Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[James_J]

Evening all - just passing this along from KS.


TO HUNTER


Thank you for clarifying - and for your kind and encouraging words.

On the strength of available evidence, do you think it would be reasonable to conclude that the cumulative evidence of Mike Barrett’s sworn affidavit of January 1995; the August 1991 date on the research notes and the potential 1986 date for the purchase of the word processor points firmly to a conceptual year (1986) for Mike Barrett, Anne Barrett, William Graham and Tony Devereux to have commenced discussions about creating a fake diary?

Best wishes, Keith



To DAVID O.

3-0. On to the 5th Round to meet...probably Newport after Spurs replay.



Best Wishes, Keith

[David Orsam]

To DAVID O.

3-0. On to the 5th Round to meet...probably Newport after Spurs replay.

I'm reminded of the first line of the Diary:

"[If they knew] what they have in store for them they would stop this instant."

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for the Boycott example, Steve. As I say, it's certainly a very unusual form of address for a non knight.

It's by no means unusual for someone to be jokingly referred to as "Sir" in the UK. I was called "Sir Bugger-Lugs" when I got up to mischief as a kid.

[John G]

It's by no means unusual for someone to be jokingly referred to as "Sir" in the UK. I was called "Sir Bugger-Lugs" when I got up to mischief as a kid.

Well, of course, it appears the servant referred to Maybrick as Sir James, which would have represented a gross breach of middle class etiquette. The question is: was this a mock title she made up herself, or was she simply repeating something she'd overheard? For instance, Maybrick referring to himself in that way, or being referred to as such by a member of his family. Of course, that wouldn't mean Maybrick preferred to be referred to in this manner!

[David Orsam]

Well, of course, it appears the servant referred to Maybrick as Sir James, which would have represented a gross breach of middle class etiquette.

No, of course it wouldn't. Not in private conversation amongst servants and children.

What WAS a breach of middle class etiquette was Mrs Briggs calling Mr Maybrick "James" to his face.

[David Orsam]

Ill ask again, why is it taking so long for mr skinner to get on here?
Weird.

Yes it is and I have a long list of questions to ask him too!

It's just a shame that, in the meantime, James Johnston is "travelling" and is unable to get on this forum to post the answers to the questions I asked him in #384, #385, #386, #387, #388, #389 and #390.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, that wouldn't mean Maybrick preferred to be referred to in this manner!

Indeed, but it looks very likely to me that "Sir Jim" as a domestic nickname is a red herring, and that the "Sir Jim/Jack" in the diary is just another riff on the fictional Maybrick's fantasy of being knighted by the Queen.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith. It's difficult not to notice that there has been little or no discussion about post #150. The image of a 10-foot pole comes to mind, but perhaps that's just me. Howard Brown reprinted the same quote on his website, but the only response I've yet seen by any "diary friendly" theorist is that, for some unfathomable reason, Paul Dodd is lying about the work done on his own house. Any comments? The quote is from Shirley Harrison (American Connection, 2003) based on her interviews with Dodd.

"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."

If the house was 'gutted' in 1977, why would anyone expect to find a biscuit tin or a large book under the floorboards in 1992? Cheers.

[Hunter]

...
On the strength of available evidence, do you think it would be reasonable to conclude that the cumulative evidence of Mike Barrett’s sworn affidavit of January 1995; the August 1991 date on the research notes and the potential 1986 date for the purchase of the word processor points firmly to a conceptual year (1986) for Mike Barrett, Anne Barrett, William Graham and Tony Devereux to have commenced discussions about creating a fake diary?..

I suppose it's possible. Of course, all four of these individuals may or may not have been involved. Devereux may have been involved early on or may have just been a convenient untraceable link. I suppose it depends on the credence of daughter Caroline's recollection here.

As far as the actual manuscript...of all the potential red herrings noticed over the years, the one that is the clincher to me is the 'tin matchbox, empty' entry, which would date at least the Eddowes part to post 1987 outside of archives. Nevermind the fact that there is no evidence that the killer removed this and the other items mentioned from her pockets in the first place.

One more speculative observation while I'm here concerning a Battlecrease provenance... Correct me if I'm wrong. Anne Graham came up with her inside the family story about this photo album after her estranged husband decided to confess perpetrating a hoax. Maybe this is being a little simplistic, but it seems to me that it would be more practical for her to admit that Mike acquired it from one of these electricians, or just someone he met at the pub, than to concoct this fantastic story that now involves her poor old Dad. It would all fall back on dear old Mike with no skin off her nose since she had been little involved (that was her excuse for holding back this new story). What she did was dig herself into a deeper hole, which only implicates that she was already in one to begin with.

[Henry Flower]

I suppose it's possible. Of course, all four of these individuals may or may not have been involved. Devereux may have been involved early on or may have just been a convenient untraceable link. I suppose it depends on the credence of daughter Caroline's recollection here.

As far as the actual manuscript...of all the potential red herrings noticed over the years, the one that is the clincher to me is the 'tin matchbox, empty' entry, which would date at least the Eddowes part to post 1987 outside of archives. Nevermind the fact that there is no evidence that the killer removed this and the other items mentioned from her pockets in the first place.

One more speculative observation while I'm here concerning a Battlecrease provenance... Correct me if I'm wrong. Anne Graham came up with her inside the family story about this photo album after her estranged husband decided to confess perpetrating a hoax. Maybe this is being a little simplistic, but it seems to me that it would be more practical for her to admit that Mike acquired it from one of these electricians, or just someone he met at the pub, than to concoct this fantastic story that now involves her poor old Dad. It would all fall back on dear old Mike with no skin off her nose since she had been little involved (that was her excuse for holding back this new story). What she did was dig herself into a deeper hole, which only implicates that she was already in one to begin with.

Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reference I can find to any objects being found on the ground at the scene concerns some buttons found in the clotted blood on the ground after she was removed. The fact that this was considered noteworthy suggests to me that her other belongings were not removed from her various pockets by the killer, let alone opened up and their contents examined. For me the 'tin box empty' segment is every bit as damning as 'one off instance'. For me that kills not only Maybrick's authorship but also the old forgery idea.

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reference I can find to any objects being found on the ground at the scene concerns some buttons found in the clotted blood on the ground after she was removed. The fact that this was considered noteworthy suggests to me that her other belongings were not removed from her various pockets by the killer, let alone opened up and their contents examined. For me the 'tin box empty' segment is every bit as damning as 'one off instance'. For me that kills not only Maybrick's authorship but also the old forgery idea.

forgot about that one. lol. but yes totally agree- a major snafu.

[Sam Flynn]

The fact that this was considered noteworthy suggests to me that her other belongings were not removed from her various pockets by the killer, let alone opened up and their contents examined.

Perhaps he closed the box and, finding it empty, carefully put it back in her pocket along with her other possessions

[James_J]

Evening all, just passing this along from KS

Hi Keith. It's difficult not to notice that there has been little or no discussion about post #150. The image of a 10-foot pole comes to mind, but perhaps that's just me. Howard Brown reprinted the same quote on his website, but the only response I've yet seen by any "diary friendly" theorist is that, for some unfathomable reason, Paul Dodd is lying about the work done on his own house. Any comments? The quote is from Shirley Harrison (American Connection, 2003) based on her interviews with Dodd.

"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."

If the house was 'gutted' in 1977, why would anyone expect to find a biscuit tin or a large book under the floorboards in 1992? Cheers.

TO R.J.PALMER


Thank you Roger. David O’s #150 was posted before I applied for membership of the Casebook Forum – but in anticipation of being permitted to post direct – I have started to trawl through from the beginning of this thread scooping up queries en route, which I hope I may be able to eventually offer clarification. I’m aware I still have some posts to address, namely Phil’s reference to Stewart’s protection of a friendship – and the alleged “biscuit tin.” Neither are forgotten.


So, whilst Phil very patiently waits, I wondered whether you had any observations around my post to you, (#649), but more specifically to the question I twice asked you in #635? And do you accept the reason why I posted Kevin Whay’s O&L input?

Apologies if I have missed your responses.

Best Wishes, Keith

[Iconoclast]

Evening all, just passing this along from KS

TO R.J.PALMER


Thank you Roger. David O’s #150 was posted before I applied for membership of the Casebook Forum – but in anticipation of being permitted to post direct – I have started to trawl through from the beginning of this thread scooping up queries en route, which I hope I may be able to eventually offer clarification. I’m aware I still have some posts to address, namely Phil’s reference to Stewart’s protection of a friendship – and the alleged “biscuit tin.” Neither are forgotten.


So, whilst Phil very patiently waits, I wondered whether you had any observations around my post to you, (#649), but more specifically to the question I twice asked you in #635? And do you accept the reason why I posted Kevin Whay’s O&L input?

Apologies if I have missed your responses.

Best Wishes, Keith

Keith, word to the wise mate - this place is a Hellhole to serious players like you (I'm constantly amazed your missus frequents it as she does).

Save your soul now before it's too late. You'll never win an argument, nor lose one. It's completely pointless trying!

And I should know.

Ike
Deeply Concerned That You're Making A Terrible Mistake

[Iconoclast]

Keith, word to the wise mate - this place is a Hellhole to serious players like you (I'm constantly amazed your missus frequents it as she does).

Save your soul now before it's too late. You'll never win an argument, nor lose one. It's completely pointless trying!

And I should know.

Ike
Deeply Concerned That You're Making A Terrible Mistake

It's like Whitechapel in the 1880s.

Maybe that's why I like it so much?

Ike the Sipper