Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Mike J. G.]

That is absolute garbage. Someone acquiring a Victorian diary, either buying or borrowing a load of books on James Maybrick and then suddenly having a diary allegedly by James Maybrick purporting to be The Ripper has either forged it themselves or someone close to them has forged it. Anyone who thinks different is a complete idiot.

Not surprising, really. People are fooled easily, by many silly things, and they're fooled because they generally choose to be.

So much for that big reveal in Liverpool, eh?

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Caz

But there are people who do believe the diary is genuine. The diary needs to be proven a fake which I believe has now been done to clear Maybrick once and for all. Also threads on the diary don't tend to be the first threads I read or post on.

Cheers John

Although I don't come across many sane people who think the diary is "genuine," I do come across people who think it's an old artifact, generally from or around the period in question. For me, considering the fact that all common-sense signs point towards it being more modern, and not much in the way to prove it as being older, I'm as satisfied as I've always been that it's a modern hoax.

Hopefully, those who regard it as being an older hoax, can find something to pin it to the past, otherwise my thoughts about this diary will remain the same as ever.

[Kaz]

Not surprising, really. People are fooled easily, by many silly things, and they're fooled because they generally choose to be.

So much for that big reveal in Liverpool, eh?

MIKE, YOU UGLY OLE BRUT!!!


How did the detective work with the cricket club go???

[Mike J. G.]

MIKE, YOU UGLY OLE BRUT!!!


How did the detective work with the cricket club go???

Tbh, I'd completely forgotten about it, lol. I've been a bit busy these last few months with renewing my licenses for work and starting with a new company so I've not been on here at all, but I did miss you silly sausages!

[Sam Flynn]

You were missed as well, Mike. Some us were even wondering if revelations at the Liverpool conference had converted you to the pro-diary cause

[John Wheat]

Not surprising, really. People are fooled easily, by many silly things, and they're fooled because they generally choose to be.

So much for that big reveal in Liverpool, eh?

A very sensible post Mike.

[John Wheat]

Although I don't come across many sane people who think the diary is "genuine," I do come across people who think it's an old artifact, generally from or around the period in question. For me, considering the fact that all common-sense signs point towards it being more modern, and not much in the way to prove it as being older, I'm as satisfied as I've always been that it's a modern hoax.

Hopefully, those who regard it as being an older hoax, can find something to pin it to the past, otherwise my thoughts about this diary will remain the same as ever.

Another very sensible post Mike.

[caz]

Evening David...

So, by his own admission - Eddie remembered working at Battlecrease alongside Arthur Rigby & 'a younger electrician'. He also remembered that it involved 'something to do with storage heaters', which necessitated the removal of floorboards on the first floor, and running cables into the house. If we are to believe Eddie's account - there must be a corresponding timesheet.

The timesheet for 9.3.92 records that both Arthur Rigby and James Coufopoulos were tasked with installing the wire for the storage heaters on the 1st floor of the house. According to Colin Rhodes, this definetly would have necessitated the removal of floorboards on the first floor. We can also see that '15 floorboard protectors' are listed under 'materials' on the timesheet. According to Colin Rhodes - these were essentially plates that were used to protect raised floorboards. So 9.3.92 is certainly one option.

The next timesheet for Battlecrease is dated 9.6.92. This involved the installation of the storage heaters on the first floor. According to the timesheet, however, this did not require any floorboard protectors - nor did it involve Arthur Rigby or our 'younger electrician'. The two individuals on the timesheet are Graham Rhodes & Jim Bowling (Eddie's pal). Eddie had no trouble remembering their names during our conversations: - i.e. "The only one I ever kept in contact with was Jimmy Bowling, because I worked with him on another firm."

The only other timesheet where Eddie's name appears is dated the week ending 21.7.92. Arthur Rigby's name is nowhere to be seen, and the description of work conducted reads; 'Alternator LT Wiring + DB. Check Low Tests - Ground Floor'. This cannot be the work Eddie described during our interview.

So where does this leave us? If Eddie's identification of the colleagues he worked alongside at Battlecrease and his description of the work they conducted is accurate, that brings us back to the 9.3.92. So why isn't his name on the timesheet? I think Eddie provides us with the best answer;

"I think we just were sent there [Battlecrease] maybe to get us out the way for an hour, a couple of hours because they maybe didn’t have enough work, or it was one of them places you know."

Colin Rhodes painted exactly the same picture - 'We took Bowling and Lyons on for a specific contract which was in Skelmersdale, which is miles away from here [...] and they were on that particular contract for quite awhile. So, it was nearing the completion of it, then they were back here, and were available to just help out at Riversdale.'

Eddie is not recorded on the Skelmersdale timesheet on 9.3.92...so where was he?

Given the details of his own account, and the corresponding timesheets, I'm opting that Eddie was at Riversdale Road helping colleagues Arthur Rigby & James Coufopoulos install the wire needed for the storage heaters. As far as the timesheets record, this is the only day in which floorboards would have been raised in the first floor of Battlecrease House.

There you have it - my reasoning for concluding that Eddie was present at Riversdale Road on the morning of 9.3.92.

** Just to pick up on a previous question - r.e. when did Eddie start working for Portus & Rhodes:

Eddie was able to confirm with me that he started working for Portus & Rhodes in late 1991 - referencing a p60 form from January 1992. He also noted: 'And I never went out, I finished in ’92 as well.'

Best wishes, James.

Hi James, All,

Just to summarise and clarify a few points -

According to Colin Rhodes, Eddie Lyons worked for him from November 26th, 1991 to July 23rd, 1992.

Lyons is on the timesheets for the Skelmersdale contract from December 2nd, 1991, and worked there full time [six days a week, generally 8 to 5.30 Monday to Thursday, longer on a Friday and shorter on a Saturday] right through to Saturday March 7th, 1992. He worked with Jim Bowling the whole time, but they were joined occasionally by others, including James Coufopoulos, who appears on the timesheets for January 8th, 1992 and again from January 28th-February 1st inclusive. Arthur Rigby appears on the timesheet for two full days on January 20th and 21st, 1992. Alan Davies appears on the timesheets for February 3rd, 19th, 21st and 24th, 1992, just for an hour or two on each occasion.

On Monday and Tuesday, March 9th and 10th, the timesheets reflect the first floor wiring in Battlecrease, in preparation for the installation of storage heaters. As we know, only Arthur Rigby and James Coufopoulos appear on these.

According to the timesheets, the Skelmersdale contract resumed on Friday March 13th and was finished by March 23rd. This time it was Bowling and Graham Rhodes working full time, with Brian Rawes and Alan Davies popping in for 2 hours on Tuesday March 17th, but no sign of Eddie Lyons.

The first floor storage heaters were finally installed in Battlecrease by Graham Rhodes and Jim Bowling on June 9th, 1992. There appear to be three heaters listed with the materials, which can also be seen on the timesheet for March 9th and 10th [on page 21 of Robert Smith's book] but crossed out.

No more sign of Alan Davies after March 17th, but he went on sick leave for 6 months following his nasty car accident on June 13th, 1992, which could explain why he thought, in December 1992, that a diary he had heard about before his accident might still be up for grabs for someone with an interest in such things. There wouldn't have been anything in the news that early to tell him the same diary was already in the process of being published.

No sign of Eddie Lyons either until his final appearance for Portus & Rhodes in connection with a ground floor wiring job in Battlecrease, working with Colin's son, Graham. Lyons is down for 7 hours on Thursday 16th July, 1992, 6 hours on Friday 17th, 6 hours on Monday 20th, and a final 2 hours on Tuesday 21st.

And that's it, more or less.

It may help to see more clearly who was definitely working with whom and where, between December 1991 and July 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But if the timesheets do not accurately record who was working at Battlecrease, both Rigby and Coufopolous could have been working in Battlecrease during week ending 21st July couldn't they? And if that is the case then is it possible that this was the week that Eddie found something which he threw into a skip (as recalled by Rigby)?

May I try and straighten this out a bit, David?

Firstly, Rigby was working elsewhere on Friday July 17th when, according to Brian Rawes, Eddie emerged from Battlecrease and mentioned that he'd found a diary under the floorboards. Eddie didn't say when this was. Rigby had only dropped Rawes off at the house on his way to the police station roofing job, so that Rawes could pick up the company van and some equipment before heading off to join Rigby.

Secondly, all the work in Battlecrease during that week was on the ground floor and didn't involve lifting any floorboards.

Assuming Rawes told Rigby what Eddie had said, one wonders what went round Rigby's head. Was it: "Oh bugger, Eddie's let the cat out of the bag now!"? Was it: "So that's what Eddie was acting so shifty about that day he drove me into town via the Uni"? Or was it all news to him? We know Rigby later went to see Paul Dodd, worried he might be implicated in theft, and volunteered the information that it was Bowling and Lyons who knew something about it. But why was he worried, and why name those two, if he didn't really know anything? Possibly because the record shows he was there when the floorboards came up. But then why name Bowling and Lyons if neither of them was there with him? The claim was that Eddie, in the company of Bowling, gave Rigby a lift into town, via the Uni, and Rigby thought the other two were hiding something from him. So that would at least explain why Rigby named them when telling Dodd he had nothing to do with it. But if true, when could this have happened? On Tuesday March 10th, Rigby finished the underfloor wiring job in 4 hours and is the only name on the timesheet for that day. But did he replace the floorboards by himself or did he have help? Could he then have got a lift with Lyons and Bowling, who had something they wanted to take to the Uni?

More food for thought?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Once again I see confirmation of ignorance on the part of someone who thinks it is not possible for a diary to be created on Monday and passed off as nineteenth century on the Tuesday, as if forgeries have to be allowed to mature for months or years before they suddenly take on the appearance or properties of age. It's nonsense! Art forgers do indeed produce purported Old Masters on Monday and sell them on Tuesday. The forger Kujau was churning out his Hitler diaries on a weekly basis and expecting them to be accepted as having been produced during the Second World War. It's a basic misconception that there is a foolproof way of testing a document for an old forgery.

Dr Baxendale, who is said to be my chum, although he isn't, was the first expert to examine the diary and he concluded in a written report that it was a modern forgery. Melvin Harris, also said to be my chum, although he wasn't, made some valid points, which I have never seen refuted, that most of the contents of the Diary in respect of information about the Ripper murders and the Maybricks could have been taken from a small number of books.

Back in the day it used to be generally acknowledged that after the diary ink had been on the paper for upwards of two or three years, it would be difficult, maybe even impossible, to prove that the writing was only three years old, and not three decades old or expecting a telegram from the Queen. I believe Melvin Harris was among those who made this argument, to explain why the writing could not be dated conclusively, by 1992, to the late 1980s. The implication was that if the ink had gone onto the paper more recently than that, and certainly as recently as April 1992, then any of the tests done by Baxendale and Eastaugh in the summer of 1992 and the Rendell team in 1993 should have been able to kill the thing stone dead. The ink would still have been in the process of changing in colour and appearance, so that would have done the trick if the scientists failed. Melvin was clearly hoping this would prove to be the case, with the ink giving itself away over the years, but it never did. It looks identical today to how it did when Robert Smith first saw it in June 1992. Mike Barrett never explained how this could have been achieved with ink applied in April 1992, so perhaps you could give it a go now.

You say there is no foolproof way of testing for an old forgery, but the misconception might be that a thoroughly modern forgery could pass itself off, after just a few weeks of life, as one that was already at least two years old and had all its adult characteristics.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kaz]

May I try and straighten this out a bit, David?

Firstly, Rigby was working elsewhere on Friday July 17th when, according to Brian Rawes, Eddie emerged from Battlecrease and mentioned that he'd found a diary under the floorboards. Eddie didn't say when this was. Rigby had only dropped Rawes off at the house on his way to the police station roofing job, so that Rawes could pick up the company van and some equipment before heading off to join Rigby.

Secondly, all the work in Battlecrease during that week was on the ground floor and didn't involve lifting any floorboards.

Assuming Rawes told Rigby what Eddie had said, one wonders what went round Rigby's head. Was it: "Oh bugger, Eddie's let the cat out of the bag now!"? Was it: "So that's what Eddie was acting so shifty about that day he drove me into town via the Uni"? Or was it all news to him? We know Rigby later went to see Paul Dodd, worried he might be implicated in theft, and volunteered the information that it was Bowling and Lyons who knew something about it. But why was he worried, and why name those two, if he didn't really know anything? Possibly because the record shows he was there when the floorboards came up. But then why name Bowling and Lyons if neither of them was there with him? The claim was that Eddie, in the company of Bowling, gave Rigby a lift into town, via the Uni, and Rigby thought the other two were hiding something from him. So that would at least explain why Rigby named them when telling Dodd he had nothing to do with it. But if true, when could this have happened? On Tuesday March 10th, Rigby finished the underfloor wiring job in 4 hours and is the only name on the timesheet for that day. But did he replace the floorboards by himself or did he have help? Could he then have got a lift with Lyons and Bowling, who had something they wanted to take to the Uni?

More food for thought?

Love,

Caz
X

A very sensible post caz.

[Kaz]

Back in the day it used to be generally acknowledged that after the diary ink had been on the paper for upwards of two or three years, it would be difficult, maybe even impossible, to prove that the writing was only three years old, and not three decades old or expecting a telegram from the Queen. I believe Melvin Harris was among those who made this argument, to explain why the writing could not be dated conclusively, by 1992, to the late 1980s. The implication was that if the ink had gone onto the paper more recently than that, and certainly as recently as April 1992, then any of the tests done by Baxendale and Eastaugh in the summer of 1992 and the Rendell team in 1993 should have been able to kill the thing stone dead. The ink would still have been in the process of changing in colour and appearance, so that would have done the trick if the scientists failed. Melvin was clearly hoping this would prove to be the case, with the ink giving itself away over the years, but it never did. It looks identical today to how it did when Robert Smith first saw it in June 1992. Mike Barrett never explained how this could have been achieved with ink applied in April 1992, so perhaps you could give it a go now.

You say there is no foolproof way of testing for an old forgery, but the misconception might be that a thoroughly modern forgery could pass itself off, after just a few weeks of life, as one that was already at least two years old and had all its adult characteristics.

Love,

Caz
X

Another very sensible post caz.

[John Wheat]

Where is the evidence that the diary is anything other than a modern forgery? There are one or two people who keep posting going on about how there keeping an open mind etc but when everything points to a modern forgery with a complete lack of evidence to the contrary they have no leg to stand on.

[Kaz]

That is absolute garbage. Someone acquiring a Victorian diary, either buying or borrowing a load of books on James Maybrick and then suddenly having a diary allegedly by James Maybrick purporting to be The Ripper has either forged it themselves or someone close to them has forged it. Anyone who thinks different is a complete idiot.

Anyone calling caz a complete idiot needs to look in the mirror...

By all means call me an idiot, its water off a ducks back, I retired at 40 and have 15 property's.


The balls in your court, PROVE mike wrote it....good luck.

[John Wheat]

Anyone calling caz a complete idiot needs to look in the mirror...

By all means call me an idiot, its water off a ducks back, I retired at 40 and have 15 property's.


The balls in your court, PROVE mike wrote it....good luck.

I asked for evidence proving that the diary was a modern forgery. So far no one has posted anything that proves it's a modern forgery. Considering the amount of backtracking over the diary surely it's up to those who believe it to be true or even a modern forgery to provide evidence of this? I haven't specifically called anyone an idiot. Also I have never specifically said Mike wrote the diary I have stated Mike or someone close to Mike wrote the diary for the simple reason that the evidence all points to this. It means nothing to me that you own 15 properties I couldn't care less. You might want to read others posts properly though.