Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GUT View Post
    Says he has been a member since 20 jan.
    Itís all part of the mystery......wooooooo
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Hi Pinkmoon,

      My money's on Mr. Dodds.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Itís all part of the mystery......wooooooo
        It's more of the bullshit more like.

        Comment


        • Morning all. Just passing this along from KS. The happy postman, JJ

          TO GUT

          Thank you for your post #1004 Gut. (I’m giving up asking people for their real names!) The answer to your question about why a third party (James) continues to post on my behalf, now that my application to join the Casebook Forum has been approved, can be found in my post #948 to David Orsam on February 2nd 2018. Here’s what I wrote:-

          “The fault is all mine because of my inability to, at the moment, comprehend how to put up posts for myself on the Forum now that I am a member. I think I explained that the other night I spent three hours composing a message to you in a small rectangular box – only to see it disappear before my eyes after trying to send it - and then staring at a notice which said I wasn’t logged in and hadn’t been recognised! That defeated me and rather than go through all that ordeal again, I asked James whether he would very kindly continue posting on my behalf until I managed to work out what I was doing wrong”

          I thought I had logged on!

          Several people were kind enough to offer me suggestions as to how to overcome my technical inability. But that wasted three hour stint so frustrated me that I decided to ask James if he could continue to be my postman until such time as I could go it alone. I should be meeting James in a few weeks time when he has promised to take me through the process of what to do. I just thought it fairer to acknowledge, (via James), peoples direct questions to me and give a full accurate response where I am able to immediately do so without reference to my files, (most of which are presently in storage), rather than keep people waiting.

          Hope this answers your question as to why I am still at cadet status – where I’m quite happy to remain incidentally!



          Best Wishes
          Keith Skinner

          Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
            Mr Dodds by all accounts is decent chap and has always stated that there was no way that diary could have come out of battlecrease without his knowledge.
            But unless he was directly supervising the electrical work for the entire period, which I assume was not the case, I don't see how he could be so certain.

            Not that I believe for a second that the diary was removed from Battlecrease, although it's possible some other document was unearthed.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
              Mr Dodds by all accounts is decent chap and has always stated that there was no way that diary could have come out of battlecrease without his knowledge.
              Thanks for this Pinkmoon.

              Many thanks for taking the time to speak with me this morning - a really engaging discussion.

              I think that this post touches on something which you have mentioned to me on several occasions - specifically relating to Michael Barrett, and your recollections of meeting him in Southport circa 1999.

              I'm just wondering, for the benefit of the other posters/readers, whether you might be able to recount your experience of meeting Mike and listening to his claim that he had "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub"? It is intriguing that Mike would then qualify this account with the caveat; "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched"? Every detail is important.

              Following on from that :-
              • If Mike's assertion is true, how do we square that with Mike's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995?

              • Do you have any suggestion as to why Mike called himself 'Mr. Williams" on his first approach to Doreen Montgomery - on the same day that work was going on at Riversdale Road, in the same room which had served as JM's bedroom?



              I'm sure that many here would be very interested to read your account.

              Best wishes, James

              Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                But unless he was directly supervising the electrical work for thamentire period, which I assume was not the case, I don't see howfoundould be so certain.

                Not that I believe for a Didn't d that the diary was removed from Battlecrease, although it's possible some other document was unearthed.
                I agree. I also believe that Mr Dodd has been truthful throughout the whole affair. I am also beginning to think that there was possibly "some other document " found in Battlecrease House at that time. Didn't Shirley Harrison reveal in her book that a Victorian newspaper was found by one of the workers who asked if he could keep it?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                  Thanks for this Pinkmoon.

                  Many thanks for taking the time to speak with me this morning - a really engaging discussion.

                  I think that this post touches on something which you have mentioned to me on several occasions - specifically relating to Michael Barrett, and your recollections of meeting him in Southport circa 1999.

                  I'm just wondering, for the benefit of the other posters/readers, whether you might be able to recount your experience of meeting Mike and listening to his claim that he had "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub"? It is intriguing that Mike would then qualify this account with the caveat; "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched"? Every detail is important.

                  Following on from that :-
                  • If Mike's assertion is true, how do we square that with Mike's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995?

                  • Do you have any suggestion as to why Mike called himself 'Mr. Williams" on his first approach to Doreen Montgomery - on the same day that work was going on at Riversdale Road, in the same room which had served as JM's bedroom?



                  I'm sure that many here would be very interested to read your account.

                  Best wishes, James
                  Hi James,

                  Apologies for interjecting here, but I'm curious about the story you refer to, concerning Mike allegedly pinching the diary from a workman in the pub.

                  I've speculated previously as to whether it's feasible that he could have acquired the diary via trickery, or some other means, on the assumption that it originated from Battlecrease. However, this makes little sense to me. For instance, if, say, one of the electricians took the risk of effectively stealing the diary, or what ever document may have been removed, he obviously considered it to be valuable (a possible visit to Liverpool University also supports this view). So why would he just give it to Mike? Or allow him to purchase it for a nominal sum?

                  However, if we speculate that Mike somehow stole the diary from the electrician, or tricked him out of it by offering to get it valued and authenticated, then other problems arise.

                  For instance, according to Paul Feldman, when Mike first heard about the story of the electricians and the alleged Battlecrease find, he dismissed the account as a lie. Moreover, he then went round to see one of the electricians and openly accused him of lying: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...icians&f=false

                  Now, Mike doesn't appear to be the sort of person who would have been particularly good at fisticuffs, so I can imagine that if he rubbed salt on the wound, as they say, by accusing the electrician whom he'd just stolen the diary from, or obtained via trickery, of lying, the most likely outcome is that he'd have been subjected to a damn good thrashing!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                    Morning all. Just passing this along from KS. The happy postman, JJ

                    ........“The fault is all mine because of my inability to, at the moment, comprehend how to put up posts for myself on the Forum now that I am a member. I think I explained that the other night I spent three hours composing a message to you in a small rectangular box – only to see it disappear before my eyes after trying to send it - and then staring at a notice which said I wasn’t logged in and hadn’t been recognised! That defeated me and rather than go through all that ordeal again, I asked James whether he would very kindly continue posting on my behalf until I managed to work out what I was doing wrong”

                    I thought I had logged on! .........


                    Best Wishes
                    Keith Skinner
                    It's not the most user friendly site for posting on as the site appears to time you out. Any post over a few paragraphs is best being composed off site on Word etc and then cut and paste it in the box once you're definitely logged in :-)
                    ĎThere is nothing more deceptive than an obvious factí Sherlock Holmes

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Spider View Post
                      It's not the most user friendly site for posting on as the site appears to time you out. Any post over a few paragraphs is best being composed off site on Word etc and then cut and paste it in the box once you're definitely logged in :-)
                      I don't know what all the confusion is-if you have a long post and the site times you out you can still post the whole thing. you just have to log back in and then it automatically posts it all.

                      it aint rocket science or am I missing something?
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Never works for me, the posting just disappears
                        ĎThere is nothing more deceptive than an obvious factí Sherlock Holmes

                        Comment


                        • I have great respect for those researchers who have taken the trouble to interview the principal protagonists. It cannot be an easy task, particularly when an interviewee says something contradictory, either within the context of the interview itself, or when contrasted with previous interviews: of course, Mike had a tendency to do this on a frequent basis.

                          However, I wonder what the protocol usual is in such circumstances. Thus, the interviewer may be reluctant to challenge the interviewee by effectively inferring that they may be lying, or at least being inconsistent, which seems to be the general approach. However, this saga seems to be riddled with such problems, which is obviously frustrating for the reader.

                          Take this gem from Paul Feldman, who I assume was a practiced interviewer (p 143): https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...icians&f=false

                          You will note that the electrician, interviewed by Feldman, starts off by stating that he recalls traveling to Liverpool University with his colleagues, who were attempting to authenticate a parcel, wrapped in Brown paper- presumably the diary or whatever document may have been discovered. However, he then goes on to say that, "I remember something being thrown out of the window of the room we were working at Mr Dodd's house. It was put into the skip." This, of course, suggests that whatever was found was then simply discarded!

                          Incredibly, despite this obvious contradiction, the electrician triumphantly announces, "I think I've solved your problem."

                          But what are we to make of this inconsistency? Was the man lying? Was he confused? Was he drunk? And why did Feldman not ask him for clarification? Had he not noticed the anomaly? Did he not wish to offend the man? Did he simply not care?
                          Last edited by John G; 02-15-2018, 09:35 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                            I agree. I also believe that Mr Dodd has been truthful throughout the whole affair. I am also beginning to think that there was possibly "some other document " found in Battlecrease House at that time. Didn't Shirley Harrison reveal in her book that a Victorian newspaper was found by one of the workers who asked if he could keep it?
                            Not sure about that, Observer. Shirley refers to one account whereby an electrician who worked for Portus and Rhodes, Alan Davies, recalls a colleague finding a biscuit tin under the floorboard, containing a leather-bound diary and a gold ring. However, apparently, Davies was not working at the house at the relevant time.

                            Another version that is mentioned is Brian Rawes' account, whereby he recalls a colleague saying to the van driver, "I've found something under the floor boards. I think it could be important."

                            Personally, I find these conflicting accounts to be confusing, not to say a touch suspicious.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John G View Post
                              Not sure about that, Observer. Shirley refers to one account whereby an electrician who worked for Portus and Rhodes, Alan Davies, recalls a colleague finding a biscuit tin under the floorboard, containing a leather-bound diary and a gold ring. However, apparently, Davies was not working at the house at the relevant time.

                              Another version that is mentioned is Brian Rawes' account, whereby he recalls a colleague saying to the van driver, "I've found something under the floor boards. I think it could be important."

                              Personally, I find these conflicting accounts to be confusing, not to say a touch suspicious.
                              Indeed, and therein lies the problem at this remote time. I suspect we will never get to the bottom of this affair.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by James_J View Post
                                Thanks for this Pinkmoon.

                                Many thanks for taking the time to speak with me this morning - a really engaging discussion.

                                I think that this post touches on something which you have mentioned to me on several occasions - specifically relating to Michael Barrett, and your recollections of meeting him in Southport circa 1999.

                                I'm just wondering, for the benefit of the other posters/readers, whether you might be able to recount your experience of meeting Mike and listening to his claim that he had "pinched the diary from workmen in a pub"? It is intriguing that Mike would then qualify this account with the caveat; "but in what form was the diary when it was pinched"? Every detail is important.

                                Following on from that :-
                                • If Mike's assertion is true, how do we square that with Mike's sworn affidavit of 5 January 1995?

                                • Do you have any suggestion as to why Mike called himself 'Mr. Williams" on his first approach to Doreen Montgomery - on the same day that work was going on at Riversdale Road, in the same room which had served as JM's bedroom?



                                I'm sure that many here would be very interested to read your account.

                                Best wishes, James
                                Most definitely, me for one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X