Last lot for you now, Steven...
Thursday 5th December 1996
KS makes handwritten note:
Shirley phoned.
AEG [Anne Graham] has obtained, from L'pool Central library copy of Sphere Book containing O Costly..
AEG photocopying relevant page
KS suggested to Shirley that AEG also photocopy date stamps at beginning of book.
Jenny still has Sphere volumes minus the relevant one which Mike took when he left + £70!
KS asked Shirley to see whether we could get hold of these books from Jenny.
[It's not clear whether Shirley had spoken directly to Jenny, or whether it was Mike who claimed Jenny still had the books 'minus the relevant one'. I have no idea what the £70 was all about.]
Wednesday 17th April 2002
Melvin Harris posts on internet: Doubtful Standards
Harris states he will not be naming diary forgers in his new book and is not obliged to explain why.
'Alan [Gray] has done no more than faithfully record the bare facts. He was first told about an evidential book in August 1994…' 'It became relevant only when he was re-engaged by Mike during the first week of September.' 'It was in that week, that the book was named variously as a poem book, as a Sphere book of poems, as a Sphere book of poetry.'
'I first made contact with Alan Gray in the last week of October 1994. This was at the request of the Sunday Times. When I asked about hard evidence he told me about the Sphere book…'
MB 'never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes. And he did not mention it to the Liverpool Post because he held it in reserve as a possible money spinner'.
Source: Melvin Harris, 17th April 2002, Internet JtR Casebook (CAM/KS/2002)
I can see two problems with the above, Steven. Firstly, neither Gray nor Melvin Harris ever produced this 'faithfully' recorded bare fact, that he was told about 'a Sphere book' of poetry as early as 'the first week of September' 1994. And of course, by 'the last week of October 1994', when Harris first made contact with Gray, everyone knew about it, except that Mike had so far not shown his 'hard evidence' - the Sphere Volume 2 itself - to any investigator.
Secondly, Melvin Harris appears to shoot himself in the foot by stating that Mike 'never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her'. I'm wondering if this was because even Harris found it hard to believe that Mike would have let the Crashaw volume slip out of his hands like that. Or might Harris have managed to ascertain from Jenny herself [via Gray?], that Volume 2 was not among the books Mike had lent her son? If Mike did take back the volume described as 'the relevant one', might this have been Volume 6, The Victorians? It would make sense, because this was the volume Mike referred to by mistake, when phoning Shirley to say he'd found the quote in a library book. He told her he 'thought' it was in Volume 6. Did he retrieve the wrong volume from Jenny and try to find the quote again? I'd be willing to bet the Victorians would have been the first, and most obvious one he'd have flicked through in the library. Shirley had to send him back there to find the right one. Was that when he realised his mistake and knew he'd have to track down a Volume 2 of his own?
Moving swiftly on...
Thursday 2nd May 2002
Letter from KS to Jenny (Morrison), copied to SH and Seth:
KS tells Jenny about diary book and wishes to clarify MB's report of giving her son, James, some books during summer of 1994.
Rather complex story that KS would prefer to discuss with Jenny and James in person.
KS will ask SH to telephone Jenny on his behalf, to vouch for his credibility. Then KS will give Jenny a call.
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/2002
Monday 21st – Friday 25th October 2002
'Ripper Diary' research trip to Liverpool:
Note made by CAM [that's me!] on Tuesday 22nd October:
'Contact Jenny re price of car and Mike's birthday party, in May 1994.'
Keith can’t remember the significance of the birthday party question, and neither can I! But what Keith does remember is Seth telephoning Jenny to try and arrange to see her and Jenny not wanting to be involved. She couldn't remember very much and neither could her son - didn't have the books anymore – didn't know what had happened to them - so not much point in us going to see her.
Hope this helps!
Love,
Caz
X
-
Wednesday 29th March 1995
Extracts from typed letter from MB to Doreen M:
A lady – not Jenny – has been looking after MB.
MB says he can't help still being in love with Anne.
MB shows sense of humour over Robert's one-time suggestion that he write a book about what has gone on behind the scenes of the diary: 'Iv'e caused one Nigthmare by producing the Dairy, you could always give him an other by asking him to ediot this lot….' [sic]
MB asks if Doreen now understands why he wanted them all to believe Anne wrote diary – simply to get back at her and hurt her the way she hurt him.
'We all know Tony gave me that Diary.' But MB has yet to see proof that Anne is related to Florie. MB researched diary and spent sleepless nights over it – not Anne.
She leaves him, then less than eight months later she is some sort of relative of Florie.
MB complains about the world knowing he is an alcoholic because of SH's book.
Thursday 20th July 1995
Extract from Mike Barrett, Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner and Martin Howells in conversation at Baker Street:
MB: I am not trying to get back at Anne. Anne tried to get back at me for something I didn't do. She accused me of sleeping with Jenny and I never did. So I said, "Sod it, I wrote the bleedin' diary and to hell with it all."
Thursday 14th September 1995
Memo from SH to 'The Team':
Jenny's address and phone number given.
MB reported finding 'O costly…' quote on 30th September 1994.
Sally and SH saw MB at Jenny's house on 22nd June 1994.
KS adds note: MB told SH and Sally on 22nd June 1994 that he was going to say he forged diary – then, after Brough article and prior to paperback coming out, MB calmed down and SH told him to do something constructive – ie. source 'O costly…' quote.
More shortly...
Love,
Caz
X
Leave a comment:
-
Thanks Caz, fascinating as always. So Jenny confirmed that MB did indeed give her books which he'd obtained with the intention of raising money for the Hillsborough fund, but not exactly what those books were? I reckon the story is broadly true, but that the Sphere volume wasn't among said books.Originally posted by caz View PostLeave a comment:
-
Wednesday 18th January 1995
Extracts from a recorded conversation between MB and KS, SH, Sally Evemy and an independent witness:
MB admits making false statement to Brough to "get back at Anne" for not speaking to him or letting him see Caroline from January to May 1994.
Says he knows diary is genuine.
Says he made up stuff about forging diary and watch just to "kick up the ****".
He is bitter about his efforts to work out diary author’s identity "night in, night out", hour after hour, while Anne was upstairs.
MB confirms the "bloody great big blazing argument" with Anne over getting diary published, not understanding why she was so against it if it was genuine, as he believed it to be, after all his efforts night after night.
MB bemoans his debts etc. SH asks what happened to all his diary money. He says he "pissed it up against the wall" because Anne wasn't with him.
MB says he wants to prove diary a forgery to "get back at Anne", but is frustrated that he can't do so. Again expresses anger towards PF for various threats, phone-calls and pressure.
KS asks MB about Alan Gray. Says he found him through Yellow Pages, wanting a private detective to find Anne. Says Gray got caught up in diary story. MB gave Gray list of ripperologists, including Melvin Harris.
MB says he made up story about Outhwaite & Litherland while drunk, but is still prepared to "kick up the ****" and swear diary is forgery until he can see Anne.
Sees it as his only way to achieve this.
Talks about his kidney problems, low self-esteem, role-reversal with Anne working, all pre-diary. Wanted a bash at writing through enterprise allowance scheme. Felt Anne was taking something away from him by having to step in and tidy up his interview articles. He "failed miserably" doing it by himself and ended up even more frustrated.
Then MB organised auction for Hillsborough disaster fund (from April 1989), among items received from Sphere Books were volumes of poetry, too "heavy and deep" for him to understand.
Kept these back, later giving them to Jenny, a friend of his, for her son. Says while reading SH's book, he came across 'oh costly' reference in same volumes in library. Checking at Jenny's, he found volumes matched. Also says he found same volumes, "piles of them", in an out-of-print bookshop. Proud of his find, his attitude is, "I've found it, so screw the lot of 'em".
MB says he didn't take diary seriously at first. Never heard of 'Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick' before SH mentioned it to him. Says TD was dead before MB connected James Maybrick to diary. Says he concentrated on ripper stuff first, not thinking of Liverpool angle until later.
Before SH got involved, he had checked ripper books such as Rumbelow, Paul Harrison, A-Z, Stephen Knight. But not John Morrison (when asked specifically by SH).
MB denies ability to write diary, citing alcoholism, lack of skills. Made up story of which ink he used, again to "get back at Anne". Says he chose Bluecoat Chambers for convenience, simply because of the one-way system.
Says he lied about taking photos from front of journal, again the lie was to "get back at Anne".
MB says he discovered JtR's identity, only to end up with "no marriage, no daughter, no money, no nothing".
Hates world knowing about his alcoholism, marital problems etc.
MB says he is broke, deeply hurt by Anne's actions, and intends to "fight back".
More in a bit...
Love,
Caz
XLeave a comment:
-
Hello Steven,Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
Sorry for the delay in responding. Not all that much seems to be known about Jenny, but I can let you have the following information, which I have taken from my diary timeline for 1994:
Friday 17th June 1994
Extract of letter from Doreen Montgomery to Anne Graham:
Doreen has learned of emergence of Jenny in MB's life:
'It would be good to feel that at least she is keeping him off the drink...'
Wednesday 22nd June 1994
Shirley H and Sally see MB at new girlfriend Jenny's house. MB tells them he is going to say he forged diary.
Tuesday 13th September 1994
Extract of letter from Doreen M to MB:
'I don’t want to keep on harping on the amount of money you have got through, but I do have to say that £40,000 odd is a considerable sum and I just can't bear to think of it having been wasted. The small amounts paid out – for Jenny's car, for example – are a drop in the ocean in comparison.'
Wednesday 12th October 1994
KS notes ansafone message left by SH re 'O Costly…' quote:
Shirley phoned Jenny (MB's current girlfriend) who corroborated MB's story that during the summer he had taken books around to Jenny's son, James, who was studying for his O levels. MB thought books (which he had acquired for Hillsborough Disaster Auction) might help him – but, in fact, they were too advanced. Anne apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction.* During Mike’s serious week at library, when he found the reference, he later recalled that he had these particular books, which were the ones he had loaned to James. Mike insisted he discovered the reference for himself at the library - and nobody did it for him.
Mike has appt this pm with solicitor (to discuss divorce) – will take book with him.
According to SH, Jenny says that MB was trying to use the book to prove he forged diary, but Jenny doesn't believe him.
[*Note for Mandy Rice-J Palmer re Anne's denial, to save time later: Well she would, wouldn't she?]
Wednesday 12th October 1994
KS scribbles a note for himself:- Corroborate that MB has been spending a lot of time at Library.
- Ask librarian whether she remembers MB pestering her about books.
- Ask Anne
- Ask MB to produce book
Liz Winter, assistant to MB’s solicitor, Richard Bark-Jones, has thirty-minute phone call with MB. From her notes:
“O sweet [sic] intercourse of death”, Vol 2 P 184. In diary. Santa [sic] Maria 1643-1652. Found phrase in library.
Tuesday 6th December 1994
Alan Gray & Mike Barrett: audio cassette recording
The Sphere volume containing 'O costly…' is handed over to Alan Gray at MB's solicitors.
Next post will be from 1995 and beyond...
Love,
Caz
X
Last edited by caz; 05-13-2020, 01:57 PM.Leave a comment:
-
Apologies all. I realised in horror that my arithmetic was badly wrong here. My mother was a strict maths teacher, so she would have been very cross.Originally posted by caz View Post
I meant 25 years later, not 15. Shows you how long this has been rumbling on, doesn't it?
More later...
Love,
Caz
X
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Observer,Originally posted by Observer View Post
The only slight problem with your observations is that Mike's sworn affidavit was typed up by Alan Gray. Keith has the original six paged blue carbon typed copy which Gray gave to him.
Do you now think what Gray was doing here was to 'emphasie' in a 'disstinctive' way his own shortcomings at spelling, or Mike's? Whose side was he on?
This would support my previous observation that poor spellers sometimes get words right, and they sometimes get words wrong, because if they knew the difference... you know the rest.
Love,
Caz
XLeave a comment:
-
Hi Steven,Originally posted by StevenOwl View Post
That's a great question. Yes, if we took Jenny out of the equation, we'd only have Mike's word for it that he owned a copy before early December 1994, when he finally handed Alan Gray the used one. But can we take her out of the equation? If I may, I'll return to this tomorrow, when I have looked afresh at what was done at the time to try and ascertain which books Jenny may have been given by Mike, during the summer of his discontent.
Love,
Caz
XLeave a comment:
-
Just to add to the above, R.J, do you believe Mike's correspondence could be divided into two distinct piles - letters he deliberately wrote badly, whenever he was denying that he forged the diary, and letters he wrote well enough to show he was capable, whenever he was claiming to have created the text? Or would this have been blindingly obvious to anyone he was writing to, depending on whether he was lying to them or telling the truth at the time? And would this have been even more blindingly obvious to anyone reading a whole array of his letters, sent to different people at different times? You might want to consider whether he deliberately kept his literacy at a low level for the sake of consistency [because he didn't really want to be charged with forgery, for instance], or whether the boy just couldn't help it.
Love,
Caz
XLeave a comment:
-
First of all, I have just returned to this thread and will be reading the latest posts in the order in which they were written, so please bear with me as I attempt to address any outstanding questions. Thanks everyone.Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
Hi R.J,
"Well he would, wouldn't he?"
That was kind of missing the point, though, wasn't it? Towards the end of 1994, Mike was proving himself pretty much incapable of telling a straight story and sticking to it. I'm sure that wasn't helped by the booze, but evidently you believe he was trying to tell the truth about his part in creating the diary, even though he was obviously finding it increasingly hard to remember the salient details and give a coherent and accurate account. And yet, when it comes to his 'lie' - as you believe it to be - about never having heard of Ryan's book until Shirley mentioned it to him, which he told on at least two occasions, either side of the forgery claims he made between June 1994 and January 1995, you can readily accept that he was more than capable of keeping that particular story straight as a poker and sticking with it, when it suited him to do so. Keith sat talking with Mike for 3 hours in April 1994, not realising that just two months later he would claim to have faked the diary. During the interview Mike told Keith that the only book he had read with any Maybrick content was Tales of Liverpool and that it was Shirley who had suggested he look at Ryan's book - the same book you believe he used for creating the diary text. Then came the madness of the next few months, and on January 18th 1995, he met up with Keith and Shirley, among others, and repeated his 'lie' almost word for word, that he'd never heard of the book until Shirley mentioned it to him. Shirley was there, so presumably she'd have been able to contradict Mike if she'd never pointed him in Ryan's direction, just as he was still claiming. That doesn't prove he was telling the truth about his initial ignorance of the book, but it does demonstrate he was capable of keeping this story straight, when talking to Keith and Shirley, just 13 days after he got in such a complete mucking fuddle with his affidavit, that he put the 11-day miracle before Tony Devereux's death, which he dated back to 1990:
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... 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.
The answer to your question about Keith's transcription of Mike's letter, is that it is one of many which appear to Keith to have been written while he was angry and drunk. A subjective opinion, but there are also letters from Mike which appear controlled and not so frenetic. In some letters he admits and apologises for sending previous letters while drunk. Throughout, Keith tried to follow Mike’s spelling and his use of upper and lower case lettering, but he says it is very difficult because sometimes Mike prints words, sometimes he writes them, and sometimes they are a combination of both and it is often difficult to differentiate between upper and lower case. Keith asks if the sender of the Lusk Letter knew it was going to be publicly advertised, or if Mike knew that his letter to Shirley would be transcribed and put up on the message boards 15 years later, for someone to pounce on a single word and suggest he was only pretending to be illiterate.
My own view is that a genuinely poor speller might have a good idea when they have botched a word badly, but they don't know - without being able to use a dictionary - when they get it right. If they knew that, they wouldn't be a poor speller. I've seen many such examples, where there was nothing to suggest a deliberate attempt to dumb down. I recently saw someone spelling the Eiffel Tower one way, then another way, while they were hosting a virtual pub quiz, in front of around 170,000 viewers, so while you might find this 'somewhat suspicious', I doubt the host was even aware of their mistake.
A perfectly literate person, on the other hand, would be able to spell a word consistently badly, especially if they were intent on giving someone a false impression of their abilities. I see the Lusk letter in a different light because it was anonymous and intended to cause mischief, rather than to deceive Lusk into thinking the sender was genuinely semi-literate.
Love,
Caz
XLeave a comment:
-
Great line from Erobitha there: "Half truths, false memories, criminal endeavour and mixed testimonies make it extremely tough. But all of this is natural human behaviour, it is more odd if everyone was precise to exact dates and times and testimonies"
Take that and apply it to any aspect of the case, past or present, be it testimonies, private correspondence or memoirs. Or a man in a pub.Leave a comment:
-
This is where I do have to admit some challenge in my own timeline of events. I do believe the watch was part of the haul found at Battlecrease House and for it to emerge 5 months later in a local shop would account for "convenient" timing of the find in conjunction with the diary and I do believe this. I can't use the Murphy's testimony to suit my own case if what they say are at odds with my own belief, so I have to admit my challeneges here. It is entirely possible I am wrong and the watch was not in Battlecrease House. The house was cleared in the 1970's by a local antiques dealer who I believe also came into contact with a number of the artefacts in 1992. I do not have his name (yet), but there could be some kind of link to the shop where the watch was found, which is what I suspect. No reputable antiques dealer would admit to knowingly fencing stolen goods. Which I believe this one did. So this leads to me having some distrust myself in the Murphy's testimony too. These testimonies were recorded by Keith Skinner for Shirley Harrison and in the Diary of The Jack Ripper book.Originally posted by Observer View Post
It's not. Because the same particles have to appear towards the top and along the inner walls of the scratches, not just at the base.They were black through oxidisation and having been there for some considerable time. You cant buffer the sides of the scratches.Originally posted by Observer View Post
I don't believe Dundas remembers the correct watch, I believe a number of details he dscribed about the watch were later to be proved to be incorrect such as it being a ladies watch and with verity printed on the front.Originally posted by Observer View Post
Or simply someone like Ron Murphy who claimed he did it to try and buffer the scratches out in the hope it would sell better without the obvious scratches.Originally posted by Observer View Post
Unpicking the real chain of events from what is fact and what is fiction has made the whole provenance of the Maybrick artefacts almost an impossible task and therefore has made them near imposible to validate. I cannot disagree with that. Half truths, false memories, criminal endeavour (theft not forgery) and mixed testimonies make it extremely tough. But all of this is natural human behaviour, it is more odd if everyone was precise to exact dates and times and testimonies. My only hope now is either Eddie Lyons eventually comes clean or there are better scientific tests available today that can offer more clarity around dating the watch and the diary.
It's one thing believing, it's a whole lot harder proving!Leave a comment:
-
Firstly you're correct the watch was purchased in Wallasey in July 1992. Mr Murphy the owner, had been given it by his father in law a number of years prior to that. Seeing that the floorboards in Battlecrease House were lifted in March 1992 how could the watch have surfaced from underneath the floorboards at that date?Originally posted by erobitha View Post
With regard to the actual engravings, it's quite simple, an aged inscribing tool was used to engrave them, it's as simple as that.
Where did you get the information that the original owner of the watch, the man who sold it to Mr Murphy's father in Law, had a Liverpool accent? Feldman tried to interview Murphy's father in law at the time but he was in bad health, so it would interesting to know where this information came from. Not that it matters much, as Lancaster is only up the road from Liverpool.
Everyone of them remembers scratches in the back? Yes, but there are scratches to the back of the watch in a neater hand than those associated with the "Maybrick" scratches, that is they are not associated with the Maybrick group, and seeing that none of them knew specifically what any of the scratches consisted of, you're jumping the gun somewhat to say that what they were looking at were The Maybrick group of scratches, they didn't know that. However, one man did inspect the scratches, and that was Mr Dundas, who stated that the words "Maybrick," or "I am Jack" were not scratched into the back of the watch when he overhauled it. But now you're going to tell me that the watch Dundas overhauled was not the one Johnston bought. The thing is he was adamant it was.
Now to Dr Turgoose, he reported that the edges of the Maybrick scratches were smooth and polished out. He then went on to say that they could have been artificially aged by polishing but it would have been a complex multi stage process, heaven knows why. The point is Dr Turgoose is a scientist, and he was looking at the scratches themselves he seems to have missed the fact that the scratches are on the inside back cover of the watch. Now the watch is I believe 18 carat gold, gold doesn't tarnish, especially so on the inside back cover. Who on earth would constantly polish the inside back cover of an 18 carat gold pocket watch to the extent that it wore down the edges of the engravings? What's the point, the inside back cover is not on display. I know someone who would do that, someone who thought that the engravings they had produced looked a bit new and so they decided to age them by polishing them. They would have done better to leave them, for if they had been produced in 1888/89 being on the inside back cover they would have looked as pristine as the day they were engraved, and thus more authentic.Last edited by Observer; 05-11-2020, 10:37 PM.Leave a comment:
-
How can you forge aged brass particles in the base of engravings that have been there "for some considerable time". In fact tens of years was stated in one report? It is only likely possible with highly specialist knowledge and expensiove machinery to even attempt such a thing. "The scratches could have been very, very old and were certainly not new but it is difficult to be precise," Dr Wild said. He also told Robert Smith privately as he could could not get quite the smoking gun of precise dating accurate enough to say so in his report, but he believed there was every chance they from 1888.Originally posted by Observer View Post
Stanley Dangar, a former member of the British Horological Society was originally tasked (allegedly) by a well-known Ripperologist with an opposing view to help prove the watch was a fake. He tried to prove these aged brass engravings could be faked by trying to recreate the results in a lab in Germany. He failed miserably. Dangar later became a proponent of both the watch and diary.
Albert bought the watch from an antiques shop in Wallasey owned by Ron & Suzanne Murphy. The Murphy's claim the watch was part of stock given to them by Suzanne's father who owned an antiques shop in Lancaster called "Firth Antiques". He in turn claims he bought from a chap with a Liverpool accent. Are all of these people in on the forgery as well? Are they all complicit in this elaborate hoax? Everyone of them remember the scratches in the back.Leave a comment:
-
I am aware that Albert Johnston owned the watch, so if it is a forgery, and I fully believe it is, then it's takes some believing that he was not aware that it had been doctored. Whats more to state that Maybrick was Jack The Ripper is nothing short of slander. There's not the slightest evidence, apart from the hoax of a Diary, to suggest he was Jack The Ripper. Also lets look at the whiter than white Albert Johnston. If you believe that the watch came from under the floorboards of Battlecrease House then that makes Albert Johnston a liar because he said he bought it from a jeweler in Chester.Originally posted by erobitha View Post
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: