Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Sam Flynn]

Except we are not talking about ten years ago, in January 1995, but less than three

It still works, Caz: "Three years ago, I found an old photograph in an album. It was of a donkey standing by a grave". In fact, it works with even shorter time-scales: "I found an old photograph in an album this morning. It was of a donkey standing by a grave".

In neither case does it mean, or suggest, that I no longer possess the photograph.

[David Orsam]

I'm not usually prone to posting on here - but thought that a response to this would be beneficial.

Hi James, thank you for taking the time off from your travelling to post here. It's good to have you back. I hope you will stick around because your post raises more questions than it answers.

The 'floorboard provenance' predates Feldman's involvment - and the involvment of the Liverpool press. Feldman did not become involved with the Battlecrease angle until February 1993.

Can you clarify what Feldman's involvement was? From reading his book it appears that he contacted Dodd then Rhodes and the electricians in February 1993 but Robert Smith says this happened in April 1993. Who is correct?

And can you tell us what the origin of the 'floorboard provenance' was and when it was first discussed by researchers/investigators?

According to Tim Martin-Wright, he was able to date his conversation with Alan Dodgson to December 1992 - when the Diary was offered to him for the sum of £25.

Can you tell us how Tim Martin-Wright was able to date his conversation with Dodgson to December 1992?

After speaking to Mr. Dodgson, I was left in no doubt that the dating of this account is accurate and ties into when APS opened in October 1992.

This creates a problem. For earlier in this thread (#136) you told me:

"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."

A couple of weeks later (in #172) you told me:

"I contacted Mr. Dodgson on Tuesday afternoon - and he was adament that the shop opened for trading in October/November 1992"

So when was it? November or October? Will it be a different month next week?

I fear you are relying on people's memories. Given the importance of the date there needs to be some documentary confirmation of the shop's opening date.

Alan Dodgson recalled that it took place a "month or two" after the shop had opened and that last year (2017) was APS's twenty-fifth year in business.

According to Harrison (2003, p.291) it was Tim Martin-Wright who used the expression 'a month or two' after the shop had opened. Is she wrong? Or did they both, amazingly, use exactly the same expression?

Now can you explain why Harrison also told us that that Tim Martin-Wright dated the conversation to 'the end of 1991' and (according to Harrison) said that 'his shop opened in October 1991'. Did Tim Martin-Wright, in fact, tell Shirley Harrison these things?

Further to that - we also have Brian Rawes' testimony which has been dated to 17 July 1992. Hving spoken to Brian on several occasions, I have no reason to suspect that he is lying or confused.

Well you surely MUST have reason to suspect he is confused. He's given three contradictory accounts of what Eddie told him he had found hasn't he?

I've raised this point on more than one occasion in this thread (including with you) to deafening silence.

And, out of interest, can you give us some examples of the types of things which might have given you a reason to suspect he is lying?

[James_J]

* Correction to my previous post :-

Of course - in light of what is now known, the association of the name Rigby and the discovery of a diary at Battlecrease is important - and shouldn't be overlooked. As far as I'm aware, Arthur Rigby's name had not been publicly circulated in connection with the Diary's discovery.

Apologies for the typo.

Best, James.

[David Orsam]

Hi Caz,

I've wondered about this, too. Now, if Barrett was the forger it seems to me his biggest problem was lack of provenance. But let us say he found out about the electricians working at Battlecrease. Could he have approached one of them and offered them a deal, which ultimately went wrong? For instance, he offers them a share of the royalties and, in return, they make the claim they found the diary at Battlecrease, thus providing the pefect provenance. But say, the electrician(s) backs out of the conspiracy at the last minute: due to a dispute over money or, say, concerns about being accused of theft.

Does this make any sense?

Absolutely. I've never argued myself that Mike could have had an electrician place the diary under the floorboards in Battlecrease, or had an electrician claim to have done so, but if you use the same type of overactive imagination that the Diary Defenders have used throughout this saga and simply write fiction then it's perfectly easy to do so. The key to the narrative is that there was a complete change of plan. Here we go.

Mike knew from his mate "Eddie" that the electricians would be lifting floorboards in Battlecrease on 9 March so waited until that day before calling Doreen with news of the JTR diary which had already been forged. This is because there was an initial plan for Eddie to make the "discovery" in front of witnesses on 9 March, and thus use the Battlecrease provenance, but he completely messed it up. Either no-one saw him "finding" the diary or he wasn't actually able to work at Battlecrease on that day. A lack of communication between Mike and Eddie meant that Eddie still tried to convince a colleague in July that he had indeed found the diary under the floorboards but by this time Mike had decided to go for the story that Tony Devereux gave it to him. Perhaps, on second thoughts, it was feared by Mike (and his sensible wife) that if the Battlecrease provenance was used then the owner of Battlecrease might claim full ownership and the whole plan would have been a complete waste of time because Mike then couldn't make any money out of it. Thus Mike thereafter stuck rigidly to the Devereux story and maintained it because he feared that if he accepted the Battlecrease provenance Dodd could go on to insist on 100% of everything.

So there you have a story which, I think, explains everything. Well everything apart from why Mike placed an order for a genuine Victorian diary after 9 March 1992 and the delay in getting the diary to Doreen until 13 April. Mind you, if you really wanted to be imaginative you could say that Mike instructed Eddie to pretend to find the Diary at Battlecrease even though the Diary hadn't been forged yet. It would explain why no-one saw Eddie finding it. Perhaps the plan was for Eddie to tell people later that he had found it under the floorboards on 9 March, which he botched up. Lack of communication between conspirators such as Mike and Eddie is by no means impossible and it's easy to imagine them both singing from different hymn sheets. Perhaps the Battlecrease provenance was the original cover story at a time when the diary had been drafted but not yet written out and that cover story was subsequently rejected as having more cons than pros.

So like I say if you use the same type of logic and imagination used by Diary Defenders you can do it easily, no problem.

[David Orsam]

According to Tim Martin-Wright, he was able to date his conversation with Alan Dodgson to December 1992 - when the Diary was offered to him for the sum of £25.

I don't think this is quite right incidentally. According to Tim Martin-Wright, in the published version of his story, a diary was offered to him. No mention was apparently made that it was the diary of Jack the Ripper. On that basis one cannot simply say that "the Diary" was offered to him. It could, in theory, have been a different diary.

[David Orsam]

Why did Mike strenuously deny that the diary came from Battlecrease? It's not a difficult to question to answer if he knew it was a modern forgery. It's irrelevant that this might have contradicted his own story (about having obtained it from Devereux) because exactly the same would be true if he knew it came from Battlecrease.

Why did he go round to Eddie's house and threaten him? Where is the evidence that he threatened him? Is this another fantasy? According to Feldman, Mike merely accused him of lying. And the answer as to why he did this is obvious if he believed that an electrician was trying to falsely claim to have found the diary.

To say that Mike would have been relaxed on the basis that if Eddie couldn't prove that it came from the house he had nothing to worry about is ridiculous because if Eddie swore he had found it (and given it to Tony Devereux) how was Mike going to disprove that claim?

If Mike knew the diary was a recent forgery the very last thing he would have wanted was to concede any of his advance by giving up 5% of his future book royalties to someone who was not the diary's rightful owner.

I repeat that Mike could have had the Battlecrease provenance without giving up a penny which is why it would have made sense for him to reject the deal being offered. This doesn't contradict anything else I have said.

The way that Mike rejected the offer was to say that the diary never came from Battlecrease with the addition of certain industrial language. I have no idea how else he would have been expected to reject the offer if he knew the diary was a forgery.

In short, there is nothing inconsistent in Mike's behaviour with the diary being a modern forgery so this focus on the Feldman/Dodd offer has been a complete waste of time.

[David Orsam]

Keith, I doubt I'd bother with suing you for defamation because it would be easier for me to apply to have you committed to prison for swearing a false affidavit, which of course I don’t want to do, at least not before your membership of this forum has been accepted.

As you know, my view of the matter of the origins of the diary is influenced by Mike's (secret) attempt to acquire a genuine diary from the late Victorian period with a specified minimum number of blank pages while also being happy with a completely blank diary. I simply cannot think of another credible reason for him doing so other than to create a forged Victorian diary. (Can you?) That being so, in the absence of any genuinely compelling evidence to the contrary, I can only realistically conclude that Mike, with the assistance of at least one other person, did subsequently engage in a conspiracy to produce the forged Maybrick diary. The fact that he said in his affidavit that the effort to create this diary took 11 days (when I think most people would have said it would have taken weeks or months) is strong corroborating evidence for me that his story fits in the time period in which I think it must have all happened.

As for saying that Mike should have been very easily being able to explain the mechanics of the forgery, I'm not sure that he hasn't already done that. Him being able to prove he was involved is another matter. If he wasn't the scribe he couldn't replicate it. If he hadn't kept any documentation then how was he supposed to prove it? That's if he genuinely did want to prove it and didn't simply enjoy messing with people, teasing all these important investigators. Plus there may well have been others involved whose names he wanted to keep out of his affidavit and this is possibly why some things don’t seem to ring true. I also feel we need to factor in someone with a naturally bad memory whose memory is then made many times worse by a serious alcohol problem (not to mention the illness which he suffered post 1992).

That all said, I have absolutely no problem with anyone exploring a new line of investigation with the Battlecrease provenance, and the way you have put it since you "joined" this forum has been perfectly reasonable, it's just that some people have been telling us that the mystery has already been solved and the Battlecrease provenance is proved. That kind of provocative hyperbole is completely unhelpful.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I hope you and Keith don't mind me asking, but why would Mike have gone to all this trouble, only to deny until his dying day that any electricians were involved, or that his diary had ever been anywhere near that house?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I believe John and David already answered your question sufficiently.

let me ask you something. why would barrett go through the trouble of taking out an affidavit admitting he hoaxed it if he didn't?

[James_J]

Hi James, thank you for taking the time off from your travelling to post here. It's good to have you back. I hope you will stick around because your post raises more questions than it answers.

Good evening David. Thank you for the kind reception. I will certainly take the evening to respond and clarify any questions which have been raised.

Can you clarify what Feldman's involvement was? From reading his book it appears that he contacted Dodd then Rhodes and the electricians in February 1993 but Robert Smith says this happened in April 1993. Who is correct?

Thank you for pointing this out to me David. What I mean by 'Feldman's involvement' is that he was the first researcher to investigate the electricians and the possibility of the diary having been removed from Battlecrease House. Feldman's first visit to the house was in February 1993 - which is detailed in his book. As Robert has identified - Feldman did not recieve the contact information for the electricians involved with the rewiring contract until April 1993. That information was supplied by Colin Rhodes. I have dated Feldman's involvement to February 1993 simply on the basis that this was when he first visited Battlecrease House with Mike Barrett. It is inferred in Feldman's book that this was the first instance when he countenanced the possiblity that the diary had been removed from the house by one or more of the electricians.

And can you tell us what the origin of the 'floorboard provenance' was and when it was first discussed by researchers/investigators?

As far as I am aware, the origin of the 'floorboard provenance' was first discussed and explored by Paul Feldman after his initial visit to Battlecrease House in February 1993. As he did not recieve the contact information for the electricians until April 1993, this is when the bulk of his 'Battlecrease investigation' seems to have taken place. This period is detailed in Feldman's chapter: 'I first saw the Diary in 1968 or 1969' (pgs.137-164).

Can you tell us how Tim Martin-Wright was able to date his conversation with Dodgson to December 1992?

Tim was able to date this conversation via reference to a pesonal diary which he kept. Keith should be able to provide more information on this - but I believe Tim recalled that the conversation with Dodgson took place around the time when he had purchased an antqiue hand-stand, which had been left in the APS shop for collection. Tim suggested that this could have been the impetus for Dodgson and Davies to have discussed anqtiues and Tim's penchant for curiosities. I do recall Tim mentioning that he would frequent an old curiosity shop which was not too far from APS. Further to this - Alan Dodgson told me that the conversation took place "a month or two after APS had opened" - which he dated to October/November 1992. He seemed confident of this date on account of 2017 being APS's twenty-fifth year in business.

This creates a problem. For earlier in this thread (#136) you told me:

"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."

A couple of weeks later (in #172) you told me:

"I contacted Mr. Dodgson on Tuesday afternoon - and he was adament that the shop opened for trading in October/November 1992"

So when was it? November or October? Will it be a different month next week? I fear you are relying on people's memories. Given the importance of the date there needs to be some documentary confirmation of the shop's opening date.

Apologies for the confusion and inconsistency on my behalf David. At the moment the most definitive date which I can give you is 26th October 1992. This came directly from Tim Martin-Wright in 2004. I am working hard to try and obtain some form of documented support for this - to make this date indisputable.

According to Harrison (2003, p.291) it was Tim Martin-Wright who used the expression 'a month or two' after the shop had opened. Is she wrong? Or did they both, amazingly, use exactly the same expression?

Alan Dodgson used the phrase "a month or two" when speaking with me in December. I don't have any obvious reason to suspect that Shirley is mistaken - but in any case, I don't think that the phrase "a month or two" is particularly idiosyncratic. Nothing amazing about it in my opinion - especially if the conversation did take place roughly "a month or two" after APS opened.

Now can you explain why Harrison also told us that that Tim Martin-Wright dated the conversation to 'the end of 1991' and (according to Harrison) said that 'his shop opened in October 1991'. Did Tim Martin-Wright, in fact, tell Shirley Harrison these things?

As mentioned previously - Shirley's account of the Tim Martin-Wright episode seems to have been recapitulated from Robert Smith's investigation in May 1997. As far as I am aware, Shirley never spoke to Tim Martin-Wright, nor Alan Dodgson. This could account for the discrepancies in her account - if written retrospectively. We know from the timesheets that Shirley didn't always get things right (and who does?) - for instance, she also dated the storage heater installation to the summer of 1991. We know that to be inaccurate. This isn't necessairuly a criticism of Shirley's competency as a researcher - simply that until documented evidence is produced, we often have nothing else to follow but fallible memories.

Well you surely MUST have reason to suspect he is confused. He's given three contradictory accounts of what Eddie told him he had found hasn't he? I've raised this point on more than one occasion in this thread (including with you) to deafening silence.

The "deafening silence" is not intentional - nor does it reflect any doubt or hestitation on my part. I don't have any reason to suspect that Brian is confused. I've reproduced each of the accounts which Brian has given to me below:


I remember we were working on the roof at Halewood Police Station and I just told Arthur that this Eddie Lyons told me that he found a book under the floorboards, and I was in a hurry to go and pick Arthur up and I said ‘the best thing you could do is to go and tell Colin Rhodes about it. Because, I didn’t know more about it, because I thought Colin Rhodes’ son would probably know about it as well, but apparently, he never said anything to his son about it. Then he said he took this book out and started reading it and he got in touch with someone else about the book. (6 February 2016)


What it was, it was a Friday afternoon, and Colin Rhodes asked me and Arthur to go to this house, and I didn’t know where the house was. So, Arthur took me down to the house. Arthur shot back off to Colin Rhodes and I went into the house and told them that I needed the van, we have to go [inaudible] for this, and I was reversing out of the driveway of the house, and this Eddie Lyons told me about he found this book under the floorboards and he didn’t know what to do with it, and I said that I’m in a hurry the best thing to do is to tell Colin Rhodes. Because as I say, I never thought too much of it because I knew Colin Rhodes’ son was there, so I thought probably he knew about it as well.(6 February 2016)


All he said was, as I say I was in a hurry and to be honest I wasn’t very interested you know, and he just said about a book underneath the floorboards and he said I don’t know what to do about it, and I said you best to tell Colin Rhodes.



He just said he found a book under the floorboards. (12 February 2016)


Yeah, yeah. Arthur went, I didn’t know where the house was, so Arthur took me in his car, and I went there to pick up the van. Then it was as I was reversing down the pathway, Eddie Lyons came down and told me that he’d found something under the floorboards, which was a book, because then I said to him, you better tell Rhodes. I said [inaudible]. No, I think he said it was at home or something. (12 February 2016)


In fairness - Brian has at times used the term "something" when relating the account - but I do not feel that is reason to assume he is "confused". I've included the following examples:


Well, [inaudible] we went to Halewood Police Station, to do some overhanging lights, and while we were there, Arthur was on the ladder and I was on the roof, and I just turned around and said, that Eddie Lyons had told me he’d found something in the house which was important.

Yes. I reversed the van out of the house and the path right down, and he followed me down, Eddie Lyons, and as I said, it was a Friday, and [inaudible] Eddie Lyons told me ‘I’ve found something important’…’I think it’s important, under the floorboards.’


So again - thank you raising this point David. On the whole, I do not for a moment believe that Brian is confused about what was told to him that morning. Granted - he does at times use the phrase "something" in place of "book" (although he does this considerably fewer times) but the underlying narrative remains the same. Furthermore - his dating of the account does have some evidential support with the timesheets, which record that Lyons and Graham Rhodes were working at the house alone that Friday morning. I include the following from Brian:


"All I know is that Colin Rhodes’ son was working with Eddie Lyons." (6 February 2016)

"Yeah. Yeah, definitely it was only the two of them." (12 February 2016)


I do think that it is in instances like this meeting with and talking with the individual is important and of immense value. If you have reservations about Brian's honesty or accuracy, I can only suggest that you get in touch. From my experience he has always been very open and accomodating. And no that is not a cop-out - rather my honest advice and opinion.


** Also just to confirm and clarify: Brian Rawes has never talked/mentioned/discussed the 'biscuit tin'. Alan Davies & Alan Dodgson are the source of that information, be it true or not. Work is continuing on this issue.

And, out of interest, can you give us some examples of the types of things which might have given you a reason to suspect he is lying?

Certainly - and another good question David. Any of the following would have given me reason for caution:

1. If Brian had gone out of his way to volunteer his account in pursuit of financial/reputational gain. (He has not done so)
   
2. If Brian was unable to date his account - or, if the details of his account were not borne out with evidential support such as timesheets or daily memo books.
   
3. If Brian's account had changed significantly over the course of twenty-five years. (I maintain that it has not)
   
4. If Brian had not given a similar account to Scotland Yard in October 1993.
   
5. If my personal impressions of Brian's character had suggested that he was not being honest, truthful or substantially consistent.
   
6. If my personal impressions of Brian's account and character were not shared by others who have independantly met with, interviewed and challenged him.

Thanks again for the questions. I;m hoping that this clarifies a few points.


Best as always, James.

[James_J]

I don't think this is quite right incidentally. According to Tim Martin-Wright, in the published version of his story, a diary was offered to him. No mention was apparently made that it was the diary of Jack the Ripper. On that basis one cannot simply say that "the Diary" was offered to him. It could, in theory, have been a different diary.

Apologies David - just picking up on this now. Incidentally, it does appear to be correct. Tim Martin-Wright was referring to 'Jack the Ripper's Diary' from as early as June 1994 - the first time that he contacted Feldman. That is documented. According to the account which he gave to KS in 2004 - the document that was being offered to him (via Alan Dodgson) was being touted as 'Jack the Ripper's diary'. As mentioned, in the summer of 2004 Martin-Wright dated this conversation to December 1992 (via a personal diary). Similarly, when speaking to Feldman in June 1994 - he stated "It was eighteen months/two years ago." Eighteen months takes us back to December 1992.

Best wishes, James.

[David Orsam]

Feldman's first visit to the house was in February 1993 - which is detailed in his book. As Robert has identified - Feldman did not recieve the contact information for the electricians involved with the rewiring contract until April 1993. That information was supplied by Colin Rhodes.

Let me see if I've got this right. You tell us that Feldman visited Battlecrease in February 1993. According to his book he says he met Paul Dodd there who told him that new storage radiators had been installed in Battlecrease in 1988 or 1989. Dodd told him that the electrical contractors were called Portus and Rhodes and Feldman then contacted Colin Rhodes. That is all in February 1993 right?

You then say that Feldman got the contact information of the electricians from Rhodes but not until April 1993. Is that right? Why was there a gap of three months?

According to Smith (p.16), "Feldman went to see Dodd in April 1993". But you are telling me that he first visited the house in February 1993 (and, as mentioned above, Feldman in his book says that Paul Dodd answered the door). So something seems to me to be wrong here. Is Smith in error?

Can you clarify the sequence of events?

[James_J]

Let me see if I've got this right. You tell us that Feldman visited Battlecrease in February 1993. According to his book he says he met Paul Dodd there who told him that new storage radiators had been installed in Battlecrease in 1988 or 1989. Dodd told him that the electrical contractors were called Portus and Rhodes and Feldman then contacted Colin Rhodes. That is all in February 1993 right?

You then say that Feldman got the contact information of the electricians from Rhodes but not until April 1993. Is that right? Why was there a gap of three months?

According to Smith (p.16), "Feldman went to see Dodd in April 1993". But you are telling me that he first visited the house in February 1993 (and, as mentioned above, Feldman in his book says that Paul Dodd answered the door). So something seems to me to be wrong here. Is Smith in error?

Can you clarify the sequence of events?

Thanks for this David.

I have no idea why there was a interlude between Feldman's visit to Battlecrease and Colin Rhodes supplying him with the contact details for his employees. That information isn't recorded in a published source.

Feldman's book records that he visited Battlecrease in February: 'I first met Anne Barrett in February 1993. It was also the first time I met her then husband Michael and their only child, Caroline, then aged eleven. I made the trip with Paul Begg and Martin Howells." Feldman then proceeds to recount the events that day - including the visit to Battlecrease.


From memory (I could be mistaken) Colin Rhodes faxed Feldman the contact details for the electricians in April 1993.


Sorry I can't be of much assistance here.

Best, James.

[David Orsam]

Tim was able to date this conversation via reference to a pesonal diary which he kept. Keith should be able to provide more information on this - but I believe Tim recalled that the conversation with Dodgson took place around the time when he had purchased an antqiue hand-stand, which had been left in the APS shop for collection. Tim suggested that this could have been the impetus for Dodgson and Davies to have discussed anqtiues and Tim's penchant for curiosities.

I'm sorry but this is really problematic. For it gives the impression that Tim has noted a reference to the purchase of a hat stand in his diary in December 1992 and then speculated that the hat stand might have been the reason why Dodgson and Davies discussed antiques in the first place. Well maybe that was the reason but maybe not. Is Tim just guessing here?

Why would he make any connection in his mind between the purchase of the hat stand and his conversation with Dodgson?

I do recall Tim mentioning that he would frequent an old curiosity shop which was not too far from APS. Further to this - Alan Dodgson told me that the conversation took place "a month or two after APS had opened" - which he dated to October/November 1992. He seemed confident of this date on account of 2017 being APS's twenty-fifth year in business.

But who is doing the calculation of APS's 25 years in business? And why is Dodgson mentioning November if the shop opened in October? Why does he think the conversation took place a month or two after the shop opened rather than say 3 months or 4 months? How does anyone remember that kind of thing?

Apologies for the confusion and inconsistency on my behalf David. At the moment the most definitive date which I can give you is 26th October 1992. This came directly from Tim Martin-Wright in 2004. I am working hard to try and obtain some form of documented support for this - to make this date indisputable.

Thank you. It will be good if you can.

Alan Dodgson used the phrase "a month or two" when speaking with me in December. I don't have any obvious reason to suspect that Shirley is mistaken - but in any case, I don't think that the phrase "a month or two" is particularly idiosyncratic. Nothing amazing about it in my opinion - especially if the conversation did take place roughly "a month or two" after APS opened.

Well the conversation either took place one month after the shop opened or two months. Both men are, apparently, using the exact same expression "a month or two". Not "a few weeks" or "a few months" or "soon" or "shortly after" or "a couple of months" or "one month" or "two months". Both say "a month or two" which leads me to suspect that they might have spoken to each other about this or else Dodgson has been influenced by what is in Shirley Harrison's book.

As mentioned previously - Shirley's account of the Tim Martin-Wright episode seems to have been recapitulated from Robert Smith's investigation in May 1997. As far as I am aware, Shirley never spoke to Tim Martin-Wright, nor Alan Dodgson. This could account for the discrepancies in her account - if written retrospectively. We know from the timesheets that Shirley didn't always get things right (and who does?) - for instance, she also dated the storage heater installation to the summer of 1991. We know that to be inaccurate. This isn't necessairuly a criticism of Shirley's competency as a researcher - simply that until documented evidence is produced, we often have nothing else to follow but fallible memories.

Okay so can we clarify. Did Tim mention the year 1991 to Robert Smith or not?

I must say I find it astonishing that Shirley could write in 2003 that "Mr Martin-Wright confirmed the above events occurred 'a month or two' after his shop opened in October 1991, which appeared to fit conveniently with April 1992, the month that Michael Barrett bought the Diary to London" yet, despite the importance of the conversation, this is not corrected by anyone until 14 years later!

[David Orsam]

The "deafening silence" is not intentional - nor does it reflect any doubt or hestitation on my part. I don't have any reason to suspect that Brian is confused. I've reproduced each of the accounts which Brian has given to me below:


I remember we were working on the roof at Halewood Police Station and I just told Arthur that this Eddie Lyons told me that he found a book under the floorboards, and I was in a hurry to go and pick Arthur up and I said ‘the best thing you could do is to go and tell Colin Rhodes about it. Because, I didn’t know more about it, because I thought Colin Rhodes’ son would probably know about it as well, but apparently, he never said anything to his son about it. Then he said he took this book out and started reading it and he got in touch with someone else about the book. (6 February 2016)


What it was, it was a Friday afternoon, and Colin Rhodes asked me and Arthur to go to this house, and I didn’t know where the house was. So, Arthur took me down to the house. Arthur shot back off to Colin Rhodes and I went into the house and told them that I needed the van, we have to go [inaudible] for this, and I was reversing out of the driveway of the house, and this Eddie Lyons told me about he found this book under the floorboards and he didn’t know what to do with it, and I said that I’m in a hurry the best thing to do is to tell Colin Rhodes. Because as I say, I never thought too much of it because I knew Colin Rhodes’ son was there, so I thought probably he knew about it as well.(6 February 2016)


All he said was, as I say I was in a hurry and to be honest I wasn’t very interested you know, and he just said about a book underneath the floorboards and he said I don’t know what to do about it, and I said you best to tell Colin Rhodes.



He just said he found a book under the floorboards. (12 February 2016)


Yeah, yeah. Arthur went, I didn’t know where the house was, so Arthur took me in his car, and I went there to pick up the van. Then it was as I was reversing down the pathway, Eddie Lyons came down and told me that he’d found something under the floorboards, which was a book, because then I said to him, you better tell Rhodes. I said [inaudible]. No, I think he said it was at home or something. (12 February 2016)


In fairness - Brian has at times used the term "something" when relating the account - but I do not feel that is reason to assume he is "confused". I've included the following examples:


Well, [inaudible] we went to Halewood Police Station, to do some overhanging lights, and while we were there, Arthur was on the ladder and I was on the roof, and I just turned around and said, that Eddie Lyons had told me he’d found something in the house which was important.

Yes. I reversed the van out of the house and the path right down, and he followed me down, Eddie Lyons, and as I said, it was a Friday, and [inaudible] Eddie Lyons told me ‘I’ve found something important’…’I think it’s important, under the floorboards.’

I can't believe you don't see the problem here James.

For in your own essay you tell us that Brian told the police in 1993:

"Rawes got keys to van and Lyons said he had found a diary under the floorboards of the house, which he thought was important".

Yet in NONE of his conversations with you that you have kindly quoted does he say that Eddie told him he had found a diary.

This, to me, is the clearest indication possible that Brian's memory in 1993 had been corrupted by all the talk of the JTR diary and - at the very best - he must have replaced "a book" in his mind with "a diary" because he knew that that was what the investigation was all about.

You must surely admit that, on the basis of what Brian told you, he was confused when he spoke to the police. Because from what he has told you, Eddie simply did not mention finding "a diary".

So now we have the problem of what Eddie did say to Brian. In 1993 he told police that Eddie mentioned "a diary". Subsequently it has become "a book". Doesn't that trouble you? Why has his memory changed since 1993 to turn the discovery away from a diary to a rather more vague book?

When we factor in the fact that he sometimes says that Eddie told him that "something" was found, isn't that really the most likely word that Eddie used? A word that can be anything at all. In 1993 in Brian's mind it must have been a diary. But then he thought it was a book.

And then we come to the biggest question of all. Why did Eddie suddenly and out of the blue walk up to Brian and tell him about the discovery in July? Do you have an explanation for this?

So again - thank you raising this point David. On the whole, I do not for a moment believe that Brian is confused about what was told to him that morning. Granted - he does at times use the phrase "something" in place of "book" (although he does this considerably fewer times) but the underlying narrative remains the same.

Yes the underlying narrative is that Eddie told him about finding something. That's the whole problem. It could have been anything. It could have been a newspaper. Perhaps the newspaper that Colin Rhodes said an electrician had found at Battlecrease.

Furthermore - his dating of the account does have some evidential support with the timesheets, which record that Lyons and Graham Rhodes were working at the house alone that Friday morning.

I've never questioned the dating. But surely a conversation of this nature in July, four months after the work in Battlecrease of 9 March 1992, rules out the notion that Eddie went up to him and told him about finding the diary of Jack the Ripper.

I do think that it is in instances like this meeting with and talking with the individual is important and of immense value. If you have reservations about Brian's honesty or accuracy, I can only suggest that you get in touch.

How on earth would that help me? If he is lying to you he would no doubt lie to me. How would I be able to tell if he is being honest with me?

From my experience he has always been very open and accomodating.

Was Eddie Lyons open and accommodating when you spoke to him? If not, can you give some examples of him not being so?

** Also just to confirm and clarify: Brian Rawes has never talked/mentioned/discussed the 'biscuit tin'. Alan Davies & Alan Dodgson are the source of that information, be it true or not.

I think I've consistently said this haven't I? If not, it must have been a slip on the keyboard.

[David Orsam]

Certainly - and another good question David. Any of the following would have given me reason for caution:
[LIST=1][*]If Brian had gone out of his way to volunteer his account in pursuit of financial/reputational gain. (He has not done so)

Has Eddie Lyons gone out of his way to volunteer his account in pursuit of financial/reputational gain?

[*]If Brian was unable to date his account - or, if the details of his account were not borne out with evidential support such as timesheets or daily memo books.

Well that tells us no more than that he might have had a conversation with Eddie on a day in July 1992. It doesn't help us as to what was said does it?

[*]If Brian's account had changed significantly over the course of twenty-five years. (I maintain that it has not)

You seriously don't think that him telling the police that Eddie mentioned "a diary" and him telling you it was "a book" is not a significant change or a red flag?

[*]If Brian had not given a similar account to Scotland Yard in October 1993.

Similar is an interesting word given that the crucial noun was completely different to what he is now telling you.

[*]If my personal impressions of Brian's character had suggested that he was not being honest, truthful or substantially consistent.

When Keith Skinner joins the board I rather imagine he will tell us that his personal impression of Anne and Billy Graham was that they were being honest and truthful.

[*]If my personal impressions of Brian's account and character were not shared by others who have independantly met with, interviewed and challenged him.

Are you able to provide examples of the challenges?