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 rjpalmer View Post
    Hello Ike.

    Don't get excited. I don't plan on rejoining the fray. I'd just like to humbly offer the following two posts, side by side, for your consideration.

    Caz : ‘Acquiring a Victorian Diary’ thread, Post #11: 3-21-2017

    Anyway, my point is that I'm surprised an auctioneer would bother to sell an item of such small value and even more surprised that Mike would have had to bid anything like 50 in order to win his. It's a pity no losing bidder ever came forward to say they remembered the item fetching more than expected and going to the man who went on to claim it contained Jack the Ripper's diary.”

    Summary: No way Barrett bought this black ledger! 50 pounds? That’s way too high a price for an item of such small value!

    Fast forward to yesterday.

    Caz: “One Incontrovertible Fact’ Post #5179: 6-5-2020:

    “Mike is supposed to have made a beeline for the next auction at Outhwaite & Litherland, scheduled for 31st March, where, as luck would have it, he found something he could actually use and put in the winning bid of 50. O&L were feeling generous that day on the owner's behalf, and the album containing 125 pages of highly collectible WWI photos, worth in excess of 100 according to Mr Litherland, went to Mike for a song.”

    Summary: No way Barrett bought this black ledger! 50! That’s way too low a price. The photos alone were worth 100!

    So, there it is. We’ve now heard it both ways--from Caz. Barrett couldn’t have bought a black ledger—the purchase price was too high. Barret couldn’t have bought a black ledger-- the purchase price was too low. Whatever the price was—it was too high, too low, or too in-between!

    Or as they say in nautical terms, “any port in a storm.”

    Any conceivable argument, no matter how hobbled—even diametrically opposed arguments---just as long as they discredit Barrett’s very real and very obvious involvement in this hoax.

    Carry on!

    Hi R.J,

    Clever trick, that - comparing chalk and cheese and concluding they are different. Whatever next?

    What I said three years ago related to a plain black ledger of the type which, as you observed only recently, with a little help from your awesome friend, would never have been itemised or sold separately, but as part of a job lot of miscellaneous items – and therefore of relatively little value. You even used this observation to explain why O&L would never have been able trace Bongo’s alleged purchase, while blaming everyone under the sun apart from Bongo himself, for not being psychic at the time and knowing he was talking about 1992 and not 1990.

    It was precisely this kind of discussion which was designed to send Caz back to her timeline to ascertain what was known and when, concerning the various claims Bongo had made about the ledger and the auction, from June 1994 onwards, and the resulting enquiries made with O&L. So I have you to thank for that. We had all – Shirley and O&L back in 1995, Caz in 2017 and you in 2020 – been considering the wrong kind of ledger, because Bongo’s affidavit, typed up by Alan Gray in the hope of being paid something for his pains, was not made available to Shirley until 1997, and I was highly sceptical about his description of the photo album and fingerless compass in any case. I don’t know what your excuse was, because you seemed to accept it as the truth, that the scrapbook had been stuffed full of WWI photographs when Mike bought it at auction, yet you were still arguing only recently that it was just a lowly miscellaneous item which would not have been worth singling out.

    With the valuable help of Mr Litherland, recently casting his eye carefully over Bongo’s words, it was finally ascertained that if Bongo was telling the truth in January 1995, the ledger would not have been shoved in with a lot of miscellaneous items of little individual worth. A collection of WWI photographs, such as Bongo had described, would almost certainly not have appeared in a general sale, but would have been included in a collectors’ cavalcade sale, which was held about every two to three weeks. If they were good enough they might have been included in an antique and collectors’ sale held monthly. O&L had originally assumed they were looking for a blank ledger or note book: “in which case it would not have been itemised”. Mr Litherland didn’t personally recall looking for anything containing: “highly collectible WW1 photographs”, but “that quantity would have been worth in excess of 100. Not merely included in an etcetera lot or a miscellaneous lot.”

    Now if, after learning all this, I had stuck rigidly to the point I made back in 2017, when I was referring to a plain old black ledger, t’would have been plain ridiculous, would it not? I find it healthier on balance to have a flexible mind, which can change and adapt as new information is received.

    But that may be the difference between us – like chalk and cheese.

    Love,

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


    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      Ike - The strangest part of Caz’s second post is that Mr. Whay is able to give a very precise estimate of the worth of photographs in 1992 even though we are told he had never seen them, the ledger didn’t exist, the photos didn’t exist, the object was never sold by O & L, and no way did Barrett ever buy them! If I were a tad more suspicious, I’d almost want to theorize that Whay had seen these photographs after all.

      Anyways, a bid is a bid. That’s why people go to auctions: to find a bargain. Sometimes they pay too much, sometimes they get a heck of a deal. That’s the appeal of auctions. Most of the world was coming out of a recession in early 1992. Prices were lower, and Barrett’s description of the photos is vague, so this whole line of reasoning is pointless. The only photo Mike described in any detail had nothing to do with World War One. It was of a donkey by a grave. This was evidently a genuine ‘thing’ to see at a certain pet cemetery in Liverpool during the 1920s or 30s, so—gullible me!--I find Mike’s account credible and the price believable.
      The strangest part of R.J’s post is what he thinks Mr. Whay has to do with the price of fish, and why the poor man is now subjected to suspicions that he had seen Bongo’s valuable collection of WWI photographs after all, and therefore presumably lied to protect the silly lying faker from beyond the grave, as Bongo claimed his sister did by destroying the photos. I believe I’m right in saying that Mr. Whay has also gone to join the choir invisible – the one which Bongo joined four years ago, where R.J now has them singing from the same invisible, crooked hymn sheet. My sincere apologies to Mr. Whay if he is still with us, and chuckling as he reads what R.J is saying about him.

      The next strangest part is the reference to an ass by a grave. Bongo’s grave, or Mr. Whay’s – we are not told. And who can the silly ass be? I didn’t think WWI stretched beyond 1918 to the 20s or 30s, but Bongo’s dates were nothing if not elastic, so who knows what he was thinking when he saw one of these genuine donkey photos from the Art Deco era and thought it would be a great addition to his invisible Great War collection? Talk about pinning a donkey on a Tale from Liverpool! But Bongo was never one to miss the opportunity to get something ass backwards.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 06-10-2020, 05:14 PM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
        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.
        c.d.,

        Do you mean when the electricians allegedly found the diary did they ALLEGEDLY notify the current owners or residents of the house?

        This has never been claimed by any of the small gang of sparkies who had no idea how large a part of criminal history they were writing.

        Cheers,

        Ike
        Iconoclast

        Comment


        • Clearly Battlecrease had electricity long before 1992. I doubt the immersion heater would have needed fixed in 1989 otherwise.

          There is no guarantee of where the wires were run nor how well hidden the scrapbook was, but I guess it does imply that there was a day - say Day 3,650 - after Maybrick's last entry in the scrapbook when someone could have announced they had Jack the Ripper's diary. That would have reduced the odds of someone announcing that on the same day the floorboards were lifted from 1-in-26,000+ (or 1-in-36,500+ if you allow for weekends and Bank Holidays) to exactly half of whatever number you started with.

          Still quite unlikely (and that's a euphemism for "If you think it was likely, gie yersel a shake").

          Ike
          Iconoclast

          Comment


          • As you are aware, Ike - and not that my opinion goes for much in this debate - I am by no means convinced that the Diary was discovered under the floors of Battlecrease or elsewhere. What about whatever it was that Feldman claims he saw a pair of electricians take to Liverpool University? Any ideas? Or did Feldman dream it or make it up? He says he followed the electricians to the University, where, according to himself, he was more or less politely told to shove off and mind his own business. Did this episode actually happen, or what? If it did happen, was it ever established what was actually taken to the University? Before you respond, I do appreciate that Feldman did appear to possess a vivid imagination with regard to certain matters............

            Graham
            We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graham View Post
              As you are aware, Ike - and not that my opinion goes for much in this debate - I am by no means convinced that the Diary was discovered under the floors of Battlecrease or elsewhere. What about whatever it was that Feldman claims he saw a pair of electricians take to Liverpool University? Any ideas? Or did Feldman dream it or make it up? He says he followed the electricians to the University, where, according to himself, he was more or less politely told to shove off and mind his own business. Did this episode actually happen, or what? If it did happen, was it ever established what was actually taken to the University? Before you respond, I do appreciate that Feldman did appear to possess a vivid imagination with regard to certain matters............

              Graham
              Hi Graham,

              I don't recall Feldy ever claiming that he saw any of the electricians taking something to the University, much less that he followed them there and was told to shove off and mind his own business. Where did you get this from?

              As far as I am aware, there was only the only alleged visit and it was said to have taken place before the diary was even a twinkle in Feldy's eye.

              The Portus & Rhodes electricians only began to be tracked down and questioned by Feldy a year later, in the Spring of 1993 [when the diary was still months away from being published], and he didn't manage to contact the whole crew. The ones he spoke to didn't all tell exactly the same story, although certain elements were consistent. Some were willing to talk, others not. Those who did talk would have known - or could have checked - when the electrical work was done in Battlecrease and what and who was involved, but nobody suggested the "old book" [as several of them have always referred to it] was found as recently as 1992. By giving an impossible date for the discovery, or no date at all, were they hedging their bets, because their knowledge of the diary and its origins was limited to what had so far appeared in the local press? If they were trying to fleece Feldy by making up the discovery story, they were taking a chance on what might already have been known about the diary's previous whereabouts and history. What did they know about the Barretts or Tony Devereux, months before Shirley's book came out? Or were they careful not to mention 1992 because they were already wary and covering their posteriors, now they knew the "old book" was likely to be important? Feldy seriously missed a trick by not asking his looser lipped sparkies to describe this "old book". That would have told him for certain if they really knew anything or not.

              The University story may have been designed to hook Feldy or put him off the scent, along with not dating the discovery to a realistic 1992. But it's possible that Mike saw the "old book" in The Saddle on the Monday lunchtime and was hooked, but didn't have the cash on him to make an offer. He'd seen enough to call Rupert Crew that afternoon, but only managed to get his hands on it later, in which case there might be some truth in the University trip. The Battlecrease job that week was done and dusted by the Tuesday lunchtime, and the Skelmersdale contract was not resumed until the Friday, leaving plenty of time to fit in such a trip. Depending on the advice given, the best bet might have been to get rid of the thing quick, for as much as Bongo Barrett could afford, and let him do something with it. If nothing had been found, none of them should have been able to describe "a parcel wrapped in brown paper" to Feldy, months before Mike's story was published for the first time in Shirley's book. You'd have to have Mike blabbing in the Saddle about his diary coming wrapped in brown paper, and Eddie picking up on this description and running with it to Feldy's informant. A fair bit of trouble to go to, for no apparent gain, and you'd still have the Mike and Eddie connection.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 06-11-2020, 02:46 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              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 Al,

                Good to have a civilised conversation with you, as with our Graham, without the sneering tone and accusations of dishonesty. One thing with your scenario is that Eddie would have needed to know in advance what the job on Monday 9th March was going to involve, and also that it was in Maybrick's old bedroom, but it seems that the boss just sent him and his mate to help out at the house with the two who were down for the wiring job because they were hanging round the office with nothing better to do. That doesn't rule anything out, because Eddie could have known all the details beforehand, without needing to be sent there by Colin. In fact it might have worked better if Eddie hadn't been sent to help out, because he couldn't then have been accused of nicking anything! One of the others would have been suspected.

                But then, if this plan was abandoned, in favour of the 'dead mate' story, why did Mike take Robert Smith to the Saddle in June 1993 to introduce him to Eddie, and why did Eddie agree to it? Why did he claim to have found some book which wasn't the diary and thrown it into a skip? There'd have been no rumours circulating among the electricians which could threaten to blow the whistle, if the whole idea was concocted between Mike and Eddie before the job was done, but dropped again before Doreen was fed the Devereux backstory instead. What would either of them have had to cover up – or gain from the meeting with Robert at their local - if nothing had been taken from the house? Why would Mike and Eddie reveal, to the person who had bought the diary from Mike for 1, and was going to publish it later that year, that they knew one another well enough to meet up at the pub? This was surely business - the business of damage limitation.

                And once again, why did Mike react so strangely to the news that electrical work had been done in Battlecrease in 1988-9? What possible concern would that be to him, if his original provenance story was concocted with Eddie and had involved a wiring job there in March 1992?

                All good stuff though, Al. Keep those thoughts coming!

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Hi Caz,

                  well, as Ken Dodd would have said, "That's taught me a lesson!" Yep, I should've checked Feldy's book first first, eh? Long time since I read it. Basically, Feldy (P148) says that one of the electricians working for Mr Dodd called him, Feldy, to tell him that he overheard two of his colleagues discussing something to do with Battlecrease a.k.a. No 7 Riversdale Road. Feldy says that if this man was telling the truth, then 'the diary had been removed from the house'. The man who called Feldy asked that his name be kept confidential...well, he would, wouldn't he? The man continued his tale by describing how he had shared a car with the above-mentioned two colleagues and saw a parcel wrapped in brown paper under the front passenger seat. The car was driven to Liverpool University, where Feldy's caller was told to wait in the car. The caller also told Feldy that he had seen something thrown out of a window of the house and it was put in the skip. Feldy later contacted Liverpool University who confirmed that two gents had been there as Feldy's caller had said, but Feldy said that the person he spoke to at the University refused to give him any further information. Feldy, as I'm sure you are aware, went on to say that he was now well-satisfied that the Diary had been taken from the house.

                  That's it, Caz. Could one of the men in the car have been Eddie Lyons...if indeed this episode actually did happen?

                  Right, I'm going back to finish my Sam Spade story.

                  Graham
                  We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Observer View Post
                    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.
                    I quite agree, Observer - apart from your dislike of the cheesy humour, which I always find refreshing after any unpleasantness. There has been way too much BS, waffle, smoke and mirrors around here, but please don't give up because the air seems to have been clearing more recently, and there is always something to be gained from digesting new information and seeing fresh insights - for those of us who still have a genuine interest in exploring this topic.

                    I was heartened earlier today to see the following sentiments expressed on unrelated threads, and they should apply equally in this place:

                    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                    The great thing about being human is that one can learn new things, have new insights and develop one’s mind.
                    To do so is admirable, not deplorable.
                    That was posted on 25th May this year.

                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    so fish changed his mind. it happens as people learn and new things come to light. which is more than i can say for most people here.
                    This one was posted a little earlier this year, on 24th March.

                    My answer to your entirely reasonable question would be this:

                    1) If the diary was indeed found in Paul Dodd's house, and passed on to Mike, it was stolen. If he were to admit this, even for the sake of the perfect provenance, he'd be exposed as a liar and a receiver of stolen property, months before the "old book" was even published, and his anticipated claim to fame as the person who had solved the Whitechapel Murders and identified Jack the Ripper would be forever tarnished. That would seem a pretty good reason to deny the diary came from the house. And he kept on denying it until his dying day.

                    2) Here was, as you quite rightly say, the perfect chance for Mike to grab himself the perfect provenance - but only if he made up the Devereux story because he had forged the diary in 1992. Why? Because his story was that he had obtained it from Devereux in good faith, as a gift, and was never told where it came from. It was therefore regarded as his legitimate property, so there was nothing to stop him from accepting - as reluctantly as his acting skills allowed - that Devereux could have received it from the electrician who was claiming to have found it in the house, and it had ended up with Mike. The date suggested for this discovery was 1989, allowing for two years to have passed before Devereux eventually gave the diary to Mike.

                    But Mike turned this chance down flat - proving himself a liar one way or the other. If Devereux had given him the diary with no explanation, in the Spring/Summer of 1991, Mike could not possibly have known that it hadn't come from the house at some point prior to this. So his insistence that it didn't only really makes sense if it did and he was lying.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Last edited by caz; 06-11-2020, 05:36 PM.
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • I hate myself for getting involved in this thread but sometimes it is so compelling that you can't help it, sort of like looking at a traffic accident even though you know you really shouldn't.

                      Anyway, a question -- is there any indication that one or more of the electricians received any compensation for turning over the diary?

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                        I hate myself for getting involved in this thread but sometimes it is so compelling that you can't help it, sort of like looking at a traffic accident even though you know you really shouldn't.
                        Haha, exactly - it keeps going on, the unending baseless speculation. "If A happened, which there is no reason to assume, then how do you explain B? Clearly there's something going on!!!"

                        Comment


                        • Hi Caz

                          I'm not sure I have the stamina to answer everything to your satisfaction, but I'll have a quick run-through
                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          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.
                          Eddie Lyons did not know MB prior to MB producing the diary and he did not find the diary.
                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          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.
                          I don't know what you're trying to say, it makes no sense. No, it's not true that anyone, anywhere and at any time could have called someone and claimed to have the diary of JtR.

                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          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'm befuddled and confused because it makes no sense
                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          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 agree
                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          I won't ask which you believe me to be, for obvious reasons.
                          Ok. For the record, I don't believe you're either

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          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.
                          What I asked was: is there any real reason to think it did not happen?
                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          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.
                          Well, your post gave the impression that you were unaware of how auctions take place, since you stated that "O&L were feeling generous that day on the owner's behalf". Yes, I am a rugged fellow.
                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          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.
                          Barrett claimed ten days already from his Liverpool Daily Post interview, didn't he?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            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.
                            It's not really a discussion, since there's so much misinformation being spread around, facts being made up and refusal to accept the most commonplace arguments.

                            You may suggest that, even though the preceding clause is not true

                            Comment


                            • Last one, I think
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              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.
                              Easy, I've read your posts for a long time and the only consistent argument your posts show through years and years is that Barrett could not have forged the diary. Other arguments change and your posts consistently show you'll entertain any other possibility except for that one.
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              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?
                              This is an internet forum for discussion, there will always be people who know more or less about certain topics. I'm always open to widening my knowledge if presented with reasonable arguments. Not sure what you think I should be widen my knowledge about? How about you widen yours by looking into other scam cases, perhaps it might make you reconsider your own narrow view of Barrett's capabilities.
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              Hardly conclusive, is it? What would you have expected him to say, regardless of whether he was involved or not?
                              I would have expected him to say the truth, if he was not involved in anything (which there is no reason to think). You apparently believe he is a liar and would lie even if he were not involved in anything!
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              If he didn't know Mike, what was he doing in the Saddle in June 1993, being introduced by Mike to Robert Smith?
                              This is quite symptomatic of the way your posts might give people the impression that you're deliberately spreading misinformation. As you very well know, having studied the case for decades, the meeting was set up at the behest of Robert Smith. Did you forget that?
                              Originally posted by caz View Post
                              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?
                              Again with the if-then whys. Have you considered that perhaps Eddie found a book and put it in a skip, which is, perhaps if one wades through all the various rumours, the most that can be half-reasonably claimed about what was found in Battlecrease - and so it had nothing to do with the diary? And so there's no basis for considering hypothetical and completely baseless scenarios.
                              Originally posted by caz View Post

                              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?
                              I don't know that he did, but you're right, old houses have usually had work done on them and it so happens that the owner of the house stated categorically that it had been redone (in 1977 I believe) and if anything had been there, he would have found it then.


                              Listen Caz, I'm not terribly interested in keeping this "discussion" going, and I don't have the time or the stamina to answer every one of yours or Iconoclast's false claims. Like this recent idea that Barrett's photo album was highly collectible and worth a lot. I'm sure Mr. Litherland was sincere and helpful, but in the last few days you're suddenly accepting Barrett's extremely vague description of the photo album and ascertaining that it would never have been sold like that etc.
                              Pretty weak, in fact nonexisting, argument, but a good example of how new facts are made up, similarly to the idea that MB would have been given a thorough and complete description of the red diary before buying it etc.

                              I'm glad that David Barrat has a true interest in the diary case, and actually reads and researches it, though. If you're really interested in solving the case of the diary (which has already been solved), you should read more of his posts.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Graham View Post
                                Hi Caz,

                                well, as Ken Dodd would have said, "That's taught me a lesson!" Yep, I should've checked Feldy's book first first, eh? Long time since I read it. Basically, Feldy (P148) says that one of the electricians working for Mr Dodd called him, Feldy, to tell him that he overheard two of his colleagues discussing something to do with Battlecrease a.k.a. No 7 Riversdale Road. Feldy says that if this man was telling the truth, then 'the diary had been removed from the house'. The man who called Feldy asked that his name be kept confidential...well, he would, wouldn't he? The man continued his tale by describing how he had shared a car with the above-mentioned two colleagues and saw a parcel wrapped in brown paper under the front passenger seat. The car was driven to Liverpool University, where Feldy's caller was told to wait in the car. The caller also told Feldy that he had seen something thrown out of a window of the house and it was put in the skip. Feldy later contacted Liverpool University who confirmed that two gents had been there as Feldy's caller had said, but Feldy said that the person he spoke to at the University refused to give him any further information. Feldy, as I'm sure you are aware, went on to say that he was now well-satisfied that the Diary had been taken from the house.

                                That's it, Caz. Could one of the men in the car have been Eddie Lyons...if indeed this episode actually did happen?

                                Right, I'm going back to finish my Sam Spade story.

                                Graham
                                Morning Graham,

                                Feldy was satisfied until his informant allegedly asked how much his story was worth, and then had sore misgivings that he was being taken for a ride - round Liverpool presumably. He hadn't spoken with all the P&R electricians though, and never did make any connection between Mike's phone call and the floorboards job, so he had no idea it was a double event on 9th March 1992. It simply didn't occur to him to ask when Mike had first called Doreen - they weren't working on this together, after all - and nobody had suggested the diary could have been found as recently as 1992, so the work sheets wouldn't have given Feldy what he was after: electrical work done at a time when the diary could have been found and passed on to Tony Devereux, who was dead by August 1991.

                                If the University visit happened, I have little doubt that one of the men in the car was our Eddie. He used his own vehicle, while the witness who was told to wait in the car didn't have his own transport. All three sparkies would have been free from the Tuesday lunchtime, 10th March 1992, when the job finished, to the Friday, when the Skelmersdale contract resumed and we only know for sure that one of the three worked there that day, along with the boss's son [who understandably was never told about anything being taken from the house]. Eddie must have considered it unlucky to go back on Friday 13th, because he disappeared from the Skem job after Saturday 7th March and never went back, after being there constantly with his mate right from the start, at the beginning of December 1991. The boss, Colin Rhodes, had no explanation for Eddie's sudden absence from the Skem work sheets, but explained why the two mates would not have been on the Battlecrease work sheet if he had just sent them to lend a hand to Arthur Rigby and the lad who didn't drive, who were down for the first floor wiring job on 9th and 10th March. Eddie would have been free to give lifts in his car, and the lad who didn't drive only worked on the job for 2 hours on the Monday. Crucially, Eddie himself has a clear memory of going to the house to help out with that two-day wiring job, involving the floorboards coming up, and has insisted he was there. I'm sure Mandy Rice-J Palmer knows different, but I'm not expecting the response this time: "Well Eddie would, wouldn't he?"

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 06-12-2020, 10:08 AM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X