Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[James_J]

Evening David,

Thanks for the response. I shall endeavour to answer your questions - which I'm assuming are asked in good faith.

(1.) With respect to the timesheets & the electrician's prospective start times etc. Yes, I do accept that the timesheets do not state whether the men where at Battlecrease in the morning, or afternoon of 9th March. Having said that, the timesheet does record that Arthur clocked eight hours that day. According to Colin Rhodes, during an interview with K.S. on 2nd July 2004, the electricians would have started the day at 08:00, with a half-hour lunch break at 12:00, before finishing around 16:00. Assuming that Arthur didn't begin work any later than normal (and there is no indication that he did) then it is safe to suppose that he was working at Riversdale Road in the morning. It is certainly possible that Coufopoulos started later in the day - but again, I don't have any documentation to support this.

(2.) The infamous biscuit-tin. The source of this information is Alan Davies. In an interview with me, on 15th February 2016, Davies stated: 'Yeah, I remember a gold watch I think [..] I remember it was Brian [Rawes] or someone, telling me that it was in a tin under the floor.' Robert Smith recieved a similar account from Davies on Friday 30th May 1997.

(3.) According to all of the accounts he has given (chiefly to Paul Feldman) it was Arthur Rigby who claimed that the Diary had been wrapped in brown paper or an old pillow case and concealed beneath the front passanger seat of the vehicle, before being removed from the premises. I recieved a similar account from Arthur's brother, which is reproduced in my essay.

(4.) Those who contended that the Diary had been removed from the house. During an interview with me, on 7th October 2015, Brian Rawes stated the following: I heard that [..] that it [the Diary] was at home [Edward Lyons' home] and [...] Eddie Lyons said he didn’t want to really know about it and that someone else had decided to take it, or to own it, and it was the chap that went to the publishers in London [Barrett]. The collective word amongst the electricians was that the Diary had been sold in a pub in Anfield.

(5.) I think that. Lyons (who lived on the Fountains Road) was known to have frequented The Saddle and according to one source, Michael Barrett was the type of character to make himself known within the community. Further to that - when Paul Feldman came calling with a proposed deal (involving Paul Dodd), Mike knew exactly which electrician to visit - even though, Feldman had kept his identity from Barrett. Lyons confirmed to me that Barrett came knocking on his door immediately after Paul Feldman's inquiry. If the two were not previously aquainted, how could Mike have made the connection so quickly (within twenty-four hours)? This was before any mention of the electricians or Battlecrease had made its way into the newspapers.

(6.) I am happy to accept that Barrett's experience was more substantial than I initially gave him credit for ... but, if you're asking me whether that equates to him having the skill or craftsmanship to construct the Diary? - no (imho). As Martin Fido correctly stated; 'Barrett took the Diary to market in a very amateurish way'.

(7.) I was speculating on the basis of the other accounts & documented sources. Since writing my essay, my opinion on this has actually changed. I now believe that Mike was only shown the Diary on 9th March - and thereafter set about devising a means to obtain ownership of it. This accounts for interim period between 9th March and 13th April, when he was finally in a position to take the Diary to London.

(8.) No. This information came from Paul Dodd - during his brief interview in the 1993 documentary film. Without access to the entire timesheet collection, I felt that this was likely the best source to cite - given that Paul was the home-owner and was speaking so soon after the events. Paul has since confirmed to me that he was working from memory in this instance, and that some of his dates and details were incorrect.


(9.) Once again - this information came from Paul Dodd. Portus & Rhodes certainly were contracted to complete the work, which does appear to have been completed in stages - albiet in 1992 (not 1989). This included working in both the ground floor & first-floor flat.


(10.) Once again - the 'three years' came courtesy of Paul Dodd. I believe this was sourced from his interview in the 1993 documentary film. Using the timesheets, we can now see that the storage heaters were not installed over a three year period - and were actually fitted in 1992.


(11.) No. This information came from Paul Dodd. I had no access to the entire timesheet collection. See answers above.


(12.) No. This information came from Paul Dodd. I had no access to the entire timesheet collection. See answers above.


(13.) No, it doesn't surprise me. All of the references to 'three years; two phases; ring mains etc.' came courtesey of Paul Dodd. As mentioned, Paul has since confirmed that he was working from memory in order to determine the dates and specifications of the work carried out. It is obvious that not everything Dodd said was correct - but thankfully, we can now look at the timesheets to gain an accurate understanding of what work was conducted and when.


(14). No. The quote from Alan Dodgson has certainly been a source of some confusion. According to the earliest accounts, the shop opened in October 1991. Thankfully, it has since been confirmed that the shop opened for trading in November 1992 - which ties in with the chronology of Alan Davies' account. November 92 is also the date cited in Robert's new book. Apologies for the error on my part - from memory, I had been using some of Shirley's original notes for reference, which were clearly a little out.


(15.) No. See above.


(16.) The 'Little Red Diary' seems to be a sticking point for some. According to Anne Graham, Barrett had 'sent away for the red diary when he was already in possession of the [Maybrick] Diary, in order to confirm what a Victorian diary actually looked like.’ That does resonate with me - but, obviously the specification of 'at least twenty blank pages' is peculiar. I'm yet to arrive at any conclusion about this - but I do not believe that it is definitive evidence of forgery. Truthfully, I think that only Anne Graham can answer that question.


(17.) The wording of this question is a little unclear....reading like a hypothetical 'what if..?' But to give you the benefit of the doubt; I am wholly sceptical of accepting anything Mike Barrett said - without some documented support. I've often wondered why people are so willing to accept his January 1995 affidavit, as opposed to his April 1993 affidavit - in which, he claims to have recieved the Diary straight from Tony Devereux. Why should we be inclinced to believe one over the other? Especially as Barrett was later to refute the 1995 affidavit - as he did during a filmed interview with Paul Feldman, Martin Howells and Keith Skinner on 20th July 1995.


(18.) As a researcher, surely you should pride yourself on retaining some level of objectivity? I can't quite see how interviewing someone equates to them being a 'friend', as you put it. Conducting an interview with someone, for the sole purpose of investigating historical fact, is not the same as heading down to the pub for a pint with them. So in short - no. Every method of research has its pros and cons, but seeing as you raised the issue...how else would you suggest we gather first-hand testimony?


(19.) Perhaps - but then we might actually get somewhere. In my opinion, its both lazy and irresponsible to make any judgement, without having made some effort to correspond with those directly involved, just for the fear of being an inconvenience.


(20.) To an extent - the key word being interviews. Transcripts and written statements from those involved - not biased judgements or internet speculation.


(21.) Ideally yes - but we should be mindful that some of the documentation contains private information, which has been shared in confidence with certain researchers. You cannot blame the researchers for respecting the confidence that has been placed in them - at least whilst certain individuals are still alive. The Diary remains a sensitive topic which must be handled with both care & diligence.


(22.) Yes. I have the original note from our conversation.


(23.) James denied having found it.


(24.) I didn't ask him that - on the basis that I did not have access to the timesheets. It was Edward Lyons who remembered working with Arthur Rigby & James Coufopoulos at Battlecrease when lifting floorboards for storage heaters.


(25.) Yes - on several occasions. Similarly to James, he denied finding anything - but his description of the work corresponded with the 9th March. He confirmed essentially everything else - but denied finding the Diary. (I don't imagine this is terribly surprising?)

So there we are - all questions answered. I do appreciate the critique - as it is serves to open up channels of discussion. I think that's its worthwhile reiterating that the essay was written prior to the disclouse of the timesheets - and, following the release of Robert's book in August, was quickly amended in time for a September release. There are dates & details which are incorrect, but the conclusions remain the same.

Just to close. I think that with a total of 6,973 posts (averaging 6.32 posts per day) you certainly can count yourself a researcher/historian.

Unfortunately for you, that does of course mean that K.S's appraisal still applies!

I would feel privleged if I were you...happy gut busting!

Best, James

[David Orsam]

Hi James,

Thank you for your answers which are for the most part very helpful and given, I think, in a spirit of proper debate.

What I will do next is comment individually on your answers although I don't particularly want to get bogged down in the detail of back and forth on it (but a few questions do arise) so I won't take the absence of any response from you to my comments as of any significance but naturally feel free to respond as you choose.

I will then post separately to see if we can really cut to the chase and deal with the important issues.

[David Orsam]

(1.) With respect to the timesheets & the electrician's prospective start times etc. Yes, I do accept that the timesheets do not state whether the men where at Battlecrease in the morning, or afternoon of 9th March. Having said that, the timesheet does record that Arthur clocked eight hours that day. According to Colin Rhodes, during an interview with K.S. on 2nd July 2004, the electricians would have started the day at 08:00, with a half-hour lunch break at 12:00, before finishing around 16:00. Assuming that Arthur didn't begin work any later than normal (and there is no indication that he did) then it is safe to suppose that he was working at Riversdale Road in the morning. It is certainly possible that Coufopoulos started later in the day - but again, I don't have any documentation to support this.

No comments on this, thank you.

(2.) The infamous biscuit-tin. The source of this information is Alan Davies. In an interview with me, on 15th February 2016, Davies stated: 'Yeah, I remember a gold watch I think [..] I remember it was Brian [Rawes] or someone, telling me that it was in a tin under the floor.' Robert Smith recieved a similar account from Davies on Friday 30th May 1997.

This is news to me. The quote you give suggests he had been prompted about a gold watch in the [leading?] question rather than having said it himself. He also seems to be unclear as to who told him this [according to Smith, Rawes denied saying anything to anyone about a biscuit tin] and more critically when he was told it (i.e. was it in 1992 or later?) Are you sure that Smith received a similar account from Davies? In Smith's book there is mention of Davies telling him about a leather bound diary and a gold ring but nothing is said at all about a gold watch. Does that not surprise you?

(3.) According to all of the accounts he has given (chiefly to Paul Feldman) it was Arthur Rigby who claimed that the Diary had been wrapped in brown paper or an old pillow case and concealed beneath the front passanger seat of the vehicle, before being removed from the premises. I recieved a similar account from Arthur's brother, which is reproduced in my essay.

Here's my problem with that answer. As far as I am aware, Arthur Rigby never claimed to have seen a "Diary". So isn't it fair to say that while Rigby said he remembers something wrapped in an old pillow case he never said it was the Diary? Indeed, in your book we find that Rigby's brother says that Rigby never witnessed the finding of anything and that he saw two electricians "quickly put something in a pillow case or shopping bag". Further you say that one electrician told Rigby that this was a sample of something from a dog to be examined. So I would have to challenge you that you are providing support here of the finding of a diary.

(4.) Those who contended that the Diary had been removed from the house. During an interview with me, on 7th October 2015, Brian Rawes stated the following: I heard that [..] that it [the Diary] was at home [Edward Lyons' home] and [...] Eddie Lyons said he didn’t want to really know about it and that someone else had decided to take it, or to own it, and it was the chap that went to the publishers in London [Barrett]. The collective word amongst the electricians was that the Diary had been sold in a pub in Anfield.

I have to comment that this is rather unsatisfactory support of the claim in your essay that "it is understood that [the Diary came into Barrett's possession]". As we can see from your essay, what Rawes actually said was "I heard that, the rumour was..." Not only is Rawes talking about a rumour but he doesn't say who he heard it from and, more importantly, when. His story was that Eddie was saying he had found a book in Battlecrease and didn't know what to do with it in July 1992, at which point, it can't have been Eddie's problem. I might add that the problem I have with "the collective word" amongst the electricians being that the Diary had been sold in a pub in Anfield is that Feldman asked all the electricians in early 1993 if they drank in a pub in Anfield (the Saddle) which was at the same time as asking them if they had found something in Battlecrease and at the same time as asking them if they knew Barrett. Does it concern you that Feldman might have been leading the electricians to develop a false collective memory of events?

(5.) I think that. Lyons (who lived on the Fountains Road) was known to have frequented The Saddle and according to one source, Michael Barrett was the type of character to make himself known within the community. Further to that - when Paul Feldman came calling with a proposed deal (involving Paul Dodd), Mike knew exactly which electrician to visit - even though, Feldman had kept his identity from Barrett. Lyons confirmed to me that Barrett came knocking on his door immediately after Paul Feldman's inquiry. If the two were not previously aquainted, how could Mike have made the connection so quickly (within twenty-four hours)? This was before any mention of the electricians or Battlecrease had made its way into the newspapers.

I would comment that the first sentence doesn't demonstrate that Lyons and Barrett knew each other. Regarding the second sentence, I would be interested to know on what basis you are able to state that Feldman kept Lyons' identity from Barrett. Does it not surprise you, if that were really the case, that Feldman makes no point in his book about Barrett confronting a man whose identity he could not have known (at least not in my edition) and, further, that Feldman never apparently asked Barrett how he could possibly have known the identity of the electrician he was talking about? For what it's worth, my conclusion from this is that Feldman must have given Eddie Lyons' name to Barrett.

(6.) I am happy to accept that Barrett's experience was more substantial than I initially gave him credit for ... but, if you're asking me whether that equates to him having the skill or craftsmanship to construct the Diary? - no (imho). As Martin Fido correctly stated; 'Barrett took the Diary to market in a very amateurish way'.

No, for your information, I wasn't asking you that question. Thanks for the clarification in the first part of your answer.

(7.) I was speculating on the basis of the other accounts & documented sources. Since writing my essay, my opinion on this has actually changed. I now believe that Mike was only shown the Diary on 9th March - and thereafter set about devising a means to obtain ownership of it. This accounts for interim period between 9th March and 13th April, when he was finally in a position to take the Diary to London.

Thank you for your answer. I have no comments.

(8.) No. This information came from Paul Dodd - during his brief interview in the 1993 documentary film. Without access to the entire timesheet collection, I felt that this was likely the best source to cite - given that Paul was the home-owner and was speaking so soon after the events. Paul has since confirmed to me that he was working from memory in this instance, and that some of his dates and details were incorrect.

Thank you for your answer. I have no comments.

(9.) Once again - this information came from Paul Dodd. Portus & Rhodes certainly were contracted to complete the work, which does appear to have been completed in stages - albiet in 1992 (not 1989). This included working in both the ground floor & first-floor flat.

Thank you for your answer. I have no comments.

(10.) Once again - the 'three years' came courtesy of Paul Dodd. I believe this was sourced from his interview in the 1993 documentary film. Using the timesheets, we can now see that the storage heaters were not installed over a three year period - and were actually fitted in 1992.

Thank you for your answer. I would comment that we can only see from the timesheets reproduced in Smith's book that a single storage heater was installed on 9/10 March 1992. We could only say that storage heaters (plural) were not fitted between 1989 and 1991 if the timesheets provided by Rhodes are ALL of the timesheets showing work done by Portus & Rhodes electricians in Battlecrease for which I yet to see any actual confirmation (only inference).

(11.) No. This information came from Paul Dodd. I had no access to the entire timesheet collection. See answers above.

Thank you.

(12.) No. This information came from Paul Dodd. I had no access to the entire timesheet collection. See answers above.

Thank you.

(13.) No, it doesn't surprise me. All of the references to 'three years; two phases; ring mains etc.' came courtesey of Paul Dodd. As mentioned, Paul has since confirmed that he was working from memory in order to determine the dates and specifications of the work carried out. It is obvious that not everything Dodd said was correct - but thankfully, we can now look at the timesheets to gain an accurate understanding of what work was conducted and when.

Thank you. I would comment that it will be obvious that not everything Dodd said was correct once confirmation is provided that all of the relevant timesheets have been released. You may or may not be able to look at the timesheets to gain an accurate understanding of what work was conducted and when (although I thought you said you had no access to them) but I have only ever seen the reproductions of two timesheets in Robert Smith's book so cannot actually do what you say is possible.

(14). No. The quote from Alan Dodgson has certainly been a source of some confusion. According to the earliest accounts, the shop opened in October 1991. Thankfully, it has since been confirmed that the shop opened for trading in November 1992 - which ties in with the chronology of Alan Davies' account. November 92 is also the date cited in Robert's new book. Apologies for the error on my part - from memory, I had been using some of Shirley's original notes for reference, which were clearly a little out.

Thank you for the clarification. I'd be interested to know how it has been confirmed that the shop opened for trading in November 1992. But on that basis I would comment that if Alan Davies walked into the shop a few months after it opened this could have been in early 1993, after Feldman had been stirring up the pot. It certainly seems odd to me that at least seven months (and possibly more) after the supposed sale of the diary by Lyons to Barrett, an electrician - who obviously has no knowledge of its whereabouts - feels able to offer that diary up to Dodgson at a specific price, being wholly unaware that it has already been sold.

(15.) No. See above.

Okay, the information is in Smith's book which you cite in your references, but I appreciate you would not have had much time to assimilate it.

(16.) The 'Little Red Diary' seems to be a sticking point for some. According to Anne Graham, Barrett had 'sent away for the red diary when he was already in possession of the [Maybrick] Diary, in order to confirm what a Victorian diary actually looked like.’ That does resonate with me - but, obviously the specification of 'at least twenty blank pages' is peculiar. I'm yet to arrive at any conclusion about this - but I do not believe that it is definitive evidence of forgery. Truthfully, I think that only Anne Graham can answer that question.

Thank you. I would comment that if Anne Graham was involved in the forging of the Diary (as Mike alleged in his 1995 affidavit) it would be a little difficult to take her word as gospel as to why Mike was acquiring the little red diary. And she might only be passing on what Mike told her in any event.

(17.) The wording of this question is a little unclear....reading like a hypothetical 'what if..?' But to give you the benefit of the doubt; I am wholly sceptical of accepting anything Mike Barrett said - without some documented support. I've often wondered why people are so willing to accept his January 1995 affidavit, as opposed to his April 1993 affidavit - in which, he claims to have recieved the Diary straight from Tony Devereux. Why should we be inclinced to believe one over the other? Especially as Barrett was later to refute the 1995 affidavit - as he did during a filmed interview with Paul Feldman, Martin Howells and Keith Skinner on 20th July 1995.

I want to try and keep this discussion up at the highest level of politeness and lowest level of sarcasm but I am bound to comment that you have ducked this question slightly. You've focused on something I wrote in parentheses about what Mike said in his affidavit. The fact of it being in parentheses means that it wasn't the important bit of the question. And I don't think it was unclear at all. Let me take out the bit in parentheses (because my point is that we don't need to rely on anything that Mike said in his affidavit at all) and repeat it:

Would you agree that if Mike Barrett wanted to acquire said Victorian diary with blank pages for the purpose of forging a diary of Jack the Ripper then we have, indeed, probably solved the truth of the Diary’s provenance on Casebook?

I mean, as a "what if" hypothetical question it strikes me as crystal clear. I think you've rather avoided the obvious answer here which is "yes".

(18.) As a researcher, surely you should pride yourself on retaining some level of objectivity? I can't quite see how interviewing someone equates to them being a 'friend', as you put it. Conducting an interview with someone, for the sole purpose of investigating historical fact, is not the same as heading down to the pub for a pint with them. So in short - no. Every method of research has its pros and cons, but seeing as you raised the issue...how else would you suggest we gather first-hand testimony?

Thank you. I would comment that I wasn't criticising the notion of interviewing people, only that there are dangers associated with it.

(19.) Perhaps - but then we might actually get somewhere. In my opinion, its both lazy and irresponsible to make any judgement, without having made some effort to correspond with those directly involved, just for the fear of being an inconvenience.

Thank you. I would only comment (and repeat) that it is impossible for everyone reading these posts, and interested in this subject, to correspond with those "directly involved" so you are, in effect, accusing virtually everyone of being "lazy and irresponsible" if they form a judgement based on what they have read on this subject (i.e. the written evidence). I can't, therefore, agree with you on this. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it would potentially be an absolute disaster if everyone, including people who have no experience of how to ask questions, interfered in an investigation and corresponded with those directly involved because it would probably end up distorting memories.

(20.) To an extent - the key word being interviews. Transcripts and written statements from those involved - not biased judgements or internet speculation.

Thank you.

(21.) Ideally yes - but we should be mindful that some of the documentation contains private information, which has been shared in confidence with certain researchers. You cannot blame the researchers for respecting the confidence that has been placed in them - at least whilst certain individuals are still alive. The Diary remains a sensitive topic which must be handled with both care & diligence.

Thank you.

(22.) Yes. I have the original note from our conversation.

Thank you.

(23.) James denied having found it.

Thank you.

(24.) I didn't ask him that - on the basis that I did not have access to the timesheets. It was Edward Lyons who remembered working with Arthur Rigby & James Coufopoulos at Battlecrease when lifting floorboards for storage heaters.

Thank you for the first part of the answer (although I don't quite follow the logic). Is it possible we can have the direct quote of what Eddie Lyons said about working at Battlecrease?

(25.) Yes - on several occasions. Similarly to James, he denied finding anything - but his description of the work corresponded with the 9th March. He confirmed essentially everything else - but denied finding the Diary. (I don't imagine this is terribly surprising?)

Thank you. Is it possible we can have the direct quote of Eddie Lyons essentially confirming everything else?

So there we are - all questions answered. I do appreciate the critique - as it is serves to open up channels of discussion. I think that's its worthwhile reiterating that the essay was written prior to the disclouse of the timesheets - and, following the release of Robert's book in August, was quickly amended in time for a September release. There are dates & details which are incorrect, but the conclusions remain the same.

As I said above, I appreciate the answers and the spirit in which they were given.

Just to close. I think that with a total of 6,973 posts (averaging 6.32 posts per day) you certainly can count yourself a researcher/historian.

I disagree entirely. It means no more than that I am an active contributing member of an internet forum. Not every member of this forum is a researcher/historian by any means.

Unfortunately for you, that does of course mean that K.S's appraisal still applies!

I think not.

[David Orsam]

Right James, so cutting to the chase what I really want from you in a nutshell is why you have concluded that the Diary came from under the floorboards on 9 March 1992.

Obviously I am aware of the coincidence of that being the day that Mike Barrett telephoned London to say that he had Jack the Ripper's diary. And if that is why you have formed such a conclusion then fine.

But is there anything else? Now, I know from your essay that you seem to rely on the stories told by the electricians. Can you tell me which stories you rely on in particular? And do they tell a coherent story about who found the Diary and the circumstances of that finding?

I have a feeling that you are going to tell me something which you haven't stated in your essay, namely that the timesheets do not tell the full story because Eddie Lyons WAS working in Battlecrease on 9 March 1992. Is that correct? If so, how do you explain the fact that the timesheet of that date does not include his name?

Have you also considered the possibility that the story of the finding of the Diary only came into existence after Feldman started asking questions about it and planted the idea into their heads? If so, what do you say about that possibility?

But what I really want to ask you are these four questions:

Firstly, if the Diary came from under the floorboards on 9 March 1992 is not the only possible explanation for such an extraordinary discovery that it must have been written by James Maybrick and that James Maybrick is therefore Jack the Ripper?

Secondly, on the basis that there is no other known use of the expression "one off" to mean unique in the nineteenth century is it reasonable for anyone to be dubious that the Diary, containing the expression "one off instance", could have been written in the nineteenth century?

Thirdly, is it reasonable to be suspicious of the established fact that Mike Barrett attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with a minimum of 20 blank pages in March 1992? Is one not entitled to balance the fact of work being done within Battlecrease on 9 March 1992 with the fact that Mike Barrett was on the hunt for a Victorian Diary with blank pages over a month before he took the Jack the Ripper Diary to London?

Fourthly, is there any reason why it is not possible for Mike and Anne jointly to have created the Diary in March 1992 (either with or without the assistance of a third person)?

[rjpalmer]

"Lists to appear once only should be addressed to Bookdealer, PO Box 1082, Winscombe, Avon BS24 6BX to arrive first post Wednesday for inclusion in the next week's issue."

Martin E. Earl's instructions are slightly ambiguous, but it seems like there is a risk of it now solidifying into "fact" that Barrett sent in his request for a blank or partially blank diary on March 9-11th, 1992. The day, or within a day or two, of when he called Crew. Maybe: but as far as I can fathom, he also could have posted the request March 6-7th and it still wouldn't have appeared until the March 19th issue. At least that's my reading. I supposed only Mr. Earl could answer for certain what was the exact lead time.

[David Orsam]

Martin E. Earl's instructions are slightly ambiguous, but it seems like there is a risk of it now solidifying into "fact" that Barrett sent in his request for a blank or partially blank diary on March 9-11th, 1992. The day, or within a day or two, of when he called Crew. Maybe: but as far as I can fathom, he also could have posted the request March 6-7th and it still wouldn't have appeared until the March 19th issue. At least that's my reading. I supposed only Mr. Earl could answer for certain what was the exact lead time.

Just to clarify, the instructions are not Martin Earl's. They are the instructions of the Bookdealer magazine to advertisers such as Martin Earl.

I always thought that if there was any ambiguity in the Bookdealer's, instructions, it was whether the Wednesday in question was Wednesday 11th March or Wednesday 18th March. I'm reasonably certain that the deadline was 11th March which means that all lists received from dealers after first post on Wednesday 5 March and before the second post of Wednesday 11 March would go into the edition of Thursday 19th March.

So if you are looking for the earliest date that Barrett could have contacted Martin Earl, it could easily have been Tuesday 4 March with any list being compiled that day by Earl being too late to get into the issue of Bookdealer of 12 March. It could even have been before this if Earl had sent off his list early for the 12 March issue.

I would have thought that any of the dealers who advertised in Bookdealer would be able to confirm how it worked in practice.

[caz]

Good afternoon Caz. Just dropping by, and funny you should ask, because I've recently read, or partially read, the two books Mike mentions. Let me warn you in advance: this WON'T convince you that "Mike dunnit." But I found it slightly interesting.

The Wilson/Odell book mentioned in Mike's 'research notes' actually has a paragraph that mentions the Maybrick case in passing. It concerns Dr. Forbes Winslow, his father's asylum, and the sad case of Florie M. The 1988 edition of Wilson/Odell is a paperback, gum binding. If Barrett gazed on that passage once too often it would have made a crease in the gum.

Hi rj,

Many apologies for the belated response. IIRC it was claimed that Mike did much of his ripper research in the library, and that would make sense if he didn't have too much spare cash at the time to buy a load of books - either new or second hand - and then trust to luck that he had chosen the right ones for his purpose. He told Keith Skinner in 1994 that he initially thought only to read up on the subject of JtR, to compare what he learned with what was in the diary. He said it was only later that he set about trying to find the writer's identity. He found so many conflicting ripper 'facts' in the library books he consulted that he didn't know which were reliable and which weren't. You have to wonder how he settled on which 'facts' to use and which to discard, if his purpose was to fake a credible enough JtR diary to earn himself the money for a greenhouse.

The same paragraph has the word "Hammersmith" rather prominently placed at the beginning of a sentence (1988 edition). In the 1987 edition, the word is also prominent, being at the end of a line and hyphenated: Hammer-smith. I don't know which edition Mike owned, but it doesn't matter much.

That's intriguing, rj, but as I say I'm not sure that Mike actually owned the books. If he was flipping through them in the library, jotting down notes, it's possible that he did what you did, saw the word "Hammersmith" and made a mental note that this was coincidentally the name of the diary's mystery woman. I don't think he ever claimed to find a Maybrick reference in Wilson/Odell but that wouldn't tell us much.

Mike supposedly had a habit of flipping open books. For instance, he is said to have come up with the obscure "O[h] Costly intercourse of Death" quotation by casually flipping through the Sphere Guide to English Literature. The alleged binding defect made it more likely that the book would open at that page. Mike saw the quote, and decided to incorporate it in the Diary's text.

Or there was no binding defect, as Robert Smith discovered when he finally examined the volume Mike had claimed to have owned since the Hillsborough Disaster. Mike had handed it over to Alan Gray when trying to claim he had put the quote in the diary himself, but this wasn't until after he'd revealed how he had found the quote in the library. It was certainly there to find, in any of the three volumes in the small section on English Literature.

I suppose it comes down to how much of a liar you think Mike was. Concerning his claims to have forged the diary, for instance, did he lie just a little bit, over certain aspects? Did he lie half the time, and tell the truth the rest of the time? Or did he lie every time his lips moved, whenever it concerned the diary's origins?

But I am reminded by your above link that those of us who still suspect Mike's involvement are suffering from 'mental health issues,' so I will leave it at that and go seek medication. Have a good evening.

I'm sure you wouldn't intentionally have given the impression that those were my words, rj, or that I even responded to them. But just in case anyone who hasn't followed that link may have assumed they were, I'd like to set the record straight - while you take your meds like a good boy.

Have a great Tuesday afternoon.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well I mean, if Barrett created the Diary it means he was reasonably clever and he's hardly going to show off his detailed knowledge of Maybrick and JTR to the researcher who is investigating whether the Diary is a fake!

That's assuming that the conversation with Keith Skinner was before he created his Research Notes. Those notes were handed to Shirley Harrison in July or August 1992 so Keith Skinner's conversation with Barrett must have been prior to this and I'm not aware that such an early conversation has ever been documented. Our friendly poster doesn't tell us what date this conversation took place.

This friendly poster will. On April 14th, 1994, Keith had a long conversation with Mike about the latter's earliest impressions of the diary, his efforts to research it and so on. I believe Keith first saw Mike and the diary in June 1992, when invited along by Robert Smith, but this wasn't an interview situation. In April 1994 Keith was seeking some kind of support for Mike having had the diary since the Spring/Summer of 1991, which would have given him several months in which to research the ripper, work out his identity from the diary content and then research the Maybricks. Yet Mike said it was Shirley who told him he had identified the wrong house as Battlecrease. He said he had gone to Riversdale Road in search of Maybrick's house and wrongly assumed which one it was. He told Keith he couldn't ask anyone because he couldn't reveal the ripper's identity at that stage.

If Mike was telling Keith he had busily researched the ripper and the Maybricks for at least the two years from August 1991 until Shirley's book was ready to publish, I see no reason why he wouldn't have shown off how much he'd managed to learn in that time. Yet Keith was given the impression that he had grasped very little.

I agree that flawed and dodgy thinking is hardly a sound basis for getting to the truth. But it's equally important that sound thinking is not based on a flawed understanding of what was said and when.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Here's an interesting quote from Feldman's book (1997 edition, p. 133):

"Mike Barrett had taken the diary to the literary agent Doreen Montgomery in April 1992. Three years before, in 1989 - for the first time since Maybrick's death on 11 May 1889 - the floorboards in what was his bedroom had been removed. I was finding it difficult to accept that there was not a connection between the two events".

Replace "Three years before, in 1989" with "One month before, on 9 March 1992" and it seems that the exact same argument is being made today as was being made 20 years ago, which shows how far the timesheet evidence has got us!

We might note that the authors of Inside Story point out that Paul Dodd claims that Feldman was wrong to say that the floorboards were lifted for the first time in 1989, not because he should have said 1992 but because they were lifted prior to this, as I have quoted in my previous post.

David,

If you don't know which floorboards Paul Dodd lifted himself in 1977, and if you don't know these were on the first floor, and in Maybrick's old bedroom, I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make, but it's hardly a solid argument for the floorboards in question, which were raised in that room on March 9th 1992 [as was confirmed way back to Keith by Colin Rhodes himself, and he wasn't the only one to say that particular job required it], having been raised on previous occasions. And it's no argument at all for no floorboards being raised on the day in question.

It's clear that you dislike the 'coincidence' very much indeed, or you wouldn't be trying quite so hard to dispute the nature of the work on the day Mike made his first known reference to the diary.

The 1989 date appears to have originated with Eddie Lyons, who didn't even start work with Portus & Rhodes until November 1991. That was arguably his insurance - or so he thought - against any future accusations of theft.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The point is that Eddie Lyons was NOT a random coincidence. He probably only exists in the story because he happened to be one of nine Liverpool electricians who drank in the Saddle. It’s not a random coincidence, in other words, it’s a manufactured story – manufactured by Rigby - created to please the big film producer, Paul Feldman, and give him exactly what he wanted. In response, Eddie initially seems to have been non-committal and then, according to Feldman, appears to have agreed that he did find the diary (in 1989) once he realised that there might be something in it for him. Then, when it became clear that there was nothing in it for him after all (and after having been confronted with an angry Mike Barrett asking him why he was lying) it looks like he reverted to the truth in June 1993 and said he never found it. As far as I know, that remains his position to this day.

All very simple.

Except that if Eddie told the truth to Robert Smith in June 1993, when he popped into the Saddle for the purpose of setting the record straight before popping out again, he did find a book under some floorboards at Battlecrease and threw it into a skip! And the only time any Battlecrease floorboards came up while Eddie was in the employ of Portus & Rhodes was on March 9th 1992.

How is that 'all very simple'? You've just exchanged one incredible coincidence for another - much like Eddie was seeking to exchange the more damaging story for a less damaging one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If anyone is wondering why I am still here posting in this thread, my thread – the thread that I created to discuss Mike's acquisition of a Victorian diary – it is because I am responding to new (timesheet) evidence which is being used to suggest that Mike did not attempt to locate a Victorian diary with blank pages in order to write something onto those blank pages.

Are you turning into Anne Elk? "My theory, which belongs to me, is mine." Her theory was described as 'rather shallow, at best', her true concern being that she receive full credit for devising it: "That is the theory that I have and which is mine and what it is, too".

The suggestion is that Mike did not attempt to locate a Victorian diary with blank pages in order to transfer the prepared text of the Maybrick diary into it shortly before taking it to London and hoping to pass it off as more than a hundred years old.

Since it is your thread, and you apparently wish to suggest this is precisely what Mike was attempting, it would be good if you had a little more evidence to pad it out with than: "What else could he have wanted one for?"

We do know Mike acquired a Victorian guard book, in which is written 'the' diary. He told Keith [in April 1994] that when he first saw it he couldn't believe it was real and thought nobody else would either. Not a wildly improbable reaction, I'd have thought, from anyone being shown it for the first time and having no idea who may have written it.

But, as I have said, if the diary did come from under the floorboards in Battlecrease in 1992 then the only sensible conclusion is that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper which, forgive me, seems to be a pretty important conclusion because it solves the entire JTR mystery and here I agree entirely with Robert Smith in this regard: it's either a genuine diary or a modern forgery.

Well that would certainly explain your tenacity in clinging to Mike's veracity when telling his forgery tales. The alternative would naturally be unthinkable for you. But I wonder why your thinking is so black and white on the issue? Clearly you could never entertain the idea of Maybrick himself hiding anything under a floorboard, or you would not have such a problem with A.N. Other stashing something as a prank for whenever the next person happens to lift it.

Colin Rhodes told Keith about an occasion in a different house when floorboards were lifted in his presence to reveal a tin containing stacks of five pound notes. Colin spoke to the homeowner, who had long believed there should have been money left to her, and had wondered what had become of it. Now she knew.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I love the fact that I am told that the floorboards could have been lifted on any number of days between May 1889 and today and then, in the very next breath, that the floorboards being lifted on 9 March 1992 (if they were so lifted) was a "one off instance". Well if they were lifted prior to 9 March 1992 - as Harrison and Dodd suggest was the case - then it wasn't a one off instance was it?

You seem to have a problem with distinguishing between floorboards being lifted in theory; floorboards being lifted in in general; and those in Maybrick's old bedroom being lifted in actuality and in particular.

Do you have any knowledge of the latter being lifted on any occasion prior to March 9th 1992?

I rather suspect not. But do carry on speculating if it makes you less uneasy about the hellish consequences of the diary being discovered during a one-off instance of floorboard lifting.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In the absence of any evidence of such rumours actually existing in 1992 are we entitled to conclude that, in fact, there were none and those supposed rumours only came into existence in 1993 during Paul Feldman's "investigation"?

Yes, you are perfectly entitled to conclude this if you have not yet seen or heard the evidence for several individuals having talked to one another in 1992 about a diary coming out of the house, before there was anything in the papers that would have influenced their stories, and before Paul Feldman learned about any work done there and naturally began asking questions.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

For those who continually seem to have trouble with basic comprehension, let me post a reminder of what was said in another forum (in a thread which was inexplicably linked to in this thread) by a poster who stated that anyone who thinks that Barrett himself created the Diary has "mental issues".

Two points, and only two points, were made in support of this claim and to show that Barrett could not have been the forger.

The first was that Barrett would not have placed an advertisement for a Victorian diary if he had been the forger. This was a false point because, of course, as I have pointed out, he never placed any advertisement.

The second point (said to be an "important point") was this:

"Keith said that when he first "interviewed" Mike, Barrett showed little familiarity with either the Maybrick case nor Jack the Ripper. It's an important point because "first contact " tells you a fair amount; later in the Diary saga Mike clearly strove to get up to speed on both cases. Witness the back dated "research notes".

The argument being made here is clear: Mike spoke to Keith Skinner at a time when he knew nothing about Maybrick or JTR, thus demonstrating that he didn't have sufficient knowledge to forge the diary, but he subsequently did some research and "got up to speed" on both cases, which is demonstrated by his "research notes".

Now we know that this was a wholly false point too. The "research notes" were created no later than July/August 1992, while Keith Skinner's first interview with Barrett was in April 1994.

So it is impossible for Mike's research notes to be an example of him later getting up to speed on both the Maybrick and JTR sagas. There is no doubt whatsoever that by the time of his 1994 interview with Keith, Mike had already created those research notes and thus unquestionably had some basic knowledge of both subjects. So the fact that two years later he had forgotten what he had learnt in 1992 (if he had indeed forgotten) is neither here nor there and tells us nothing about whether he was or was not the forger of the diary.

So two points, and only two points, were made in support of the claim that Barrett could not have forged the diary and both points were utterly wrong!

Who, therefore, really has the mental issues I have to wonder?

[David Orsam]

The issue of the floorboards being lifted in 1977 seems to be quite clear from Harrison's summary of Paul Dodd's words in her 2003 book:

"Paul was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place and lifted the floor boards. Had anything been hidden, he was sure that he would have found it then."

So what Paul must have been saying here is that any floorboards that were lifted in or after 1989 had also been lifted in 1977. No other meaning can make sense.

It's not difficult.