the diary

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

thanks for your response - I'd forgotten or never actually knew that Doreen had requested a transcript, but now I think about it, didn't Anne tell Feldman that she type it to Mike's dictation, as his typing skills were non-existent?

Re: Battlecrease provenance, I am still mightily interested in Feldman's story of the electricians and Liverpool University...can you shed any further light on this episode?

Bye,

Graham

[caz]

The story Mike Barrett told about Tony his mate giving him the diary immediately stops the police in their tracks .With Tony dead how can they possibly investigate with a view to prosecution.I think you have to remember Mr barretts original plan was to raise enough money to buy a greenhouse.If the person or persons involved in this had thought it would have become as huge as it did then I think a little more planning would have gone into the discovery of the diary.

Hi Pinky,

Well, as I said, it would not have hampered the police if Tony had been involved in theft or fraud and had left some evidence of it among his effects when he died suddenly. I just don't believe Mike would have named Tony in such circumstances.

I agree that if this had been someone's attempt to make a killing with a fake ripper confession, you'd think the 'discovery' would have been far better planned. A Battlecrease provenance would of course have been ideal, yet Mike has always rejected this outright, in favour of his hopeless dead mate story.

Following Keith Skinner's 2007 revelation, I knew there would be suggestions that Mike and co must have planted their fake diary in Battlecrease, but nobody explains what the conspirators were hoping would happen when it was found, how they were expecting to make a penny out of it themselves, or why nobody, Mike included, has been willing to acknowledge or promote this perfect provenance. Even if money wasn't the object (which is the usual get-out clause) the fakers should still have wanted the most to be made of an engineered Battlecrease find, to give their hard work the very greatest chance of sucess, yet it was shunned like a bad smell.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But what of the transcript of the 'Diary' on Mike's computer? Melvin Harris made a big thing of this (as would be expected) but as far as I can recall the police weren't interested, were they?

ATB,

Graham

Morning Graham,

From memory, I think Doreen asked Mike if he (and/or Anne) could produce a typed transcript fairly early on, which makes sense when you think about it. Copies could then be used for checking the diary content against the known ripper and Maybrick facts, while the original could just be handled by the various forensic people and handwriting examiners. Also, any errors in transcription made by the Barretts might indicate that they were not directly involved in creating the content, and had the same problems interpreting the sometimes tricky handwriting as anyone else might.

Evidently the police found nothing suspicious on Mike's word processor, for example a draft transcript, ie typed before the original diary came to light, although I don't know if they could have dated one. Assuming there was only the one transcript, and it proved consistent with the one Doreen asked for, there would be nothing suspicious about that and no proof there was ever a draft version.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

The story Mike Barrett told about Tony his mate giving him the diary immediately stops the police in their tracks .With Tony dead how can they possibly investigate with a view to prosecution.I think you have to remember Mr barretts original plan was to raise enough money to buy a greenhouse.If the person or persons involved in this had thought it would have become as huge as it did then I think a little more planning would have gone into the discovery of the diary.

[Graham]

Hi Caz,

Paul Dodds never made a fuss or asked the police to investigate a possible theft, arguably because he had no idea if the diary had been in his house or not, and considered it unlikely

I think Paul Dodds said at some point that he was already a little fed up with the number of sightseers turning up apropos the Maybrick Case, this before the 'Diary' was introduced to the public. Obviously I never met him, but he seems a very obliging if long-suffering chap to me.

So the police were only really looking into the possibility of a fraudulent diary written to deceive the public and make money

.

Exactly. And the two cops who arrived at Mike Barrett's house where, as I understand it, not investigating him personally.

Another observation I would make is that the Saddle was Mike Barrett's local as much as it was Tony Devereux's, and it was Mike who introduced Tony's name into the story several months after his death from a sudden heart attack. Dead men tell no tales, which didn't Mike actually say at one point?

Yes, indeed he did. The Devereux sisters were absolutely adamant that their father had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'Diary', either its production or 'discovery'.

However, if Tony had been involved in theft or anything of a fraudulent nature, and Mike knew it, it would still have been exceptionally foolish of Mike to name his dead pal as the person who gave him the diary, because he could not have known what evidence may have been left around Tony's home that could have incriminated all concerned. Particularly, for instance, if this had been a modern fake created by Tony or with his help, there could have been a dozen drafts of the diary among his papers for the police to find, which he had not got round to shredding before suddenly collapsing and dying.

Exactly No 2. But what of the transcript of the 'Diary' on Mike's computer? Melvin Harris made a big thing of this (as would be expected) but as far as I can recall the police weren't interested, were they?

ATB,

Graham

[caz]

(The house next to that of a friend's had some serious work done on it last year, and all the old 6-panel doors were removed and put in a skip. Next morning they were gone. Now, as the doors would have been destroyed anyway, was their abstraction from the skip actually theft?)

Hi Graham,

It is technically theft for anyone not involved to relieve a skip of its contents, which by law (I think, but don't quote me) belong to whoever has the job of emptying it and disposing of everything, whether that's the owner of the property, the skip (if it's a private hire) or the local council.

Paul Dodds never made a fuss or asked the police to investigate a possible theft, arguably because he had no idea if the diary had been in his house or not, and considered it unlikely. So the police were only really looking into the possibility of a fraudulent diary written to deceive the public and make money.

Another observation I would make is that the Saddle was Mike Barrett's local as much as it was Tony Devereux's, and it was Mike who introduced Tony's name into the story several months after his death from a sudden heart attack. Dead men tell no tales, which didn't Mike actually say at one point?

However, if Tony had been involved in theft or anything of a fraudulent nature, and Mike knew it, it would still have been exceptionally foolish of Mike to name his dead pal as the person who gave him the diary, because he could not have known what evidence may have been left around Tony's home that could have incriminated all concerned. Particularly, for instance, if this had been a modern fake created by Tony or with his help, there could have been a dozen drafts of the diary among his papers for the police to find, which he had not got round to shredding before suddenly collapsing and dying.

So no, if Tony had been involved in theft or fraud, there would have been any number of innocent souls Mike could have resurrected and recruited instead, all of whom had nothing to hide and no possible connection with anything dodgy to do with the diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Frankly, I am inclined to accept the Devereux daughters' claim that their father had nothing to do with the 'Diary', that they had never seen it or heard him refer to it, and that it had never been in Tony Devereux's house.
The plot, as they say, thickens.....

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Devereux's nearly immediate death made him the perfect diary discoverer. It seems to be always the case in this shill that someone's dying, insane, or a compulsive liar. And that isn't just the diarists.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

Feldman said that whereas one of the electricians in true Baldric style denied everything, the other said that he drank at The Saddle, which was Devereux's local and therefore there was a good chance they knew one another. But even if this was the case, even if the 'Diary' had been rescued from Battlecrease, why should its finder(s) pass it on to Tony Devereux?

Ah, so Devereux could have got a drinking buddy to plant the scrapbook in Battlecrease perhaps.

[Graham]

Hi PM,

I didn't say that pinching the 'Diary' from Battlecrease wasn't a crime - of course it is. But the Merseyside police were interested in the possibility of a fraud being perpetrated. I'm sure that two senior detectives wouldn't get involved over some old book being abstracted from a rubbish skip, naughty though that might be. (The house next to that of a friend's had some serious work done on it last year, and all the old 6-panel doors were removed and put in a skip. Next morning they were gone. Now, as the doors would have been destroyed anyway, was their abstraction from the skip actually theft?)

I agree with you that the 'Diary' is an old forgery, fake, call it what you will, and that at some time during its existence it resided at Battlecrease. Can't wait for Keith Skinner to spill the beans, but I wonder now if he ever will.....?

Cheers,

Graham

[pinkmoon]

In fairness to both Mike Barrett and Paul Feldman, Billy Graham (Anne's father) was alive at the time Feldman began his investigations and was interviewed, if that is the right word, by both Feldman and Keith Skinner. However, even if Feldman believed it, I could never accept as the Gospel Truth the claim that the 'Diary' had been in the Graham family since at least 1940. I do get the impression that Feldman was putting words into Anne's mouth. Feldman wanted the 'Diary' to be a Graham family heirloom, as it would then fit in with his conviction that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. If the 'Diary' was indeed nicked from Battlecrease, then as far as the law is concerned stealing it out of honest academic interest as opposed to stealing it to make money out of it would be two different things. But we all know that the Liverpool police concluded that no criminal charges of fraud or anything else would be proceeded with, so where do we go from here?

Gotta get some sleep now, so more hopefully tomorrow.

Graham

Mr Graham was an old and sick man when he was brought into this like I said before with him and Mr devereux dead police cannot do a thing.If that diary was taken from battlecrease without owners consent it would be theft and any money generated from it would belong to Mr dodds.I have no doubt that the diary is an old forgery not a modern one which has at sometime been in battlecrease house

[Graham]

In fairness to both Mike Barrett and Paul Feldman, Billy Graham (Anne's father) was alive at the time Feldman began his investigations and was interviewed, if that is the right word, by both Feldman and Keith Skinner. However, even if Feldman believed it, I could never accept as the Gospel Truth the claim that the 'Diary' had been in the Graham family since at least 1940. I do get the impression that Feldman was putting words into Anne's mouth. Feldman wanted the 'Diary' to be a Graham family heirloom, as it would then fit in with his conviction that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. If the 'Diary' was indeed nicked from Battlecrease, then as far as the law is concerned stealing it out of honest academic interest as opposed to stealing it to make money out of it would be two different things. But we all know that the Liverpool police concluded that no criminal charges of fraud or anything else would be proceeded with, so where do we go from here?

Gotta get some sleep now, so more hopefully tomorrow.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

PM,

Mike Barrett, according to what I've read about him at any rate, never once conceded to the possibility that the 'Diary' came to him via his wife. However,
at the same time, there is no chance that he wrote the bloody thing either.
Yes, I think you're right - by claiming that the 'Diary' came to him via Tony Devereux did, in Mike Barrett's mind at least, eliminate the possibility that he'd nicked it, or received it as stolen goods. Anne said she gave the 'Diary' to Devereux to pass on to Mike because she didn't want Mike to know that it had been in her family for many years. I never got my head around that, to be honest. What did she expect Mike to do with it? Write a scholarly treatise, or make a good go at turning it into a few quid? This is Liverpool remember...not Oxford or Cambridge.
However, if you've ever had the navvies in at your house, with a skip on the drive, do you religiously and carefully go through what they chuck out?

Graham

Graham there is no way Mike Barrett could have forged that diary I personally wouldn't even send him to the shop to buy a newspaper for me.By bringing two dead people into this story( Mr devereux and Mr Graham) would make any criminal charges impossible.If that diary came from battlecrease it legally belonged to the owner of battlecrease a Mr dodds I believe

[Graham]

PM,

Mike Barrett, according to what I've read about him at any rate, never once conceded to the possibility that the 'Diary' came to him via his wife. However,
at the same time, there is no chance that he wrote the bloody thing either.
Yes, I think you're right - by claiming that the 'Diary' came to him via Tony Devereux did, in Mike Barrett's mind at least, eliminate the possibility that he'd nicked it, or received it as stolen goods. Anne said she gave the 'Diary' to Devereux to pass on to Mike because she didn't want Mike to know that it had been in her family for many years. I never got my head around that, to be honest. What did she expect Mike to do with it? Write a scholarly treatise, or make a good go at turning it into a few quid? This is Liverpool remember...not Oxford or Cambridge.

However, if you've ever had the navvies in at your house, with a skip on the drive, do you religiously and carefully go through what they chuck out?

Graham

[pinkmoon]

I never understood the role of Tony Devereux in the 'Diary' story. Mike Barrett initially claimed that he was given the 'Diary', carefully wrapped in brown paper, by Devereux and told by him to 'do something with it'. Like what? Sadly, Devereux died before the 'Diary' came to light, so he couldn't be questioned, but his daughters vehemently denied that their father had anything whatsoever to do with the 'Diary', and in addition added that their father wasn't even on very good terms with Mike Barrett.

Then Anne Barrett says that when she had decided to let Mike have the 'Diary', again to 'do something with it', she passed it to him via Devereux. Why him? Why anyone? If the 'Diary' had genuinely been in her family since at least 1940, as she claimed, why pass it to Mike via a third party? Why did she not apparently want Mike to know that the 'Diary' was, as she later claimed according to Feldman, a Graham family heirloom?

Frankly, I am inclined to accept the Devereux daughters' claim that their father had nothing to do with the 'Diary', that they had never seen it or heard him refer to it, and that it had never been in Tony Devereux's house.
The plot, as they say, thickens.....

More later.

Graham

If you look at that final story about how Mr barrett came to be given the diary via his wife it very convientally makes it virtually impossible for any criminal charges and it also gives the diary a history very convenient.Mr Devereux had nothing to do with the diary I think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and in the wrong health

[Graham]

I never understood the role of Tony Devereux in the 'Diary' story. Mike Barrett initially claimed that he was given the 'Diary', carefully wrapped in brown paper, by Devereux and told by him to 'do something with it'. Like what? Sadly, Devereux died before the 'Diary' came to light, so he couldn't be questioned, but his daughters vehemently denied that their father had anything whatsoever to do with the 'Diary', and in addition added that their father wasn't even on very good terms with Mike Barrett.

Then Anne Barrett says that when she had decided to let Mike have the 'Diary', again to 'do something with it', she passed it to him via Devereux. Why him? Why anyone? If the 'Diary' had genuinely been in her family since at least 1940, as she claimed, why pass it to Mike via a third party? Why did she not apparently want Mike to know that the 'Diary' was, as she later claimed according to Feldman, a Graham family heirloom?

Frankly, I am inclined to accept the Devereux daughters' claim that their father had nothing to do with the 'Diary', that they had never seen it or heard him refer to it, and that it had never been in Tony Devereux's house.
The plot, as they say, thickens.....

More later.

Graham