New Ideas and New Research on the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Edit: excepted=accepted Barrett's outlandish claims.

[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.

[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]

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 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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[John Wheat]

I'm not sure why the Diary is still discussed in such detail as it's clearly not written by Maybrick, it's clearly a modern forgery and in all likelihood was written by the Barretts.

[Pcdunn]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

What I recall from reading documents here on Casebook is that the very detailed account MB gave of getting a claim ticket after his winning bid for a lot of objects including the old photograph album-- was incorrect, according to how the auction house handled after-bid procedures.

I suppose this could be construed as covering "everything", I would consider it so in this case.

Hi Pat,

I've been tipped off that back in August 2016, before I joined, a poster called Caligo Umbrator said the following in Ike's long thread, at #1573:

"During the '90's I was an antique dealer based in the North of England and attended and made bids at a great number of auction houses.
The method employed by all of those I attended was nearly identical.
Usually, one was obliged to register by completing a paper form which required the prospective bidder's name, details of either your business or private address and, in some cases, an indication of which financial institution was to be used for issuing cheques, should a bid be successful. On the day of the auction, a bid card (about 4 inches square in size) would then be assigned to you with a unique 2 or 3 digit number printed upon it.
Only in open street or market-place auctions would it not be required to furnish such details before bidding, as these were smaller, more informal affairs.
When making a bid on any item, the practise was to attract the attention of the auctioneer and indicate the amount of your bid. Some did this vocally, calling out the amount. I generally did this silently, using my fingers as a display of the increment my bid offer was to rise in relation to the already established amount on that item. Very often only two or three persons would be interested in a particular lot and they would drop out of the bidding once the price reached to high an amount for their needs.
Should you be successful in your bid, you held up the numbered card and that number was recorded against the lot number. Then it was a simple matter of attending to the amount owed on your account. A receipt was drawn up, listing all items and the incurred buyers charge or commission(usually 10 or 15 %). Upon full payment, the receipt was stamped and signed to indicate payment was made and this document then entitled the holder to collect the item listed upon it.
While I do not believe I ever made a bid at Outhwaite & Litherland, I should think it most probable that the above system of operation would be one they followed.
I have not encountered the 'ticket' system that is described in the confession, as the receipt performs that function. As the item(s) upon the receipt are collected they are marked as such upon the receipt and within the auctioneer's ledger.
I was personally acquainted with some auctioneers and they observed the custom of keeping records for many years, so should there later arise a dispute regarding the provenance of an item or as to whether it was illegally obtained by the initial seller, the auction house was able to both supply those records and acquit itself of any implication of dishonesty or bad practise."

He was then asked this by David Orsam:

"Perhaps you can tell me this. If we replace the word "ticket" in Barrett's statement with the word "receipt", is it then in accord with the system you are describing? Hence:

"At this stage I was given a receipt on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this receipt over to the Office and I paid £50. The receipt was stamped.....I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped receipt and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased."

I've deleted from this the bit about him giving a false name when he paid his money (which I assume is inconsistent with what you are saying due to the registration system) but would the above section be roughly correct?"

Caligo Umbrator's reply was as follows:

"If we replace 'ticket' with 'receipt' then it would be generally consistent, yes.

However, I firstly find it odd that he wasn't required to register before bidding. This is required so as to ensure payment can be obtained on 'won' items. Without such a requirement a person could wander in from the street, bid on a few items and then never be seen again. It wouldn't be until the end of the day that the auctioneers would realise they had several items listed as sold but not paid for. Clearly, this would be an experience they should wish to avoid.
I further find issue with his statement that "I was then told to return my ticket to the Office, but I did not do this and left with the Photograph Album and Compass.".
If he meant that he was told to return the ticket permanently, then you can see that if one had been successful on bids for 20 different items, a system such as this would seem to require the generation and carrying of 20 separate tickets and a great deal more paperwork and legwork than efficiency might ordinarily dictate.
However, we could generously speculate that on this occasion the ticket was a receipt and that the porter engaged in distributing the purchased items had no ink left in his pen to indicate the goods on the receipt as being received and so asked Mike to return to the office so that they might mark the receipt instead.
Also, in the account of his statement that I have access to, the full address of where the auction was taking place was XXX'd out. Potentially it could have been a farm or estate clearance and, although I would expect these would be handled in the same manner, limited space or special circumstances may have altered the procedures for that one sale."

What was being said then by Caligo Umbrator was that by just replacing a single word of "ticket" with "receipt", Barrett's account of how the O&L auction was conducted was generally consistent with the way all auctions attended by Caligo Umbrator during the 1990s were conducted.

How do we know that when the O&L auctioneer said that Barrett's account of the sales process was wrong, he didn't mean something minor like this?

Or should we conclude that there was something unusual about the way O&L conducted their auctions compared to other auction houses at the time which hasn't been revealed to us?

[Pcdunn]

Hi Herlock,

What I recall from reading documents here on Casebook is that the very detailed account MB gave of getting a claim ticket after his winning bid for a lot of objects including the old photograph album-- was incorrect, according to how the auction house handled after-bid procedures.

I suppose this could be construed as covering "everything", I would consider it so in this case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She's right, Herlock. The auction house said the claim ticket story Mike told about getting the things he'd won was not their procedure at that time, or ever.

Hi Pat,

I know that one of the directors of the auction house said that they didn't conduct their sales in the manner Barrett described in his affidavit meaning that Barrett might have said some things about the sales process that were right but also some things that were wrong, so that, overall, his description wasn't accurate. What Caz posted was that the auctioneer stated that everything about Barrett's account was wrong. I want to know if that’s true? Or is Caz mistaken? Do you know of any quote from an auction house staff member saying that?

What I'm trying to get to the bottom of here is what specifically about Barrett's account of the sales process was wrong, and what was the auction house's actual sales process in March 1992.

[Pcdunn]

Everything. It's all been posted numerous times.

She's right, Herlock. The auction house said the claim ticket story Mike told about getting the things he'd won was not their procedure at that time, or ever.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everything. It's all been posted numerous times.

So to be clear Caz, you are saying that the auctioneer has expressly said that "everything" posted about the Outhwaite & Litherland auction in Barrett's affidavit is incorrect?

So, for example, when it is stated in Barrett's affidavit: "At this stage I was given a ticket on which was marked the item number and the price I had bid. I then had to hand this ticket over to the Office and I paid £50. This ticked was stamped...I then returned to the Auction Room with my stamped ticket and handed it over to an assistant, a young man, who gave me the Lot I had purchased." the auctioneer has expressly said that this is not how Outhwaite & Litherland conducted their auctions? Is that right? So how did he say Outhwaite & Litherland, in fact, conducted their auctions? It will be interesting to know how it actually worked.

And when Mike said that he used the name "Williams", the auctioneer presumably said that this is wrong because they wouldn't have allowed false names? Is that right?

If it's all been posted before, could you direct me to where I can find it? The only thing I've been able to locate is from page 167 of your book in which Kevin Whay (who appears to have been a director of Outhwaite & Litherland, not an auctioneer as such) said, "we do not and have never conducted our sales in the manner in which he describes". But that isn't saying that "everything" in Barrett's affidavit about the auction is wrong. Do you have any additional information about what it was that Barrett got wrong? It's not clear to me if the difference between Barrett's account and the actual practice is a small one, possibly insignificant, or a major one which can't possibly be reconciled with how their auctions were conducted.