday. Of course I care about getting the facts right and I spent huge amounts of time trying to do just that when I co-authored and helped to proofread our book. I get embarrassed by even a single careless mistake slipping through the final edit, but even you must acknowledge that it's almost impossible to produce a book running to 275 pages without the odd typo or dating error. After all, you have recently been man enough to acknowledge that even you can't get everything right in your online articles:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10786&page=17

...This is the complete text of a letter written by Sir Charles Warren to the Under Secretary of State at the Home Office dated 23rd October 1888. I should say that I incorrectly date this letter to 22nd October 1888 in my online article, which I will correct at the next opportunity, and the file reference in the National Archives is HO/9686/A48584 (not A484584 as the article has it)...

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10790

Having reviewed this article before posting, I did notice a few minor corrections that I would want to make to it, and may do so in due course on my website for the benefit of any future readers:

1 "For that reason, I would agree that Tumblety is not likely to have fled the country before 20 November" - I think I meant to say "argue" not "agree"

2. "having by now resigned as Assistant Comissioner," - spelling of Commissioner

3. "It is reasonable to assume that the 'bondsmen' (to use Hawley's term) would have been notified on 20 November that their recognizances on behalf of Tumblety had been respited" - That's a bit clumsily worded because their recognizances would not actually have been respited until 10 December and, I think, should have said "would be respited" not "had been" but I go on to deal with this when I agree that "Tumblety did not 'officially' forfeit bail until 10 December when he did not show up at court" and make the point that, "any bondsman for Tumblety would have known as soon as Tumblety had disappeared that they would be on the hook for the entire amount of the bail and, moreover, that they had been conned by Tumblety into standing bail for him."

4. "these two indivduals" – spelling of individuals

5. "especially one who who was obviously" – repetition of "who"

I doubt there is a world of difference between a book in my case and an online article in yours, apart from perhaps the number of words involved and number of minor errors per page.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Okay so here's a challenge to all members of this forum. Please explain to me in plain English the meaning of last two paragraphs of #65 and the meaning of what was said after the word "Naughty" in #68. If no-one can do it then we can safely assume it can't be done.

And if nobody gives enough of a toss to respond at all, David will no doubt imagine he can 'safely' assume the same thing.

Does David not realise by now that only about two other people plus my cat are even reading our posts on the subject, let alone following every line of every post minutely, picking out all the nits with a fine-toothed comb?

David and I are the nits, if we think our musings are likely to change anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

I just love the way that the person who suggests that it's irrelevant whether the meeting with Voller was on 20th October or 30th October, because those ten days would have made no difference, was nevertheless completely unable to resist the temptation - or should that be the compulsion - to correct Director Dave's claim that 30th October was a bank holiday.

What difference would it make if the meeting was on a bank holiday or not? None at all but surely it's important to get history right. Or is the world's leading expert on the Diary saying that dates of meetings now don't matter and if a book on the subject identifies two different dates for a meeting it's perfectly fine and we don't need to worry about the actual date?

In fact, of course, the difference could, in theory, be important, even critical, if we were trying to set out a chronological sequence of events and there was an event between 20th and 30th October 1995 which was relevant to the Diary, especially one involving Voller. I don't say that I am aware of such an event only that such a thing is possible, and could become known in the future, hence why it's a good idea to use accurate dates as opposed to inaccurate ones.

But if one of the authors of Inside Story doesn't care about getting the facts right regarding the story of the Diary who am I to argue?