25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith

[Sam Flynn]

Would the installation of central-heating require the lifting of floorboards?

I don't fully understand the bill of materials for the 10th March 1992 (when Rigby worked his 8 hour shift), but it does mention "15 floor board protectors", whatever they are. The rest of the B.O.M. appears almost exclusively to be made up of cables/wires, switches and other electrical paraphernalia.

[Mike J. G.]

That's a good point Graham and one that I discussed with a friend only yesterday. There's also the issue of how he managed to get the book under the floorboards without Florence or one of the servants hearing him or catching him at it. I can just imagine him asking Alice Yapp to bring him a cup of tea and a crowbar
Even Robert Smith mentions in the notes of his book that it's strange that Maybrick says that he will leave it where it will be found? When would he expect that the floorboards would get lifted? He postulates that maybe Maybrick changed his mind about leaving it where it would be found.

The servants were a bit dubious by all accounts, so I'm not sure if the idea that at least one of them wouldn't be complicit is a solid one, although I'm not arguing in favour of it, just giving it a thought.

The bit about it being left to be "found" is rather odd, unless it was left elsewhere and was then later moved beneath the floor, but if you're trying to hide something, why not just destroy it completely?

I think a story about finding something beneath the floorboards is a bit of a dramatic touch for a story such as this one; as others have said, it seems odd for practicality, and it just seems like something you'd add to make the provenance seem more legit and believable, IMO.

You couldn't ideally say that it was found anywhere else in the house, because Dodd would obviously deny it, being that he lived there and his family had been there since the 1940's. So, what could you say if you wanted to pretend that this book was taken from the house? You could say that it was inside the wall, but if there was no work done on the wall then you couldn't claim as such. If any floors were lifted, then you have an easy story right there.

A book being put beneath the floor just makes no sense, unless you want to give a believable reason as for how the diary had been in the house, but had not been found.

[Mike J. G.]

Here's something else that has been taxing me:

If I, let's say, were the perpetrator of some heinous crime such as mass murder or grand embezzlement or whatever, and was lying on my death-bed as was James Maybrick in the Spring of 1889, and wished to privately confess my sins in writing, would I laboriously write 60 or so pages in a rather posh book and then - somehow, with great physical effort and don't forget I'm very, very sick - hoick up the floorboards of my bedroom and drop said book into the cavity beneath?

I guess it could be potentially argued that James had a servant lift the boards, as they seemed to be rather more fond of James than they were of Florence (purely based on what I've read) and there seems to be evidence that the servants were a bit "involved" at the house, in terms of sticking their oars in. Apparently one of the servants intercepted and opened one of Florence's letters to her lover, for instance.

Do we know when the actual date/time for the diary is supposed to have been completed? IIRC, it is being updated as he goes, but I can't recall when the last entry is supposed to have taken place. It could be argued that he wasn't that ill in 1888 as he was during most of 1889, and even then, he still managed to attend the National in 1889 and had enough vigour to argue with Flo there.

[Mike J. G.]

In all fairness to Paul Dodd, i don't recall reading that he was very specific as to which parts of the house had had their floorboards lifted since 1946. But - and I speculate a little here - if it can be assumed that re-wiring and very likely installation of central-heating were the main jobs carried out since 1946, then I'd hazard a guess that nearly all rooms in the house had their floorboards lifted.

Graham

Would the installation of central-heating require the lifting of floorboards? If the heating in that house was anything like the heating in mine, which was very much an older way of doing it, with a central boiler stored somewhere, then I don't know if that'd require any radical lifting of the floors, at least not in every room. I'm not certain on any of that, but I'm just going on my own former heating system, which couldn't have been much different, save for the fact that my house is a lot smaller than Battlecrease.

What's odd, is I read that Chris Jones recalled a pupil of his stating that she slept in Jack the Ripper's bedroom of a weekend, and it turned out she stayed at one of the flats there with her father, yet from what I've read elsewhere from Dodd himself, that room (Maybrick's bedroom) was Dodd's sitting room, and not a flat for any tenants. Either there is some confusion regarding which room was actually Maybrick's bedroom, or Dodd gave up that room at some point. I have always been of the opinion that the bedroom was at the front, overlooking the cricket club.

On an funny side-note, before my brother moved abroad, he worked briefly reading meters in this area and around the region, and he actually went in to check the meter in Battlecrease.

[Mike J. G.]

According to Feldman the conversation went like this:

Feldman: "Mike, an electrician is prepared to confirm that he took the diary from Battlecrease in 1989. I've spoken to Paul Dodd and he's requested 5% of whatever you receive in order not to contest ownership of the document. Can I tell him it's a deal."

Barrett: "Tell him to f*** off. The diary never came from the house." Feldman, 2007).

Now 5% was surely a paltry sum to give away, considering the provenance that was being offered.

And here's another thing. As noted, Robinson seems to be suggesting that the diary was actually taken in 1992. However, in that case, why would the electrician lie about the date, claiming it was 1989, given that he was prepared to admit that he removed the diary?

Hmmm, I wonder if the fact that he mentioned 1989 is a sign that there actually was more than just one occasion when P&R were called in by Dodd? As I've said, it'd make sense that Dodd would use a local contracting firm, and there's none more local for Dodd during that period than P&R.

If Rigby, or whoever, had worked at the house before, or knew that the company had done work there before, then that'd make his association with Devereux, and possibly Barrett via Devereux, all the more suspect.

P&R weren't a huge company, and I imagine there wasn't a huge number of staff for each job, which would make sense if the fact that Rigby worked pretty much alone for 8 hours is to be believed, unless they used outside contractors, too.

I'd be interested to know whether Robinson ever inquired about any other possible work at the house, and whether any of the electricians from '92 had worked there previously. Records would surely have existed, if the time-sheets were still in existence from '92.

Robinson seems like a bit of a shoddy, or selective, researcher, IMO.

[Henry Flower]

The Battlecrease provenance is starting to sound so shonky and unreliable I wonder how long it'll be before Diary proponents strategically decide it's a pack of lies and start championing the excellent and confidence-inspiring "an old friend gave it to Barrett in a pub" story.

Am I right in thinking that there is currently no version the Diary's provenance that does not end with the famous joke, "A man walks into a bar, and gives unemployed local liar Mike Barrett the diaries of the world's most famous murderer"?

[Henry Flower]

That's a good point Graham and one that I discussed with a friend only yesterday. There's also the issue of how he managed to get the book under the floorboards without Florence or one of the servants hearing him or catching him at it. I can just imagine him asking Alice Yapp to bring him a cup of tea and a crowbar
Even Robert Smith mentions in the notes of his book that it's strange that Maybrick says that he will leave it where it will be found? When would he expect that the floorboards would get lifted? He postulates that maybe Maybrick changed his mind about leaving it where it would be found.

The Battlecrease provenance is starting to sound so shonky and unreliable I wonder how long it'll be before Diary proponents strategically decide it's a pack of lies and start championing the excellent and confidence-inspiring "an old friend gave it to Barrett in a pub" story.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's something else that has been taxing me:

If I, let's say, were the perpetrator of some heinous crime such as mass murder or grand embezzlement or whatever, and was lying on my death-bed as was James Maybrick in the Spring of 1889, and wished to privately confess my sins in writing, would I laboriously write 60 or so pages in a rather posh book and then - somehow, with great physical effort and don't forget I'm very, very sick - hoick up the floorboards of my bedroom and drop said book into the cavity beneath?

I rather think I'd write said confession, over time, onto individual sheets of paper, then enclose said sheets in a good stout envelope, endorse said envelope with something like "Not To Be Opened Until After My Death", and get my lawyer to drop by and take charge of it for the sake of posterity. Why, for Heaven's sake, shove it under the floor where, so far as James Maybrick in 1889 is concerned, it may never be found?

Christ Almighty, I mean, I live in a modern house built in the 1960's and I'm pretty damn sure I'd have trouble, and me being a fairly fit bloke and not quite on my death-bed, raising the crap deal floorboards of my bedroom, let alone the thick and heavy oak floorboards of a rather posh Victorian mansion.

Anyway.

Graham

That's a good point Graham and one that I discussed with a friend only yesterday. There's also the issue of how he managed to get the book under the floorboards without Florence or one of the servants hearing him or catching him at it. I can just imagine him asking Alice Yapp to bring him a cup of tea and a crowbar
Even Robert Smith mentions in the notes of his book that it's strange that Maybrick says that he will leave it where it will be found? When would he expect that the floorboards would get lifted? He postulates that maybe Maybrick changed his mind about leaving it where it would be found.

[Graham]

Here's something else that has been taxing me:

If I, let's say, were the perpetrator of some heinous crime such as mass murder or grand embezzlement or whatever, and was lying on my death-bed as was James Maybrick in the Spring of 1889, and wished to privately confess my sins in writing, would I laboriously write 60 or so pages in a rather posh book and then - somehow, with great physical effort and don't forget I'm very, very sick - hoick up the floorboards of my bedroom and drop said book into the cavity beneath?

I rather think I'd write said confession, over time, onto individual sheets of paper, then enclose said sheets in a good stout envelope, endorse said envelope with something like "Not To Be Opened Until After My Death", and get my lawyer to drop by and take charge of it for the sake of posterity. Why, for Heaven's sake, shove it under the floor where, so far as James Maybrick in 1889 is concerned, it may never be found?

Christ Almighty, I mean, I live in a modern house built in the 1960's and I'm pretty damn sure I'd have trouble, and me being a fairly fit bloke and not quite on my death-bed, raising the crap deal floorboards of my bedroom, let alone the thick and heavy oak floorboards of a rather posh Victorian mansion.

Anyway.

Graham

[Graham]

In all fairness to Paul Dodd, i don't recall reading that he was very specific as to which parts of the house had had their floorboards lifted since 1946. But - and I speculate a little here - if it can be assumed that re-wiring and very likely installation of central-heating were the main jobs carried out since 1946, then I'd hazard a guess that nearly all rooms in the house had their floorboards lifted.

Graham

[John G]

No sir, Barrett didn't come up with that provenance, but Anne did, supported by Feldman.

Said it before, will say it again: Paul Dodd himself stated that since his father bought Battlecrease in 1946 floorboards had been lifted a number of times, and nothing of any interest was found. Except a Victorian newspaper, I understand, which the finder was allowed to keep. Why, if what Dodd said can be relied upon and I see no reason why it can't be, as he owned the property, would it be that a book would come to light only in 1992 when the floorboards had been lifted several times prior to then?

Graham

Thanks for this, Graham. But, of course, it would surely have been in Barrett's interest to confirm that the diary came from Battlecrease, if that's what happened (I don't believe it did.)

Good point about the floorboards. It doesn't seem likely at all that the diary wouldn't have been discovered much earlier, i.e. assuming it existed.

[John G]

Was he calling him a liar regarding the electrician denying involvement, or regarding the electrician having stated that the book was taken from Battlecrease?

It is odd. I'm a bit perplexed at each of the stories re: provenance, tbh, lol.

Something isn't quite right, and I don't think any time-sheet will help the situation as far as believers are concerned.

According to Feldman the conversation went like this:

Feldman: "Mike, an electrician is prepared to confirm that he took the diary from Battlecrease in 1989. I've spoken to Paul Dodd and he's requested 5% of whatever you receive in order not to contest ownership of the document. Can I tell him it's a deal."

Barrett: "Tell him to f*** off. The diary never came from the house." Feldman, 2007).

Now 5% was surely a paltry sum to give away, considering the provenance that was being offered.

And here's another thing. As noted, Robinson seems to be suggesting that the diary was actually taken in 1992. However, in that case, why would the electrician lie about the date, claiming it was 1989, given that he was prepared to admit that he removed the diary?

[Graham]

I recall you saying that. How reliable is it? Not that I'm questioning it. Were the floorboards that were lifted in Dodd's sitting-room? As that was supposedly May's bedroom.

Anyroad, I'm off for now lads. Off to the pub! Take care, all.

Reported in one of the Diary books I have - not sure if it's The Final Chapter or The Inside Story. Will check when I awake upon the morrow.

Graham

[Mike J. G.]

No sir, Barrett didn't come up with that provenance, but Anne did, supported by Feldman.

Said it before, will say it again: Paul Dodd himself stated that since his father bought Battlecrease in 1946 floorboards had been lifted a number of times, and nothing of any interest was found. Except a Victorian newspaper, I understand, which the finder was allowed to keep. Why, if what Dodd said can be relied upon and I see no reason why it can't be, as he owned the property, would it be that a book would come to light only in 1992 when the floorboards had been lifted several times prior to then?

Graham

I recall you saying that. How reliable is it? Not that I'm questioning it. Were the floorboards that were lifted in Dodd's sitting-room? As that was supposedly May's bedroom.

Anyroad, I'm off for now lads. Off to the pub! Take care, all.

[Graham]

The point Feldman made about provenance is interesting, though. As I noted earlier, Barrett apparently went to see one of the electricians and accused him of being a liar. But if the diary did come from Battlecrease, why would he do that? Bearing in mind that the connection with Battlecrease would have provided him with considerably better provenance than the tenuous story he came up with, which I believe is that it had been in Anne's family since 1943.

No sir, Barrett didn't come up with that provenance, but Anne did, supported by Feldman.

Said it before, will say it again: Paul Dodd himself stated that since his father bought Battlecrease in 1946 floorboards had been lifted a number of times, and nothing of any interest was found. Except a Victorian newspaper, I understand, which the finder was allowed to keep. Why, if what Dodd said can be relied upon and I see no reason why it can't be, as he owned the property, would it be that a book would come to light only in 1992 when the floorboards had been lifted several times prior to then?

Graham