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

[Mike J. G.]

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.

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.

Robinson should've obtained all relevant information re: the job at the house. When was it initiated by Dodd? etc. If Dodd had arranged for the work to be done weeks in advance, it leaves questions re: the "finding of the diary" and the connections between Rigby and Barrett.

[John G]

The fact that "Battlecrease" was/is such a big property, it is odd to think that any member of Portus and Rhodes would risk losing such a valuable contract by stealing a book from there, not to mention risking their job and potential legal action.

I think if Robinson had dug a little deeper, he'd have found more than just the one transaction between Dodd and P&R.

I would be surprised that in all the years of the Dodd's owning the property that they hadn't used P&R at least once or twice before, as they were literally the nearest company of that kind to the house, and were in business at the time.

If Rigby had worked there before, or was with the company when they had, and Rigby knew Barrett/Devereux, then it's a bit weird, and would leave room for possible planning between the men. Not concrete, but it's a thought.

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.

[Mike J. G.]

Something we have to bear in mind is that in 1992, it hadn't been long since much literature on the Maybrick's had been republished in this city, in RWE's Liverpool series, which were also featured as weekly installments in the local paper. We're talking late 80's. The prime time for a hoax re: Maybrick and the Ripper would be around the time the diary came about, unsurprisingly, when people were made aware once again of the Maybrick story.

[Mike J. G.]

There was a famous murder in my town a few decades ago. People all know the story. People were riveted by the story. People talked incessantly over the story and tuned in daily for the latest scoonch of gossip. A house featured prominently in this murder. People could no more point out the house than they could fly.

Battlecrease was not kept as a museum or relic. Other people lived there. Basically, it's expecting people to know that a serial killer lived in a particular house, enough to decide the book was noteworthy, enough to steal, but not feel any understanding that this would be directly tied to battlecrease house if they did anything with it. Which rendered it worthless to them.

This presupposed an utter knowledge of the importance of the find, with a complete obliviousness of how it's easily traced.

Why steal something that you can literally make no profit from?

All I can tell you is that this house is very well known, Ally, the Maybrick murder and trial was big news in the UK and in the USA, and led to much debate and speculation on the legal system of the era. It was written about by many prominent writers and local historians. Yabs posted a short sample of the volume of stuff that has been written and broadcast about the murder.

I'd be surprised if the men working there were unaware of its history. When you say people lived there after, it wasn't many people. Fletcher Rogers, foreman at the inquest for James's death, was living there after the trial, and then the Dodd's had it in 1940. I'm not sure how many people there were between Rogers and Dodd.

I don't doubt that a profit could easily be made from stealing such a thing, not that I'm convinced it was stolen at all.

E.T.A

Battlecrease is as much ingrained into the fabric of the city as Penny Lane.

[Ally]

There was a famous murder in my town a few decades ago. People all know the story. People were riveted by the story. People talked incessantly over the story and tuned in daily for the latest scoonch of gossip. A house featured prominently in this murder. People could no more point out the house than they could fly.

Battlecrease was not kept as a museum or relic. Other people lived there. Basically, it's expecting people to know that a serial killer lived in a particular house, enough to decide the book was noteworthy, enough to steal, but not feel any understanding that this would be directly tied to battlecrease house if they did anything with it. Which rendered it worthless to them.

This presupposed an utter knowledge of the importance of the find, with a complete obliviousness of how it's easily traced.

Why steal something that you can literally make no profit from?