Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    But I can't say I'm totally at home with the idea of making it against the rules to quote him in any way, shape or form.
    You can’t copy and paste from his website onto the boards. Post a link instead.

    JM

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      Mein Gott [etc.]!
      As deeply offended as I was with the outside notion that you may have been referring to me there, Roger, I have to admit your political analysis skills are still well-honed and finely-tuned. That is to say you obfuscated, irritated, and confused like the best of them. Welcome to politics, sir!
      Iconoclast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        Then we have the entire ‘political’ subtext, where ‘old hoax’ theorists never raise a finger to question the crazy statements of the ‘Maybrick dunnit’ crowd, no matter how flawed, not because they can’t see through their bad arguments, but because they share the same common enemy: those who are convinced it is a modern fake by Barrett & Co. There is a sort of “United Front” that must be understood and gingerly navigated.
        Just a quick reminder, Roger, of the later insights into his contribution to the scrapbook from your true political guru, Michael, Lord Idiot of Anfield.

        "Barrett tells us that in his sober moments he intentionally led Alan Gray a 'merry dance'. It was Gray, he says, who was constantly pushing him to provide evidence of his forgery and produce a proper account of it, hence the 5 January 1995 affidavit [Ike: which was penned for them both by the truly tunnel-visioned Melvin Harris, perhaps?]. But his accounts were lies, he claims [Ike: shurley shum mishtake???], and nor were they good ones [Ike: no - honestly?] because 'I kept on slipping up'. To the people who believe his forgery claim, he would say, 'More fools them, more fools them. They believe this drunken story. Just pain, misery … and I can say anything.' [Ike: and you most certainly did, Mike - and sometimes many times over]". Inside Story, p273.

        I personally believe that there will come a day when one or more of the electricians working on Battlecrease House in 1992 will come forth with their own affidavit (it needs to be an affidavit as, it seems, this is what really makes people believe it's true) explaining the true provenance of the Victorian scrapbook. If one or more of them do, it will be quite safe for them to do so. There will be no prosecutions now (probably wouldn't have been any back then - after all, it was just an old dusty book under the floorboards bound for the skip, and none of them made any money out of it). With their account of the scrapbook's appearance will finally be the end of this long debate.

        And - hey - we will all know that I was right all along! And you'll all feel like a right old bunch of Charlies!

        Thinks: Ike, Lord SmartArse of History? Ike, Earl of Cleverness? Hmmm. Admiral Sir Lord Ike of Just Plain Smugness? Hmmm. Ike ...
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post


          Well, I was struggling, I can tell you. Eventually, I gave the example of how I went bird-watching in the summer because I find it relaxed me.
          Have you been watching Springwatch, it's brilliant. Great shot of Diana Dors rear end emerging from a hole in a sunlit native Oak in rural Derbyshire. Errr sorry I was still thinking of c.d.'s post from yesterday, it was a Great Spotted Woodpecker.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post



            I personally believe that there will come a day when one or more of the electricians working on Battlecrease House in 1992 will come forth with their own affidavit (it needs to be an affidavit as, it seems, this is what really makes people believe it's true) explaining the true provenance of the Victorian scrapbook. If one or more of them do, it will be quite safe for them to do so. There will be no prosecutions now (probably wouldn't have been any back then - after all, it was just an old dusty book under the floorboards bound for the skip, and none of them made any money out of it). With their account of the scrapbook's appearance will finally be the end of this long debate.
            One for the Cuckoo's nest.

            What do you make of Paul Feldman's contention that he put it to Mr Dodds that those pesky electricians had found JTR's Diary under the floorboards in his house, but not to worry as he knew who had the Diary now (Mike Barrett) and he (Feldman) would be willing to liaise with Mr Barrett, and arrange that he (Mr Dodds) would receive five per cent of any monies made from said Diary? Apparently Mr Dodds conceded that possession is nine tenths of the law, but he'd hate to think that someone would make money from something that had been found in his house, and so he gave Feldman the go ahead. Feldman then approached Barrett apparently, and put the proposition to him to which Barrett replied in the negative, in rather strong words it appears, and told Feldman the Diary did not come from the house. Here was a perfect chance for Barrett to prove the provenance of the Diary, but he turned it down flat.

            Dissclaimer, in the event I get a smart assed reply from Nurse Ratchet: Bear in mind that with regard to the Maybrick saga I have only two books in my possession, Harrisons "The Diary of Jack The Ripper", and Paul Feldman's "The Final Solution", thus I base my reflections mainly on those two books. I do of course read the various threads pertaining to the Maybrick Saga, but sadly, wading through the BS, the waffle, the cheesy humour, the smoke, the mirrors, I often give up. What I'm saying is, in among the piffle I might miss some interesting snippet.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
              why bring it up, why should anyone regard it at all, is there any evidence of an association? It’s just another smokescreen meant to befuddle and confuse.
              There is a clear association, in that Mike Barrett's local pub was also Eddie Lyons's, on 9th March 1992. Eddie Lyons was one of the electricians who worked at Battlecrease and was living at the time on the same road where Tony Devereux had lived up until 1991. Anyone, anywhere, and at any time, right from the period of the Whitechapel murders, up until 9th March 1992, could have made a telephone call to someone, claiming to have a diary by Jack the Ripper. Mike Barrett made such a call, from Liverpool, to Doreen Montgomery in London, on that day in March, when floorboards were lifted in the bedroom of the house in Liverpool where the subject of Mike's diary, James Maybrick, had spent his last day on earth, on 11th May 1889.

              Now if that's 'just another smokescreen meant to befuddle and confuse', whose smokescreen is it, because them's just the facts, Kattrup, and I can't see why you are befuddled or confused by them. I trust you are not suggesting that I am in the habit of conjuring up smokescreens designed to befuddle or confuse anyone, simply because I don't happen to share your own opinions about the diary's origins. I'm happy to agree to disagree with anyone, without making any personal judgements about their motivation and therefore their honesty. I suggest you do the same. You don't know me, so I have no defence, but if I had spent the last 20 years knowingly prolonging a scam by the Barretts to create that diary, I'd either have to be thoroughly dishonest or mentally ill. I won't ask which you believe me to be, for obvious reasons.

              Besides the fact that you really don’t want the above scenario to be true, is there any real reason to think it couldn’t have happened like that? I don’t see any.
              If you refer to the very specific scenario in which the scrapbook was bought by Mike at an auction on 31st March 1992, so that Anne could write out the diary in it, and Mike could take their completed scam to show Doreen and others on 13th April, then it's not a case of what I want to be true, but whether there is any actual evidence of an association between Mike, an Outhwaite & Litherland auction on that date or any other, and this alleged album full of WWI photographs. Why should anyone regard this scenario at all, when it will collapse if just one element is wrong? It was cobbled together from Mike's own 5th January 1995 affidavit, by adding, subtracting or altering the details he gave Alan Gray to type up, and shuffling all the dates around until it was forced into submission. Again, you attack my integrity by suggesting that I only question this invented scenario because I don't want it to be true. Please don't judge me by other people's standards. I'm not accepting a scenario on the basis that you see no reason to think it couldn't have happened like that. Someone has to prove it did happen like that. I don't have to prove it didn't.

              incidentally, auction houses don’t decide the price of lots, they just want sales to go ahead, so they usually estimate a higher “worth” for items to entice sellers. An item’s worth is what someone will pay for it. Unless the seller stipulated a minimum, any item can be sold for less than its perceived worth. Why don’t you check a few auctions yourself, you might notice that not all items go for the expected price.
              Where did I suggest anything different? I merely reported what Mr Litherland himself said recently on the subject of Mike's alleged purchase. And why don't you stop being so patronising? When I need advice on auction practices, and Outhwaite & Litherland's in particular, I'll get it from the horse's mouth. I don't even know who you are or what you do for a living. 'Kattrup' only gives me Ikea rugs.

              Regarding the 11 days, MB maintained this story over a long period, from 1994 I think and onwards. Again, despite you not liking it, there is no real reason to disbelieve it. The diary is no masterpiece and clearly not reminiscent of a Victorian diary so it could easily have been drafted in a brief time. And besides, if MB & co. did not manage to get it ready in time, they could have postponed the meeting, called in sick or whatever, so it’s not like the 11 days were an absolute deadline.
              So you'd believe one of Mike's stories as long as he managed to maintain it over 'a long period', and not just because it's the only story you like. Well good for you, but please don't tell me what I should believe or disbelieve, when it originated with Mike Barrett. He dated those 11 days to early 1990 for starters, and never did bring the year forward to 1992, so you are instantly dismissing that element of his story as untrue. But in fact you are incorrect about Mike maintaining his 11 day claim [from his 5th January 1995 affidavit] over a long period, although I suppose it depends on what you would consider long for Mike. In August 1995, 7 months later, he heard the diary was being dissed and dismissed as a fraud on Radio Merseyside. His angry reaction to this triggered off a series of interviews. Strange how he had done his level best since the end of 1993 to expose the diary as a fraud himself, and was thoroughly miffed that nobody would believe him, but then, when people went on Radio Merseyside to say it was a fraud, he was even more thoroughly miffed. But it didn't take 7 months for Mike to change his 11 day tune. By 18th January 1995 he was claiming to have made up his stories about forging the diary - and the watch. So maybe you were right after all, and 13 days was actually a long period of time for Mike to have maintained one of his many stories.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 06-09-2020, 02:37 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                But you're right, I know very little about the case. It is not very interesting, I only follow it for the amusement value.
                This was addressed to Ike, but thanks for making it clear to everyone that you are not here to contribute anything to the discussion. How could you, since you admit to knowing very little about the case and don't even find it very interesting? If the only amusement you get from following it is to attack the poster because you are self-evidently not qualified to attack the post, then may I politely suggest you have come to the wrong place to amuse yourself.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                  If there's one document anywhere, anytime, that anyone makes damn sure their name is on, dated and timed, it's a timesheet.
                  Hi Al,

                  The purpose of the work sheets was for Colin Rhodes to invoice the customer for the job. Individual electricians kept daily records of the hours they worked and in what capacity, so they would have been paid accordingly by Colin. Electricians allocated to a job in advance would be down on the work sheet for invoicing purposes, but Colin confirmed that he would send an extra pair of hands or two to help out on a job for an hour or two here and there if there was no other work going on and he was basically paying them to hang around the office. There is more than enough evidence, from all the work sheets between late 1991 and the summer of 1992, and the independently provided confirmation from various individuals concerned, including Colin and Eddie Lyons himself, that this was the case on Monday 9th March 1992, when a major contract at Skelmersdale was on hold for that week and two electricians were initially allocated to the rewiring job in Battlecrease House, which was completed by half way through the Tuesday. We have consistently been given the same names and same number of electricians who worked on the job, or were sent there in a 'helping hand' capacity, on the Monday morning, by those who were in a position to know and would have nothing to gain by doubling up the numbers from two to four if that hadn't been the case. Four names, not two.

                  All four could have known something, or just one or two of them - or maybe nothing was found and this is all part and parcel of a long-lasting corporate fantasy.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Hi Caz,

                    I think Eddie does fit into the scheme of things, and I think it's entirely by design that 9th March was specifically chosen for Barrett to make his call. It's unfortunate that the timesheet is not as conclusive as could be, but we'll, what is?
                    I often think Eddie was maybe the original provenance story until someone clued up to the fact he'd have to admit knicking on the job. And yes, Eddie denies his involvement but it's still (to my mind) likely that he, Deveraux and Barrett were closer than we know.
                    Who knows, maybe a few shared pints that weekend between Mike and Eddie in The Saddle finally gave Mike the confidence in his plan? Either that or it did come from the floorboards.
                    ​​Or Maybrick wrote it. It's definitely one of those options.

                    All the best.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                      Hi Caz,

                      I think Eddie does fit into the scheme of things, and I think it's entirely by design that 9th March was specifically chosen for Barrett to make his call. It's unfortunate that the timesheet is not as conclusive as could be, but we'll, what is?
                      I often think Eddie was maybe the original provenance story until someone clued up to the fact he'd have to admit knicking on the job. And yes, Eddie denies his involvement but it's still (to my mind) likely that he, Deveraux and Barrett were closer than we know.
                      Who knows, maybe a few shared pints that weekend between Mike and Eddie in The Saddle finally gave Mike the confidence in his plan? Either that or it did come from the floorboards.
                      ​​Or Maybrick wrote it. It's definitely one of those options.

                      All the best.
                      Hi Abe,

                      I think you're getting there, mate. Eddie Lyons has admitted that he was there at Battlecrease House (briefly) on Monday, March 9, 1992, the same day that Mike Barrett rang Doreen Montgomery 'out of the blue' asking if she'd be interested in Jack the Ripper's diary. There was no record of floorboards in Battlecrease House being lifted prior to that date (including the work that was conducted on the immersion heater in 1989), and nor (to our knowledge) was there ever previously a call to anyone suggesting they had the diary of Jack the Ripper (let's be more precise here, there had never - to our knowledge - ever been a call before which led to a published diary which survived at least 28 years in the very public eye). The chances of the floorboards coming up on the very day Barrett rang Montgomery is around 1-in-26,000 (the number of times it could have happened divided by the number of times it did happen). Speak to even an amateur statistician. Every single one of them will say that odds like those do not happen by chance alone. Something caused them both to happen that day. And I think you are seeing now how that 'something' has a name - Eddie Lyons.

                      There will come a day when Eddie Lyons himself puts this firmly on the record, and then those who argue that Mike Barrett wrote the scrapbook will need to either say he's lying (why on earth would he lie about nicking someone's property?) or else they will have to find some other way to rationalise away his admission. It will come, believe me. So posters here might want to be more circumspect when being so dismissive of the Victorian scrapbook - when Eddie Lyons admits he was directly involved in the removal of that document from Battlecrease House, those who were so dismissive will realise who was wearing the dunce's cap all along.

                      By the way, I don't think the three of them (or the two of them) could have connived over that weekend as there is no evidence (timesheets) that anyone was working at Battlecrease before March 9, but I guess there could have been some preparatory work which didn't get billed for.

                      If Eddie Lyons did not live right next door to The Saddle, we would not have our link with Barrett. It is possible that the scrapbook may have found its way into less obscure hands and thereby had an easier journey towards authentication. But it didn't. It might take 30 years or 40 years, but eventually the truth will come out regarding where that scrapbook was on the morning of March 9, 1992, and where it ended-up come teatime.

                      PS I think Eddie will eventually admit to the removal of the scrapbook because 1) he may not have planned it (it may have ended up in the skip), 2) he appears to have made no money from it, and 3) so much time has passed, there is no possibility whatsoever of any kind of police investigation into the event.

                      Cheers,

                      Ike
                      Last edited by Iconoclast; 06-10-2020, 08:13 AM.
                      Iconoclast

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jmenges View Post

                        You can’t copy and paste from his website onto the boards. Post a link instead.

                        JM
                        thanks JM!
                        for all interested Lord Orsams website is https://www.orsam.co.uk/

                        lots of good stuff: links to his ripper related articles, his books and commentary-where he specifically responds to posts here and on the other forum.

                        And bite your tongue Al! Spandeau Ballet is a great band as well as Lord Orsams book on it! : )
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                          Kattrup...

                          ...If Caz does not openly attack my beliefs, it may well be because she respects my right to hold them. I have no doubt that if she found me wanting in my argument, she'd come looking for my testicles with her famous illicit switchblade, but the fact that our posts are largely harmonious suggests to me that we have long-since implicitly agreed to disagree on the core of the issue but not on the facts (as they appear from time to time).

                          I put it to you that you should do the same.

                          Ike
                          Afternoon Ike,

                          I'm not sure why it's anyone else's business to infer unsavoury hidden motives, to explain why I do not come looking for your testicles every time you theorise that Sir Jim was JM and therefore JtR. My reasons for being here are to explore the belief that Sir Jim was Bongo Barrett and therefore a lying scallywag with a greenhouse fixation. That is my main focus. All the days from 3rd May 1889, right up until 9th March 1992, when the first known phone call about JtR's diary [JM's association with it was yet to enter the record] was made by Bongo, using a false name, will remain a closed book unless or until the diary's true authorship can be established by more than our individual stabs in the dark. We are all at it here, but some prefer to poke their weapon at the nether regions of others, instead of engaging with the subject matter. It's not pretty and it's not clever, and it rarely ends well for the poker.

                          You and I seem to be in agreement that Bongo Barrett was about as likely to have created the diary as a glove puppet with Melvin Harris's hand up its arse. But where we do disagree, we do so with a smile on our face, a twinkle in our eye, and no malice aforethought. Your posts drip with merry quips and you never take offence or take yourself too seriously. Criticising you for your hunch that the diary is the real deal would be like poking at you with a blunt pencil - pointless.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X

                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                            Hi Iconoclast

                            I did not insinuate that caz was a maybrickite, but since there’s no evidence that the diary came Battlecrease, why bring it up? Answer: because caz will support any argument that prolongs the discussion about the diary.
                            Put those claws away, Kattrup, you'll have someone's eye out - and it's more likely to be yours than mine, from where I'm sitting in sultry Sid Valley. How very DARE you claim to know what I will support and why.

                            Same reason she’s not criticizing you. Any arguments that turn attention away from the obvious and only conclusion will have caz’s support. Having these various fallback positions allows her and other diary defenders to keep the pot stirring.
                            Quite apart from the unwarranted personal swipes you bring to the table, why should anyone believe you are equipped to comment on 'the obvious and only conclusion' - that Bongo Barrett WRoT ThE DAiRy - when you have admitted to knowing very little about it, and having no interest in widening your knowledge?

                            Again, Lyons stated he did not find the diary and he did not know MB.
                            Hardly conclusive, is it? What would you have expected him to say, regardless of whether he was involved or not?

                            If he didn't know Mike, what was he doing in the Saddle in June 1993, being introduced by Mike to Robert Smith? If Eddie knew nothing about any diary, why did he tell Robert he'd found a book, but it wasn't the diary and he didn't take it away, but put it in a skip? It's called damage limitation - so what was the damage he and/or Mike were trying to limit, at a time when nobody was even connecting Mike's first phone call with any work going on in Battlecrease on the same day?

                            And why, when Feldman et al went to the house in the Spring of 1993, did Mike visibly stagger backwards when Paul Dodd said that electric storage heaters had been installed in 1988 or 9? [Dodd's memory was playing tricks, this was proven to be in 1992.] Such news would have been of no possible interest to Mike if he knew the photo album had come from an auction in March 1992 and been turned into the diary in early April. Old houses were bound to have electrical work done at some point, so if Mike had no idea who Eddie was or what he did for a living, why did he react like a stunned rabbit when he heard that the house formerly known as Battlecrease was no exception?

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Last edited by caz; 06-10-2020, 02:12 PM.
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Question for those in the know -- when the electricians allegedly found the diary did they notify the current owners or residents of the house?

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • Also a question if I may..
                                Did Battlecrease not have electricity prior to 1992?
                                The installation of that would have required the removal of floorboards and possibly the ceiling area for central lighting which would also expose the area below the floorboards.

                                Perhaps the local council would have record of when this was done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X