Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

Let me expand a little on the danger of coincidence.

I've been in the situation many times during my research where I've developed a theory and become quite excited about the possibility of a document confirming that theory. Let's say I had worked out that if something had happened on 9th March of one year it would prove my theory and be very important. Well you can imagine my disappointment (and it usually does seem to be disappointment) when I locate the relevant document and it turns out that the thing I needed to happen on 9th March happened on 12th March. So near yet so far!!! What a shame it wasn't 9th March I would think to myself.

But then I realise that if the document had borne the date of 9th March two things would definitely have followed.

Firstly, I would have been convinced that my theory was correct. Secondly I would certainly have been wrong.

Because if the document was dated 12th March by coincidence it could easily have been dated 9th March by coincidence. That is why one needs to be very alive to the danger of coincidence when carrying out research.

One needs more than just bald coincidence to establish a connection. In this case there are so many gaps. I mean, what if Mike called Doreen for the first time at 9am on 9th March 1992? How would that be explained? Do we know it didn't happen? And what if Mike called Pan Books on an earlier day? Say on Friday 6th March? Do we know it didn't happen? If Coufopolous found the diary under the floorboards – which seems to be the latest theory (albeit not stated in terms by Robert Smith who seems to suggest it was Rigby) and some still seem to prefer Eddie Lyons (who was not even working in Battlecrease that day, according to the timesheets, and is thus "in the clear" according to Smith) as the finder – how do we know he didn't do so late in the afternoon, after Mike had called Doreen?

How do we know that Mike (a professional freelance journalist) and Anne and any accomplice or accomplices hadn't simply finished drafting the text of the diary over the weekend of 7/8 March 1992 and now, on the Monday, it was time to contact an agent?

[David Orsam]

Fake News

I'm loving the suggestion by the way that the whole story warts and all is yet to be told. Does this mean there is some more secret evidence out there which will trump the previously secret evidence? Or is it just wishful thinking?

Talking of trump, anyone who thinks that "most people" voted for Donald Trump is obviously unaware that Hillary Clinton won more votes than Trump (but was defeated due to the nature of the US presidential electoral system). But having spread so many false facts on this forum, why stop now?

[David Orsam]

I see that the saga of the June 1993 meeting continues and now becomes even more bizarre and incomprehensible.

Despite Robert Smith expressly asking to meet with Eddie Lyons and expressly requesting Mike Barrett to set up such a meeting in Liverpool and despite Robert Smith travelling to Liverpool for the specific purpose of meeting Eddie and despite Robert Smith expressly asking Mike if he could meet Eddie in the Saddle during the evening, it is apparently noteworthy that Eddie showed up in the Saddle for that meeting!!!

So what is the deal here? Is it that Robert Smith is psychic, being able to predict where Eddie will be at any particular point in time?

Clearly, one of two things happened. Either Mike told Eddie that the meeting would be in the Saddle that evening in which case why does it matter that Smith hasn't worked out how or when this information was communicated? Or Mike did not tell Eddie that the meeting would be in the Saddle in which case Smith just got lucky in suggesting they went to the Saddle and/or Eddie always walked into the Saddle at 10pm.

Either way, given that (unless Mike had made no attempt whatsoever to set up the meeting beforehand, thus potentially causing Smith to have made a wasted journey) Eddie must have been expecting to meet with Robert Smith and Mike that evening, it is not surprising that he walked over to Robert and Mike and sat down with them is it?

So at the end of all this, why was this meeting even mentioned in the first place? And why is it still being discussed now? What is the relevance of the "extra detail"? What is there to think about?

The answer, we are told, is that Mike might have been aware that Eddie always walked into the Saddle at 10pm. But what does THAT show? If both men were regulars at the Saddle and, as we know from Feldman and Smith, Mike had already confronted Eddie about his claim to have found the diary in Battlecrease in 1989, he might have noticed Fat Eddie always coming into the pub at that time without speaking to him. It doesn't begin to show that the two men knew each other, which seemed to be the original point being made.

I have absolutely no objection to new evidence being posted but if it is posted I do like to know what the relevance is.

So now let's get real. Here is what was said about this "extra detail" when it was first posted (in #49):

"We know Mike and Eddie Lyons knew one another by June 1993, because he actually came into The Saddle one night when Robert Smith was there with Mike, and sat down with them."

Nothing could be clearer. The fact that Eddie came into the Saddle one night when Smith was there used as evidence that Mike and Eddie Lyons knew each other by June 1993.

As I have said, this was a ridiculous point because it doesn't show this at all. What the Saddle meeting shows is that Robert Smith had asked Mike Barrett to set up a meeting with Eddie at the Saddle!

Then we get another clue about what is going on from #54:

"Robert Smith has no doubt he was being 'set up' by the two pals. Eddie was to come in, as if by chance, tell Robert his story and go."

Right, so Robert Smith believes that Eddie came in "as if by chance" despite Robert Smith having asked Mike beforehand to set up a meeting with Eddie!!!!

If this is sounding like Alice in Wonderland that's because it really is like Alice in Wonderland.

And of course it gets better because we are now told that Eddie did not come in "as if by chance" but that he usually came into the Saddle at this time and Mike knew this so that, in fact, all Mike was doing was facilitating a meeting in the Saddle that Robert Smith had specifically and expressly asked him to set up!!!!

[David Orsam]

Now I'm sure Mike Barrett's "Research Notes" are an interesting topic of conversation - and I've already commented on them myself in another thread - but it doesn't seem to be an appropriate topic for this thread so, as this is my thread, could I ask that if anyone does want to discuss those "Research Notes" they do the appropriate thing and set up a new thread to do so? Thank you.

[David Orsam]

Here are some questions which have been asked in this thread:

"When did Eddie start with P&R and when did he leave? While he was working there did he ever do odd jobs or help out on a casual basis, where he may have been paid from the petty cash [as I used to pay our cleaner at a firm of solicitors I worked for] if the work didn't warrant a timesheet? Colin Rhodes would be a good starting point."

Now either the answers are known, in which case, why are they not in Robert Smith's book? And why are they not answered? Or they are not known in which case someone is bluffing to give the impression they know more than they do.

Further, in Smith's book it states categorically that "the timesheets put Lyons in the clear as far as finding the diary in Battlecrease House on 9th March is concerned" (p.22). So he got that wrong did he? The timesheets tell us very little because all nine Portus & Rhodes electricians could have been working in Battlecrease on 9th March for petty cash, just because a member of this forum used to pay her cleaner from the petty cash!

But it's the attitude I want to comment on that members of this forum are now supposed to do the research to fill in the gaps in the timesheet evidence that was supposed to solve this whole puzzle!!

Well as Eddie must have told Feldman that he found the Diary in Battlecrease in 1989 it has to be assumed that he was working in Battlecrease (either for Portus & Rhodes or someone else) in 1989. If he was employed by Portus & Rhodes in 1989 then it seems we are unable to say if he was working in Battlecrease because the timesheets are useless in this regard!!

[John Wheat]

I have tracked down the advertisement placed on behalf of Mike Barrett for an unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890 which had to have a minimum of 20 blank pages.

It was placed by Martin E. Earl in Bookdealer, the trade weekly for books wanted and for sale, issue No. 1044, dated 19th March 1992. An image of the advertisement is reproduced below.

The request for this diary appears in a long advert - in the BOOKS WANTED section - with a further (by my count) 86 requests by Earl for various books (one can see a couple more in the below image) in a total of (by my count) 104 lines. The way it worked was that bookdealers were given a special rate of 22.5p per line. Given that the ad for the diary was over two lines, it would have cost Martin Earl only 45p to place the ad for the diary, which I assume was included in his margin when he sold the 1891 diary to Barrett.

On that basis, it seems likely that Mike Barrett never even knew of the existence of this advertisement (and was probably never asked to pay for it). It was simply a cheap way that a bookfinding company like Earl's would find obscure books on behalf of its clients.

In 1992, Martin E. Earl was based in Oxford. His address and two telephone numbers were provided at the top of the advertisement. The company trading as Martin E. Earl in 1992 appears to have become H.P. Bookfinders in 1995.

According to the Casebook transcript, Mike Barrett in his affidavit of 5 January 1995 said that his wife used "a firm in the 1986 Writters (sic) Year Book" to find the diary (although he could not remember their name). By this he must have meant The Writers' & Artists' Yearbook 1986 (which is certainly how Shirley Harrison transcribes it in her book).

However, The Writers' & Artists' Yearbook 1986 does not include entries for any bookfinding companies (so that there is no entry for Martin E. Earl or, obviously, H.P. Bookfinders). Consequently, Martin E. Earl's details were not found by either of the Barretts in there. However the contact details of Rupert Crew Limited (of which Doreen Montgomery was a director) and also of Pan Books, which Barrett is supposed to have contacted before contacting Doreen, are both to be found in the Yearbook. Perhaps Barrett got confused when he came to write his affidavit.

We can be certain that either Mike or Anne DID locate and contact Martin E. Earl in March 1992 so that the error with recalling how he (or she) did so would appear to be a good example of an innocent mistake of recollection.

Finally, I can confirm that in March 1992 Outhwaite & Litherland held auctions once a week, every Tuesday, so that the first auction held after Barrett would have received the 1891 diary would have been on Tuesday, 31 March 1992. The auction (like other auctions in that month), held at Kingsway Galleries, Fontenoy Street, Liverpool, was described in antique magazines as being for "Victorian, Edwardian & modern furniture and effects". It started at 10.30am. Had Barrett taken 11 days to forge the diary as he claims in his affidavit and, had he started work on 31 March, the writing would have been finished on 10 April. He went to see Doreen in London on 13 April.

Doesn't all this pretty much prove The Diary is a fake?

[David Orsam]

Just want to mention another quote from Shirley's 2003 book on page 291 in which she mentions a rumour "that the Diary had, in fact, been found by builders or electricians working at Battlecrease House. One version claimed that it had been removed from behind window panelling, another from under the floorboards of Maybrick's study. Various dates had been given - 1982, 1989 and 1991."

The parts I have highlighted show a rumour that the Diary might have been found by builders behind window panelling. Perhaps as early as 1982. It doesn't need to have been the floorboards that were lifted and it doesn't need to have been electricians who did the lifting. Feldman latched onto Portus and Rhodes and potentially contaminated their memories and stories.

But given that all the electricians appear to be denying that they found the diary we really do need to take care that we are not being misled by the coincidence of the date on one of a number of Battlecrease timesheets by electricians from 1992.

[David Orsam]

As for the story about the diary being sold for £20 or £25, I can't help wondering if someone is getting themselves terribly confused about a story told by Robert Smith that Alan Davies suggested to the manager of the newly opened APS store in Bootle, Alan Dodgson, that "the diary could be acquired for about £25". However, as Alan Davies told Smith when he later tried to locate the diary: "the book had been sold in a pub in Anfield".

No price was stated for the sale and it's rather hard to fit this story into the new narrative. According to both Harrison and Johnston, the conversation between Davies and Dodgson occurred in late 1991. A small problem for the Diary faithful considering that the Diary was still supposed to be under the floorboards at this date.

Smith, however, dates the conversation to late 1992 at the earliest. This is equally problematic because the new narrative surely requires Eddie to have sold the Diary to Mike in March or April 1992 so it is inexplicable that Davies could be suggesting many months later that it still could be purchased for "about" £25.

So when did this conversation take place and when did the APS shop in Bootle open? Was it November 1991 or November 1992? I think this question needs to be definitively answered before anyone can even start thinking about what it all means.

It's a funny thing because I could have sworn someone asked me today for my evidence that the diary was not sold in an Anfield pub for £25 without taking account of, or mentioning, the above post, which seems to have been ignored, and I believe I could swear that, for some inexplicable reason, the same person claims that I am "rattled".

We know that comprehension is not that person's strong suit but the issue is not whether there is evidence that the diary was or was not sold in an Anfield pub for £25 but whether there was a rumour in existence to that effect. Because that is what the claim was.

And what seems to have happened is that the person who claimed there was rumour that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £25 (in fact she originally said £20 - with £25 as an alternative - but seems to have switched in the face of my post) got herself terribly confused and was evidently thinking of the offer to sell the diary for £25, by someone who didn't own it, in an APS shop in Bootle at an unknown date, the year of which varies depending on which book you read.

Now, having realised her error - rather than simply admitting that she has once again got something wrong (which she seems to find impossible to do) - she wants to throw up a smokescreen by switching the argument to one about whether the diary was or was not in fact sold in an Anfield pub for £25 knowing full well that this is the very point in issue which cannot possibly be answered!

[David Orsam]

Here is some more evidence that I am being asked for:

That the 1992 electricians did work in Battlecrease before 1992? That the floorboards in that room had been lifted before, but not on March 9, when Rigby completed a timesheet for 8 hours' work on the underfloor wiring in that room? That Colin Rhodes gave Keith incorrect information about who did what and when, or the hours worked on a typical day?

Do you see what happened there? I asked for the evidence that the 1992 electricians did not work in Battlecrease before 1992 - because this was the claim being made - and in return I am asked to provide the evidence that they did work there, even though I've never claimed that they did!

But what I really love is the indignation that Colin Rhodes might have given Keith Skinner incorrect information about who did what and when, while, at the very same time, the argument we are being asked to swallow is that Colin Rhodes most certainly DID give Keith incorrect information because he didn't tell him that Eddie Lyons was working in Battlecrease on 9th March 1992 and was paid out of the petty cash!!!!

So misleading was the information given out by Colin Rhodes, in fact, that Robert Smith actually put into print the false claim that "the timesheets put Lyons in the clear as finding the diary in Battlecrease on 9th March is concerned". Why on earth didn't Colin Rhodes reveal the information that the timesheets are useless for establishing who was working in Battlecrease on 9th March? For all we know all nine electricians were beavering away in there, not completing timesheets.

I might add that I have absolutely no idea what information Colin Rhodes gave to Keith Skinner because this is not set out in the two published books this year about the diary. I really don't know why such information wasn't included in those books in full and is being dripped out piecemeal on an internet forum but it certainly doesn't help to provide an orderly debate on the subject.

[David Orsam]

Doesn't all this pretty much prove The Diary is a fake?

Well, all I can say in response to this is that I've not been able to come up with a sensible explanation as to why Mike wanted to obtain such a diary at such a time other than that he wanted to use it to create a fake Victorian diary and no-one else has yet provided one.

[David Orsam]

It's funny that I am told that the notion that Mike and Anne jointly forged the diary is not simple and obvious to the people that have been at the heart of the investigation since 1992 (which date, oddly enough, seems to include people with a vested financial interest in the diary being genuine). I say "funny" because when I actually asked in this forum back in December 2016 why Mike and Anne could not have jointly forged the Diary, the response I received was this:

"Too many reasons for me to list, really. But what good would it do in any case? I could whisper 'Battlecrease evidence' in your shell-like again, David, but then you can't consider or comment on that, can you?"

In other words, the only reason mentioned as for why Mike and Anne could not have jointly forged the diary was the 'Battlecrease evidence" and now I CAN consider and comment on it and it does not answer my question as to why Mike and Anne could not have jointly forged the diary.

It seems to me that if there were good reasons to those who have been at the heart of the investigation since 1992 as to why Mike and Anne could not have jointly forged the diary we would have heard them by now. Nothing seems to be stopping them from telling us what they are although, of course, there are "too many reasons to list" so none of them are listed!!

[David Orsam]

Let me see if I can answer my own question as to why there is such fanatical resistance to the idea of a modern forgery by those who nevertheless believe that the diary is a forgery. Personally I think these people have been misled by the following factors.

1. The McNeil report. I suspect that too many people have placed faith in the 1921 dating and think, as a result, that the diary must have been created in the early twentieth century.

2. A misguided belief that if the diary had been created in March or April 1992 this would have been obvious firstly to Doreen and Shirley and then to all the experts who looked at or examined the diary.

3. An overconfidence in their own perception of Mike Barrett (who they probably only knew when he was an alcoholic) and a failure to realise that perceptions can be very subjective and that they might only have seen in Barrett what they wanted to see.

Now, I guess we can add to this list a belief that the date of the timesheet is too much of a coincidence not to be a factor (although, as this must mean that the diary was under the floorboards in Battlecrease for over one hundred years, I fail to see why this does not also lead them to conclude that James Maybrick was the author of the diary).

If those aren't the reasons then I seriously do have no idea.

But one thing I will say – and I appreciate that no-one rightly cares about my opinion – is that I can barely care less whether the diary was created in 1992 or 1922 or 1892. Any of those dates makes it a forgery and who forged it is of no more than academic interest (if that), just as I'm not in the slightest bit bothered who created all the forgeries which exist in the art world.

A forgery to me is a forgery whenever it is created.

My only interest in the diary is whether it is genuinely Jack the Ripper's diary. If not, then frankly I couldn't give a monkeys.

At the same time, if it came from Battlecrease then it must be Jack the Ripper's diary in my opinion. As I don't think it can be Jack the Ripper's diary, based on the use of an expression ("one off instance") which did not exist in 1889, then it couldn't have come out of Battlecrease.

And it just so happens that no-one who thinks that the Diary came from Battlecrease can sensibly explain why Mike acquired a Victorian diary with blank pages (and, indeed, why he actually wanted a wholly unused diary), which is the subject of this thread. We've had various inconsistent explanations put forward – showing just how much of a struggle this question is proving – whereas there is one remarkably sensible and obvious explanation which is that a blank Victorian diary was required in March 1992 so that a fake Victorian diary could be created.

[Abby Normal]

Let me see if I can answer my own question as to why there is such fanatical resistance to the idea of a modern forgery by those who nevertheless believe that the diary is a forgery. Personally I think these people have been misled by the following factors.

1. The McNeil report. I suspect that too many people have placed faith in the 1921 dating and think, as a result, that the diary must have been created in the early twentieth century.

2. A misguided belief that if the diary had been created in March or April 1992 this would have been obvious firstly to Doreen and Shirley and then to all the experts who looked at or examined the diary.

3. An overconfidence in their own perception of Mike Barrett (who they probably only knew when he was an alcoholic) and a failure to realise that perceptions can be very subjective and that they might only have seen in Barrett what they wanted to see.

Now, I guess we can add to this list a belief that the date of the timesheet is too much of a coincidence not to be a factor (although, as this must mean that the diary was under the floorboards in Battlecrease for over one hundred years, I fail to see why this does not also lead them to conclude that James Maybrick was the author of the diary).

If those aren't the reasons then I seriously do have no idea.

But one thing I will say – and I appreciate that no-one rightly cares about my opinion – is that I can barely care less whether the diary was created in 1992 or 1922 or 1892. Any of those dates makes it a forgery and who forged it is of no more than academic interest (if that), just as I'm not in the slightest bit bothered who created all the forgeries which exist in the art world.

A forgery to me is a forgery whenever it is created.

My only interest in the diary is whether it is genuinely Jack the Ripper's diary. If not, then frankly I couldn't give a monkeys.

At the same time, if it came from Battlecrease then it must be Jack the Ripper's diary in my opinion. As I don't think it can be Jack the Ripper's diary, based on the use of an expression ("one off instance") which did not exist in 1889, then it couldn't have come out of Battlecrease.

And it just so happens that no-one who thinks that the Diary came from Battlecrease can sensibly explain why Mike acquired a Victorian diary with blank pages (and, indeed, why he actually wanted a wholly unused diary), which is the subject of this thread. We've had various inconsistent explanations put forward – showing just how much of a struggle this question is proving – whereas there is one remarkably sensible and obvious explanation which is that a blank Victorian diary was required in March 1992 so that a fake Victorian diary could be created.

I think that just about covers it.

And one off instance buries it.

[James_J]

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.

Morning all,

Just catching up on some of the latest posts, and thought it best to clarify some of the thinking around my essay.

As Caroline has correctly pointed out (see above) I did not have access to the timesheets when writing my research paper. The only sources I could use were those already in the public domain (i.e. in books) or what I was told by those directly involved - which included; Paul Dodd, Edward Lyons, James Coufopoulos, Alan Davies, Brian Rawes, Alan Dodgson, Graham Rhodes, Arthur Rigby's brother (who spoke to Arthur on my behalf) and DS Colin Thomas (Scotland Yard) - amongst others.

The intention of my paper was to assimilate everything that had been written or said about the 'Battlecrease provenance', and to see what picture, if any, would emerge. I was not predisposed to conclude that the Diary had come from Battlecrease, and if Mike Barrett had come out saying that the Diary had been removed from the house, I would still have wanted to see some documented source supporting this.

The reality is, that the truth of the Diary's provenance is not to be found on Casebook. It is out there amid the human drama and intricacies. It is easy (and perhaps more comfortable) to pontificate as to the conclusions of others, but unless one is willing to go out and establish some discourse with those actually involved, then whatever conclusions that might be reached, are rather ineffectual..imho.

In the words of K.S...'Here is a modern mystery where the principal players are still with us. It would be irresponsible for any purported historian or researcher, not to bust their gut, to try and find out from the people involved - the modern people who are alive, and get more information from them. I think if one let that go, now, I'd be ashamed.' (22.09.2017).

In any case, best wishes & have a great weekend all!

Happy gut busting! (I hope)

Best, James.

[David Orsam]

Hi James,

I wonder if we can establish some discourse within Casebook and see whether we can get anywhere from the comforts of our respective living rooms. To that extent I have some questions for you that I would be grateful for your answers to:

1. I assume that you did have access to copies of the timesheets reproduced in Robert Smith's book at the time you wrote you essay, so can I ask why you say in your essay: "According to time-sheets obtained from Portus & Rhodes, Arthur Rigby and James Coufopulos were tasked with removing the floorboards on the morning of Monday 9th March 1992" and "The time-sheets indicate that Arthur Rigby was at Battlecrease for approximately eight hours, while Coufopoulos was there only for two hours in the morning." and "Timesheets obtained from Portus & Rhodes have confirmed that Coufopolous was present with Rigby when floorboards were lifted on the morning of 9th March 1992?" Do you accept that the timesheets do not actually state whether the men were there in the morning or afternoon of 9 March 1992?

2. When you say in your essay "The journal is thought to have been concealed within a 'biscuit tin' which may also have contained a 'wedding ring' and possibly a 'gold pocket watch'" can you identify the person or persons you were referring to who think that a 'gold pocket watch' was concealed within a biscuit tin?

3. When you say in your essay: "it is thought that, upon reading the document and noticing the closing signature, the electricians opted to remove the journal from the premises of Riversdale Road, wrapping the document in brown paper or an old pillow case and concealing it beneath the front passenger seat of the vehicle which the men were using", who is it who thinks this? Is it based on any actual evidence?

4. When you say in your essay: "It is understood that, once removed from the premises of Riversdale Road, the journal quickly changed hands, eventually coming into the possession of Michael Barrett", who understands this?

5. When you say "It is thought that Barrett and Eddie Lyons were known to one another through their mutual association with the Saddle Inn, who is it who thinks this?"

6. When you say of Barrett’s previous 'forays' into the publication business that: "Truthfully, this did not amount to much more than a series of ‘celebrity interviews’ and word puzzles for D.C Thomson children’s magazine, Look In, published in 1988", are you now aware, and do you agree, that this is a factually inaccurate statement?

7. When you say in your essay: "Having acquired the Diary, on the very day it is thought to have been discovered, Barrett returned with the document to his home in Goldie Street", is there any evidence for this statement or are you speculating on the basis that you think that the Diary was found under the floorboards of Battlecrease on 9 March 1992?

8. Is it factually correct to say (as you do in your essay) that Paul Dodd decided to have a total rewire and a new main fitted to the flat in 1989 which included a new fuse board?

9. It is factually correct to say (as you do in your essay) that the contract for this work was secured by Portus & Rhodes and was carried out in two phases, the first rewire taking place in the ground floor flat of the building followed by a second rewire of the first-floor flat?

10. Is it factually correct to say, as you do in your essay, that "the second phase of rewiring included the installation of night storage radiators; fitted over the course of three years, finishing in July 1992"?

11. Is it factually correct that over a three year period Dodd had storage radiators fitted and a new ring main installed in the flat?

12. Is it factually correct to say, as you do in your book that the initial phase of rewiring began in 1989?

13. If the previous five statements are factually correct, or any of them, does it surprise you that we are told that the only work carried out by Portus & Rhodes electricians between 1989 and 1991 inclusive was a minor one-off job to repair a faulty immersion heater?

14. Regarding the quote in your book by Alan Dodgson that the APS shop in Northfield Road, Bootle, "had opened in October 1991" is this factually correct?

15. Were you aware at the time of writing your essay that Robert Smith claims in his book that the Bootle shop opened in November 1992?

16. What in your view is the explanation for Mike Barrett's efforts in March 1992 (which you don’t mention in your essay) to acquire a unused or partly used diary from the period 1880-1890 which was required to have a minimum of 20 blank pages?

17. Would you agree that if Mike Barrett wanted to acquire said Victorian diary with blank pages for the purpose of forging a diary of Jack the Ripper (which was the reason he gave for the purchase in his January 1995 affidavit) then we have, indeed, probably solved the truth of the Diary’s provenance on Casebook?

18. Do you agree that there is a danger of becoming too close to someone one interviews, especially if one becomes friends with them, and the danger as a researcher is that one can lose objectivity?

19. Do you agree that it would be utterly impractical for everyone interested in the provenance of the diary to interview all the people alive who are involved in the story, not least because it would probably mean that those people would spend all their waking hours giving the same or similar interview over and over?

20. Do you agree that it is a perfectly proper course for anyone interested in the provenance of the Diary to rely on interviews conducted by historians or researchers?

21. Do you agree that all relevant documents relating to the provenance of the Diary including notes and transcripts of interviews should be placed in the public domain to be accessed by everyone and not just circulated privately?

22. Did James Coufopolous tell you in October 2015 (as stated by Robert Smith in his book) that it was very likely that Arthur Rigby could have found the Diary?

23. What did James Coufopolous say to you when you asked him if he found the Diary?

24. What did James Coufolpolous say to you when you asked him if Eddie Lyons was present at Battlecrease on 9 March 1992?

25. Have you interviewed or otherwise spoken to Eddie Lyons and, if so, what did he say when you asked him if he found the Diary?

I might add that the quote you provide from Keith Skinner from September 2017 is naturally thought provoking but it's perhaps worth mentioning that, as I do not regard myself as a historian or researcher in respect of the Maybrick Diary, or indeed in respect of Jack the Ripper, none of what he says can possibly apply to me. But I am very glad to know that there are people out there who are devoting their time to going to Liverpool and other places and speaking to those involved in the story who are still alive and I look forward one day to reading the detailed results of what they have been told.

I also look forward to reading your answers to the above questions James.