the diary

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[The Good Michael]

didn't Anne tell Feldman that she type it to Mike's dictation, as his typing skills were non-existent?

jumping in....that's exactly right. That's what it said in the book.


Mike

[Graham]

jumping in....that's exactly right. That's what it said in the book.


Mike

Thank you GM. I really must get my Diary books back from the bloke I lent them to.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

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

Hi caz thanks for the nice reply I do believe that any story we are now told about the diary just won't be believed.After meeting Mr Barrett several times over the year's I always got the impression there was something else in the background to all this that hasn't been touched on and I have formed my own theory where diary came from I wonder if it could be same as Mr Skinners which dates from 2007 and hasn't been released to us yet

[pinkmoon]

the only thing

The only thing that makes me think that the diary is a modern forgery is the fact the forger didn't use a proper diary it would have easy and cheap to purchase one in 1880s .I don't know what the availability and price of a blank Victorian diary would have been around 1990 maybe just to expensive for our modern forger

[Graham]

Yes, but it isn't a 'diary' in the sense that it's a regularly-kept record of one man's thoughts and doings written down on a daily basis. It's more of an on-going memoir, probably intended to come across as being written as and when time and mood allowed. So many detractors have raised this point, that Maybrick was a wealthy man (he wasn't) and could afford a 'proper' diary - or, to be accurate, two diaries to cover the years 1888 and 1889. Whoever wrote it had access to a nice hard-backed journal or notebook, and used it. These days we'd probably use an A4 pad.

So c'mon, Pinkmoon....just what did Mike Barrett tell you about the 'Diary'....?

Graham