Keith –you won’t like this, but it seems to me that the reason you keep bringing up Mike’s wild and obviously bogus statements about forging the watch, or about his ex-wife suffering from a multiple personality disorder, etc., is because those were the moments Barrett was telling you precisely what you wanted to hear---that he was bat filth crazy and there was no reason to look to him (or the Johnsons) for an answer about the origins of the Diary/watch. His double bluff appears to have worked.
But over a five-year period, Barrett was also dropping the hint.
“However, last week he [Barrett] admitted he spent 10 days tapping out the 9,000 word confession on a word processor in his Victorian terraced house in Liverpool.”
Maurice Chittenden, The Sunday Times, 3 July 1994.
“Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days.” --Barrett’s signed affidavit, 5 January 1995.
“Barrett told the assembled guests that he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bail, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just 11 days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.”
--Linder, Morris, Skinner, paraphrasing Barrett’s statement at Camille Wolff’s luncheon in London, held on 11 April 1999.
So, scattered among Mike’s wild tales, and for a period of nearly 5 years, he consistently repeated that the Diary had been composed in 10-11 days. As has been amply demonstrated by David B., this time-span fits almost perfectly with what we know about the advertisement, arrival, and rejection of the maroon diary; the next available auction date at Outhwaite & Litherland; and Mike’s journey to London on 13 April 1992.
Unfortunately, the proof you need will never be handed on a platter, because when I contacted O & L back in 2006 to ask them to check their receipts for March-April 1992 (having already suspected what David B. has worked out for himself earlier this year) I was told their records had been pulped. We’ve discussed this before, but I don’t think I showed you the following.
Although it appears that I no longer have O & L’s written response (the letter was by a woman, that’s all I remember), I have found an old email to Birchwood that alludes to my inquiry, dated 8 May, 2006, 1:31 p.m., PST. So I must have heard back in very early May 2006. I quote:
“My research, not surprisingly perhaps, came up empty.
I contacted Oathwaite & Litherland Auctioneers to see if they still had their business receipts. As you might recall, Mike Barrett (when he was in confessional mode) claimed to have bought the album at the auction-house. According to Melvin Harris, the private detective Alan Gray later went to the auction house, but, for whatever reason, wasn't allowed to inspect their books. They probably wanted nothing to do with the Maybrick fiasco. Shirley Harrison had earlier managed to get a response from them...they could find no record of Barrett's transaction, but like all things Diary, it appears to me that she screwed-up and had asked the auctioneers to check the wrong year of purchase. Or so I believe.
Anyway, I just heard back from the auctioneers, and it appears that they had shredded their records several years ago. Here in the U.S. businesses are required to hold on to their receipts for 10 years for tax purposes--so I thought there might be an outside chance that these still existed. No such luck.
Evidently the law in the UK requires them to hold on to them for only about 6 years, so Barrett has dodged another bullet...or so I believe..”
That’s it, Keith. The end of the line. I have a vague memory of maybe having already sent you this, so my apologies, but perhaps it bears repeating.
A fair question to ask is why Barrett felt he could find a Victorian/Edwardian photo album at this particular auction. Was it just a matter of dumb luck, with the time clock ticking? I doubt it. It was probably advertised somewhere, so it is possible a catalogue of the auction still exists—something I did not think to ask about.
This is my last post on the Maybrick debate, as life is too short to devote any more time to this now 26 year old hoax. But I’ll leave you with this. Liverpool Echo, 4th February, 1992, page 4.
If Robbie Johnson was sentenced on that date to two years in prison, and he served aprox 17 months, as you reported, wouldn’t he have just gotten out of the slammer in the summer of 1993—within a few days of when Albert first noticed the scratches on the watch? Or are you suggesting he was on remand for several months prior to his conviction, and given credit for time served? The July 92 date in your book appears highly problematic based on this report, but maybe you’ve confirmed it?
Anyway, doesn’t Feldman admit in his book that he caught Robert Johnson telling lie about the watch’s scratches? Didn’t Harrison state that Johnson often showed up unannounced with a couple of knuckle-draggers in tow, men that made her feel very uneasy? The second article from June 1997 shows Johnson’s partner in crime making a speedy return to the Big House on release. These were not nice people, Keith. A man who beat a 70-year-old woman and stole her purse, another who is in with a gang of drug dealers. Judging by its name, I doubt Feldman’s “Duocrave” videos were suitable for children, so throw in another profession not known for savory characters. Not the nicest cast hanging out in the shadows of Battlecrease. You're smarter than this, Keith. These people are scammers and the Diary and watch should not be promoted.
Take good care of yourself.
![Click image for larger version Name: Keeley Again 27 June 1997 Echo.JPG Views: 0 Size: 85.2 KB ID: 727404](filedata/fetch?id=727404&d=1574003154&type=medium)
But over a five-year period, Barrett was also dropping the hint.
“However, last week he [Barrett] admitted he spent 10 days tapping out the 9,000 word confession on a word processor in his Victorian terraced house in Liverpool.”
Maurice Chittenden, The Sunday Times, 3 July 1994.
“Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days.” --Barrett’s signed affidavit, 5 January 1995.
“Barrett told the assembled guests that he had contacted Doreen Montgomery before he had actually forged the Diary. When the agent took the bail, Barrett claimed, he found himself with just 11 days before their meeting to actually produce the Diary.”
--Linder, Morris, Skinner, paraphrasing Barrett’s statement at Camille Wolff’s luncheon in London, held on 11 April 1999.
So, scattered among Mike’s wild tales, and for a period of nearly 5 years, he consistently repeated that the Diary had been composed in 10-11 days. As has been amply demonstrated by David B., this time-span fits almost perfectly with what we know about the advertisement, arrival, and rejection of the maroon diary; the next available auction date at Outhwaite & Litherland; and Mike’s journey to London on 13 April 1992.
Unfortunately, the proof you need will never be handed on a platter, because when I contacted O & L back in 2006 to ask them to check their receipts for March-April 1992 (having already suspected what David B. has worked out for himself earlier this year) I was told their records had been pulped. We’ve discussed this before, but I don’t think I showed you the following.
Although it appears that I no longer have O & L’s written response (the letter was by a woman, that’s all I remember), I have found an old email to Birchwood that alludes to my inquiry, dated 8 May, 2006, 1:31 p.m., PST. So I must have heard back in very early May 2006. I quote:
“My research, not surprisingly perhaps, came up empty.
I contacted Oathwaite & Litherland Auctioneers to see if they still had their business receipts. As you might recall, Mike Barrett (when he was in confessional mode) claimed to have bought the album at the auction-house. According to Melvin Harris, the private detective Alan Gray later went to the auction house, but, for whatever reason, wasn't allowed to inspect their books. They probably wanted nothing to do with the Maybrick fiasco. Shirley Harrison had earlier managed to get a response from them...they could find no record of Barrett's transaction, but like all things Diary, it appears to me that she screwed-up and had asked the auctioneers to check the wrong year of purchase. Or so I believe.
Anyway, I just heard back from the auctioneers, and it appears that they had shredded their records several years ago. Here in the U.S. businesses are required to hold on to their receipts for 10 years for tax purposes--so I thought there might be an outside chance that these still existed. No such luck.
Evidently the law in the UK requires them to hold on to them for only about 6 years, so Barrett has dodged another bullet...or so I believe..”
That’s it, Keith. The end of the line. I have a vague memory of maybe having already sent you this, so my apologies, but perhaps it bears repeating.
A fair question to ask is why Barrett felt he could find a Victorian/Edwardian photo album at this particular auction. Was it just a matter of dumb luck, with the time clock ticking? I doubt it. It was probably advertised somewhere, so it is possible a catalogue of the auction still exists—something I did not think to ask about.
This is my last post on the Maybrick debate, as life is too short to devote any more time to this now 26 year old hoax. But I’ll leave you with this. Liverpool Echo, 4th February, 1992, page 4.
If Robbie Johnson was sentenced on that date to two years in prison, and he served aprox 17 months, as you reported, wouldn’t he have just gotten out of the slammer in the summer of 1993—within a few days of when Albert first noticed the scratches on the watch? Or are you suggesting he was on remand for several months prior to his conviction, and given credit for time served? The July 92 date in your book appears highly problematic based on this report, but maybe you’ve confirmed it?
Anyway, doesn’t Feldman admit in his book that he caught Robert Johnson telling lie about the watch’s scratches? Didn’t Harrison state that Johnson often showed up unannounced with a couple of knuckle-draggers in tow, men that made her feel very uneasy? The second article from June 1997 shows Johnson’s partner in crime making a speedy return to the Big House on release. These were not nice people, Keith. A man who beat a 70-year-old woman and stole her purse, another who is in with a gang of drug dealers. Judging by its name, I doubt Feldman’s “Duocrave” videos were suitable for children, so throw in another profession not known for savory characters. Not the nicest cast hanging out in the shadows of Battlecrease. You're smarter than this, Keith. These people are scammers and the Diary and watch should not be promoted.
Take good care of yourself.
Comment