The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, it's that he works through you.

That ludicrous statement says far more about you, Scott, than it does about me.

[Lombro2]

It was a second hand report related to a third person around Christmas 1992.

It tells us nothing about when the original event happened.

Unfortunately for you, Mr Hopelessly Confused (
or more like Mr Hopelessly Trying To Confuse), it probably happened March 9, 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was a second hand report related to a third person around Christmas 1992.

It tells us nothing about when the original event happened.

Unfortunately for you, Mr Hopelessly Confused (
or more like Mr Hopelessly Trying To Confuse), it probably happened March 9, 1992.

The only reason why Christmas 1992 was mentioned in one of the varying accounts is due to pure mathematics, because it was two months after the APS store opened (assuming it opened on 26th October 1992 as claimed) and Tim and Dodgson both said that they thought that they were told about the diary a month or two after that opening. There is nothing in the story, in other words, which suggests that it did in fact occur at Christmas, just a recollection that it happened soon after the APS Bootle store opened. But you've ignored the fact that the story told by Tim in 1994 didn't involve the APS Bootle store at all. It involved a pub.

As for the "original event", yes Mike Barrett is known to have telephoned Doreen Montgomery on 9th March 1992. That, as far as we know, is the original event in this story. Then the next thing he did was seek out a Victorian diary with blank pages

[caz]

It may have been slightly more than a matter of pure maths and a Christmas past, Herlock, on account of when Tim's birthday is. Most people are able to pinpoint a specific event in their lives to within a couple of months of their birthday, if they keep a basic appointments diary every year and are able to cast their minds back to how they celebrated their special day in any particular year. They can also seek confirmation using a variety of other resources, human or documented.

Without knowing what other information was available to jog, correct or confirm an individual's personal memories, you can't be dogmatic about the limitations of their powers of recall.

Consistency with other people's memories of the same event or conversation is a bonus and not to be sniffed at. It doesn't always indicate a conspiracy and, in this case, an unlikely one between people who didn't all know one another, or have personal or professional associations in common.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may have been slightly more than a matter of pure maths and a Christmas past, Herlock, on account of when Tim's birthday is. Most people are able to pinpoint a specific event in their lives to within a couple of months of their birthday, if they keep a basic appointments diary every year and are able to cast their minds back to how they celebrated their special day in any particular year. They can also seek confirmation using a variety of other resources, human or documented.

Without knowing what other information was available to jog, correct or confirm an individual's personal memories, you can't be dogmatic about the limitations of their powers of recall.

Consistency with other people's memories of the same event or conversation is a bonus and not to be sniffed at. It doesn't always indicate a conspiracy and, in this case, an unlikely one between people who didn't all know one another, or have personal or professional associations in common.

I don't know if you missed it Caz but I set out all the known accounts of the story in my #1915 and at no time is the Incident linked in any way to Tim's birthday, whenever that may be. He presumably knows the exact date of his birthday but when he first told the story he placed it within a six month date range. How do you explain that?

Even in one of his later accounts it was in a two month period. This strongly suggests that there is nothing about the story which relates to his birthday and he surely wouldn't need an appointments diary to remind him when his birthday was.

Now that you've joined in this conversation, how do you account for Tim saying that his employee saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub?

I think I already told you that I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, just an understandable failure to recollect the date an incident occurred. As far as I'm aware, only Tim and Dodgson (but not Davies) have suggested a 1992 date for this conversation but it wouldn't be in any way surprising if they discussed this with each other.

Given the importance you attach to this incident, would it not be good idea to produce the entire transcript of Tim's 1994 conversation with Feldman, the full note of Tim' 2004 conversation with Keith and any transcripts of interviews with Dodgson and Davies?

[rjpalmer]

Now that you've joined in this conversation, how do you account for Tim saying that his employee saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub?

I was about to ask the same question. The Diary Friendly Folks (as I prefer to call them) have made much of certain informants referring to 'the [old] book,' but there doesn't appear to be similar interest in Dodgson referring to a 'copy' of Jack the Ripper's diary.

Surely this wording greatly interested Feldman who pricked up his ears and repeated it twice.

What the heck did TMW's employee mean by 'copy'? Where and when could a 'copy' of the diary have been in circulation in the pubs of Liverpool? Why would anyone who had seen Mike's "old book" have referred to it as a 'copy'?

[caz]

I don't know if you missed it Caz but I set out all the known accounts of the story in my #1915 and at no time is the Incident linked in any way to Tim's birthday, whenever that may be. He presumably knows the exact date of his birthday but when he first told the story he placed it within a six month date range. How do you explain that?

Even in one of his later accounts it was in a two month period. This strongly suggests that there is nothing about the story which relates to his birthday and he surely wouldn't need an appointments diary to remind him when his birthday was.

Now that you've joined in this conversation, how do you account for Tim saying that his employee saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub?

I think I already told you that I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy, just an understandable failure to recollect the date an incident occurred. As far as I'm aware, only Tim and Dodgson (but not Davies) have suggested a 1992 date for this conversation but it wouldn't be in any way surprising if they discussed this with each other.

Given the importance you attach to this incident, would it not be good idea to produce the entire transcript of Tim's 1994 conversation with Feldman, the full note of Tim' 2004 conversation with Keith and any transcripts of interviews with Dodgson and Davies?

Why do you need any additional information, which is not my research to share publicly in any case, if you have already decided that Tim can't help in any useful way with your speculation about when and how Mike Barrett obtained his diary?

I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely wondering if there is any point?

[Admin]

We are receiving Report Post after Report Post in the last few days, all on Diary threads. Anyone who is reported from this point on for cause will be banned from posting on the Diary threads for a year.

Knock this **** off. Apologies to all who are impacted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why do you need any additional information, which is not my research to share publicly in any case, if you have already decided that Tim can't help in any useful way with your speculation about when and how Mike Barrett obtained his diary?

I'm not trying to be difficult; I'm genuinely wondering if there is any point?

I’m not saying that you're being difficult Caz but I don’t understand why you’ve avoided answering my question about Tim saying that he saw a copy of Jack the Ripper's diary in a pub. What do you make of it?

You also didn’t answer my question about how the incident could have had anything to do with Tim's birthday when he initially placed it within a 6 month date range. How would you explain it?

If you don't think there's any point in anyone releasing further information I'm very surprised because you appear to think that the incident is of importance, whereas I don't. But I can only go by what has been placed into the public domain from which nothing about Tim's birthday or Christmas is connected with the incident in any way. That takes me back to my original point, which you seemed keen to challenge, which is that the estimate of "close to Christmas 1992" must be based on pure mathematics relative to the date of the opening of the APS Bootle store. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise I'm all ears but Caz, if not, I can't, for the life of me, see why you posted your #1939.

[rjpalmer]

*I may count Gerard Kane, Billy Graham and Mike Barrett in this group. But Mike only given a peripheral role in supplying writing materials, Graham probably supplying the photo album and contributing to the story, Kane doing the handwriting and Devereux mainly the storyline.

Hi Scott,

while I personally don't give much if any credence to Melvin Harris's Kane/Devereux theory anymore, there is a bit of 'housekeeping' that might be worth passing along.

When you presented your theory on the 'Google Ngrams' thread early this year, Caroline Brown's raised the objection (and not for the first time, if I recall) that Devereux and Billy Graham may not have even known one another:

"I'm not sure if Billy Graham would have had occasion to meet Tony Devereux. It would have been a reasonably easy walk for Mike and young Caroline, between Goldie Street and Fountains Road, but Billy was elderly by then, and lived close to the Barretts - Sleepers Hill if memory serves." -- C.A.B. 3-13-2025

This appears to be just an assumption, however, and not an established fact, for I recently noticed a statement made by Keith Skinner back in 2017 that might potentially challenge any suggestion that the two men were complete strangers:


"A thought which has just occurred to me is I remember Mike telling me that he, his father-in-law and 'Railway John' (don't even ask) all went to Tony's funeral in August 1991 - and I recall being told by one of Tony's daughters, (it should be on tape), that Mike went round to the family and asked for something of their father's to remember him by. They were surprised and I wondered why Mike had done this. At the time it crossed my mind that perhaps Mike was trying to create an impression of how close he was to Tony in order to make it seem the most natural thing in the world for Tony to have given him the diary and thereby secure his ownership of it. But if that was Mike's intention, then it supports his story he had been given the diary by Tony - which leads us back to Anne Graham's account of provenance. And means that March 9th 1992 date has to be just a bizarre coincidence? "

Mr. Skinner does not tell us if he ever attempted to confirm Billy's presence at Devereux's funeral, but if correct it would certainly suggest that the two men DID know one another. Why else would the 'elderly' Billy Graham have attended the funeral of a complete stranger, especially since Barrett had someone else to accompany him?

As an aside, I'm at a lost to understand Keith's reasoning. If Barrett hitting up the sisters for a memento was his way of 'trying to create the impression' of a close relationship with Tony (that didn't actually exist) how does this 'support' Mike's story of having been given the diary by Tony?

Doesn't it suggest the exact opposite--that he was laying the groundwork for a bogus provenance? And the whole gesture is rather absurd. If Devereux had genuinely given Mike the Diary of Jack the Ripper surely that would have been something to 'remember him by' as opposed to a bowling ball or an ashtray or whatever knickknack Mike had in mind.

Another bizarre anecdote in a bizarre saga.

[rjpalmer]

Caroline Brown's raised the objection....

In anticipation that the Apostrophe Police may drop by, the above line originally read Caroline Brown's objection, hence the unnecessary apostrophe s.

If Barrett was up to some sort of monkey business in asking the Devereux Sisters for a memento in August 1991, as Keith Skinner suggested, this would obviously mean that the concept of marketing the Diary of Jack the Ripper was now "in the works."

It could also mean that Tony's sudden death finally gave Barrett the provenance he needed, and his demise kicked the plan into motion.

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks RJ. I don't agree with the idea of a bogus provenance, but I don't rule it out entirely. I've always wondered if Tales of Liverpool was actually Devereux's book and Mike is the one who borrowed it. Retelling of the account may have shifted ownership of the book to Mike instead.