New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock-- very intetesting account from an experienced auction attendee and bidder. It's hard to say what Mike really meant (though I wonder if he didn't attend farm sales during his scrap-metal dealer days, and hadn't encountered a different procedure at more casual auctions? Then the writer in him drew upon that recollection for his account of the O & L auction.) Who knows?

Or maybe he attended an O&L auction in 1992 but garbled some of the details slightly when recalling them to Alan Gray a few years later for the affidavit Pat?

[Pcdunn]

Or maybe he attended an O&L auction in 1992 but garbled some of the details slightly when recalling them to Alan Gray a few years later for the affidavit Pat?

Sure, anything is possible, Herlock.

[caz]

Herlock-- very intetesting account from an experienced auction attendee and bidder. It's hard to say what Mike really meant (though I wonder if he didn't attend farm sales during his scrap-metal dealer days, and hadn't encountered a different procedure at more casual auctions? Then the writer in him drew upon that recollection for his account of the O & L auction.) Who knows?

Hi Pat,

Back in June 1994, when Mike Barrett gave the first version of his forgery story to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post, Brough went home to file the story for the next day's edition. He later checked with O & L and was told there was no record of the job lot Mike had described. When we visited the auctioneers for our book, Inside Story [page 273], we found that all prospective bidders had to complete a registration form in the office, and that this had always been the case. Mike didn't mention this fact in his detailed affidavit of 5th January 1995, a copy of which was sent straight to O & L for comment, when Shirley Harrison finally received it herself two years later.

Nothing about Mike's auction story was ever confirmed, or even recognised by O & L, as having any connection with the reality of their day-to-day business. All the excuses you may read for Mike getting it all wrong won't make any of it right. Alan Gray didn't even bother to check with O & L in the January when he had just typed up Mike's account, when confirmation of any of the details could have nailed it.

I'm reluctant to address Herlock's post on this, because I understood the casebook rules didn't allow any of Orsam's original posts to be requoted following his departure. Herlock might wish to contact Admin for the latest advice on this, because a link to a specific post might still be allowed, and would spare us all being faced with his entire back catalogue, and being expected to answer the same old questions about it, when this thread is for current members to post 'new' ideas.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Pat,

Back in June 1994, when Mike Barrett gave the first version of his forgery story to Harold Brough of the Liverpool Post, Brough went home to file the story for the next day's edition. He later checked with O & L and was told there was no record of the job lot Mike had described. When we visited the auctioneers for our book, Inside Story [page 273], we found that all prospective bidders had to complete a registration form in the office, and that this had always been the case. Mike didn't mention this fact in his detailed affidavit of 5th January 1995, a copy of which was sent straight to O & L for comment, when Shirley Harrison finally received it herself two years later.

Nothing about Mike's auction story was ever confirmed, or even recognised by O & L, as having any connection with the reality of their day-to-day business. All the excuses you may read for Mike getting it all wrong won't make any of it right. Alan Gray didn't even bother to check with O & L in the January when he had just typed up Mike's account, when confirmation of any of the details could have nailed it.

I'm reluctant to address Herlock's post on this, because I understood the casebook rules didn't allow any of Orsam's original posts to be requoted following his departure. Herlock might wish to contact Admin for the latest advice on this, because a link to a specific post might still be allowed, and would spare us all being faced with his entire back catalogue, and being expected to answer the same old questions about it, when this thread is for current members to post 'new' ideas.

Love,

Caz
X

It was Caligo Umbrator who said that Mike's account in his affidavit was "generally consistent" with his experience of how auctions were conducted in the north of England in the 1990s once the word "ticket" is replaced with "receipt", Caz, not David Orsam.

I'm surprised you're complaining about "the same old questions" being asked because it wasn't me who introduced the topic of the O&L auction, which, as we've now seen, was discussed in detail on here nine years ago, with a possible explanation given for why O&L might have formed the impression that Mike's account in his affidavit was wrong. What I posted also seemed to be new to Pat who found Caligo Umbrator's account very interesting. But I wouldn't have mentioned at all it if you hadn't raised it, so I'm baffled by your response. If you've answered any of my questions on this particular topic please just direct me to the posts which I'll happily read but I note that you haven't provided any evidence that the O&L auctioneer said that "everything" about Mike's description of the process was wrong. How do we know the auctioneer's problem with the description wasn't simply that O&L didn't issue tickets, which is why he said that Mike's description was wrong? What exactly was the problem with Mike's account in any case? And how did O&L actually conduct their auctions?

You also haven't answered the question about whether O&L would have allowed a person to use a false name. But, on that issue, I've discovered that Keith Skinner posted on January 20th 2018 in the thread "Acquiring a Victorian diary" at post #540 that Kevin Whay of O&L stated on 16 January 1995 that: "There would quite likely be several "Mr Williams" or "Mr Jones" as a lot of people use a pseudonym when buying auctions". That doesn't suggest a very stringent registration process dot me Caz. But it's also consistent with the claim in the affidavit that Mike used the name "Williams". How would he have known this was possible at an O&L auction? Indeed, couldn't it be said that this is a part of his story that was confirmed by O&L? So when you say that "nothing" was confirmed by O&L that's not quite accurate is it? Surely they confirmed that he would have been able to use a false name such as "Williams" when bidding.

Do you also really think the lack of inclusion of a description of the registration process, which is basically just admin, at O&L, such as it was, in the affidavit, is of any significance? It seems to me like a pretty desperate point to make in trying to undermine it. Why would he have felt the need to include such a description?

Can you provide some more information about the search that you say O&L did for Harold Brough? Did they search their records from March 1992? In fact, what date did Mike provide to Brough as to when he went to the auction? It's curious, though, because Keith Skinner informed us in the same 2018 post I cited above that Kevin Whay told Shirley Harrison on 16 January 1995 that, "as far as he knows there have been no enquiries about the purchase of the album in which the diary is written". How do you explain this if Brough made such an enquiry in June 1994? Was Brough lying? Can you please point me to the evidence of what Brough actually claimed to have been told by O&L (i.e. an exact quote)? I've been told a lot of things in this thread which have turned out, upon checking, not to be true so I hope you don't mind if I keep asking to see the primary underlying evidence of the things you are saying.

Finally, what difference does it make to the underlying truth of the matter that Alan Gray didn't bother to check Barrett's story with O&L? So he was a rubbish detective? What does it matter?

[rjpalmer]

Finally, what difference does it make to the underlying truth of the matter that Alan Gray didn't bother to check Barrett's story with O&L? So he was a rubbish detective? What does it matter?

Hi Herlock -

The story I heard is that Gray DID try to check with O & L and was turned away. If I recall, this came from Melvin Harris.

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock -

The story I heard is that Gray DID try to check with O & L and was turned away. If I recall, this came from Melvin Harris.

RP

Hi Roger,

In the past few months that I've been posting about the diary, it's remarkable how many times I've been categorically told things are facts which turn out not to be true. When I ask for supporting evidence I'm denied it and have to search out the truth myself. Truly, this subject is like none other I've ever encountered.

I don't even know why Gray's own enquiries, or lack of them, as the case may be, are of any significance. All I was asking was what the auctioneer actually said about the account in Barrett's affidavit of O&L's auction process. What do Gray's supposed lack of enquiries have to do with this? And what I find really extraordinary is that no-one seems to know how O&L conducted their auctions on 1992 and how that differed from the account in Barrett's affidavit. Did no-one ever ask them this simple and obvious question?

Why we're even discussing the O&L auction process is another mystery. Abby said something amusing to me about details of "the old book" being revealed in "a new book" and, for reasons I still don't understand, this led to us being told that we either believe Mike or the auctioneer. So the obvious question is: what did the auctioneer say? But I still haven't had a straight answer to this simple question. Instead, I'm being told that Alan Gray didn't bother to check something, and I can"t understand why I'm being told that. Even worse if, as you suggest might be the case, it's not even true.

[rjpalmer]

All I was asking was what the auctioneer actually said about the account in Barrett's affidavit of O&L's auction process.

If you really want to be depressed, Herlock, go look in the archives for May 2001.

Peter Birchwood asked the same question nearly a quarter of a century ago. He was trying to find out what the actual procedure was at O & L from Shirley Harrison. Whether he ever found out or reached out to O & L himself, I have no idea. The conversation turned in another direction and not long afterwards both Peter and Shirley quit contributing.

Peter wrote something that resonated with me. He got the feeling that Mr. Whay and Ms. Harrison were a little too eager to dismiss Barrett's account--to debunk it rather than to 'get at the truth of the matter.'

I got the same feeling. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Whay was being evasive--not at all. He no doubt said what he believed--but businessmen can be very protective of their businesses, and he might not have relished the idea that the good name of his company would forever be associated with something as distasteful as Jack the Ripper or a fake document that had gained local notoriety. It would hardly have been the fault of the auction if they had unwittingly sold the photo album to a scammer, but people can be irrational. Whay's impulse might have been to quickly dismiss any such association. "He didn't get that damned thing from us!"

Barrett's less-than-competent description of the auction might have made for a convenient 'off ramp'--- enough for Whay to throw his hands in the air and to put the matter to bed quickly.

Personally, I'm not convinced Barrett made it up. There is a logic to his chronology. The red diary Barrett had secretly received from the bookseller in Oxford WAS too small and useless, so he would have needed to seek something else. The 11/12 day span between the auction and Barrett showing up in London jives with the facts. The photo album has suspicious, oily patterns on the inside cover as if someone had peeled off a tag or had removed a stamp.

David B's research has revealed that old turn-of-the-century photo albums did often have such tags. I didn't know that. Did you know that? How did Barrett know it--unless he had lived it?

No, I'm not a Barrett Believer--but there's a logic to his account, and some evidence to back it up. I've only met one Barrett Believer in my life--a person who has excepted two of Barrett's most outlandish claims despite there being no other source for them other than Barrett himself--- and she takes a different view of the diary than I do.

[rjpalmer]

Edit: excepted=accepted Barrett's outlandish claims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you really want to be depressed, Herlock, go look in the archives for May 2001.

Peter Birchwood asked the same question nearly a quarter of a century ago. He was trying to find out what the actual procedure was at O & L from Shirley Harrison. Whether he ever found out or reached out to O & L himself, I have no idea. The conversation turned in another direction and not long afterwards both Peter and Shirley quit contributing.

Peter wrote something that resonated with me. He got the feeling that Mr. Whay and Ms. Harrison were a little too eager to dismiss Barrett's account--to debunk it rather than to 'get at the truth of the matter.'

I got the same feeling. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Whay was being evasive--not at all. He no doubt said what he believed--but businessmen can be very protective of their businesses, and he might not have relished the idea that the good name of his company would forever be associated with something as distasteful as Jack the Ripper or a fake document that had gained local notoriety. It would hardly have been the fault of the auction if they had unwittingly sold the photo album to a scammer, but people can be irrational. Whay's impulse might have been to quickly dismiss any such association. "He didn't get that damned thing from us!"

Barrett's less-than-competent description of the auction might have made for a convenient 'off ramp'--- enough for Whay to throw his hands in the air and to put the matter to bed quickly.

Personally, I'm not convinced Barrett made it up. There is a logic to his chronology. The red diary Barrett had secretly received from the bookseller in Oxford WAS too small and useless, so he would have needed to seek something else. The 11/12 day span between the auction and Barrett showing up in London jives with the facts. The photo album has suspicious, oily patterns on the inside cover as if someone had peeled off a tag or had removed a stamp.

David B's research has revealed that old turn-of-the-century photo albums did often have such tags. I didn't know that. Did you know that? How did Barrett know it--unless he had lived it?

No, I'm not a Barrett Believer--but there's a logic to his account, and some evidence to back it up. I've only met one Barrett Believer in my life--a person who has excepted two of Barrett's most outlandish claims despite there being no other source for them other than Barrett himself--- and she takes a different view of the diary than I do.

It's a funny thing, Roger. I was criticised yesterday for asking "the same old questions". Well, this may be true but, from what you've told me, it would seem that those questions have never been answered!

[rjpalmer]

It's a funny thing, Roger. I was criticised yesterday for asking "the same old questions". Well, this may be true but, from what you've told me, it would seem that those questions have never been answered!

Indeed.

Here are two of P. Birchwood's posts on the topic:



And



I never learned whether he received a response.

Curiously, a short time after these posts, there is a cryptic message from Shirley Harrison, who hopes that others will have 'better luck than I did with....Oathwaite"....

I wonder what she means? Better luck? Didn't she get to the bottom of the matter?




It sounds as if the auction house wasn't too cooperative with Shirley. As I said earlier, Gray had requested to see O & L's books and was turned down.

From what I've read, it wasn't Shirley but Doreen Montgomery, writing in 1997, that received a written response from O & L. And as Peter pointed out, they had checked the wrong dates. They had checked 1990 instead of 1992.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed.

Here are two of P. Birchwood's posts on the topic:



And



I never learned whether he received a response.

Curiously, a short time after these posts, there is a cryptic message from Shirley Harrison, who hopes that others will have 'better luck than I did with....Oathwaite"....

I wonder what she means? Better luck? Didn't she get to the bottom of the matter?




It sounds as if the auction house wasn't too cooperative with Shirley. As I said earlier, Gray had requested to see O & L's books and was turned down.

From what I've read, it wasn't Shirley but Doreen Montgomery, writing in 1997, that received a written response from O & L. And as Peter pointed out, they had checked the wrong dates. They had checked 1990 instead of 1992.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for that Roger.

[Iconoclast]

And as Peter pointed out, they had checked the wrong dates. They had checked 1990 instead of 1992.

Thank goodness - for the pursuit and defence of the truth - the breweries have run dry and I have finally sobered-up ...

And not a day too soon, it appears, as someone has to point out that you cannot say categorically that 'they checked the wrong dates' unless you are seeking to mislead people.

The bit that you rely on is where Barrett claimed in his January 5, 1995 affidavit:

Roughly round about January, February 1990 Anne Barrett and I finally decided to go ahead and write the Diary of Jack the Ripper. In fact Anne purchased a Diary, a red leather backed Diary for L25.00p, she made the purchase through a firm in the 1986 Writters Year Book, I cannot remember their name, she paid for the Diary by cheque in the amount of L25 which was drawn on her Lloyds Bank Account, Water Street Branch, Liverpool. When this Diary arrived in teh post I decided it was of no use, it was very small. My wife is now in possession of this Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

At about the same time as all this was being discussed by my wife and I. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wifes father and he said to me, its a good idea, if you can get away with it and in fact he gave me L50 towards expences which I expected to pay at least for the appropriate paper should I find it.

I feel sure it was the end of January 1990 when I went to the Auctioneer, Outhwaite & Litherland, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

We know the red diary was ordered in March 1992 (and paid for in May 1992) so you want everyone to believe that the only possibility based upon Barrett's January 5, 1995 affidavit is that he misremembered the events of 1992 for two years earlier.

But you intentionally (because you have an angle to spin here) disregard the bit that buggers up your argument:

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.

Tony Devereux sadly died on August 8, 1991, as well you know. So Barrett could not have been remembering 1992 at all when he went to O&L so the red diary could not have been required for the 1992 'hoax' you cling so desperately to. Barrett's affidavit is very clear that the O&L scrapbook came after the failed red diary and both came before Tony's sad demise which totally buggers up your argument that the purchase of the red diary is evidence that he was seeking a vehicle for a hoaxed diary of Jack the Ripper in the run-up to the only O&L auction that month (the 31st). He already had the scrapbook, didn't he (according to Barrett)? It had already been completed and there was a delay in operations due to the unexpected passing of co-conspirator Tony on August 8, 1991. The dates can all be ignored. All we need to understand is that the affidavit you place such faith in clearly states the following timeline: the red diary is ordered, it is too small, so Barrett gets the scrapbook from an O&L auction, the scrapbook is completed, Tony D sadly dies, and you and your lot are jolly rogered up the arse by man's inability so far to travel back and forth through time.

The red diary theory doesn't work, does it? Unless you argue that Tony D was still alive in March 1992 which can obviously be firmly contradicted by the sad evidence. And you can't believe some bits of the affidavit which you like and which work for the angle you're aiming for here and simultaneously skip over the awkward bits which make the 'key' bit of your theory simply incorrect, can you? I'm sure you can't. After all, as I understand it, your sort are almost bunged-up with all that integrity inside you.

Nope, 'they' didn't check the wrong dates. They checked the right dates - the ones the affidavit tell us must be the true ones. Ha ha.

It's all in black and white, Roger - Howe your team's strategy falls apart before it ever got started. Puts me in mind of a game of football I saw recently ...

[rjpalmer]

The only thing black & white, Ike, is that you've clearly abandoned the "commonsense" that Peter Birchwood mentioned nearly 25 years ago and are instead assuming a purely myopic stance toward Barrett's confessional affidavit.

In other words, the desire to debunk Barrett overrides any willingness to investigate the matter thoroughly and competently.

We know --not based on Barrett's unreliable memory but on ironclad documentation--- that the red diary was purchased in March 1992. It was however (as Barrett describes) too small and useless for his purposes, so he went to the auction house.

Which dates the auction to late March 1992. Barrett's other unreliable dates be damned. That's what actual documentation suggests.

This is further borne out by Barrett's insistence, at various times, that the photo album confessional did not exist when he called Doreen in March 1992, and also that it took 11 days to transpose the typescript into the photo album before he headed off to London in April 1992.

In brief, logic again dates the auction to March 1992.

That said, it would have been completely correct for Doreen Montgomery to have asked O & L to check the dates around January 1990, but to have done a thorough, competent, and commonsensical job of it, the dates in March & April 1992 should also have been checked.

Any fair-minded person would acknowledge that.

Indeed, any competent detective would insist on it. I'm sure our friend Fred Abberline would have done so.

What I still find fascinating is Shirley Harrison's cryptic comment of 1 June 2001.

If the investigation of O & L auctions was as definitive and conclusive as C.A.B. wants us to believe, why on earth does Shirley state--nine years after the auction, and four years after her friend and agent Doreen Montgomery's investigation:

"I hope you all have better luck like than I did with [Richard Bark-Jones] and Oathwaite...."

That's an awfully odd thing to say if Shirley thought the truth of the matter had been thoroughly sifted.


Why is she wishing them good luck instead of saying, as our New Zealand friends say, "been there, done that! You'll be wasting your time! Doreen and I have already checked!"

Curious and curioser!

RP

[Iconoclast]

In other words, the desire to debunk Barrett overrides any willingness to investigate the matter thoroughly and competently.

Well, let's see how good a job you did of that ...

We know --not based on Barrett's unreliable memory but on ironclad documentation--- that the red diary was purchased in [B]March 1992.

Cast-iron, this definitely happened as we have the requisite evidence for it.

It was however (as Barrett describes) too small and useless for his purposes ...

Not cast-iron. We do not know with certainty what his 'purposes' were for it - only what he implied when he was trying to build a case for his hoax story.

... so he went to the auction house.

Please strike this from the record - it has been implied ('made up') by Orsam and you and others to suit an argument you want to make. There is absolutely no evidence that he attended the March 31, 1992, O&L auction. None whatsoever. Shame he didn't show us all that pesky ticket, eh?

Which dates the auction to late March 1992.

Well, there was apparently an auction at O&L on March 31, 1992.

Barrett's other unreliable dates be damned.

Happy to agree - but not his timeline of events.

That's what actual documentation suggests.

If you had some, I'd agree. He said red diary, scrapbook, Tony died. You might forget dates but you don't forget that timeline.

This is further borne out by Barrett's insistence, at various times, that the photo album confessional did not exist when he called Doreen in March 1992, and also that it took 11 days to transpose the typescript into the photo album before he headed off to London in April 1992.

It's not 'borne out' at all - it is simply inferred to support a specific set of claims by Orsam and the rest of you.

In brief, logic again dates the auction to March 1992.

You don't need logic, we know there was an auction on March 31, 1992. What you need is evidence that Barrett was there too. Evidence, not inference.

That said, it would have been completely correct for Doreen Montgomery to have asked O & L to check the dates around January 1990, but to have done a thorough, competent, and commonsensical job of it, the dates in March & April 1992 should also have been checked.

Not so, Roger. Tony D was dead so checking an auction after August 8, 1991 made no sense whatsoever. Not if - as you do - you believe Barrett.

Any fair-minded person would acknowledge that.

And any rogue would parcel up such a tale as fact.

Thank God I'm back, eh, dear readers?

[rjpalmer]

Tony Devereux sadly died on August 8, 1991, as well you know.

Indeed, I do know---which only proves that Barrett's dates were totally unreliable, since Devereux hadn't died in 'May or June 1990' as stated in the affidavit.

According to Barrett this was his dearest (and only) friend in the wide world and he's only off by 14 or 15 months.

Which is precisely why Peter Birchwood was concerned and baffled that people were still insisting that the O & L auction angle had been conclusively debunked when the more logical set of dates had not been checked (and we still don't know with certainty how O & L conducted their auctions).

It's all water under the bridge now, though. That ship has sailed, the records have been pulped, and after many a summer dies the swan.