Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

When I said that Rigby could easily have convinced himself that Lyons had been involved in finding something and had passed it on to Devereux and Barrett this in no way assumes that Rigby knew anything about Devereux or Barrett. It’s simple comprehension. Rigby was asked if he had found anything at Battlecrease and whether he knew two men called Devereux and Barrett. He didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that something had been found in Battlecrease and passed on to two men called Devereux and Barrett. He also didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out that the transfer of the item was supposed to have happened in the Saddle. He didn’t need to know who Devereux and Barrett were at all. If he actually remembered Eddie Lyons finding something in Battlecrease (or being told that he had) – and if Eddie Lyons did not work in Battlecrease prior to 1992 (something which has not been proved) – then he could just as easily have remembered being told of something being found in June or July 1992.

The point is that Eddie Lyons was NOT a random coincidence. He probably only exists in the story because he happened to be one of nine Liverpool electricians who drank in the Saddle. It’s not a random coincidence, in other words, it’s a manufactured story created to please the big film producer, Paul Feldman, and give him exactly what he wanted.

And this is a wonderful quote from Rigby that I mentioned in my "Response to the Muppets" article:

"I remember something being thrown out of a window of the room where we were working at Mr Dodd's house. It was put in a skip. With everything that I've heard since about the diary and considering the trip to Liverpool University, I think I've solved your problem." (Feldman p.134)

Rigby was trying to solve Feldman’s problem based on what he had been told, after Feldman had started his investigations, about the discovery of a diary. He gave him an electrician, a vague memory of something being found in Battlecrease and the pieces were filled in. Then the electrician who drank at the Saddle, Eddie Lyons, helpfully claimed to have found the diary in 1989. There is no random coincidence here. All we have is that a random Portus & Rhodes electrician drank in the Saddle pub in Liverpool. Big deal. It means nothing!

[David Orsam]

Here’s the thing. I thought that this much vaunted and "compelling" timesheet evidence was going to end the debate about where the diary came from. That’s why I am amused that the floorboard argument is full of speculation, just like other arguments. This argument was meant to be special wasn't it? Turns out to be no better than any other argument as to the origin of the diary. Everything hinges on a single coincidence. It’s not good enough frankly.

[David Orsam]

What about the idea that someone forged the diary in the 20th century and placed it under the floorboards in Battlecrease? Well, perhaps that is something that can be discussed at the next Mad Hatter’s Tea Party but not worth my time on this forum.

[David Orsam]

Why did Mike contact Doreen on 9 March 1992? Well if he was going to contact Doreen it had to be on one day out of 365 in any one year, or indeed 366 in the leap year. You could ask the same question about any day. But was he ever asked that question? I have no idea. Personally I very much doubt that his contacting Doreen had anything to do with the electrical work taking place in Battlecrease. I thought this new evidence was supposed to prove me wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. It's certainly failed to do that.

[David Orsam]

Just to round off this string of posts with a brief anecdote. This very week - on Tuesday in fact - I happened to mention, over the lunch period, to a colleague at work, someone who I used to work with in the office about three years ago. I hadn't seen this guy (or even thought about him) for the past two years and wasn't even sure if he still worked at my firm. Can you imagine my astonishment when about two or three hours later, at shortly after 3pm, when I was returning to the office from another building to which I had paid a short business visit, I walked past this very chap in the street at a location about a mile from my office? Checking his LinkedIn page when I returned to the office I discovered he had left my firm and moved to another firm which is based close to where I walked past him (thus explaining why he was there).

Now I thought that was quite freaky. So did my colleague to whom I told the story. And funnily enough even today when I was writing an email to someone within my firm who I hardly ever see or communicate with in any way, she walked into my office just as I was about to press send. I told her the above story and that it was clearly a week of coincidence!

That one is obviously less freaky than walking past someone in the street who I hadn't seen or spoken about or thought about for over two years when I had just been speaking about him earlier that day. But, hey, it's just one of those unlikely coincidences. We've all experienced them.

But based on a similar type of coincidence I am effectively supposed to believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! For make no mistake. If that diary was retrieved from under the floorboards of Battlecrease then it was surely written by James Maybrick and if it was written by James Maybrick then he was surely Jack the Ripper. But, really, I need more than a mundane timesheet if I am going to even start to think that the diary was ever under a single floorboard in Battlecrease. I rather suspect the same is true for most people.

[rjpalmer]

You have to admit that it's more than a little strange that Robert Smith is now arguing that his prize possession was stolen from Mr. Dodd. Has there been any financial compensation? Or is Dodd okay with this?

[rjpalmer]

Going back to the first post on this thread. "Must have at least 20 blank pages."

The word "pages" is a slightly ambiguous. It think it means "sheets" or "pages of paper" (double sided). 20 sheets = 40 pages of writing.

Which sounds a heck of a lot like Mike already has a 40 page typed transcript in hand, and knows he needs "at least" 20 blank sheets to create the diary.

The transcript of the Diary in Harrison's book (Blake edition) runs about 40 pages.

The end product is (I think) 63 pages, but this in itself is interesting. On the first page of the Diary, the writing is fairly compact, and there are a number of paragraphs. As the Diary progresses, there is a lot of wasted paper. Flourishes, scribbles, etc. Some pages only have a small amount of writing.

And that is rather amazing. Here is Mad Maybrick, at the height of the murders, already knowing that he is going to be poisoned by his wife in May 1889, and thus doesn't need to conserve paper.

Or else it's being transcribed by someone with manuscript in hand, who already knows how the story is going to end.

[caz]

Some people clearly need to be reminded of the first post in this thread in which it is shown that the advert placed in Bookseller on behalf of Mike Barrett stated:

“Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least 20 blank pages”

So, for Mike Barrett, a completely blank diary was something that would have been perfectly acceptable and something for which he was willing to pay to obtain. The notion, therefore, that he wanted to acquire a Victorian diary to somehow compare it to a Jack the Ripper diary which he had been shown briefly makes absolutely no sense. The idea that he wanted it for any reason other than to write in that diary, or for someone else to write in that diary, has no credibility.

No need to sound so touchy, David, if your own convictions are not wide of the mark.

Eddie shows Mike the old book signed Jack the Ripper, followed by a number of blank pages - seventeen to be exact, but did Mike count them individually or just guess?

Mike wants it, and wants it badly. He doesn't know where Eddie got it from or when, and Eddie's not saying. Mike guesses he probably pinched it from somewhere, but he's already hooked.

Eddie is willing to sell it to Mike, but Mike has limited spare cash. So Eddie takes the book back for now, leaving Mike to think through his next move. He makes some phone calls - one to Pan Books, who advise him to contact Doreen. He also makes an enquiry designed to find out how much the going rate would be for an unused or partly used diary dating from the 1880s [1880, or 1890 would do just fine, or any of the years in between] with at least 20 blank pages, like the one he has the hots for. His reasoning is that the number of blank pages in something that old might have a bearing on the price. Bless him.

Meanwhile, Eddie, with a chum or two, takes the book to Liverpool University, but instead of learning he has his hands on a gold mine, he is advised to get expensive and extensive tests done. He's not about to go down that route, thank you very much. If he found the watch with the book, he'd have had no idea of the connection between the two, but could have got an immediate, not insubstantial cash sum for it from a jeweller, no questions asked. He's happy with that, and now he just has to offload the old book with no comeback, and leave someone else with the little problem of what to do with it.

Back to Mike. I'm sure Gareth won't mind me quoting the following, posted just yesterday in 'the other place':

There are in fact three Ripper related books that appear in a block just below the advert for the Victorian diary. I can't remember them offhand, but I noted them a while back, on Casebook.

Edit: these are they...

Jones/Lloyd: The Ripper File
Farson: Jack the Ripper
F.S. Shew: Hand of the Ripper

Thinks. Jones/Lloyd and Shew were both book versions of TV or film productions, weren't they? Don't know if that's significant or not, but it strikes me as interesting nonetheless.

These were also enquired about by Mike at the same time, unless you fancy another curious coincidence to explain away. They would seem to indicate his earliest efforts to research the subject of Jack the Ripper.

[Or, as Gareth suggests, a last-minute backup plan to turn an already prepared draft 'into a screenplay or "factional" novel', if the diary idea didn't work out? Of course, if Mike was still trying to obtain a suitable book for the penning of the draft diary, an explanation would still be needed for how he obtained an ink which would not change in appearance or colour from its debut in London on April 13th 1992 to today.]

Armed with an invoice for an 1891 diary to the tune of £25, Mike now goes back to Eddie and says he is prepared to take the old book off his hands for a similar amount - take it or leave it. Eddie takes it. Not his problem any more.

IIRC, one of the early rumours was the detail that the diary found under the floorboards was finally sold to a chap in an Anfield pub for £20 [or was it £25?] This would have to be yet another curious coincidence, unless the seller already knew about Mike's other diary purchase around the same time for around the same amount, because it was used as a bargaining tool. Nobody would have known back then about an 1891 diary costing £25 if Mike had hoped to use it for a fake ripper diary.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I have no idea why we are being required to assume that the floorboards were lifted on 9 March 1992. Perhaps they were, but the timesheet evidence was supposed to be the gold standard evidence that finally gave us a Battlecrease provenance! So why do we have to assume anything?

You don't. So why do you assume that the floorboards needn't have come up in order for the underfloor wiring to be installed in that room? Why do you assume that the timesheet needn't reflect that work, or that floorboard lifting for this particular job has not been supported by individuals who were in a position to know one way or another? People like Colin Rhodes, Paul Dodd and even good old Eddie Lyons? And why do you assume that Mike Barrett would have been capable of planning, creating or even helping to create the diary itself? Have you a timesheet tucked away somewhere to help you with that one?

But if such floorboards were lifted how do we know that they were not lifted on 10 March rather than 9 March?

Because the underfloor wiring job could not have started until the floorboards were raised? And the last job on the 10 March would have been to replace them?

The storage heater itself was only installed on 9 June, the next work done in the house following the wiring and sockets for same, which had been completed back on 10 March. Maybe Dodd was in no hurry at that time of year, but I'd be assuming.

The floorboards had to come up before the underfloor wiring could begin [and Eddie the odd job man, who would help out here and there for an hour or two if there was no formal work available at the time, recalls a job to install a heater, which would have involved taking up floorboards], and the Portus & Rhodes working day typically began at 8am and finished at 4.30pm with half an hour for lunch. So anything under those boards was more likely to be found and removed before the breakfast baps arrived, than late in the afternoon after the tea and digestives.

If you are helping out on a casual basis, and just happen to find an old book signed Jack the Ripper, and possibly a gold watch alongside it, after which you drive away rather hurriedly with the booty, are you going to a) complete a time sheet and claim for less than an hour's work, or b) not complete one, for rather obvious reasons?

I don't expect you to be able to put yourself in those shoes, being an upright sort of chap. But then, you seem to have no trouble squeezing yourself into the shoes of Mike the modern hoaxer, which would seem to involve considerably more effort and moustache-twirling than simply making off with some old book and selling it on to Mike the fence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I’m sure everyone agrees that it is not satisfactory for a poster to simply make bald statements without providing any supporting evidence. If none of the 1992 electricians from Portus and Rhodes worked in Battlecrease in 1989 where is the evidence for it?

Well unless Colin Rhodes was deliberately holding back timesheets for work done in Battlecrease, I'm working on the basis that he supplied them all, going back to one small job in 1989 on a faulty immersion heater, carried out by two names not mentioned in connection with the 1992 work or the diary story, so I won't be naming them here. I'm not sure what other evidence could be obtained to prove no work was done in the house by the 1992 electricians before Monday March 9, but you'd expect there to have been some record if there had been, and Colin Rhodes was one of the old school, keeping records of the company going back decades, much further than would have been required by law. IIRC when I was my ex husband's company secretary, from 1997-2001, I was advised to keep the books for ten years.

Robert Smith tells us that "No electrical work had taken place in Battlecrease House during the six months prior to 9th March 1992" which takes us back to 9 September 1991, but what about the two or three years before 9 September 1991? I see no evidence anywhere of what work was done in Battlecrease or who did it.

According to Colin Rhodes, nothing was done in Battlecrease by Portus & Rhodes after that small job in September 1989 up until March 9 1992.

According to James Johnston’s recent essay, "The second phase of rewiring included the installation of night storage radiators; fitted over the course of three years, finishing in July 1992". So what is the evidence about the first phase of rewiring? Who did this? And if the night storage radiators were "fitted over the course of three years" where is the evidence about the work in those three years, prior to 1992?

You'd need to ask James about his sources for this, but we mustn't forget that Paul Dodd was clearly misremembering when work was done by the Portus & Rhodes team, if we are to believe Colin Rhodes himself and the timesheets he supplied. I'm not sure James had access to any timesheets when writing his essay, and if that's the case he'd have been going by what his sources were able or willing to recall.

It’s time for people to put up or shut up and if anyone wants to demonstrate that Eddie Lyons never set foot in Battlecrease before 15 July 1992 let’s have the evidence to show this.

I now believe that he must have been helping out on March 9 if he genuinely recalled floorboards being lifted for one job, and confided in a fellow electrician, Brian Rawes, on July 17 [when Mike would have known there was a lucrative publishing deal being negotiated - more coincidence?] that he had found something under the floorboards which could be important.

You may of course continue to believe whatever turns you on.

Even if it relies on believing in a thousand curious coincidences before breakfast.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

On the first page of the Diary, the writing is fairly compact, and there are a number of paragraphs. As the Diary progresses, there is a lot of wasted paper. Flourishes, scribbles, etc. Some pages only have a small amount of writing.

And that is rather amazing. Here is Mad Maybrick, at the height of the murders, already knowing that he is going to be poisoned by his wife in May 1889, and thus doesn't need to conserve paper.

Or else it's being transcribed by someone with manuscript in hand, who already knows how the story is going to end.

I don't think you're too wide of the mark, there, RJ. It strikes me that the way those pages are filled, or padded out, could tell us much about how well prepared (or not) the diarist was.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think you're too wide of the mark, there, RJ. It strikes me that the way those pages are filled, or padded out, could tell us much about how well prepared (or not) the diarist was.

are there any blank pages after the end or does the writing go to the last one?

[caz]

If anyone understands the significance of the fact that Eddie Lyons “actually came into the Saddle one night [in June 1993] when Robert Smith was there with Mike and sat down” perhaps they can explain it to me. Why was it ever mentioned in this thread? To simply give some information to RJ that he apparently didn’t know before? Do me a favour!

Rude.

The fact of the matter is that the June 1993 meeting is completely irrelevant. Robert Smith explains why. He says in his book:

“I asked Barrett if he could arrange for me to meet Lyons. He could, so on Saturday 26th June 1993, I drove up to Liverpool to stay with the Barretts at 12, Goldie Street. I suggested meeting Lyons that evening in the Saddle. He strolled from the house to the pub, and at about 10pm Lyons came in and sat down with us.”

So the meeting was entirely set up by Robert Smith.

Up to a point, but not entirely.

I only spoke with Robert recently about this, and he said he couldn't work out how Mike got the message to Eddie that his [Robert's] suggestion was to meet 'that evening in the Saddle'. He couldn't recall Mike slipping away to make a phone call between making the suggestion and when Eddie made his entrance. I took this to mean that the time and place had not been suggested or arranged by Robert prior to this, and all he'd asked Mike was if he would be able to introduce him to Eddie when he came to Liverpool.

Robert also said he was puzzled that Mike was so compliant. Robert believes Mike knew exactly what story Eddie was going to come out with - a set piece worked out beforehand - and no sooner had Eddie delivered it than he was up on his toes and out of the pub, leaving Robert and Mike to finish their pints on their own.

Something that was not mentioned at all when being referred to earlier in this thread. But if you didn’t know this you might well have thought that the fact that Eddie Lyons came into the Saddle one night in June 1993 and sat down with Mike Barrett had some significance. To say in the context of this encounter that “We know that Mike and Eddie Lyons knew one another by June 1993” is nothing more than sleight of hand and very misleading. The June 1993 encounter was absolutely unremarkable.

Once again, it's a case of reading and accepting what was written - no more and no less - not reading between the lines for some supposed misdirection. When I wrote that we knew Mike and Eddie knew one another by June 1993, I meant just that. I could have gone further and observed that the pair were evidently in cahoots over something before this, with one having some kind of hold over the other, or at least some shared secret between them, or Eddie would never have agreed to co-operate with Mike, or to comply with the request made by Robert via Mike. That is the point that is brushed aside, as if the occasion itself could have had no possible relevance to anything.

It’s bad luck that Eddie didn’t support the notion that the diary came from the floorboards but trying to create some sort of conspiracy here between Lyons and Barrett (and Lyons and Rigby) is nothing more than wishful thinking.

It must be so comforting to have the luxury of speculating from such a distance, in one's own personal vacuum, devoid of all the inconvenient stuff such as Robert's first-hand experience of watching the pair's body language, eye contact and reactions. It can all count for nothing in your world, can't it, and be put down to wishful thinking, while you continue to ignore the coincidences piling up like elephant poo in the corner of your previously sterile room.

It's not bad luck that Eddie didn't confess in front of Mike and Robert to having liberated Mike's diary from under the floorboards. It's bad luck for the Barrett hoax theorists if they have no sensible explanation for Eddie's appearance that night, let alone the story he fed Robert.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

are there any blank pages after the end or does the writing go to the last one?

Hi Abby,

As previously noted, there are seventeen blank pages at the end.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You have to admit that it's more than a little strange that Robert Smith is now arguing that his prize possession was stolen from Mr. Dodd. Has there been any financial compensation? Or is Dodd okay with this?

Yeah, it seems that Paul Dodd is okay with this. He once made the point that he would never have known the diary was under his floorboards, so I guess he would be trying to prove it now if he wanted financial compensation.

But what could he have expected, considering it would have fetched the electrician £25 or so, and Robert paid Mike £1 for it? The real money came from all the work involved in writing and publishing Shirley's book about it, not from the physical book itself.

Love,

Caz
X