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

[John G]

American public libraries, in the past (pre-Internet), frequently kept phone books for surrounding cities in their reference collections.
I can't attest to whether or not British public libraries did the same, but it is a possibility that the library in Liverpool had a London telephone book listing publishers.

The problem is, there isn't a scenario involving an electrician delivering the diary to Barrett on the same day of discovery which doesn't descend into absurdity.

Thus, neither the electricians or Barrett admitted knowing one another: the only known connection is the Saddle Inn. However, Mike has pointed out that the pub is miles away from Battlecrease House so any viable meeting had to take place in the evening.

So, say the electrician turns up at the pub and says to Barrett, "Hey, want to buy Jack the Ripper's diary for a tenner?"

Barrett, sceptical at first, has a quick scan through and says to himself, "wow this is the real deal; I better make the purchase and contact a random London publicist immediately!"

Quite apart from the fact that no sane person would think like that there are the practicalities of finding a relevant contact number. I mean, is it remotely likely that he decides to head off immediately to the library on the other side of the city and then begin an exhaustive search of London telephone directories? Would the library even be open in the evening? Would the random London publicist still be working?

And then there's the numerous anomalies. As noted, neither Barrett or the electricians admitted knowing each other (and as far as I know no one has ever been able to prove an association). Why, the denial if it wasn't true? Why did Barrett go to see Feldman's contact- presumably Feldman gave him the address-and accuse him of lying about finding the diary at Battlecrease? And if he wasn't lying, why didn't the electrician give Barrett a good pasting? And I somehow can't imagine Barrett being any good at fisticuffs-if the electrician was telling the truth I think he'd be more likely to go into hiding!

And what about the three electricians visiting Liverpool University with a parcel, supposedly the diary, in order to obtain authentication? And what about the fact that the university confirmed to Feldman that the visit took place, although they wouldn't reveal it's purpose?

[barnflatwyngarde]

American public libraries, in the past (pre-Internet), frequently kept phone books for surrounding cities in their reference collections.
I can't attest to whether or not British public libraries did the same, but it is a possibility that the library in Liverpool had a London telephone book listing publishers.

As an ex Public and Reference Librarian I can confirm that it was normal practice for branch libraries and central libraries to hold both Residential and Yellow Page phone books for many of the major cities in the UK.

This would probably have continued into the 90's.

[Graham]

I make no bones about the fact that I've not read the new book, but reading the reports of those who have, far from clearing up this mystery, the waters are become even more muddied. If the timeline of the 'day of discovery' at Battlecrease is as the book claims, then it is simply not feasible. OK, Feldman said that he believed that 'the electricians' took something to Liverpool University, but much later he accepted that whatever it was, it wasn't the Diary. So do we believe him? And I'll say it again - you can't just roll up at a large urban campus and expect to see an expert in a particular field right there and then. Not possible. As for Barrett having Rupert Crew's phone-number handy, well, he might have as he had literary pretensions, but what are the chances of the Diary falling into the unlikely hands of someone who did happen to have that number? Do we believe him?Either the whole thing is baloney, or we're missing something, or we're not being told the full story. As it stands now, it simply doesn't hang together.

IMHO, the only person who could possibly throw light onto this matter is Anne Barrett, and she is nowhere to be seen. Mike's gone, as have Feldman, Harris, Devereux, Kane.

And then there's the Watch......the Johnson brothers have gone, as has Dangar.

Could it be that more information will be made public at the forthcoming conference, and that certain people are waiting until then to 'reveal all'? I'd like to think so. But even then, would anyone believe it....?

Graham

[caz]

Possibly, Caz, but "give him/her a call" in any sense doesn't appear much in print before the 20th Century.

Only a few thousand times, Gareth, as we both now know from Gary Barnett's research.

I trust that puts this particular canard to bed?

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Could it be that more information will be made public at the forthcoming conference, and that certain people are waiting until then to 'reveal all'? I'd like to think so. But even then, would anyone believe it....?

Graham

No. Well perhaps a few of the die-hards. What I believe is unacceptable is the way in which the public are being conned by the publication of Diary related books, that is the books which promote Maybrick as Jack The Ripper. Also, the notion of it being an "old hoax" in my opinion is absurd. I believe there is more than enough evidence to suggest that is was written in the latter part of the 20th Century. I would say there is more than a fair chance that we will see in the not very distant future a book being devoted to the Diary being an "old hoax". Buyer's beware.

[Sam Flynn]

Only a few thousand times, Gareth, as we both now know from Gary Barnett's research.

Perhaps those thousands came from shop advertisements, Caz? I really must get access to ye olde newspaper archives to see the extent to which, and context in which, these instances occur. I'll ask Gary how to go about it.

I trust that puts this particular canard to bed?

Maybe, but I'm still not 100% sure. The idea of Joe Public (or Jim Public) casually dropping "I will give her a call" into a conversation, or an internal monologue, still jars a bit.

Anyhow, we still have "spreads mayhem", "one-off instance" and "top myself" to account for... Together... In the same short document. Either this is a modern forgery, or "Maybrick" was, page for page, the greatest neologist since Shakespeare.

[caz]

Does the 9th March timesheet really prove that the floorboards were actually pulled up on that day, Caz? I see total hours worked, and a bill of materials, but not a list of tasks (e.g. lifted floorboards, tea break, replaced floorboards, pee break, painted skirting). Perhaps they did some other stuff on the 9th and didn't pull up the floorboards until later? I'm not being facetious or disingenuous; I'm just not entirely sure that the timesheet definitively nails the matter... pardon pun.

Hi Gareth,

Oh yes, the floorboards had to be lifted on that day to facilitate the underfloor wiring work in Maybrick's old bedroom on the first floor, in advance of the storage heater installation. Colin Rhodes generously supplied every time sheet for work done by his firm at 7 Riversdale Road, beginning with a repair to a faulty immersion heater on 14 September 1989, which was carried out by two chaps who have not been named in any other context as far as I am aware and didn't work on future jobs.

A contract in Skelmersdale kept Colin's team of electricians busy throughout December 1991, January and February 1992 and up to Saturday 7 March. The very next job was the underfloor wiring in Battlecrease on Monday 9 March, requiring fifteen floorboard protectors. This job was completed the following day, Tuesday 10 March.

The Skelmersdale job continued after that, and the next job at 7 Riversdale was not until Tuesday 9 June, when the storage heater installation was finally done on the first floor. Between Wednesday 10 and Tuesday 16 June lights on the ground floor were rewired.

Then nothing more until July and August, when no further work was done on the first floor.

That's it.

Does that help?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Anyhow, we still have "spreads mayhem", "one-off instance" and "top myself" to account for... Together... In the same short document. Either this is a modern forgery, or "Maybrick" was, page for page, the greatest neologist since Shakespeare.

Have you not seen my post re 'spreading mayhem'? I know you saw Gary's 1877 example of a prisoner wondering if he should top himself by means of hanging, because you replied to it.

Here's a handy reminder:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=16515&page=4

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Oh yes, the floorboards had to be lifted on that day to facilitate the underfloor wiring work in Maybrick's old bedroom on the first floor, in advance of the storage heater installation... Then nothing more until July and August, when no further work was done on the first floor.

That's it.

Does that help?

It does, Caz - thanks. My experience of replacing old boilers is somewhat limited.

[caz]

I make no bones about the fact that I've not read the new book, but reading the reports of those who have, far from clearing up this mystery, the waters are become even more muddied. If the timeline of the 'day of discovery' at Battlecrease is as the book claims, then it is simply not feasible. OK, Feldman said that he believed that 'the electricians' took something to Liverpool University, but much later he accepted that whatever it was, it wasn't the Diary. So do we believe him? And I'll say it again - you can't just roll up at a large urban campus and expect to see an expert in a particular field right there and then. Not possible. As for Barrett having Rupert Crew's phone-number handy, well, he might have as he had literary pretensions, but what are the chances of the Diary falling into the unlikely hands of someone who did happen to have that number? Do we believe him?Either the whole thing is baloney, or we're missing something, or we're not being told the full story. As it stands now, it simply doesn't hang together.

IMHO, the only person who could possibly throw light onto this matter is Anne Barrett, and she is nowhere to be seen. Mike's gone, as have Feldman, Harris, Devereux, Kane.

And then there's the Watch......the Johnson brothers have gone, as has Dangar.

Could it be that more information will be made public at the forthcoming conference, and that certain people are waiting until then to 'reveal all'? I'd like to think so. But even then, would anyone believe it....?

Graham

Hi Graham,

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that the alleged trip to Liverpool University was on 9 March, have they? In any case, we don't know for sure that Mike had the diary in front of him when he rang Doreen on that day either, nor when he took over full possession of it. He was putting out feelers, but how much did he really know by then?

Also, wasn't the story [for whatever it's worth] that Mike had some Pan paperbacks indoors and called them first on 9 March, and they put him onto Rupert Crew?

It's a great pity you were unable to get hold of Robert's book, because it can't simply be reproduced here to iron out every query such as this, and I'd be here 'til Christmas if I tried. Hopefully the conference will shed more light for those without the book, or at least clarify some of the issues arising from it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It does, Caz - thanks. My experience of replacing old boilers is somewhat limited.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Have you not seen my post re 'spreading mayhem'? I know you saw Gary's 1877 example of a prisoner wondering if he should top himself by means of hanging, because you replied to it.

Yes, indeed, but it's all a matter of how "saturated" these phrases become in Joe/Jim Public's consciousness before they can be included, in a throw-away manner, in a conversation or internal monologue.

The 1877 "top myself" example had to be explained in the text, don't forget, as it was a slang expression. And "top myself" (by hanging or other means) only became a popular expression in more recent times.

[Graham]

I'm not sure anyone has claimed that the alleged trip to Liverpool University was on 9 March, have they? In any case, we don't know for sure that Mike had the diary in front of him when he rang Doreen on that day either, nor when he took over full possession of it. He was putting out feelers, but how much did he really know by then?

Also, wasn't the story [for whatever it's worth] that Mike had some Pan paperbacks indoors and called them first on 9 March, and they put him onto Rupert Crew?

Hi Caz,

I thought the reason for most folk rejecting the Battlecrease Provenance was the fact that it gives an impossible timeline for raising the boards, finding the Diary, locating Mike Barrett, getting across to the University, and phoning Doreen Montgomery all on the same day! So what day was the visit to the University?

No, we don't know for sure that Mike had the Diary on his lap when he rang Doreen, but his reported words were, "I've got Jack The Ripper's Diary, would you be interested to see it?" Another porkie, then? And if so, when did he get his mitts on the Diary?

In fairness to me, it's a while since I've carefully re-read any of my Diary books (including yours) and I should do so, but you're dead right: Page 8 of The Inside Story (I just looked) relates how he obtained Rupert Crew's contact details.

I reckon I missed getting on the list for the new book by a whisker....
Hey ho....

Graham

[caz]

Caz, my view is that it is a hoax, and a modern one. I have given enough valid reasons for holding this view, reasons which I'm still waiting for literally any believer to address, as opposed to meekly attempting to promote a book. I do not need to invent ideas for how it was written or when it was written, particularly seeing as I have made it clear that I'm not convinced on who wrote it, just that it was recent and a hoax.

You, on the other hand, God knows what your actual opinion on it is, seeing as you spend so much time defending it, and doing a lot of reaching while doing so, I think you may be a closet believer, but you profess not to be. You need to explain how the events of 9th March add up if we're assuming it was done in the late afternoon.

Aigburth to town during rush-hour, arranging a meeting with a random bloke at a random department in a random uni building in town, presumably back to the office to clock-off, then either home or to Anfield, meet Mike, was this meeting instantaneous? Apparently. Then Mike looks at it, and bang! on the dog and bone to London. What time are we on now, Caz? 10pm? lol. Yeah, seems legit.

Hi Mike,

You are attending the conference, right? So you can ask Keith Skinner face to face about the known versus the alleged events on 9 March 1992, can't you? Then you wouldn't need to assume stuff on here about the timing and reach conclusions based on your assumptions, which I then get a boot up my backside for not having enough time to address, clarify or correct in the run-up to my much-needed holiday in Wales.

Would you also be willing to take a copy of Liverpool Soundings with you and show it to Keith? He is very interested in the information you say it contains, which would have assisted Mike Barrett in creating the diary text.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I thought the reason for most folk rejecting the Battlecrease Provenance was the fact that it gives an impossible timeline for raising the boards, finding the Diary, locating Mike Barrett, getting across to the University...

Not forgetting, as the time sheet shows, that Rigby entered a full 8-hour shift on the day in question.