Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

Finally, let's see what Martin Earl had been asked to obtain a bit later in 1992. This is what he advertises for in the 3 September 1992 issue of Bookdealer:

[David Orsam]

Yes, no less than four key Maybrick books.

Good luck with the argument that it can't possibly be a coincidence.....

[caz]

Let me expand a little on the danger of coincidence.

I've been in the situation many times during my research where I've developed a theory and become quite excited about the possibility of a document confirming that theory. Let's say I had worked out that if something had happened on 9th March of one year it would prove my theory and be very important. Well you can imagine my disappointment (and it usually does seem to be disappointment) when I locate the relevant document and it turns out that the thing I needed to happen on 9th March happened on 12th March. So near yet so far!!! What a shame it wasn't 9th March I would think to myself.

But then I realise that if the document had borne the date of 9th March two things would definitely have followed.

Firstly, I would have been convinced that my theory was correct. Secondly I would certainly have been wrong.

Because if the document was dated 12th March by coincidence it could easily have been dated 9th March by coincidence. That is why one needs to be very alive to the danger of coincidence when carrying out research.

And you really thought you were the only one to realise all this, David? Everyone closely involved with the diary story has been acutely alive to the danger of coincidence lurking under those floorboards.

The fact remains that if only one person at most - likely Eddie Lyons - could have been aware in 1992 of the March 9th 'double event' - the lifting of the floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom and Mike's first diary enquiry, an explanation is needed for what happened subsequently. If no diary was ever found, in 1989, 1992 or at any other time, and the rumours only began as a direct result of Feldman's 1993 enquiries, the coincidences don't go away, but merely change shape. Think about it. Eddie has always denied finding the diary in March 1992. He put his 'book' find back to an impossible 1989, when he was not yet employed by Portus & Rhodes. Nobody else involved in spreading false rumours prior to the first diary book's publication should have had the least idea that a double event of this nature had even occurred, and certainly no right to think that one day the pieces of a pack of lies told separately, by a lying former scrap metal dealer-turned-forger, and a bunch of lying electricians on the make, would come together courtesy of two real, documented events which just happened to coincide.

In short, there was nobody there planning for this special day, setting things up so they could later profit from it by starting rumours when someone like Feldman came along. Mike was certainly not going to take advantage of it, assuming he ever worked out that the floorboards were lifted on the same day he called the Rupert Crew agency. And neither was Eddie, even if he could have made a killing at Feldman's expense, using personal knowledge of what work was done in the house and when, and what Mike was doing with his diary at the time. The question then becomes why didn't Eddie give Feldman the date of March 9th 1992 himself, if he was aware of it but knew it was every bit as false as any in 1989?

But supposing even Eddie was unaware, because he didn't know Mike in 1992; knew nothing about his diary or anyone else's; hadn't found anything himself while working in the house; and therefore had no way to connect one with the other, before Feldman showed up a year later, helpfully connecting the dots for everyone? What were the chances of there having been any actual dots in place to connect back on March 9th 1992?

One needs more than just bald coincidence to establish a connection.

See above. This one sprouted great tufts of hair and bushy eyebrows on day one: Diary Day.

How do we know that Mike (a professional freelance journalist) and Anne and any accomplice or accomplices hadn't simply finished drafting the text of the diary over the weekend of 7/8 March 1992 and now, on the Monday, it was time to contact an agent?

You don't. But you have given yourself no choice but to believe they did, and that they coincidentally contacted the agent on Floorboards Day, if your only alternative is James Maybrick, truthfully signing off as Jack the Ripper in May 1889.

I wonder where you go from here, except for round and round in ever decreasing circles as more information emerges to help fill in some of the gaps.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I see that the saga of the June 1993 meeting continues and now becomes even more bizarre and incomprehensible.

Despite Robert Smith expressly asking to meet with Eddie Lyons and expressly requesting Mike Barrett to set up such a meeting in Liverpool and despite Robert Smith travelling to Liverpool for the specific purpose of meeting Eddie and despite Robert Smith expressly asking Mike if he could meet Eddie in the Saddle during the evening, it is apparently noteworthy that Eddie showed up in the Saddle for that meeting!!!

So what is the deal here? Is it that Robert Smith is psychic, being able to predict where Eddie will be at any particular point in time?

You'd need to ask Robert. Mocking the messenger might be fun but it doesn't earn you any bonus points.

Clearly, one of two things happened. Either Mike told Eddie that the meeting would be in the Saddle that evening in which case why does it matter that Smith hasn't worked out how or when this information was communicated? Or Mike did not tell Eddie that the meeting would be in the Saddle in which case Smith just got lucky in suggesting they went to the Saddle and/or Eddie always walked into the Saddle at 10pm.

Yeah, I think that's basically it, but you'd need to ask Robert why he thought to mention any of this.

So at the end of all this, why was this meeting even mentioned in the first place? And why is it still being discussed now? What is the relevance of the "extra detail"? What is there to think about?

Well you'd have to ask Robert why he mentioned it in the first place in his book, and why he gave me some extra detail privately, and then you'd have to ask yourself why you are still bringing it up, bordering on obsessively?

It doesn't begin to show that the two men knew each other, which seemed to be the original point being made.

Only 'seemed' to be the point? If you don't know what the point was, and think it of no possible relevance in any case, I have to wonder why you are still making assumptions. What's the point of that?

If I can remember that far back to my original post, and my main reason for bringing up the meeting in the context of it, it was more about what Eddie chose to say to Robert in front of Mike than the finer, infinitely less fascinating details of the arrangements which led to the rendezvous itself. I should have thought that was obvious and I don't recall rj having such a hard time with it. Robert couldn't have arranged for Eddie to show up or to say what he did unless Eddie himself chose to do so and Mike was happy for the three of them to meet. So the question that remains is why Eddie claimed he had found a book under the floorboards which he threw in a skip. If you don't have a sensible answer or don't think it's of any importance that's absolutely fine with me. Just leave it there - no distraction tactics required.

Love,

Alice in Diaryland
X

[caz]

Yes, no less than four key Maybrick books.

Good luck with the argument that it can't possibly be a coincidence.....

And you think I'm obsessed?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If I can remember that far back to my original post, and my main reason for bringing up the meeting in the context of it, it was more about what Eddie chose to say to Robert in front of Mike than the finer, infinitely less fascinating details of the arrangements which led to the rendezvous itself. I should have thought that was obvious and I don't recall rj having such a hard time with it. Robert couldn't have arranged for Eddie to show up or to say what he did unless Eddie himself chose to do so and Mike was happy for the three of them to meet. So the question that remains is why Eddie claimed he had found a book under the floorboards which he threw in a skip. If you don't have a sensible answer or don't think it's of any importance that's absolutely fine with me. Just leave it there - no distraction tactics required.

Love,

Alice in Diaryland
X

Ah yes, here is the relevant section again:

The other alternative is that Mike just happens to call Doreen about his fake diary, with his "dead pal" story ready to go, while totally ignorant of any work being done in Battlecrease, never mind what was done that very morning. But that's not the only curious coincidence that has to be digested and regurgitated as "just one of those things". There's also the curious case of the live electrician on the Portus & Rhodes team, Eddie Lyons, whose local is not only the same as Mike's, all the way over in Anfield, and one where Tony used to drink, but whose house is on the very street where Tony was last living.

Now I ask you, what in the name of sanity would Mike have thought, if he genuinely had had no idea about any of this when he first came up with the idea for Tony, an old Saddle regular from Fountains Road, to have given him the diary the year before? We know Mike and Eddie Lyons knew one another by June 1993, because he actually came into The Saddle one night when Robert Smith was there with Mike, and sat down with them. He even claimed he had found 'a book' under the floorboards, but said he had thrown it into a skip. Why admit any of this, unless it was to put Robert off the scent by changing a damaging rumour? Oh no, this wasn't Mike's diary, and it wasn't stolen or sold to him in this very pub. It was a different book and there was no theft involved. Eddie is in the clear and Mike's original story stands.

I was actually inviting rj to imagine a scenario whereby Mike didn't know Eddie from Adam, when coming up with his 'dead pal' story featuring another Saddle regular living on the same road. I gave June 1993 in good faith as the earliest date we have for Mike and Eddie being friendly enough to agree to that rendezvous with Robert. I don't see how that could have misled anyone into thinking they must have been old buddies for years before that. And my question today is the same as it was to rj then: why did Eddie admit [or claim, if you prefer] that he had found anything at all?

Love,

Caz
X

[James_J]

Afternoon David,

Apologies for the late response - I'm not on my computer everyday and don't often visit these boards.

I don't entirely agree with your sentiment that I was 'preaching' - nevertheless, I do stand-by the point that unless one is willing to go and initiate some discourse with those involved, one's conclusions will be rather ineffectual.

Seeing as you do not seem to have understood what is meant by 'involved' - please allow me to explain. I use the term to signfy that an individual has had some active role in the story - or - has been associated with the Diary at some point in this investigation. I think it resonable for me to conclude that the electricians are associated on the basis that they were interviewed by Scotland Yard etc.

As for my predisposition - allow me to provide some context. I became actively involved with this story in 2015 and, I'm sure like many of us who frequent these boards, was quickly made aware of comments made at 'The Trial of James Maybrick' in 2007 - insinuating that the Diary had been found in Battlecrease House. Naturally - and given the source (K.S) - I felt that this was as good a place as any to begin my investigation. That progression naturally led me back to the electricians from Portus & Rhodes...however...that is not the only area of the story which I have investigated. The essay which I wrote for the Liverpool Conference was an abridged chapter from a much larger dissertation - which is still in the works. The larger dissertation includes stand-alone chapters dealing specifically with; Anne Graham's provenance; Michael Barrett's claims of Forgery; The Scotland Yard Investigation; The 'Maybrick Watch' - to name but a few.

Given that my brief for the Conference was to provide a succinct narrative of the alleged Battlecrease provenance - (in no more than ten/eleven pages) - it simply wasn't possible, nor practical to include these additional chapters. Further to that - and it is ironic that you are here likely to agree - I do not believe that Anne Graham's account of the Diary's provenance to be true.

As for Barrett returning with the Diary to his home on Goldie Street on 09.03.92 - I made quite clear that I no longer believe this to be true. I am now of the opinion that MB obtained the Diary at a later date - albiet before the 13 April 1992.

With respect to 'relying on interviews to establish truth' - of course that is not my sole means of arriving at a conclusion. Personal recollections must always be weighed against the hard documentation - in Paul Dodd's case, the timesheets obtained from Portus & Rhodes. I notice that you are quick to label it an 'assumption' that Colin Rhodes has released all the timesheets relating to Battlecrease. If you have some reservations about this - I would urge to you to contact Colin Rhodes directly.

Correct - I have not found an electrician who will admit to having discovered the Diary. As mentioned previously - I do not find that terribly surprising - especially as their livlihood relies on working in private homes etc. I cannot force that information from them. To the best of my knowledge - you have never been in the field with me during these interviews - nor have you attempted to elicit the story from those involved for yourself. I think that says an awful lot more about your research technique...imho.

As for Brian Rawes - this essentially boils down to whether you believe his account to be accurate or not. From having spoken to Brian on several occasions, and having read his documentated accounts down the years - his story has remained substantially the same & his dating of the event in question has since been verified with a corresponding timesheet Personally - I am quite satisfied Brian is telling the truth, and that Eddie did inform him that he had discovered a book beneath the floorboards, which he thought could be important. But what would give Eddie the notion that the book he had discovered could be important? I speculate that Eddie was aware of concurrent events in London - involving publishers, cash & a team of professional researchers etc.

I notice that in effort to dismiss Brian's account, you have resorted to some speculation yourself - "The electricians probably chatted amongst themselves, discussing which of them had found this amazing and valuable diary and when." Any evidential support for that one David?

With respect to the opening of APS - I have tried to obtain some documented verifaction of this date. In actual fact - I contacted Mr. Dodgson on Tuesday afternoon - and he was adament that the shop opened for trading in October/November 1992. Tim Martin-Wright dated his conversation with Alan Dodgson/Alan Davies to December 1992 - months before before Feldman contacted the electricians.

As for Alan Davies' mention of a 'Gold watch' - in actual fact it was Davies who first mentioned the watch to me. I have reproduced the relevant extract from our conversation below, and as you can see, I was actually trying to investigate mention of the 'Gold ring' - which Davies had alluded to back in 1997:

JJ: Ok, last thing. Can you remember any mention of the book being found in a biscuit tin with a gold ring?
AD: That’s right yeah! And a watch as well.
JJ: And a watch?
AD: Yeah, I remember a watch I think. I never seen anything, but I remember it was Brian or someone, telling me that it was in a tin under the floor.

I'm happy to concede that this is far from evidential support for the watch having been discovered alongside the Diary - but in the interest of defending my research technique...

You are correct in thinking that Graham Rhodes could not provide any information which would have furthered the conclusions of my chapter. Nevertheless, his recollections & experience were transcribed & documented.

As for the following quotation: “two [electricians] went drinking in the Saddle, where they might have talked about their work in the house famous for its murder”. This quote is definitely from The Times & is actually reproduced on screen in the 1993 documentary on the Diary. I'm sure you could get in touch with Mr. Chittendon to question his sources, if you're that way inclined.

With respect to D.S. Thomas (who has read most of my interview material) - he stated the following: 'It would have been very interesting if this case had gone for trial what the witnesses would have said. They now state something completely different as to that in their written statements which they signed as being true, knowing that if it was tendered in evidence that they would be liable to prosecution if they had stated in it anything they knew to be false or not to be true.'

So why the discrepancy? Which witnesses have changed their story, and more importantly, why (assuming they have nothing to hide) ?

In response to your concluding points: "The problem is that it is not explained exactly how or why he comes to this conclusion. Not unless it is on the basis of a single timesheet, which, if that is the case, doesn’t say very much for his thesis about the importance of getting up to Liverpool and speaking to those "directly involved".

I think it is worth reiterating the concluding paragraph of my chapter;

"As outlined in the opening paragraph, the purpose of this chapter is to present clearly the facts, testimonies and sequencing of events which have been put forward to explain how, ‘The Diary of Jack the Ripper’, likely came into the possession of Michael Barrett. Given the weight of circumstantial evidence, including the first-hand accounts of those directly involved, it is the opinion of this researcher that the journal was discovered and removed from Number 7 Riversdale Road, Aigburth, on Monday 9th March 1992, by one or more electricians working for Portus & Rhodes Fabrications Ltd. This opinion has been reached through an assimilation and assessment of existing research and documentation, as presented in; Shirley Harrison’s The Diary of Jack the Ripper: The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick (2010), Paul Feldman’s Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter (1997); Seth Linder, Caroline Morris & Keith Skinner’s Ripper Diary: The Inside Story (2003); Bruce Robinson’s They All Love Jack: Busting the Ripper (2015), and Robert Smith’s Twenty Five Years of The Diary of Jack the Ripper (2017)."

You are welcome to disagree with these conclusions - and I would encourage you to get out there and ask the difficult questions for yourself.

I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts & conclusions on the other chapters from the Conference tie-in; especially Robert Anderson's 'Ink: A Recipe for Madness and Death".

Best wishes, James.

[caz]

It's a funny thing because I could have sworn someone asked me today for my evidence that the diary was not sold in an Anfield pub for £25 without taking account of, or mentioning, the above post, which seems to have been ignored, and I believe I could swear that, for some inexplicable reason, the same person claims that I am "rattled".

We know that comprehension is not that person's strong suit but the issue is not whether there is evidence that the diary was or was not sold in an Anfield pub for £25 but whether there was a rumour in existence to that effect. Because that is what the claim was.

And what seems to have happened is that the person who claimed there was rumour that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £25 (in fact she originally said £20 - with £25 as an alternative - but seems to have switched in the face of my post) got herself terribly confused and was evidently thinking of the offer to sell the diary for £25, by someone who didn't own it, in an APS shop in Bootle at an unknown date, the year of which varies depending on which book you read.

No, David. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't 'switch' in the face of your post or have trouble comprehending anything. I was in fact reminded by Robert Smith in an email referring to the rumour that the diary had eventually been sold in an Anfield pub, that the price mentioned was £25. This was a separate rumour but the basis was the same, hence the same price of £25 in both cases: a diary had emerged from the house and a buyer had initially been sought. If Alan Davies went to APS in Oct/Nov 1992, as appears most likely from the latest information, and mentioned the diary having a suggested sale price of £25, he didn't know it had already been sold back in the March to someone who was going to publish it. He must have heard an early rumour but then been out of the loop for the outcome, which makes sense because he had a bad car accident on June 13th 1992, before anyone [apart perhaps from Eddie] knew what was happening with the diary. After the visit to APS, Davies heard about it having been sold for £25 in a pub in Anfield.

Now, having realised her error - rather than simply admitting that she has once again got something wrong (which she seems to find impossible to do) - she wants to throw up a smokescreen by switching the argument to one about whether the diary was or was not in fact sold in an Anfield pub for £25 knowing full well that this is the very point in issue which cannot possibly be answered!

If you think so, David. If you think so.

Why not carry on finding ripper book adverts from the early 1990s, as you are so keen on trying to make a fool of me? Mind you, I am perfectly adept at doing that with no help from you, so in the immortal words of Moore Marriott: "You're wasting your time".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, all I can say in response to this is that I've not been able to come up with a sensible explanation as to why Mike wanted to obtain such a diary at such a time other than that he wanted to use it to create a fake Victorian diary and no-one else has yet provided one.

Maybe he did want to try and fake one, David. If he'd only briefly been shown one, which he could hardly believe might have been written by Jack himself, and didn't at that time know if he'd be able to get his hands on it, might it have inspired him to try his hand at producing such a thing himself?

Then, when he was able to buy 'the' diary for £25, he'd have had something far better to do with his time than to make one of his own.

That sounds infinitely more sensible to me than the idea that he was able to create the diary he took to London that April.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Maybe he did want to try and fake one, David. If he'd only briefly been shown one, which he could hardly believe might have been written by Jack himself, and didn't at that time know if he'd be able to get his hands on it, might it have inspired him to try his hand at producing such a thing himself?

Then, when he was able to buy 'the' diary for £25, he'd have had something far better to do with his time than to make one of his own.

That sounds infinitely more sensible to me than the idea that he was able to create the diary he took to London that April.

Love,

Caz
X

Face it the diary is clearly a fake. This thread and David's research once and for all proves it.

[rjpalmer]

Hi James -- If you don't mind me butting in, there appears to be one rather prominent name missing from the otherwise impressive list of people you have interviewed---Anne Graham. Is this my misunderstanding, or have you been unable to interview her? If so, why? I think the readers would be curious to know. Thanks.

[James_J]

Evening Rj, thanks for the response.

Yes, unfortunately I haven't been able to speak with Anne. She has similarly refused to discuss the Diary with Shirley too.

As far as I am aware, Anne has not discussed the Diary since her interview with KS & Caz, for Ripper Diary: The Inside Story in 2002.

It is a delicate and frustrating situation.

Best, James.

[Abby Normal]

its become apparent to me that the main reason the fake diary hasn't died a deserved death is that a whole cottage industry has sprung up about it and too many people have a vested interest in it.

[David Orsam]

And certain people seem to have an almost religious fervour in their belief, viewing any challenge to their view as heresy, while being unable to appreciate that there might be another answer, which makes it impossible to have any kind of sensible and rational discussion, although I am very much hoping that James will be different and, so far, despite the obvious agenda in his first post, there are some promising signs.

[David Orsam]

James, I'll reply to your post in a moment but I have to say I am surprised that you have not commented on my post #157 in which I pointed out that you have not supported your claim that Eddie Lyons recalled working in Battlecrease with Rigby and Coufopolous. Given its importance, are you able to clarify if he really did say this and provide the quote?