the diary

[Kaz]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;276083]

Maybrick only become connected to the ripper case when diary appeared so to try and put him as the ripper is quite far fetched try and study a more serious suspect like the elephant man or Lewis Carroll or Dracula.

Go and get your teeth into dracula then...






People like harrison and feldman invested tens of thousands of hours in the diary, not to mention money out of their own pockets, how in any way does financial gain change what's written in it?

Maybrick far outweighs most as a valid suspect.

I still wonder how differently the diary would be viewed IF anne and her father had come forward with it.

[Graham]

Hi PM,

which 'diary book' are you referring to? Shirley Harrison's or Paul Feldman's? Or another?

Feldman was a serious believer in Maybrick as the Ripper, to the extent that it appeared to take over his life. He put a sum of money well into 6 figures into his researches, or so I understand, all but ruining him. He was first and foremost a film and TV producer, and had in mind a movie based on Maybrick as the Ripper, and was looking forward to some serious Hollywood backing, but this all fell apart when the 'experts' proclaimed that the 'Diary' was a modern fake and the hoped-for backers pulled out. I don't know how many copies of his book were sold, but probably nowhere near enough to make up for his personal expenditure in researching and writing it. Caz will have more info on this, I'm sure. I don't think Shirley Harrison made a fortune out of her book either, nor out of the book she wrote with Anne Barrett-Graham as a collaborator called 'The Last Victim'. I've never read it, have to be honest.

Mike Barrett, or so I understand, received about £70000 in royalties and squandered the lot. Anne Barrett refused to accept any royalties, but did I believe eventually agree to accepting some money for the benefit of her daughter.

Hi Kaz,

unfortunately I have to disagree with you - I do not believe that Maybrick is a valid suspect, the 'Diary', Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and others notwithstanding. Prior to the 'discovery' of the 'Diary', Maybrick was known only as the disputed victim in a celebrated Victorian murder-trial. What the 'Diary' actually means by the line Dear Bunny knows all is open to conjecture - if the 'Diary' has anything to do with Maybrick either direct or remotely, then that line could mean almost anything. And of course until the 'Diary' came along there was absolutely nothing to link Maybrick with the Ripper Murders, and I'm sure that if he had been a suspect then his name would have been associated with the Ripper well before the Year Of The Diary.

Yes, IF Anne had made the 'Diary' public independently of her husband, then things may have been viewed in a different light; but she didn't. She claims to have passed it to Mike via Devereux, as we all know. I wonder if this was because Mike was beginning to get cold feet about the 'Diary', and its possible consequences as far as he himself was concerned? As I suggested previously, I don't think even Feldman really accepted Anne's story of how the 'Diary' came into Mike's possession, and if you read his book he seems uncertain of the claim that it had been in the Graham family since at least 1940 - to me, it seems that he wanted to believe it, but couldn't quite convince himself.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;276157]

Go and get your teeth into dracula then...






People like harrison and feldman invested tens of thousands of hours in the diary, not to mention money out of their own pockets, how in any way does financial gain change what's written in it?

Maybrick far outweighs most as a valid suspect.

I still wonder how differently the diary would be viewed IF anne and her father had come forward with it.

If the story about it coming via Anne's family had been how we were introduced to the diary then fine no problem I personally don't have a problem with maybrick been our killer his drug addiction would explain killers boldness.What I have a problem with is the lie about how Mike Barrett got it via his mate Tony.Having met Mr Barrett several times I cannot believe people took him so seriously he couldn't believe it himself!.Why lie about something that's in you possession if it's genuine .If we are told another story about where the diary has come from who will believe it.I do believe that the lure of money did cloud people's judgement.

[pinkmoon]

Hi PM,

which 'diary book' are you referring to? Shirley Harrison's or Paul Feldman's? Or another?

Feldman was a serious believer in Maybrick as the Ripper, to the extent that it appeared to take over his life. He put a sum of money well into 6 figures into his researches, or so I understand, all but ruining him. He was first and foremost a film and TV producer, and had in mind a movie based on Maybrick as the Ripper, and was looking forward to some serious Hollywood backing, but this all fell apart when the 'experts' proclaimed that the 'Diary' was a modern fake and the hoped-for backers pulled out. I don't know how many copies of his book were sold, but probably nowhere near enough to make up for his personal expenditure in researching and writing it. Caz will have more info on this, I'm sure. I don't think Shirley Harrison made a fortune out of her book either, nor out of the book she wrote with Anne Barrett-Graham as a collaborator called 'The Last Victim'. I've never read it, have to be honest.

Mike Barrett, or so I understand, received about £70000 in royalties and squandered the lot. Anne Barrett refused to accept any royalties, but did I believe eventually agree to accepting some money for the benefit of her daughter.

Hi Kaz,

unfortunately I have to disagree with you - I do not believe that Maybrick is a valid suspect, the 'Diary', Paul Feldman, Shirley Harrison and others notwithstanding. Prior to the 'discovery' of the 'Diary', Maybrick was known only as the disputed victim in a celebrated Victorian murder-trial. What the 'Diary' actually means by the line Dear Bunny knows all is open to conjecture - if the 'Diary' has anything to do with Maybrick either direct or remotely, then that line could mean almost anything. And of course until the 'Diary' came along there was absolutely nothing to link Maybrick with the Ripper Murders, and I'm sure that if he had been a suspect then his name would have been associated with the Ripper well before the Year Of The Diary.

Yes, IF Anne had made the 'Diary' public independently of her husband, then things may have been viewed in a different light; but she didn't. She claims to have passed it to Mike via Devereux, as we all know. I wonder if this was because Mike was beginning to get cold feet about the 'Diary', and its possible consequences as far as he himself was concerned? As I suggested previously, I don't think even Feldman really accepted Anne's story of how the 'Diary' came into Mike's possession, and if you read his book he seems uncertain of the claim that it had been in the Graham family since at least 1940 - to me, it seems that he wanted to believe it, but couldn't quite convince himself.

Graham

Hi Graham ,I refer to both paul Feldmans and Shirley Harrison's books. I honestly believe that the diary books shouldn't have been published untill the diarys whereabouts for over a hundred years could be proved and how Mike barret had it in his possession could be proved.I personally don't have a problem with maybrick been the ripper I think his drug addiction could explain boldness I just feel that the chance to make a lot of money clouded people's common sense.As you know I have spoken to Mr Barrett several times and have listend to his waffle some things he told me were constant every time .I'm wondering if the rumours about something keith skinner came across in 2007 correspond to the constants Mike Barrett told me

[Graham]

Hi PM,

unless Keith Skinner has definitive information to the contrary, I don't think that the 'Diary's' whereabouts prior to its appearance in 1993 can be proved. It obviously came into the possession of Mike Barrett at some time prior to his announcing the fact, but how he actually came into possession of it is somewhat conjectural to say the least. And if we assume that Barrett obtained it only a relatively short time prior to his contacting Doreen Montgomery, then where had it been before he came into possession of it?

And what about the Maybrick Watch? Genuine, or a scam intended to make a bob or two? If the latter, then it's slightly surprising that its owner Albert Johnson turned down an offer of around $80000 for it from an American collector....

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Hi PM,

unless Keith Skinner has definitive information to the contrary, I don't think that the 'Diary's' whereabouts prior to its appearance in 1993 can be proved. It obviously came into the possession of Mike Barrett at some time prior to his announcing the fact, but how he actually came into possession of it is somewhat conjectural to say the least. And if we assume that Barrett obtained it only a relatively short time prior to his contacting Doreen Montgomery, then where had it been before he came into possession of it?

And what about the Maybrick Watch? Genuine, or a scam intended to make a bob or two? If the latter, then it's slightly surprising that its owner Albert Johnson turned down an offer of around $80000 for it from an American collector....

Graham

If the watch is genuine then the diary is a much older document and not a modern forgery if that is the case it is not rocket science to work out how Mike Barrett got it .I did read a while ago in a newspaper that there was some doubt of the age of the brass particles in the watches etchings.Also we have to remember Mr Barrett had an opportunity to link the diary to battlecrease but he didn't that is very telling as well.

[Graham]

If the watch is genuine then the diary is a much older document and not a modern forgery if that is the case it is not rocket science to work out how Mike Barrett got it

Sorry, but you've lost me here.

Also we have to remember Mr Barrett had an opportunity to link the diary to Battlecrease but he didn't that is very telling as well.

Who gave him this opportunity, and where can I read about it? There was some talk by Feldman that the 'Diary' had been removed from a skip at Battlecrease during work on the house, and taken by its finder/s to Liverpool University for investigation, but I don't remember the name of Mike Barrett being linked to this. I did speculate a few posts back that IF the 'Diary' had been found at Battlecrease then maybe Barrett might have found out about it, saw an opportunity, and obtained it. But that is just speculation, and no basis in fact.

Feldman did also consider that the 'Diary' came from Maybrick's former office premises in Liverpool where, by sheer coincidence, Anne Barrett worked. But I believe that Feldman dismissed this possibility as too far-fetched even for him.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

Sorry, but you've lost me here.



Who gave him this opportunity, and where can I read about it? There was some talk by Feldman that the 'Diary' had been removed from a skip at Battlecrease during work on the house, and taken by its finder/s to Liverpool University for investigation, but I don't remember the name of Mike Barrett being linked to this. I did speculate a few posts back that IF the 'Diary' had been found at Battlecrease then maybe Barrett might have found out about it, saw an opportunity, and obtained it. But that is just speculation, and no basis in fact.

Feldman did also consider that the 'Diary' came from Maybrick's former office premises in Liverpool where, by sheer coincidence, Anne Barrett worked. But I believe that Feldman dismissed this possibility as too far-fetched even for him.

Graham

The workmen from battlecrease admitted to drinking in the saddlers pub which was Mr barretts local or should I say second home.I think this fact was not followed up properly by Mr Feldman I think it might tie the whole thing together it links to some of the constants Mr Barrett told me.If we assume diary is not a modern forgery then what could this information tell us.

[Kaz]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;276162]

If the story about it coming via Anne's family had been how we were introduced to the diary then fine no problem I personally don't have a problem with maybrick been our killer...

But it didn't, so you don't.

You, and many like you, dismiss the diary directly because of what individual handed it to the world to see.

Thats not good enough for me, the diary needs more work, not the people surrounding it.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;276210]

But it didn't, so you don't.

You, and many like you, dismiss the diary directly because of what individual handed it to the world to see.

Thats not good enough for me, the diary needs more work, not the people surrounding it.

Yes the diary needs more work but you've got to admit the way it was "discoverd"harms it greatly why oh why couldn't they just give us the last story about it been in the family in the first place

[Kaz]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;276211]

Yes the diary needs more work but you've got to admit the way it was "discoverd"harms it greatly why oh why couldn't they just give us the last story about it been in the family in the first place

Re-read the final chapter, theres a perfectly plausible explanation.

Even if you don't buy the given explanation, how does it change whats written in the diary?

I'm amazed you can meet mike and still consider him the brains behind it all? Mike didn't really benefit from the diary, I'm sure if he had time to go over he'd had had nothing to do with it all, but that would beg the question "would we be here talking about it now"?

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Kaz;276214]

Re-read the final chapter, theres a perfectly plausible explanation.

Even if you don't buy the given explanation, how does it change whats written in the diary?

I'm amazed you can meet mike and still consider him the brains behind it all? Mike didn't really benefit from the diary, I'm sure if he had time to go over he'd had had nothing to do with it all, but that would beg the question "would we be here talking about it now"?

Mike Barrett is a bit of a character but when I met him I soon came to the conclusion that he is no master forger like he kept on telling me.I personally would not get involved in anything with him at any level apart from sending him to the corner shop to purchase a newspaper even then something would properly go wrong.A constant thread ran through what he told me which leaves me to believe how he came to own the diary like I said before it's not rocket science.Keith Skinner has meant to have come across some information in 2007 about where Mr Barrett got the diary I think it will be very Similar to what I'm thinking.Mr Feldman was very thorough in some of his research but not as thorough on some of the details close to home which might have disproved his theory.

[Graham]

The workmen from battlecrease admitted to drinking in the saddlers pub which was Mr barretts local or should I say second home.I think this fact was not followed up properly by Mr Feldman I think it might tie the whole thing together it links to some of the constants Mr Barrett told me.If we assume diary is not a modern forgery then what could this information tell us.

There's another possibility, that the Battlecrease workmen knew Tony Devereux rather than Mike Barrett at The Saddle, and either gave or sold the 'Diary' to Tony rather than Mike. Maybe Tony thought that it wasn't for him, and passed it to Barrett who did, after all, fancy himself as a writer and had on at least one occasion tried to get something published. As the Devereux daughters swore on all that's holy that they had never seen the 'Diary' at their house or in their dad's possession, could it be that Tony passed it to Mike almost immediately? Pure speculation, of course.

Graham

[Scott Nelson]

Isn't it more significant how the thing got into the Battlecrease house rather than how it came out?

[pinkmoon]

Isn't it more significant how the thing got into the Battlecrease house rather than how it came out?

Don't you think it's funny that Mr Barrett has never taken advantage of the opportunity to link the diary to battlecrease I think that is very telling in its self.Also to go to trouble of planting it in battlecrease then not making any attempt to say "look this has come from maybricks old house it must be genuine"again very telling I think.