Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

My goodness, the Caroline thing is not difficult.

If she genuinely has a memory of her father pestering Tony Devereux about the Diary then it must be obvious that the Diary was in existence before Tony died. It would mean that I am wrong about Mike's reason for buying a Victorian diary (unlikely) and it would equally mean that the Diary was not lying under the floorboards of Battlecrease for 125 years until 9th March 1992 (likely).

So my theory doesn't fit in any way with what Caroline remembered.

But what I have been saying is that it is a nonsense to argue that Caroline's memory is genuine AND also to say that she confused Eddie Lyons with the late Tony Devereux. Absolute and pure nonsense.

It must be wonderful to live inside your head, David, where genuine memories like Caroline's are always photographic and cannot become confused, and if they are not correct in every detail they must not be memories at all, but lies - in this case stories invented by others and planted in their victim's brain and repeated as often as it takes until they stick fast, and the affected person then trots them out, genuinely believing they lived the events described.

You agree with me that what Caroline recalled never happened. She didn't recall her Dad going round to Tony's house, pestering him about the diary that had just arrived in the family home and being told he was getting on Tony's fvcking nerves; she didn't recall her Dad making phone calls, saying "Hello Tony" then asking the same questions and being told nothing.

Do you really think these events were made up by Mum and Dad from whole cloth, then drip fed into Caroline's brain, at the age of eleven, and repeated until they were so firmly implanted that she became totally convinced she had actually witnessed all or some of this happening?

But it has to be 'absolute and pure nonsense' that Mum and Dad could have done something infinitely less drastic and problematic, as well as being far more believable, if they merely nudged an existing memory, of Dad going off to pester one of his pub friends at his house, and again over the phone, about the diary that had just entered Goldie Street, simply by introducing the name "Tony" and referring to the friend in question by that name from then on? Just one four-letter word difference?

If, as you have previously insisted, Caroline could not possibly have forgotten or been unaware, in March 1992, that her Dad's friend Tony had died the previous summer, how does that help your theory? The book itself is not even in the Barrett home until the last day of March 1992, if it has come from the auction that day. So when do Mum and Dad start their indoctrination of Caroline, with the physically impossible story of Dad pestering his dead friend Tony to tell him more about this book? And then how long does it take for a story like that to take hold, assuming it even gets beyond: "But didn't Tony die last summer, Dad, long before you brought his diary home?" How long before Caroline actually believes she witnessed this pestering that could never have happened and it becomes second nature for her to repeat it on demand?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Do you remember who did the test and made that determination?

That would be interesting to know, however I don't think that the diary is written in someone's natural hand in any case.

[Hunter]

If it's not Anne's handwriting in the diary, David, there's a problem with this.

It's not Anne's handwriting.

There's a problem with this.

If it's not in Maybrick's hand either, any more than it's in Mike's hand, any more than it's in Tony Devereux's hand, any more than it's in Billy Graham's hand, any more than it's in Gerard Kane's hand, any more than it's in Monty Brown's paw [that's my cat], there's still a problem...

Hi Caz,

That's certainly something I wasn't aware of...that it had been determined that the 'diary' was not in Anne's handwriting, or apparently any of the others mentioned. Do you remember who did the test and made that determination?

[caz]

Whatever lies Mike told others, he was obviously not mentally incompetent.

So you seriously think Mike didn't have anything wrong in the upper storey, when not just claiming to be a member of MI5, to have foiled an IRA attack and been awarded the Queen's medal for gallantry etc etc, but actually expecting anyone to believe this rot? Do you believe the diary and drink did all this to him and that he was as rational and grounded as the next man just three years earlier?

For all Mike knew, the electricians had acquired the very last remaining and available Victorian diary with blank pages to forge the Maybrick/JTR Diary. That being so, his supposed investigation as to the availability of Victorian diaries, including actually paying for one, after 9th March, would have been pointless.

No, we surely have to assume that Mike acted rationally here and, that being so, the only possible explanation for his acquisition of a Victorian diary with blank pages is to forge a Victorian diary.

Well good luck in trying to prove it, David. I don't find any of Mike's known behaviour particularly rational, but if you do that's great.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We've been over all this before John. You asked for evidence that Mike was a journalist and I provided it. The fact that his wife might have assisted him with the articles published in his name gets us nowhere because the whole point of Mike's 1995 affidavit is that his wife was the person who transcribed the diary so that it was effectively written as a husband and wife team, just like the articles.

If it's not Anne's handwriting in the diary, David, there's a problem with this.

It's not Anne's handwriting.

There's a problem with this.

If it's not in Maybrick's hand either, any more than it's in Mike's hand, any more than it's in Tony Devereux's hand, any more than it's in Billy Graham's hand, any more than it's in Gerard Kane's hand, any more than it's in Monty Brown's paw [that's my cat], there's still a problem.

In fact, compared with Mike, Martin Fido would say Monty Brown could have done it with one paw tied behind his back. Perhaps he did. I still think he's the reincarnation of Monty Druitt.

No Simon, it's just that I don't ignore evidence that is inconvenient which would lead to me to present a blatantly fictional account of historical events.

Yet you seem happy enough to ignore the evidence that the diary is not in the hand of anyone named above - apart from perhaps my cat.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

The answer to almost everything at the moment is "Colin Rhodes said this" and "Colin Rhodes said that". Yet no evidence is ever provided and we have never been told what Colin Rhodes has actually said. Presumably he said something to Keith Skinner on 2 July 2004 but no note or record of any such interview has ever been produced. So Colin Rhodes appears to say whatever a particular Diary Defender wants him to say at any particular time.

Let's have a look at the latest claim about what Colin Rhodes said. We are told that Colin (and his son) observed that "Eddie appeared to have been at a loose end during the break in the Skelmersdale contract from Monday 9th to Thursday 12th March."

This is the first time that we have been told that Colin Rhodes has stated that Eddie Lyons "appeared to have been at a loose end" on 9th March. If he did say that I find it very strange that we were told in #1462 that Eddie Lyons, "could have just gone sick with a heavy cold for all I know."

If Colin Rhodes had confirmed in 2004 that Eddie Lyons was actually "at a loose end" how could it be speculated that he had gone sick with a heavy cold? Either he was possibly off sick or he was definitely at a loose end. Which is it? What did Colin Rhodes actually say?

Are we to continually be fed misinformation on these boards?

Further, if Colin Rhodes didn't like his men to be kicking their heels, what was Brian Rawes doing on 9th March 1992? What was Alan Davies doing on that day? What, indeed, was Graham Rhodes doing? What about the other Portus & Rhodes electricians? Were they ALL supposed to have been at Battlecrease? If not, why was only Eddie (and Jim) sent to Battlecrease?

The fact of the matter is that the documentary evidence only shows two Portus and Rhodes electricians working at Battlecrease on 9th March, neither of whom was Eddie Lyons. Feldman was speculating back in 1993 that Eddie had worked in Battlecrease prior to Mike's production of the Diary and that he had found the Diary under the floorboards. It's just that there was no evidence to support that assertion just as there is no evidence to support it today.

On the contrary, the new documentary evidence shows that Eddie Lyons was not working at Battlecrease on 9th March 1992. There is just no record of him being there.

[David Orsam]

Once again I see it stated as fact that the work carried out in Battlecrease in July 1992 "did not involve the lifting of any floorboards." Yet, once again, no evidence is provided to support this assertion. It is pointed out that the work was on the ground floor but unless there were no floorboards on the ground floor it's hard to see the relevance of this statement.

The documentary evidence shows that Eddie Lyons only worked in Battlecrease in July 1992. Eddie seems to have a vague memory of the floorboards being lifted. According to Brian Rawes, Eddie mentioned finding something under the floorboards in July 1992. To the extent there is any evidence at all, therefore, it points towards some floorboards being lifted in Battlecrease in July 1992.

[David Orsam]

So, recently, I noted that it had been suggested in another thread that Feldman could have said to Eddie in early 1993: "Look, here's my daily work sheet for March 9th 1992, showing I helped out in Maybrick's old bedroom by lifting the floorboards first thing, and I know for a fact that Mike called an agency that same afternoon about the diary I seen and shown him down the Saddle that lunchtime. Check with the agency if you don't believe me. Now what's my confession worth?"

I commented that:

"Obviously Eddie could have said exactly the same thing to Feldy in July 1994. So doesn't that mean that Anne should have been worried that he might have done so?"

It's no answer to this to say that Eddie didn't, in fact, say this to Feldy in July 1994, or that he had no intention of doing so. That is to use hindsight. How could Anne Barrett have known what was in Eddie's mind in July 1994? That's the whole point. She couldn't possibly have known.

If the imagined "confession" by Eddie to Feldy could have been offered in early 1993 it could also have been offered in July 1994. Anne would have had no way of knowing what Eddie was saying to Feldy or what he would or might say. Bearing in mind that Paul Dodd was apparently offering an amnesty in 1993 for a 5% cut of proceeds, such an amnesty must also have been a possibility in 1994, which would have meant Eddie had nothing to worry about (if he had stolen the Diary) and could have spilt the beans.

Unless Anne was psychic she could not have known whether such a thing would happen or not, Mind you, she would have done had she known that the Diary had been forged in her house during March/April 1993. In that event, what the electricians might or might not do could be safely ignored as she would have known they had nothing to do with the Diary.

[David Orsam]

Now let's see where we are on the watch.

An honest jeweller buys an item of jewellery in good faith in "a completely normal way of doing business" but when he is asked when he bought it he tells a blatant lie which not only involves his wife telling the same lie but also involves his father-in-law, suffering from Alzeihmer's Disease, to tell the exact same lie. Not only does he tell this lie when first asked but he repeats the lie in a written statement intended for publication and then goes on telling the same lie for some years after that, including when interviewed by a group of researchers as late as 1997.

Apparently we are told he does this to "lessen the risk" although as far as I can see it only increases the risk of him being found to be a liar and a dishonest jeweller.

Let's be serious about this. The only jeweller who is going to tell a blatant lie about the provenance of a watch he has bought and sold which involves at least two members of his family telling the same lie is an obviously dishonest jeweller who believes he has bought and sold stolen property.

In other words, the person who accuses the jeweller of lying about this matter is also, obviously, accusing them of buying and selling stolen property and of being a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property. That is perfectly clear, it is what has happened in this thread, and any attempt to wriggle out of the consequences of calling Ron Murphy and his family liars are as disingenuous as they are nonsensical.

[caz]

Let's look at the above quote. Do I mention documentary evidence? No I do not. So why am I asked "What documentary evidence would you expect to see for something not happening?"

I asked and ask again: where is the evidence that no floorboards were lifted in July? That evidence could come from the people who worked in Battlecrease in July, obviously.

If there is no evidence available that floorboards were not lifted in July then we should obviously not be repeatedly told, as a fact, that floorboards were not lifted, because, in the absence of evidence, that can only be an assumption. THAT is the point I'm making!

And of course I was asked for the evidence that floorboards were lifted in July and I actually gave some evidence. The recollection of Eddie Lyons who only worked there in July!!!!!

Okay, so now you believe Eddie may have lifted floorboards when he worked there in July 1992, even though the work on that occasion, charged to Paul Dodd, was all on the ground floor and did not involve the lifting of any floorboards.

But oh no, on the only occasion when Colin and Graham Rhodes and Paul Dodd have all confirmed that the floorboards had to be lifted, in March 1992 on the first floor, so the underfloor wiring job could be done, in preparation for the storage heaters to be installed in the June, you won't have it that Eddie may have been asked to help out for an hour or two that day, including the lifting, despite his own recollection of helping out on a job involving heaters and lifting the floorboards, and Colin and Graham Rhodes themselves observing that Eddie appeared to have been at a loose end during the break in the Skelmersdale contract from Monday 9th to Thursday 12th March.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Handwriting, well assuming it's not by Jim or Mike, we are left with a vast field of possabilties. To find a match would probably be pure chance.

I agree entirely, Steve.

Basically, the true identy is probably lost and it's in no ones interest for the hoaxer to be revealed except in our little world, where such would be greatly welcomed.

I would say it is mostly in the interests of anyone, alive or dead, who has ever been wrongly suspected or accused of hoaxing the diary and watch, for the true culprit(s) to be identified.

If anyone here has a particular interest in identifying them as x, y or z, I'd have to wonder about their motives.

Personally I only have an interest in this mini mystery being solved to everyone's satisfaction, regardless of who the 'baddies' were, when they caused the mischief and why.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

My goodness, it was only four days ago that I was told :

"why would [Anne Barrett] imagine [Eddie Lyons] would object to her story, much less want to challenge it, with evidence of his own criminal activity, in stealing from a house he had worked in?... by July 1994, Anne had less to fear from an electrician, if he pinched the diary one morning in March 1992, than she had to fear from Mike if they had spent time forging it together."

Yet today, in another thread, the possibility is raised of Eddie Lyons doing exactly the thing that I was told Anne would not have worried about for one second. Thus, it is said:

"Had Eddie said bluntly to Feldy in early 1993: "Look, here's my daily work sheet for March 9th 1992, showing I helped out in Maybrick's old bedroom by lifting the floorboards first thing, and I know for a fact that Mike called an agency that same afternoon about the diary I seen and shown him down the Saddle that lunchtime. Check with the agency if you don't believe me. Now what's my confession worth?"

Obviously Eddie could have said exactly the same thing to Feldy in July 1994. So doesn't that mean that Anne should have been worried that he might have done so?

Hi David,

Apples and oranges. Clearly Eddie said no such thing to Feldy, either in early 1993, July 1994 or at any other time, and never had any intention of doing so.

Which makes both my points for me: a) Anne could bank on nobody piping up in the wake of her 'in the family' story to say "Hold on, I've got a better one. I stole it from Paul Dodd while working in his house in March 1992"; and b) for exactly the same reasons, Feldy could not bank on Eddie giving him the kind of information that would have made his confession credible.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

Could you explain what you mean by egos, reputation and legal issues preventing you and I from knowing the identity of the diary's author?

The diary handwriting has been out there for anyone to examine from October 1993, and as far as I know nobody has ever been prevented from doing their own detective work to try and match it with handwriting from their own preferred suspect. I wonder how you think that could have been achieved in any case?

Love,

Caz
X

Happy to clarify Caz.

If we look at all those unloved in the diary issue, from Researchers to individuals linked to the discover, what we often see, on both sides of the argument, is blurring of facts, so much is hearsay, often not backed by actual reliable sources.
In that case there is too much at stake for some, no fingers pointed at anyone, to tell all they know.

Legal issues, that's simply. Given it was claimed to be genuine, anyone now admitting that they were involved in or aware of its production, could face problems.


Handwriting, well assuming it's not by Jim or Mike, we are left with a vast field of possabilties. To find a match would probably be pure chance.


Basically, the true identy is probably lost and it's in no ones interest for the hoaxer to be revealed except in our little world, where such would be greatly welcomed.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Caz, yes it is a intriguing mystery from a purely academic point of view
it's in the suspect forum, under Maybrick, I feel given that most agree it's not by Him, maybe most of these threads, with neither side prepared to give 1 inch, could, maybe should be in a different forum.
However that no critism of anyone, it's just the way things have developed.

Hindsight is wonderful!

Beneath you, Steve.

Now that you have confirmed your position, I unreservedly withdraw the comments from yourself, it was not aimed solely at yourself, as you can see from the original post which was in the plural I beleive.

And I wish you joy of it. You've been doing a terrific job judging by what I've seen so far. And I wouldn't dream of turning up there and suggesting it's a waste of time if it won't help you solve the murder of Polly Nichols or any of the others.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you very much for that Caz.

Well you see it may well help with getting a fuller picture of Bucks Row, the long run.
It may help establish a tighter timing for the murder and it may point towards or away from some suspects. And look at that case from an holistic viewpoint.
However it's not a suspect work, and I have been clear from the start over the purpose. That is to asses the sources and look at various options. Oh and to provide over 300 pages of sources, which is probably going to be it's main plus point.

All the best

Steve

[caz]

I suppose one can only admire the bare faced cheek of someone who accuses a probably totally honest jeweller of buying and selling stolen property and of lying about it now exploding with moral outrage at the idea that someone could possibly accuse the late Robbie Johnson of being involved in a money making scam!

I'd be interested to know who has accused 'a probably totally honest jeweller of buying and selling stolen property'. I've done no such thing so I don't know who you mean. All I have suggested is that if Murphy bought the watch in early 1992 from someone calling into his shop, and sold it on in the July, it would be perfectly understandable why he might be wary when that customer returned the following summer to show him the scratch marks inside the back and ask him about the thing's history.

It would have been a completely normal way of doing business, to buy second hand watches or jewellery from callers to the shop, no questions asked. I sold some gold jewellery in recent years on the same basis. And whether the 'little man' really did come into a Lancaster shop with the watch several years previously, and did a deal with Murphy's father-in-law, as was claimed, or some other little man came into Murphy's shop with it as recently as 1992, the basic story and the basic transaction would be virtually identical, and would carry exactly the same risk that the little man concerned may not have come by his timepiece honestly. I'm doing no more than suggesting Murphy could have wanted to lessen this risk by backdating what was admittedly the purchase of a watch from a complete stranger.

Either way, having acquired the watch from this complete stranger [which tells us bugger all about where he got it and when], Murphy would have been totally unable to help Albert or anyone else with a provenance for the watch back to Maybrick, but he was able to help with the scratch marks, by confirming there had been several in 1992, which he'd tried to buff out with jeweller's rouge. If he'd seen nothing at all, or just a smooth scratch-free surface, he could easily have said so and would have been better off considering the hoax accusations that quickly followed Albert's discovery. His claim to have seen any scratch marks in 1992 could have got him accused of being in cahoots with Mike Barrett and putting them there himself!

And I think I was very clear. The only reason I suggested that the jeweller might have falsely said he saw the scratches at the behest of Robbie and/or Albert was because we were being told by a Diary Defender he that he was a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property and lied about it.

You fibber, David. You were NOT being 'told' by anyone that Murphy 'was a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property'. So you had no excuse to suggest he may have been guilty of something even worse than you falsely claimed I accused him of - that he might have 'falsely said he saw the scratches at the behest of Robbie and/or Albert'. You really need to start using the quote function and stop fibbing about who has accused whom of doing what.

But in any case, what is this - just a game of one-upmanship to you? Or a serious attempt to explain why Murphy would have been trying to buff out several scratch marks in 1992, if a hoaxer in 1993 put the Maybrick/ripper markings onto an unblemished, unscratched, pristine surface?

If he is not a dishonest person who dealt in stolen property and lied about it then I would come up with another theory to explain the apparent discrepancies in his statement but the Diary Defenders first need to work out whether Mr Murphy was honest or dishonest.

Nice try, David. Nobody needs to do anything 'first'. You either have a sensible explanation or you don't. If you have since posted it I'll read it in due course. I hope it's worth waiting for.

Love,

Caz
X