Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[James_J]

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?

Apologies for the confusion here David. As far as I understand Tim was certain (referrencing a note in his personal diary) that two events coincided - his purchase of an antique hat stand which had been left in the APS store awaiting his collection - and recieving a telephone call from Alan Dodgson with an offer to purchase 'Jack the Ripper's Diary'.

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?

Alan Dodgson is doing the calculation of APS's 25 years in business. According to TMW the exact date was 26 October 1992. I think we need to use some common sense with respect to Alan Dodgson's mentioning of "October/November" - especially after 25 years. I'm not quite sure what you mean here David - "how does anyone remember that kind of thing"? Wouldn't you remember if someone had come into your shop touting Jack the Ripper's diary - especially if it occured relatively soon after opening your new business? If I've misunderstood your point do please clarify.

Thank you. It will be good if you can.

Doing the utmost.

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.

We would of course have a precise answer to this question if we knew when in December the conversation occured between TMW & Alan Dodgson. In all honesty I still do not think that the phrasing of "a month or two" is astonishingly idiosyncratic or suspect. You are free to speculate to the contrary - but in that instance, it would be beneficial to speak with both men and form an opinion form an opinion from there.

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!

I think you would need to confirm that with Robert - but from memory I do think that 1991 was mentioned early on. On the whole I am in agreement with you - and if it wasn't for the remarkable work of Mr. Skinner (and Caroline) we might not have such a strong documented timeline of events. There are some remaining issues - but rest assured everything is being done to resolve them.

Best, James.

[Henry Flower]

How to spectacularly miss the point.

Yes, of course Mike could have said the photo 'was' of a donkey, knowing he still had it tucked in a folder at home marked 'foRgERy foR dUmmys'. But there was/is presumably a good reason why the ass was never let out to meet its public.

Any sensible suggestions, apart from the obvious? That Mike knew he didn't need to show the public his ass, in order to make an ass out of his public?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, at some point you have to stop playing this unfalsifiable and limitlessly flexible game with Mike Barrett. When he says something clearly detrimental to your old-forgery theory, he is either an untrustworthy scheming liar, or else confused and drunk, chaotic and unreliable. When there is something he does or says that seems to deny some element of your argument he suddenly becomes a super-scheming chess-player who has thought three steps ahead and knows what he can say and what he can't, and which versions of which provenance might hit him either legally or financially. But when he describes in detail a photo he had, and that photo is tracked down and it turns out that such an image exists and has a Liverpool provenance then suddenly only definite physical proof is acceptable to you, and there's no way Mike could ever have kept the thing and then either lost it while drunk, or given it to someone else on a whim, or had it thrown away by his wife, or anything like that, oh no...

You avoid what you want, and evade whatever you want, by making Mike Barrett now a driven and Machiavellian schemer looking after his own interests, and then a confused and drink-addled loser, or finally a master chess-player dropping half clues and teases and tricks and riddles.

Yeah, we know, you met him!

But you can't keep up this "Mike Barrett, shapeshifter extraordinaire" game - you just move the goalposts whenever you want.

[David Orsam]

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.

You'll have to forgive me James - perhaps I haven't been concentrating sufficiently - but this is all brand new to me.

All I know about Tim Martin-Wright is what I read in Harrison's 2003 book at page 291. There she says:

"One such lead came, out of the blue, in the summer of 1997. Its source was impeccable - a London lawyer, Stephen Shotnes of Simons, Muirhead and Burton, had been told the story by Tim Martin-Wright...."

What I understood from that was that the very first time this story of Tim's had been heard by researchers was in the summer of 1997 and this story was given a respectable sheen because it was being conveyed by a lawyer.

What you now seem to be telling me (and I'm learning it for the very first time) is that Tim Martin-Wright had already been in contact with Feldman in 1994, three whole years before the lead came "out of the blue" to Robert Smith.

So our Tim had been touting this story for some years had he?

And then we have a huge problem. For the story told to Robert Smith doesn't seem to mention Jack the Ripper's diary. Surely the most important part of the whole story. Why not?

And what about Dodgson? You quote him in your own essay as saying that Davies told him that Eddie had found "a leather bound diary" under the floorboards. No mention of it being Jack the Ripper's diary. So how does Tim get the impression it is JTR's diary if his only information comes from Dodgson?

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.

Yes, and "two years" takes us back to June 1992. Why was Tim giving a six month range for this conversation in 1994? So he didn't think it happened at Christmas then? Where did that notion come from?

[David Orsam]

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

I think that may need to be checked. Perhaps Keith can help?

[David Orsam]

Apologies for the confusion here David. As far as I understand Tim was certain (referrencing a note in his personal diary) that two events coincided - his purchase of an antique hat stand which had been left in the APS store awaiting his collection - and recieving a telephone call from Alan Dodgson with an offer to purchase 'Jack the Ripper's Diary'.

But why was he certain? I mean, did Dodgson mention the hat stand in the same conversation? Or something like that? It's all very well Tim being "certain" but that can only be from memory which CAN always play tricks. And it's often the people who are certain who are certainly wrong!

And I'm amazed that you are telling me that Alan Dodgson passed on an offer to purchase Jack the Ripper's diary when Dodgson himself makes no mention of Jack the Ripper's diary in the account from 1997 which you quote in your essay (in which he only refers to 'a leather-bound diary').

And I might add that in the 1997 account of Dodgson which you quote, Dodgson said:

"Alan Davies had come into the shop 'a few months' after the shop had opened in October 1991"

Can you see two major problems right there?

Dodgson uses the expression 'a few months' rather than 'a month or two'. So now can you see the reason for my amazement? How in 1997 can he think the conversation occurred a few months after the opening of the APS shop yet, more recently, he told you it was 'a month or two', the exact same expression used by Tim and published in Shirley's book in 2003?!

And then Dodgson himself is, apparently, telling someone the shop opened in October 1991. What's the source of that account?

Alan Dodgson is doing the calculation of APS's 25 years in business. According to TMW the exact date was 26 October 1992. I think we need to use some common sense with respect to Alan Dodgson's mentioning of "October/November" - especially after 25 years. I'm not quite sure what you mean here David - "how does anyone remember that kind of thing"? Wouldn't you remember if someone had come into your shop touting Jack the Ripper's diary - especially if it occured relatively soon after opening your new business? If I've misunderstood your point do please clarify.

I would certainly remember it happening but I might be quite dreadfully wrong about the date. As I believe might most people. Relatively soon after the opening of the APS shop could be December 1992 but could also be February or March 1993.

[James_J]

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.

Apologies for this David - I have reviewed your point and you are quite right. Brian never once inferred that Eddie referred to the book as a 'diary' - let alone one belonging to Jack the Ripper. That is an error on my part and I take full responsibility for the confusion caused. In most instances Brian referred to "a book". Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

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".

Please see the above response. I do not believe that Brian has been corrupted or contaminated. I've actually come across this note from my most recent interview with Brian - which I hope will be of value:

"There was never a mention of Jack the Ripper or anything, because had he done that, when we got back the office I certainly would have told Colin Rhodes about it." (7 October 2016)

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?

In short - no, this does not unduly trouble me. I would like to check the source for Brian having used the term "diary" in his police statement - I'm not entirely sure where this came from at hand. I will be sure to check this with the investigating detective too. At the moment - I am quite satisfied that Eddie told Brian he had discovered a book beneath the floorboards which he thought could be important.

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.

Please see the above response. On balance - Brian has used the term "book" significantly more than "something".

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?

Interestingly - I do (perhaps) have some idea how the conversation may have started. I include this from Lyons:

"I might have said to him, ‘It’s an old house, load of books sitting there’, which it was." (17 February 2016)

Lyons does not contend that the conversation never took place - only that he never admitted to finding anything. That naturally raises the question - why would Brian make this up? I think this is where personal impressions count for something - imho.

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.

Entirely possible - but for me, that is a coincidence too far. Especially if Lyons was talking retrospectively. How would the discovery of a "Victorian newspaper" have constituted Lyons' apparent claim that "it could be important"? Little did Brian know that another old document was attracting significant professional and financial interest in London.

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.

Please see the above response.

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?

Well you seem fairly sure that he was lying/confused when speaking to me. Asses his claims for yourself. The conviction of his voice, the verisimilitude of associated details. Just for starters....

Was Eddie Lyons open and accommodating when you spoke to him? If not, can you give some examples of him not being so? I think I've consistently said this haven't I? If not, it must have been a slip on the keyboard.

Eddie has always been accomodating - to his credit. But there remain circumstances which I do not feel have been adequately resolved. That research is on-going.

Best, James.

[James_J]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;439723]Has Eddie Lyons gone out of his way to volunteer his account in pursuit of financial/reputational gain?

That depends on whether you trust Feldman's narrative or not. In both cases - his actions need to balanced and factored against the events of March - April 1992.

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?

No it doesn't - but as stated, this is where personal impressions count for something. Who are you going to believe? Who is telling the truth? Brian or Eddie? A difficult decision when you haven't spoken to either individual directly.

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?

No - and as mentioned, I would like to check the source for Brian having told Scotland Yard that Lyons had described the book as a "Diary".

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

You're free to speculate as to Brian's motives - even without speaking to or hearing his account for yourself. My own opinion of Brian remains the same - he is a reliable witness who is honest in his recollection of that day. I think it is negligible to dismiss his account/integrity on the basis of a small noun change - which does not alter the underlying narrative.

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.

I sincerely hope so! It would make for a fascinating read.

Are you able to provide examples of the challenges?

Brian has been challenged on each of the occasions he has been interviewed. I've included this one from my first interview with Brian (6 February 2016) :-

JJ: Ok, so Eddie Lyons told you that he found a book?

BR: Yeah.


This question was following on from a previous introductory phone call which I had made to Brian a few days prior.

Best wishes, James.

[John G]

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.

Hello David,

Assuming Mike was the hoaxer, it makes no sense to me that he would have phoned the literary agent, Doreen Montgomery, on 9th March, 1992, unless he'd either completed the forgery, or was close to completing the forgery, at that time.

Now, you state Mike placed an order for a genuine Victorian diary after March 9th, 1992, which presents us with something of a conundrum. However, one possibility is that he wasn't happy with what turned out to be a first draft. Maybe he belatedly realized that he'd made a fundamental factual error, or there was some other serious issue he couldn't resolve. Of course, if a possible conspiracy with the electricians, or electrician, had broken down after the call to the agent, this would give him another reason to re-evaluate the project, ultimately resulting in the order for a replacement dairy. The discarding of his original effort would therefore explain the delay in getting the diary to Doreen until the 13th April.

[David Orsam]

Please see the above response. I do not believe that Brian has been corrupted or contaminated. I've actually come across this note from my most recent interview with Brian - which I hope will be of value:

"There was never a mention of Jack the Ripper or anything, because had he done that, when we got back the office I certainly would have told Colin Rhodes about it." (7 October 2016)

Yes it's of value but it's a different point. That shows that Eddie never mentioned JTR in July. But by October I'm suggesting that Brian knew what the investigation was all about and about the claims that a diary had been found in Battlecrease by one of the electricians (specifically by Eddie). That's the possible contamination. (He doesn't have needed to know it was JTR's diary)

In short - no, this does not unduly trouble me. I would like to check the source for Brian having used the term "diary" in his police statement - I'm not entirely sure where this came from at hand. I will be sure to check this with the investigating detective too. At the moment - I am quite satisfied that Eddie told Brian he had discovered a book beneath the floorboards which he thought could be important.

Sure but if he did tell the police it was a diary then that must trouble you, no?

Please see the above response. On balance - Brian has used the term "book" significantly more than "something".

It's a novel way of working out the truth I'll grant you but I don't think one can simply count the number of times Brian said "book" and then count the number of times he said "something" and then conclude that the most commonly used word is the one that was actually said! For the simple fact is that Brian should NEVER have been using the word "something". The very fact he has used it (on more than one occasion, it seems) strongly suggests to me that this is most likely to have been the word used and his later memory, learning that a diary or book was supposed to have been discovered has influenced and corrupted his memory. Hey, it happens. Memory can easily be affected in this way. The fact of the matter is that Brian probably now has no actual memory of what was said that day.

Interestingly - I do (perhaps) have some idea how the conversation may have started. I include this from Lyons:

"I might have said to him, ‘It’s an old house, load of books sitting there’, which it was." (17 February 2016)

Aha! So now we have something new and a reason why I asked to see the entire transcript of the Lyons interview. Here we have Lyons saying that he might have had a conversation with Brian about books and Brian has misremembered what was said!!

As an explanation of why Lyons might have started talking about his discovery it's not a very good one. For according to Smith, who taped his 1997 interview with Brian, what Brian said was this:

"Rawes asked Lyons to guide him as he reversed back down the drive. When he reached the entrance gate to the property and was about to drive off, Lyons came up to the drivers window and said to Rawes: "I found something under the floorboards...."

That account (which seems to match what Brian told you) doesn't match up with there having been any kind of conversation prior to the revelation which is said to come totally out of the blue just before Brian was about to drive away in the firm's van.

And, James, please note that here we have another claim by Brian that Eddie only told him that "something" had been found. And this was back in 1997. Which rather trumps your more recent interviews in which he mentioned a "book" does it not?

Lyons does not contend that the conversation never took place - only that he never admitted to finding anything. That naturally raises the question - why would Brian make this up?

It's not as stark a choice as this. You are not allowing for confused memories.

Entirely possible - but for me, that is a coincidence too far. Especially if Lyons was talking retrospectively. How would the discovery of a "Victorian newspaper" have constituted Lyons' apparent claim that "it could be important"? Little did Brian know that another old document was attracting significant professional and financial interest in London.

Why could a discovery of a Victorian newspaper not be important? Last week I posted a news story about a discovery of a Victorian newspaper in Buckingham Palace. It was important enough to be mentioned in the papers.

But of course this all rests on whether Eddie really did say it was important or whether this is something else that Brian has added to the story, having convinced himself in his own mind that it was an important revelation.

You say that little did Brian know what was going on in London. Indeed. And he had no reason to know or to be told ANYTHING about the diary did he? So why did Eddie tell him? It doesn't make sense and because it doesn't make sense there is seriously good reason to think it didn't happen.

Well you seem fairly sure that he was lying/confused when speaking to me. Asses his claims for yourself. The conviction of his voice, the verisimilitude of associated details. Just for starters....

None of that's going to help me James. I'm not a lie detector machine. What is of far more assistance, and far more revealing, are the things we have been talking about in this thread.

Eddie has always been accomodating - to his credit. But there remain circumstances which I do not feel have been adequately resolved.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur in my view. Eddie has been accommodating (you don't say whether he has been open or not) yet you don't believe his denials. So the fact that someone is being "accommodating", like Brian, doesn't seem to help us establish the truth.

[David Orsam]

No

Can you tell me why you don't think it would be significant (if he said it)?

[David Orsam]

Brian has been challenged on each of the occasions he has been interviewed. I've included this one from my first interview with Brian (6 February 2016) :-

JJ: Ok, so Eddie Lyons told you that he found a book?

BR: Yeah.


This question was following on from a previous introductory phone call which I had made to Brian a few days prior.

Hmmmn, not really much of a challenge James.

Are all your questions as tough as that?

[James_J]

You'll have to forgive me James - perhaps I haven't been concentrating sufficiently - but this is all brand new to me.

Nothing to forgive David - I have a hard enough time keeping track of the forums at times, given the speed with which the debate shifts and sprawls.

All I know about Tim Martin-Wright is what I read in Harrison's 2003 book at page 291. There she says:

"One such lead came, out of the blue, in the summer of 1997. Its source was impeccable - a London lawyer, Stephen Shotnes of Simons, Muirhead and Burton, had been told the story by Tim Martin-Wright...."

What I understood from that was that the very first time this story of Tim's had been heard by researchers was in the summer of 1997 and this story was given a respectable sheen because it was being conveyed by a lawyer.

What you now seem to be telling me (and I'm learning it for the very first time) is that Tim Martin-Wright had already been in contact with Feldman in 1994, three whole years before the lead came "out of the blue" to Robert Smith.

So our Tim had been touting this story for some years had he?

Yes - Tim Martin-Wright contacted Paul Feldman on 6 June 1994 with substantially the same account given to Smith in 1997. Feldman had by that time abandoned the Battlecrease provenance and so the account was not taken up until it came to Robert Smith's attention in 1997. (As far as I'm aware).

And then we have a huge problem. For the story told to Robert Smith doesn't seem to mention Jack the Ripper's diary. Surely the most important part of the whole story. Why not?

The account given to Smith by TMW in 1997 does refer to "a diary, written by Jack the Ripper".

And what about Dodgson? You quote him in your own essay as saying that Davies told him that Eddie had found "a leather bound diary" under the floorboards. No mention of it being Jack the Ripper's diary. So how does Tim get the impression it is JTR's diary if his only information comes from Dodgson?

This is an important question and does chime with some of my thinking. It as an area we are in the process of researching. The inference from both TMW and Dodgson is that the document was a diary written by Jack the Ripper.

Yes, and "two years" takes us back to June 1992. Why was Tim giving a six month range for this conversation in 1994? So he didn't think it happened at Christmas then? Where did that notion come from?

It is inferred that he did not have the documentation to hand to verify his date :-

TMW: Well, this evening I will be able to probably pin it down to the nearest month. Alright.

PHF: Alright.

TMW: The reason is, it coincides with something else we were doing in our business and I cannot remember which one it was.


When he was able to refer to his diary in 2004 - he arrived at the date of December 1992.

Thanks again - James.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

Assuming Mike was the hoaxer, it makes no sense to me that he would have phoned the literary agent, Doreen Montgomery, on 9th March, 1992, unless he'd either completed the forgery, or was close to completing the forgery, at that time.

Hi John, I've been over (and over) this point on the Incontrovertible thread.

It does make sense if Mike had drafted out the whole text of the diary (say on his word processor) but didn't have very much money and didn't want to go to the expense of actually buying the ink and the pen(s) and the journal etc. if no-one was going to be interested in what he produced. So I'm suggesting that he first got an indication from Doreen that she would be interested. Then he could go ahead and spend some cash. All he needed to do was just transcribe the diary from the pre-written draft. Sure he needed to find a real Victorian diary first, which is exactly why he contacted Martin Earl. Perhaps he was an optimist who didn't think it would be difficult. But he did eventually get one and, like I say, it explains perfectly why he didn't rush down to London shortly after 9th March with the diary.

[David Orsam]

Yes - Tim Martin-Wright contacted Paul Feldman on 6 June 1994 with substantially the same account given to Smith in 1997.

I have to say I'm troubled by this. Previously (to my knowledge) it was an account given independently by someone to his lawyer who supposedly had no knowledge of the whole Jack the Ripper diary business. Now it's someone who was sufficiently aware of the JTR diary in 1994 to contact Feldman directly. We are again in the territory of was the guy's memory corrupted by his knowledge of a JTR diary in existence?

I need time to reflect on this information which, like I say, is totally new to me. Has it ever been published anywhere before? If so, can you direct me to it?

[David Orsam]

It is inferred that he did not have the documentation to hand to verify his date :-

TMW: Well, this evening I will be able to probably pin it down to the nearest month. Alright.

PHF: Alright.

TMW: The reason is, it coincides with something else we were doing in our business and I cannot remember which one it was.


When he was able to refer to his diary in 2004 - he arrived at the date of December 1992.

"something else we were doing in our business" doesn't sound to me like the purchase of an antique hat stand. So what was it that prompted his memory?