Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[rjpalmer]

Hi Keith. Read the message and then feel free to post it here if you so wish, or forward it to David Orsam. There is nothing tawdry about any of it; I'm merely attempting to establish your current position, as we--or at least I--seem to be having trouble communicating. Thanks. I'll be away for a few days. Take care.

[David Orsam]

*looks expectantly in PM inbox*

*realises Keith Skinner never logs in*

*deflates*

[John Wheat]

There are two facts to this thread. 1. The diary is a modern forgery and 2. Mike Barrett was full of ****.

[Abby Normal]

It’s like talking to a hologram

[Spider]

There are two facts to this thread. 1. The diary is a modern forgery and 2. Mike Barrett was full of ****.

So it's a fact now? Case closed

[John Wheat]

So it's a fact now? Case closed

Well you'd have to be an idiot to believe it was written by Maybrick.

[Spider]

Well you'd have to be an idiot to believe it was written by Maybrick.

You'd have to be more of an idiot to believe that Mike Barrett had anything to do with writing it

[John Wheat]

You'd have to be more of an idiot to believe that Mike Barrett had anything to do with writing it

What utter toss

[Abby Normal]

admittedly this is probably a stupid question and its probably been brought up a million times before but...but-

if (big if of course) it did come out of battlecrease and MB got his hands on it, could MB, his wife etc., come up with the lie that they got it through her family because they were afraid if they admitted where they got it they could be accused of theft(or receiving stolen property) and not only lose out on any profit but possibly face legal trouble?

could explain a lot.

[John Wheat]

You'd have to be more of an idiot to believe that Mike Barrett had anything to do with writing it

Oh of course a published journalist and proven liar couldn't possibly be involved in writing a phony historical diary.

[caz]

Another dumb question I am asked is how do I know that Brian Rawes was asked to recall his conversation with Eddie Lyons until over a year after it happened.

I thought there were no dumb questions, only dumb answers.

In that spirit, another question for you, David: Why do you have to be so unpleasant?

And another: Why can't you quote me direct, so you don't risk changing the question I asked you into something different, and then calling it a dumb question?

I'm pretty sure I asked you how you knew that Brian Rawes was asked by the police to recall his conversation with Eddie, as opposed to Brian volunteering information they may well have been hearing for the first time.

It's pretty obvious that there was no reason for Rawes to hold this conversation in his head after it happened.

So are you speculating that he made up the conversation when volunteering this info to the police a year after it had supposedly happened? Or would you say that a conversation of some sort had taken place, but nothing may have been said about a discovery of any kind, and Brian may have somehow imagined this, as a result of since hearing bits and pieces about a diary being published, which had possibly come from the house? That he accurately remembered going there, in July 1992, to pick up the firm's van, and Eddie and Graham Rhodes working there when he arrived, but the conversation itself was mentally 'added' later?

He claims he mentioned it to Arthur Rigby later that day (although we have yet to see any corroboration from Rigby of this) but why would he then think about it again for even a second until the question of the Jack the Ripper diary arose?

He may well not have done, but when that question arose, his memory could have been jogged, couldn't it, rather than a false one implanted, as you seem to be speculating? Had Brian not added that he had supposed at the time that Eddie was referring to a recent find, and had he never mentioned to anyone that he had passed on what Eddie told him to Arthur, when they were both working on the police station job later the same day, I might have been more inclined to think he was volunteering a false memory to the police in 1993, and doing the same thing with Robert Smith in 1997 and to others in more recent years. But given those two additions to the basic story, plus his accuracy regarding the date and circumstances and that he apparently had nothing to gain from relating any of this to the police in the first place, or to repeat it to future investigators, I am not going to disregard it as potentially significant, just because you think this is all inconsequential 'waffle'. Brian may have given his account to the police on the assumption that Arthur, if not Eddie, might recall and tell them the same thing. After all, Brian would have been the middle man, hearing the tale Eddie told him and repeating it to Arthur. He may have had no idea in 1993 that Arthur was worried about being implicated in theft, to the extent that he went back to see Paul Dodd, to deny any involvement and to put Eddie and Jim Bowling in the frame.

An issue is taken with the word "asked" but seeing as we are told by James Johnston that Rawes was "interviewed" by the police, it's perfectly obvious that he was asked questions by the interviewer, just as he might well have been asked questions by Feldman (if Feldman spoke to him).

Of course, but my point was that the police would have had no idea, at the start of their interview, that any such conversation had taken place, if Brian was the first to tell them about it, or if Eddie and Arthur both had their own reasons for not mentioning it, if and when they were questioned. And once again, you're deep into speculation territory with the idea that Feldman knew the name Brian Rawes, let alone approached him with any questions. The best you can hope for is that Brian's memory of that day was contaminated at some point in 1993, not directly by Feldman, but through subsequent contact with one or more of the Portus & Rhodes electricians, or by the early newspaper stories of the diary's discovery.

The point is not whether he was asked anything - as usual someone prefers to focus on irrelevance - but whether he would have had any reason to try and recall a single brief conversation he had had a year before at any time prior to him recalling that conversation during the diary investigation. There's a good chance that he had forgotten the exact words used and possibly also had got confused about what Lyons had said to him.

And a good chance he didn't forget, because of his claim to have repeated the conversation to Arthur later the same day, and to have got the impression it was a recent find in the July of 1992, which suggests he had no idea, when talking to the police in October 1993, that the diary in question had been seen in London by the Spring of 1992 and had, according to Shirley's recently published book, been brought home by Mike Barrett back in 1991.

The short point is that it's very easy for people to develop suspicions after the event as they try to draw connections.

Isn't it just? I assume you do not exclude yourself from this phenomenon, David?

Clearly Rawes was aware of the possibility that an electrician had found the diary and may well have been aware that suspicions were focussed on Eddie. So he has built up an otherwise innocent conversation in his head as an admission of Eddie finding something important. It's far from impossible.

Nobody is saying it's impossible, David, but it has to have happened that way, or all your other after-the-event suspicions and the connections you would draw [chiefly between Mike Barrett and the diary's creation] are in danger of being wrong. If Brian's memory was and is accurate, Eddie had reason to be concerned, in July 1992, that something he had found in Battlecrease could be 'important'. Why could that not have been an old book which he had passed on to Mike Barrett to do something with, and which was, at that very point in its 25-year history, attracting a publishing deal which, as it turned out, proved to be very important indeed for all those involved? Brian Rawes could not have known any of this was going on in July 1992, when Eddie spoke to him, but Eddie could have known, if he had indeed found the old book signed Jack the Ripper under a floorboard in the March and passed it on to Mike. What are the chances of Eddie finding something else under a floorboard at any point in 1992, and describing it as possibly "important"? When was he meant to have found this other item, if not on the one day any floorboards in that house required lifting?

The one thing that simply hasn't been addressed amongst all the waffle is why on earth would Eddie Lyons have come rushing up to Brian Rawes to tell about his diary discovery in July 1992? If Eddie wanted advice about it there must have been plenty of time during March (post 9th), April, May or June to ask someone. By July the diary was well out of his hands. So why could hehave possibly have wanted to speak to Brian about it so urgently while he was still driving the van and reversing down the driveway?? It makes no sense at all and to anyone independent can't possibly be connected with the diary. Even Shirley Harrison, who was well aware of the story, said it must relate to something other than the diary.

If Eddie did tell Brian about finding something - anything - in that house, which he thought could be "important", it must have been playing on his mind that day for a reason. Well, apart from what we know was going on with the diary at that point, Eddie found himself back in the very house where he would have made his discovery. Secondly, if he wanted to get something off his chest about it, Graham Rhodes, the guvnor's son, was probably not the best person to confide in. Brian was already leaving the premises and was comparatively removed from the work done in the house by others that year, and it does sound more like a spur-of-the-moment indiscretion on Eddie's part, the way Brian tells it, than a planned admission, with the object of seeking advice.

Why Eddie would have done this I can't say. But then, he was prepared the following year to make an admission to Feldman - for a price - by putting his supposed find back to 1989. If Brian heard about this from anyone before he spoke to the police, how would he have reconciled this with his own assumption that Eddie was talking about a very recent find in July 1992?

If anything, Brian Rawes's account seems to have been less prone to contamination than others, given that he doesn't just parrot what had already been said or claimed about the diary by the time he gave it.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

So I was having this conversation with James Johnston at the end of January and here is what I said to James (#831):

"The chances of Brian being able to remember, 25 years later, what someone said to him one day in July 1992 - something he wasn't asked to recall until over a year later - are minimal to non-existent."

I think you can see clearly that I said nothing about the police or Scotland Yard. Yet a full 23 days later someone who isn’t James (for, sadly, James never responded to my post #831) asked me:

"How do you know Brian Rawes was asked by Scotland Yard to recall what Eddie said to him in July 1992? How would Scotland Yard have even known that any such conversation had taken place until Brian himself introduced it while being asked what he knew, if anything?"

So the question was asked on the false basis that I had said I knew that Brian was asked anything by Scotland Yard. Consequently, when someone says to me "I'm pretty sure I asked you how you knew that Brian Rawes was asked by the police to recall his conversation with Eddie" I can ignore such impertinence.

More than this, the question focussed, in typical fashion, on a pure irrelevance, namely who asked Brian to remember what was said. It doesn’t matter. Brian could have asked himself the question as to when he heard about the diary. The point is that Brian had no reason to recall the conversation for about a year after it happened. That's the point I was making! And that being so, it would explain why he is confused about what was said.

For he clearly is confused. Sometimes he says that Eddie told him he found "something" under the floorboards while on other occasions he is more specific and says it was "a book".

But this causes a massive problem. For what appears to be an official record of his interview with Scotland Yard in 1992 (as published in James Johnston's 2017 essay) records Brian as telling the police this:

"Lyons said he had found a diary under the floorboards in the house"

If we assume that the police record of the interview is accurate (and why wouldn’t it be?) then the question that has to be asked is: why did Brian lie to the police?

For, if he was always aware that Eddie told him he found either a book or something under the floorboards then it must have been a lie for him to have told the police that Lyons told him he had found “a diary”.

It’s something that we can’t get away from. It's something the Diary Defenders cannot get away from. James told me back in January that he was investigating the issue but he has not, it seems, quite got to the bottom of it as yet.

Returning to the central point at issue, the question is not who asked Brian to recall his conversation but why Brian would be expected to precisely recall the details of a conversation he had had no reason to think about since the day it supposedly occurred.

The fact that he may or may not have mentioned that conversation to Arthur Rigby on the same day does not change that at all.

And where is Arthur Rigby’s account of that conversation? Why is he not able to corroborate what Brian told him?

One thing is certain. Brian’s claim that he told Arthur on 17th July 1992 about his conversation with Eddie on 17 July 1992 causes the Diary Defenders a massive headache.

For if Brian did mention to Arthur that Eddie had found a book or something in Battlecrease in July 1992, this could well explain on its own why Arthur secretly contacted Paul Feldman in 1993 to place Eddie in the frame for finding the diary. In other words, two accounts which initially appeared to be independent could potentially be traced back to the same source – a source which refers to an apparent discovery of an unknown item four months after 9 March 1992!

But if Brian mentioned the conversation to Arthur, why does Arthur appear to have forgotten about it? Feldman doesn’t refer to it. Had Arthur spoken of it surely the first thing Feldman would have done is tracked Brian down.

If Arthur can’t recall that conversation then why not? Does it mean it didn’t happen? If it didn’t happen, why is Brian saying it did?

But to return to the main point I am making. It is not easy to recall the exact words of a conversation which occurred a year earlier if there has been no reason to retain it in one’s memory.

Another (long) question I was asked by the interloper is this:

"Why would Brian have volunteered the information about his conversation with Eddie, recalling precisely when it took place and under what circumstances [which has been supported independently by others as well as the relevant work sheet], if he could barely remember the gist of what was said and might have got the wrong end of the stick or become seriously confused in the period from July 1992 to October 1993, but it had the potential to get Eddie into undeserved trouble if he hadn't mentioned finding anything under the floorboards, or at least nothing about it being a book or diary? Brian himself wasn't in any kind of trouble if he never actually worked in the house, so why did he need to say anything at all unless he remembered the conversation and thought it could be important when talking to Scotland Yard?"

This is premised on the idea that Brian volunteered the information, about which there is no evidence. We don’t know if he did volunteer the information. We don’t know if the subject came up in conversation with other electricians, one of whom mentioned to the police that they should speak to Brian. As I mentioned in #851, Brian said to James Johnston of the diary: "I heard that, the rumour was that it was at home". He also told James that he had heard that Eddie had given the diary to Mike Barrett to take to publishers in London. So Brian clearly has discussed the subject with colleagues. This is hardly surprising. But those rumours that he heard could well have influenced his memory of his conversation with Eddie. And it would be equally unsurprising if, when being told the rumours, Eddie mentioned to his (former) colleagues that he had a recollection of Eddie actually telling him about his discovery of the diary which led to him being interviewed by the police.

So we don't know if it was other electricians who told the police they should speak to Brian but it is possible that Brian approached the police or he was selected by them and asked routine questions. Such information might be in James Johnston’s transcript of his interview with Brian but as, he is refusing to make a transcript of that interview public, I don’t know.

Anyway the question is based on the false premise that Brian was aware that he could "barely remember the gist of what was said". When have I ever have said this? Who is ever aware that they have misremembered something that they think they remember? That’s the thing about memory. It plays tricks. Sometimes the more certain you are of something you think you remember, the less accurate you are. Brian might well think he is sure his recollection is correct but he could still be wrong. That’s just a fact of life.

I don’t know if Eddie actually told Brian on 17 July 1992 that he found something or not but we know that Arthur Dring found a couple of books in Battlecrease and we know that an electrician found an old newspaper in there. Another discovery in Battlecrease appears to have been identified by Feldman. According to Inside Story, p.261, Feldman:

"...confirms that some electricians had taken documents found at Battlecrease to Liverpool University but says he discovered they were letters unrelated to the Diary."

So we have the possibility that Eddie found some letters in Battlecrease in July 1992 which he mentioned to Brian. That would fit with him having found "something" which Brian sometimes remembers as the word spoken to him. It fits with the visit to Liverpool University. If Eddie stole and sold those letters it would explain why he doesn’t want to talk about it now.

For the key question remains unanswered: Just why would Eddie have been rushing up to Brian while he (Brian) was driving a van in July 1992 to speak to him with apparent urgency about a diary which he (Eddie) had not only stolen from Battlecrease on March 1992, four months earlier, but which he had passed on to Mike Barrett to the extent that Mike had signed a legal agreement on the basis of his ownership of the diary. And as I’ve already mentioned in an earlier post (see #851), why would Eddie have told Brian that he didn’t know what to do with his find when he had already given it to Mike Barrett?

We are told it sounds like "a spur of the moment admission". Oh really? Was he overburdened by guilt or something then? We are told that Eddie "found himself back in the house where he would have made his discovery" as if that bears some relationship to this spur of the moment admission. Had Eddie simply forgotten about the theft for four months only to have Battlecrease remind him of his crime? And then did a wave of guilty conscience pass over him causing him to run over to Brian to confess to him while he was driving the van? It really doesn’t seem very likely. Moreover, according to the timesheet evidence, Eddie had been working in Battlecrease for seven hours on the previous day (16th July). Did he not think of the diary during those seven hours? Did he not have the ability to contact an electrician during the evening of the 16th on the telephone if he had really wanted to speak to someone about the diary?

It just brings us back to the obvious conclusion that if Eddie found something in Battlecrease that he wanted to discuss with Brian on 17th July 1992 it must have been a very recent discovery and thus completely unconnected with the diary.

[Spider]

admittedly this is probably a stupid question and its probably been brought up a million times before but...but-

if (big if of course) it did come out of battlecrease and MB got his hands on it, could MB, his wife etc., come up with the lie that they got it through her family because they were afraid if they admitted where they got it they could be accused of theft(or receiving stolen property) and not only lose out on any profit but possibly face legal trouble?

could explain a lot.

Anne Barrett/Graham is probably the only person now that could resolve this matter. I wish she would once and for all.
The ridiculous detail discussed over who said/did/what/when/how is pointless to resolving anything 25 years on. Too much smoke and mirrors over time means the provenance of the diary will never be resolved.

[caz]

How every con works is that the mark thinks the conman is incapable of deceiving them.

Hi DD,

That works both ways, doesn't it?

We know Mike was a conman. We know he lied about all sorts. There is really very little he ever claimed that should be trusted where it's not supported by rock solid independent evidence. We therefore know he was more than capable of deceiving people - yes, and that means all of us. You, me, everyone.

Yet there are many people who believe to this day that Mike - the conman and compulsive liar - was incapable of deceiving them over his January 1995 affidavit. They believe he wasn't deceiving them when he claimed inside knowledge of the diary's creation.

Until I am presented with rock solid evidence to the contrary, I will not believe he had the faintest clue who wrote the diary, when or why, and remained in total ignorance until the day he died.

I have a feeling we will all die in that same boat, without having definitive answers to those three questions. But I would love to be wrong, which is why I'm still here.

I really do wonder sometimes why others waste a second of their time on this subject here if they are 100% satisfied in their own mind that Mike did know the answer to one or more of those questions. They are not going to convince Ike, who seems to be the only one posting who thinks the diary was written by Maybrick.

Mind you, I have seen some of those people responding to posts by that chap who believes van Gogh was the ripper, so perhaps they have bags of time to waste. There are only two options there, as far as I can see. He's either winding his followers up [by 'followers' I mean those who follow his posts and respond to them] or they are winding up a vulnerable person with potential mental health issues. None of it's pretty. None of it's remotely edifying. None of it's necessary. Yet it's happening, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that it happens here, where virtually everyone already accepts the diary was not Maybrick's work.

Rant over.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Been listening to Caz I see. I was using my mobile phone to compose the post in question, and that's the way it inserted posteriors into the text. It doesn't alter the fact that you're talking out of your backside if you believe that the Maybrick Diary shows any merit where literary competence is concerned.

By the way, you never answered my question regarding Doctor Canter. Wasn't his comments regarding the Diary, based on his expertise as a profiler, as opposed to a literary commentator?

Been listening to Gareth, I see. What is this obsession with the supposed diary of an inadequate nobody, whose grasp of proper English usage was arguably no worse, and in some cases considerably better than I have seen on these boards, and became a serial killer of East End prostitutes, having to show any merit at all in the 'literary competence' department?

Maybe that's what Professor Canter was on about, that the writing seemed to his professional eye to fit more with the character portrayed than with a skilled wordsmith, who mistakenly believed a hoax of this kind would benefit from showing off some real writing talent. I am at a complete loss to understand why that would have added a scrap of verisimilitude to the content, and not made it obvious to anyone with the slightest common sense that this was not a real, low-life murderer's private journal.

Love,

Caz
X