Acquiring A 20th Century Word Processor

[David Orsam]

The reason I refer to the "possibility" of confusion is because it is only a possibility, not a certainty, that Gray drafted Mike's affidavit, as opposed to Mike writing or dictating it himself, and we don’t know what Mike said to Gray.

It must be a sensible possibility, though, because of the obvious confusion – which has even affected members of this forum – between the expressions "drafting" and "writing". Take this extract from Mike's affidavit for example:

"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."

If this was based on Mike telling Gray that, while the diary was being written, Tony was house bound, and after it was finished it was left alone for a few months, Gray could easily have thought Mike was referring to the actual writing of the diary into the scrapbook whereas Mike could have simply meant the drafting of the text in advance of the actual writing (and that makes perfect sense because Mike also says that he and Anne wrote the Diary together in their home in 11 days).

But if Gray, while drafting the affidavit, did think that the diary had been "written" a few months prior to Tony's death then, when he came to deal with the subject of the acquisition of the scrapbook, he must have believed that it was also bought prior to Mike's death so that the visit to O&L and the purchase of the ink must have been before Tony's death.

Apparently believing that Tony had died in May or June 1990, Gray might well have included an inaccurate date for the supposed earlier events based on what he thought Mike was telling him.

I can imagine that trying to get precise chronological details from Mike Barrett must have been a nightmare. He probably spoke vaguely in terms of "a couple of years ago" or something like that, and Gray, if he drafted Mike's affidavit, would have had to put this into a sensible chronology based on what Mike had told him.

But the clue, as I have said many times, is that Mike's affidavit says that the red diary was purchased in order to be used to write the Maybrick Diary (something that can only have come from Mike because Gray would have had no reason to know of the existence of the red diary) suggesting that the scrapbook had not yet been purchased, and we know for a fact that this happened in March 1992. It's the clue, I would suggest, that allows us to properly date the sequence of events. And it's all perfectly plausible.

[caz]

But the clue, as I have said many times, is that Mike's affidavit says that the red diary was purchased in order to be used to write the Maybrick Diary (something that can only have come from Mike because Gray would have had no reason to know of the existence of the red diary) suggesting that the scrapbook had not yet been purchased, and we know for a fact that this happened in March 1992. It's the clue, I would suggest, that allows us to properly date the sequence of events. And it's all perfectly plausible.

Firstly, it's only David's assumption here that Mike hadn't told Gray about the red diary in the run-up to his January 1995 affidavit. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable and logical to suspect he did just that, in the wake of Anne having unexpectedly asked for it back. This would have triggered Mike's memory of having obtained it before he took the scrapbook to London to show Doreen, and telling Gray about its purchase was likely to result in the suggestion that this was physical evidence of the Barretts' intentions to forge the diary.

Secondly, while it's a fact that the red diary arrived in Goldie Street towards the end of March 1992, we most certainly do not know for a fact that 'the scrapbook had not yet been purchased'. This is pure speculation, based on the arse-about-face, hopelessly tangled chronology of a known liar and fantasist, who was still chasing the money he fancifully imagined he was owed by the very people he was now supposedly conning and in breach of contract with, by 'confessing' he had forged the diary with the missus!

How does that even begin to make sense? If Mike really had forged the diary with anyone, he could hardly have felt hard done by over the thousands of pounds he had already made off the back of this criminal enterprise, and if any of his forgery claims had been credible there would not only have been a watertight case for him not receiving a penny more in the future, but also a strong case for him having to return all the money he'd received to date, if only to be given to charity, so a forger would not be seen to have gained from it.

Finally for now, what's equally implausible is David's theory that the scrapbook was not acquired from the auction until the last day of March 1992, followed by the 11 day wonder of preparing it and handwriting the text into it, just in the nick of time to take it to London on April 13th, to show to the likes of the curator of 19th century manuscripts at the British Museum, and to allow Doreen to photocopy it in her office, if he now wants to rely on Dr Alec Voller's revised opinion that an amateur forger could have fooled him with writing that had been artificially aged 'a few weeks' after being applied to the paper.

Is David now going to argue that Voller got it wrong again, and was in fact fooled by all 63 pages enjoying a hasty toasting session under Anne's sunlamp over the weekend of April 11th/12th, just hours after the final words were penned into the scrapbook? Was Mike unaware of all this going on, or did he simply forget to mention it in his affidavit, or whenever he had other opportunities to take his interviewers through the forgery process?

Is the little red diary being relied on just a little too much? When will it finally be tossed out as more of a hindrance than a help with a plausible time line for the diary's finishing touches?

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

The writer of nonsense is on top form today. Three examples of this:

Example 1:

"it's only David's assumption here that Mike hadn't told Gray about the red diary in the run-up to his January 1995 affidavit"

On the contrary, I said he did tell him about the red diary in the run-up to his January 1995 affidavit. That is the meaning of the words "something that can only have come from Mike".

Example 2:

"while it's a fact that the red diary arrived in Goldie Street towards the end of March 1992, we most certainly do not know for a fact that 'the scrapbook had not yet been purchased"

That's not what I said at all and my use of the word "suggesting" has somehow been eliminated in the quote. Removing the brackets in between, what I said was:

"Mike's affidavit says that the red diary was purchased in order to be used to write the Maybrick Diary suggesting that the scrapbook had not yet been purchased"

I wasn't saying anything about the truth or otherwise of the purchase of the scrapbook. I was only talking about the internal coherence of Mike's narrative. In other words, when he said in his affidavit that he bought the red diary to use as the basis of the forgery, he was clearly suggesting that he had not yet bought the scrapbook. That being so, the story he was telling us was that he had not yet bought the scrapbook when he spoke to Martin Earl in March 1992. To repeat, that was the story he was telling us in the affidavit which supports my claim that Alan Gray (who wouldn’t have known when Mike acquired the red diary) hadn't fully understood what Mike was saying about the timing of events.

EXAMPLE 3

"If Mike really had forged the diary with anyone, he could hardly have felt hard done by over the thousands of pounds he had already made off the back of this criminal enterprise"

Of course he could. If he had signed a legal agreement entitling him to thousands of pounds he would obviously have felt aggrieved not to receive that money to which he was entitled. There is nothing inconsistent with Mike complaining about money he was legally owed for the diary, regardless of whether he had forged it, stolen it or been given it.

[David Orsam]

Mr Voller (forgive me for not using his imaginary title) initially said that the forger would have had to have used some massive and expensive piece of kit a few weeks after having written the diary but then accepted that a similar effect could have been produced with a cheap UV sunlamp. He said nothing about when a sunlamp needed to be used nor what would happen if the sunlamp was used immediately after the text was written. He actually said that an amateur using the fading apparatus might have fooled him more than a professional because an amateur would not have done it in the way he would have expected. I doubt if he even knew what the actual effects of a UV sunlamp on the Diary would be. As he said in respect of the accelerated fading apparatus: "How long would it take to produce an 80-90 years old effect with ferrogalic writing, I have no idea; as far as I am aware, the experiment has never been tried". So trying to nit pick about the precise details of the use and effects of a sunlamp is ridiculous.

As for Mike not mentioning any sunlamp treatment in his affidavit, this can be easily explained if the affidavit had been drafted by Alan Gray, having simply failed to extract all the relevant information. If Gray hadn't asked Mike about it then this alone would explain why it doesn't appear in the affidavit.

[caz]

I wasn't saying anything about the truth or otherwise of the purchase of the scrapbook. I was only talking about the internal coherence of Mike's narrative.

Internal coherence?? Are you having a hat and scarf???

In other words, when he said in his affidavit that he bought the red diary to use as the basis of the forgery, he was clearly suggesting that he had not yet bought the scrapbook.

And even more clearly, he was claiming that Tony Devereux had not yet died. That was a fair old part of his narrative.

If Caroline is not allowed to forget, when the guardbook arrives home in March 1992, that a drinking pal of her Dad's called Tony has been dead since her previous summer holidays, I'm sorry, but that applies more so to Mike. He was lying. Plain and simple. As usual, he was deliberately backdating everything so he could include his old mucker Tony in his lies, but instead of using the conveniently dead Tony so Mike would be left conveniently ignorant about where the diary came from, this time he was using the conveniently dead Tony to the opposite effect - that they were both in on the forgery and he was alive [but not kicking a lot] up to when it was completed and beyond! Dead men don't tell tales and what have you and that's the God's honest truth.

I don't suppose it occurred to Mike that the red diary then in Anne's possession would expose his Tony lie, by jumping up and declaring it was bought several months too late. But it matters not, because with people like you, David, regularly popping up, like the skeletons in Jason and the Argonauts, and so willing to do battle on Mike the liar's behalf, to make a coherent and honest narrative out of a pile of rotting rags, he got away with it, and keeps on getting away with it from beyond his own and Tony's graves. Way to go, Mike!

That being so, the story he was telling us was that he had not yet bought the scrapbook when he spoke to Martin Earl in March 1992.

Are you sure about this? Mike wasn't.

Firstly he said nothing about speaking to Martin Earl or anyone else about purchasing the red diary at any time. He implied this was all down to Anne:

'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 and in fact he gave me £50 towards expences which I expected to pay at least for the appropriate paper should I find it.

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

He was vague about whether it was January or February 1990 when the decision was made to write the diary and Anne bought the red one, but felt 'sure' it was still in the January when he went to the auction.

He didn't even get that in the right order for you and you still think he was trying to tell an honest story about his own attempts to acquire a suitable diary, the first in early March 1992 and the second at the end of March 1992.

If he had signed a legal agreement entitling him to thousands of pounds he would obviously have felt aggrieved not to receive that money to which he was entitled. There is nothing inconsistent with Mike complaining about money he was legally owed for the diary, regardless of whether he had forged it, stolen it or been given it.

Er, he'd have been 'legally' owed nothing once he said he had forged the diary. Do you honestly think any agreement he had made would still have been legal and binding under those circumstances - unless everyone concerned was satisfied that his forgery claims were all totally bogus and therefore without foundation?

Didn't Shirley herself point out to Mike that he would be in breach of contract if it turned out that the diary was a fake and that he knew this when first taking it to London?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There's also the little matter of supposedly buying the pens, nibs and ink in late January 1990, after acquiring the guardbook at the auction, then spending two days on practice runs, to decide whether Mike or Anne should write it, before the 11 day creation begins. On completion they leave it for a while because Tony is severely ill, but apparently he holds out until late May or early June 1990, suggesting they are still waiting at that point - but what for? Christmas?

How does this even begin to add up to an internally coherent narrative when compared to David's theory that the auction was on 31st March 1992, less than a fortnight before Mike supposedly took the bloody thing, all disguised and artificially aged to perfection, to London? It's beyond ludicrous.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

It's worth recalling that two different doctors diagnosed Barrett with Korsakoff's syndrome. It is entirely possible that by the mid-to-late 1990s his memory of these events was nearly non-existent.

[caz]

Mr Voller (forgive me for not using his imaginary title) initially said that the forger would have had to have used some massive and expensive piece of kit a few weeks after having written the diary but then accepted that a similar effect could have been produced with a cheap UV sunlamp. He said nothing about when a sunlamp needed to be used nor what would happen if the sunlamp was used immediately after the text was written. He actually said that an amateur using the fading apparatus might have fooled him more than a professional because an amateur would not have done it in the way he would have expected. I doubt if he even knew what the actual effects of a UV sunlamp on the Diary would be. As he said in respect of the accelerated fading apparatus: "How long would it take to produce an 80-90 years old effect with ferrogalic writing, I have no idea; as far as I am aware, the experiment has never been tried". So trying to nit pick about the precise details of the use and effects of a sunlamp is ridiculous.

As for Mike not mentioning any sunlamp treatment in his affidavit, this can be easily explained if the affidavit had been drafted by Alan Gray, having simply failed to extract all the relevant information. If Gray hadn't asked Mike about it then this alone would explain why it doesn't appear in the affidavit.

Blimey, I might have thought you actually believed all this, if you hadn't chosen to change Voller's words from:

"at least some of the effects of an accelerated fading apparatus could be duplicated" by the use of "no more than an ordinary sunlamp",

to 'a similar' effect could have been produced with just the sunlamp.

Naughty.

What I particularly love is the idea that an experiment which, as far as Voller was aware, had never been tried, was not only tried on the freshly completed diary by Anne or Mike, but managed to "produce an 80-90 years old effect with ferrogalic writing" within a day or two at most, which fooled the chemist who had also formulated the ink they used, but completely failed to recognise it as his own - Diamine - presumably because it had altered in appearance as a result of that sunlamp.

How then were Nick Warren's experiments with Diamine likely to have produced anything comparable with the diary, unless he knew what apparatus had been used to produce the effects observed by Voller, when to use it and for how long, and could hope to achieve at least a similar result with his own writing, one example of which you helpfully dated to January 1995?

And what good was it posting that poor quality image of Warren's original, if he could not have known back then about any of this, and you already knew he could not have known?

Voller wrote to Warren about it in February 1996, when he was waiting to see how long it would take for his Diamine to start bronzing on the page, and would have at least another year to wait. So why would he have bothered, after reading that the diary pages would have been treated to a tanning session, anything up to a few weeks after the ink was applied, using an unknown piece or pieces of kit, for an unknown duration, to give the ink a brand new look, a make-over to add 80-90 years to the appearance of freshly applied pre-1992 Diamine?

Did it not occur to Warren to tear up his 1995 experiments and start all over again after investing in a sunlamp? I thought he wanted to show that the diary had been written with Diamine ink. How could he do that if it had also been artificially aged in one of the ways suggested by Voller?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's worth recalling that two different doctors diagnosed Barrett with Korsakoff's syndrome. It is entirely possible that by the mid-to-late 1990s his memory of these events was nearly non-existent.

Could his memory have recovered at a later date, rj, when he was back to his old 'dead pal' story and claiming to believe the diary was genuine? He seemed perfectly able to recall many details from the early 90s onwards when talking to the authors of Ripper Diary, early in the 21st century.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

I think I need to state that it is a barefaced lie to say that I have "chosen to change Voller's words". And it is a lie that is designed to cause confusion and falsely lead people to think I have actually changed Voller's words when quoting them.

I have done no such thing. My summary of the words of Voller that I had already accurately quoted is that he was saying that a similar effect would be created by a sunlamp. I stand by that summary entirely because that is clearly what he was saying in his letter to Warren.

[David Orsam]

I think I need to state that it is a barefaced lie to say that I have "chosen to change Voller's words". And it is a lie that is designed to cause confusion and falsely lead people to think I have actually changed Voller's words when quoting them.

I have done no such thing. My summary of the words of Voller that I had already accurately quoted is that he was saying that a similar effect would be created by a sunlamp. I stand by that summary entirely because that is clearly what he was saying in his letter to Warren.

Let me expand on my response to what was an utterly disgraceful and false allegation. In #4470 in the Incontrovertible thread (which is where I posted the quote from Voller about the sunlamp - and I have no idea why the discussion has migrated into this thread) I said this about Voller:

"What he was saying was that while the ink certainly looked to him like it was 80-90 years old, this impression could have been the result of simply putting the diary under an ordinary sunlamp. It doesn't matter that he refers to "at least some of the effects" being produced in this way because in the letter he is accepting the possibility that it could have fooled him. He doesn't comment on whether the sunlamp could have been used effectively as soon as the diary was written so it's not possible to conclude that this wouldn't have worked."

So I was there facing head on the issue that it has been falsely said I was avoiding or trying to change Voller's words. Far from doing so, I actually quoted the words in question. A certain person has tried to jump on the phrase "at least some of the effects" as a lifeline to save her from the implication of what Voller was actually saying, namely that a sunlamp would have produced similar effects to an accelerated fading apparatus which could have fooled him into thinking the Diary was old.

[David Orsam]

Then nonsense switch appears to have been turned up to 10 today.

Everything I said in #61 about the possibility of Alan Gray drafting Mike's affidavit has been completely ignored. Yet this possibility explains EVERYTHING about the errors in the affidavit.

You know, I wouldn't mind but it was the world's leading expert on the Diary who first raised the possibility of Alan Gray being responsible for the contents of Mike's affidavit. Thus, by way of reminder, she said:

"I suggest he mentioned the red diary to Alan Gray, in the context of having given it to Anne recently, and Gray helped him "make something of it" in his January 1995 affidavit." (#1677, Acquiring a Victorian Diary)

There she is happy to "blame" Gray for something in Mike's affidavit when it pleases her. Now look at her two long posts of today. Not a single mention of Alan Gray! He has been airbrushed out of history!!!! Everything is "Mike said this" and "Mike said that".

But Mike was drinking heavily in January 1995. It strikes me as entirely plausible, and indeed quite likely, that Alan Gray was responsible for drafting Mike's affidavit on the basis of what Mike told him. And if this is the case it obviously opens up the door to Gray misunderstanding what he was being told, especially in respect of the chronology of events.

I've pointed out on more than one occasion how easy it is to mix up the concepts of "writing" and "drafting" the Diary and if Mike said that the Diary was being written while Tony was alive (meaning drafted) Gray could easily have understood this as meaning that the Diary was being transcribed while Tony was alive.

The Great Expert scoffs as the phrase "internal coherence" (presumably because the affidavit bears Mike Barrett's name and she can't associate the concept of coherence with him) but it is perfectly clear to everyone that there is an internal coherence to the narrative in Mike's affidavit, some might say to a surprising extent. The chronology all works in respect of the internal story of the affidavit. It only doesn't work when you know some additional information, namely that the red diary was purchased in March 1992. That is precisely the information that I suggest that Alan Gray didn't know but is the key to working out the real chronology of events.

[David Orsam]

Two other things.

Firstly, we may note the irony of the Great Expert saying that Mike's affidavit states that Anne purchased the Diary, as opposed to it being Mike who contacted Martin Earl, while at another time (as I have already quoted) she said:

"I suggest he mentioned the red diary to Alan Gray, in the context of having given it to Anne recently, and Gray helped him "make something of it" in his January 1995 affidavit." (#1677, Acquiring a Victorian Diary)

If it wasn't so hilarious it would be tragic. That someone can practically argue against herself. On one day the Great Expert suggests that Alan Gray drafted the passage in Mike's affidavit about the red diary and on another day she is utterly baffled as to how Mike's affidavit could have got the facts so badly wrong about the acquisition of the red diary!!!

Secondly, there has never been a response to my point that there are plenty of other dating errors in the Diary such as the date when Mike is said to have acquired his word processor. Yet no-one is suggesting that this means that Mike didn't buy a word processor, simply that he (or just as likely Alan Gray) got his dates mixed up.

[David Orsam]

One thing I would say about experts is they are often the people who are most easily fooled because they think that they have all the knowledge but, while Voller might not have had a clue about the effects of a UV sunlamp on a manuscript, because there have been no published experiments, those in the criminal underworld, i.e. document forgers, might just have that precise kind of knowledge because that's their business. I somehow doubt if Voller had ever been asked to authenticate a document in his life before. He probably hadn't even been asked by anyone to give an opinion as to whether a document was written in Diamine Ink.

In any case, the whole business with the sunlamp may just be a red herring because it seems that Nick Warren managed to write a letter in January 1995 with Diamine Ink that was remarkably similar in appearance to the look of the Diary ink without the use of any artificial ageing. I have already posted an extract from an image of that letter in another thread. Voller saw a copy of that letter seventeen years ago. This is from a post by Chris Phillips on the forum on 1st May 2005:

"Well, in 2001 Voller wrote to Peter Birchwood in response to a colour photocopy of a test letter written in 1995 by Nick Warren. Here is Peter's quotation, from his post of 7 June 2001:

"...the poor opacity and fading and bronzing that are apparent in your copy of Nick Warren's letter. These are aspects that can be drastically influenced by relatively small shifts in the conditions...One factor that can strongly affect both the initial result and the subsequent behavior of the ink , is the choice of paper and it may perhaps be that Nick's choice was not such as to bring out the best in the ink...I agree that the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing..." [my emphasis]

If the ink of a 6 year-old letter could have taken on an appearance similar to that of the diary, it's difficult to see how Voller, who saw the diary in 1995, could be "certain" on the basis of its appearance that it hadn't been written 6 years before."

I have to concur with Chris Phillips' conclusion and say that Voller's concession in 2001 is quite remarkable.

[David Orsam]

Just to add two things.

Firstly, I can't make head nor tail of the last two paragraphs of #65 nor can I understand anything said after the word "Naughty" in #68. If anyone can translate them into English I'd be grateful.

Secondly, Harrison (2003) says that the meeting with Voller, at which he visually examined the Diary, was on "Friday October 30th 1995". But 30th October 1995 was a Monday. Curiously, 20th October 1995 (which, as I raised earlier, is an alternative date one finds in Inside Story) WAS a Friday. So was that, in fact, the date of the meeting with Voller?