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
    As for Eddie "admitting" he was there, the same interviewer also managed to get Billy Graham to "admit" that he had seen the Diary in 1950, so we would have to review the validity of the interviewing techniques. But this is besides the point.
    Not only 'besides' the point, but out there on Mars. Feldman interviewed Billy Graham and was long dead when Eddie insisted recently that he was on the job which the work sheets show was on 9th and 10th March 1992. Feldman had no idea that he should have been looking as late as March 1992, because he always believed Mike already had the diary before Devereux died in August 1991.

    Eddie is being quizzed nearly 25 years after-the-fact. Of course he "remembers" helping working on Dodd's house. The timecards show that he did---in June!
    Ah, but he was not describing the work done on that occasion, but the work done in the March. How did he remember that, if he wasn't even there?

    I have no idea where I was in March 1992. I remember going to a Lyle Lovett concert sometime around that era, and I suppose a determined interviewer could get me to innocently admit that it was in March 1992. But if I found a ticket stub and it showed that it was actually June 1992, I'd be certain that he got it wrong, and that my admission, though made it good faith, was inaccurate.
    You have it arse about face, RJ. But that's okay - you weren't to know. Eddie was remembering the work, not the date. We already knew the date so he didn't have to remember it.

    Monday 9th March 1992.

    A day to remember.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 06-20-2020, 10:04 AM.
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
      P.S. Caz, if I were you, Keith, and Ike, I'd go back and carefully read Paul Feldman's account, page 135-136. And also chase down Shirley Harrison's accounts of the "Battlecrease" provenance.
      But you are not me, RJ, and you should be thankful for small mercies.

      You will think this task is beneath you, because you have far more info in your war chest, but the accounts by Feldman and Harrison do demonstrate the insurmountable hurdle that you are up against.

      Feldman and Harrison are not diary doubters. They aren't the rude vicious army of Melvin Harris, Kenneth Rendell, and Lord Orsam. They are believers in the document, but even they had to admit that the Dodd provenance was bunk. The dates didn't work, and they had fully researched this while the iron was still hot...

      Feldman even concludes (p 136) that the electricians "would lie for the right price."

      He also concluded --accurately, in my estimation--that Barrett's behavior amply demonstrated that he knew the electrician folklore was b.s., because Barrett knew the truth about the diary's origins. It is rare for me to admit this about Feldman, but I see nothing wrong with his logic on this specific point.
      Feldy and Shirley were Devereux believers, through and through. Of course the dates didn't work. Even Paul Dodd got his dates wrong for the storage heater work. And had he said it was in March and June 1992 they would still have dismissed this as too late. Paul Dodd's memory can be forgiven to some extent because he would let the electricians in before going off to his teaching job and letting them get on with it. No particular reason for him to recall exactly what work was done when.

      There was only one good reason for Mike to deny, in 1993, that the diary was stolen from Battlecrease, and that's if it was. Even Anne suggested he take the deal on offer with Paul Dodd.

      Oh and by the way, this idea that Paul Dodd couldn't have something Victorian hidden in his house without him knowing about it was challenged back in 1993 by Colin Rhodes, who said that one of his electricians had found a Victorian newspaper and got Paul Dodd's permission to keep it.

      But don't fret, I'm not going to suggest it was from 9th November 1888, and had a note in the margin to say: 'Funny, I could have sworn I never left her jugs on the table'. I'll leave that to Ike.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 06-20-2020, 10:23 AM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by jmenges View Post

        Keith has someone working with the tapes already, but I appreciate your offer and I’ll keep you in mind for any future recordings of mine that may need help.



        JM
        Hi JM
        No worries, Also happy to help with anything you throw my way

        regards
        Last edited by Yabs; 06-20-2020, 10:24 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          There was only one good reason for Mike to deny, in 1993, that the diary was stolen from Battlecrease, and that's if it was. Even Anne suggested he take the deal on offer with Paul Dodd
          Hi Caz. Except for James, Ike, and Keith, I don't think anyone could possibly be convinced by this convoluted argument.

          Feldman had it right. A much simpler and more plausible explanation is that Barrett told the electricians to "%$#@ off" because he knew that they had nothing to do with the Diary and he wasn't about to fork over 5% of his windfall to complete strangers who were trying to "hitch hike" on the back of his hoax. How hard is this to grasp?

          But the world is full of conflict, and I am done arguing about the Diary, nor will I further inflict my ‘modern hoax’ viewpoint onto the community. Who knows? Maybe I will even come over to your way of thinking, if a few nagging questions can be adequately answered.

          For instance, what explanation can you give for Billy Graham claiming, when interviewed by Keith Skinner on 13 August 1994, that he had seen the Diary in 1950? And that he had received the diary from his stepmom? And that she was somehow connected to the Maybricks?

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but once upon a time, didn’t you use your well-known acerbic wit to chastise those of us who suggested that the aged and dying Billy may have been prompted to tell this story by his daughter, Anne Graham?

          Didn’t you suggest that no woman would involve her dying father in this sort of deception?

          But, if the Diary came out of Battlecrease, aren’t you now imply that this is indeed what happened? That Billy Graham was one of the “nest of thieves” in the Battlecrease caper, along with Anne and Mike and Eddy?

          Or are you suggesting that unintentionally leading questions, and less-than-stellar interviewing techniques, encouraged Billy Graham to admit to something that never happened? Indeed, to a whole string of things that never happened?

          It has to be one or the other, doesn’t it?

          I will view your response "off line." Thanks for the conversation.








          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            Hi Caz. Except for James, Ike, and Keith, I don't think anyone could possibly be convinced by this convoluted argument.

            I will view your response "off line." Thanks for the conversation.
            Hi Roger,

            You are in danger of becoming the George Best of this site, young man. The thought of you in Hibernian's kit fills me with genuine foreboding.

            Anyway, you are quite right (though your unusual choice of font once again screams popular music shops of my youth): If the scrapbook came out of Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992 (or any other day) then Anne Graham told a huge porker and got her old pa to sign-up to the deception.

            I'm an honest guy. I used to believe that neither Anne nor Billy had any reason to lie. I'm also agonised by the way this is going because it means that Billy's dad and his sister's remarkable likeliness to FloMay in their dotage must be consigned to the dustbin de chance. But I can't be blind to the staggering fact that on March 9, 1992, Eddie de Lyon was part of the Rhodes Sparky team, some of which is on record as being at BH that day, and Bongo de Barrett rang Monty de Montgomery regarding Jack le Ripper's personal memoirs and what have you.

            The case against Maybrick is heavily statistically driven - the sheer implausibility of so any events speaks directly to there being no chance involved at all. If that is the case, one has to look to the scrapbook emerging from BH, Bongos Barrett getting his mitts on in, and Anne taking the credit when it most suited Paul Feldman.

            Mess?

            You bet it is.

            Ike
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              Eddie is being quizzed nearly 25 years after-the-fact. Of course he "remembers" helping working on Dodd's house. The timecards show that he did---in June!
              I've been wondering about this, because RJ claimed on more than one occasion recently that Eddie worked on Dodd's house in June 1992.

              The wonderful irony here is the fact that Eddie's name does not appear on the Battlecrease 'timecard' for June. [It's actually called a DAYWORK A/c, for invoicing the customer.] So while he may have been sent there by the boss to help out, as both confirmed was the case in March, nobody to my knowledge has ever suggested Eddie worked there at all in the June, so it's a mystery where RJ got the idea that he did, and why he would have believed it, when there is no DAYWORK A/c to show that he was there.

              And RJ was so emphatic about it too!

              Love,

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


              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                Hi Caz. Except for James, Ike, and Keith, I don't think anyone could possibly be convinced by this convoluted argument.

                Feldman had it right. A much simpler and more plausible explanation is that Barrett told the electricians to "%$#@ off" because he knew that they had nothing to do with the Diary and he wasn't about to fork over 5% of his windfall to complete strangers who were trying to "hitch hike" on the back of his hoax. How hard is this to grasp?
                RJ is making the mistake of using his conclusion, that Mike hoaxed the diary, to interpret the man's behaviour. Feldman made the same mistake, although his conclusion at the time was that Mike refused the deal because he knew the diary had been in the family all along and therefore didn't need a helping hand with provenance.

                My own thinking is based on the fact that Mike lied – all the time. If he was denying the ideal provenance for his diary, which would have made him far more money in the long run, once his book with Shirley was published and he became a best-selling author and a 'someone' at last, you can be sure there was a damned good reason. And what better reason could there be, than his growing awareness and uneasiness that the diary had been stolen from Battlecrease by that blasted electrician, whose local was the Saddle and who lived on the same road as Tony Devereux had lived? If Mike lied, it was not to save himself a measly 5% of an old book with no provenance at all, but to save face.

                What evidence is there that Mike was ever that interested in the money anyway? He turned down thousands for the diary around the same time as Doddy's deal, not realising the offer was from Feldman himself, then handed it to Robert Smith for 1. The following year he proceeded to piss all his royalties up against the wall, ending up broke again and in the red, and it was then that he claimed he had forged the diary, putting paid to any hope of retiring in the sun on future royalties.

                But the world is full of conflict, and I am done arguing about the Diary, nor will I further inflict my ‘modern hoax’ viewpoint onto the community. Who knows? Maybe I will even come over to your way of thinking, if a few nagging questions can be adequately answered.

                For instance, what explanation can you give for Billy Graham claiming, when interviewed by Keith Skinner on 13 August 1994, that he had seen the Diary in 1950? And that he had received the diary from his stepmom? And that she was somehow connected to the Maybricks?
                What explanation would RJ give? I already gave him a very good clue, from Anne herself, on page 210 of Ripper Diary.

                Correct me if I’m wrong, but once upon a time, didn’t you use your well-known acerbic wit to chastise those of us who suggested that the aged and dying Billy may have been prompted to tell this story by his daughter, Anne Graham?

                Didn’t you suggest that no woman would involve her dying father in this sort of deception?
                But that was 'once upon a time', before I had enough information to question my own thinking. It's healthy to be prepared to change one's mind as knowledge and understanding grows. It's not healthy to cling to an interpretation regardless, when you find out it was based on incomplete source material, or a misreading of that material, its context and chronology. But RJ is not beyond help, as he suggests there is the potential there for a rethink.

                But, if the Diary came out of Battlecrease, aren’t you now imply that this is indeed what happened? That Billy Graham was one of the “nest of thieves” in the Battlecrease caper, along with Anne and Mike and Eddy?

                Or are you suggesting that unintentionally leading questions, and less-than-stellar interviewing techniques, encouraged Billy Graham to admit to something that never happened? Indeed, to a whole string of things that never happened?

                It has to be one or the other, doesn’t it?
                I'll leave RJ to infer what he likes, but I'm not implying any more than that I find the evidence a lot stronger for the diary being found in Battlecrease on Monday 9th March 1992, than for any other scenario offered by anyone at any time.

                And as for this business of leading questions, poor interviewing techniques and 'fitting up', I would advise RJ to mend his manners before coming back with any more of the same. Keith Skinner is not a Feldman clone. He could not be less like Feldman in the way he works. He has always shown me to have a mind of his own, and he uses his own meticulously fair and objective methods to investigate people and events. RJ must be desperate indeed to accuse Keith of ever compromising his high standards to encourage anyone, even unintentionally, to come up with a detail, or a date, to suit some preconceived scenario. This is not only a personal attack on Keith's integrity, but an insult to the integrity of all those who have benefited greatly from working alongside him, including Stewart Evans and the late great Martin Fido. It is a cheap shot from the gutter, and a crying shame that RJ posted these 'fitting up' allegations under his own name.

                The hypocrisy is stunning, when I think of the blatant, public and deliberate fitting up of Mike Barrett. Orsam had to have him attending an auction on 31st March 1992, and no other day, or he knew the Barrett hoax would fall apart like a cheap suit. Mike himself felt 'sure' he got the photo album from O&L in January 1990, but that didn't work with the red diary being ordered to accommodate Maybrick's memoirs, so the auction date had to be moved forward 2 years so Anne could still be accused of forging the diary over 11 days in early April 1992, using the photo album. I don't see a single word of criticism aimed Orsam's way for his shameless fitting up of Mike and the evidence to fit the desired conclusion. But then it is RJ's desired conclusion too, so it would be like criticising himself. We now know that Mike only ordered the tiny 1891 diary - useless for forgery purposes - when he knew it was a tiny 1891 diary. If he was that much of an idiot, that he didn't know that Maybrick's forged memoirs from 1888-9 would require something completely different, then I am forced to conclude he really couldn't have forged a sick note:

                Saturday
                Dear Teacher,
                Michael cant come to skool on Monday as he is going to have a tummy ake.
                Yours truly
                My Mum
                XXX

                Finally, what explanation would RJ give for Melvin Harris not releasing Mike's January 1995 affidavit, along with all the Barrett & Gray tapes, as soon as he had the opportunity, if the latter contained supporting evidence for the former? Tony Devereux and Billy Graham were both deceased by then, so if there was a potential libel issue it would have been purely a matter between Mike and Anne, who had divorced him in the December. Mike signed the affidavit, and there is no suggestion that he couldn't read or understand what Gray had typed up for him. So what was there to fear from producing this evidence and killing off the diary back in 1995?

                I know what my explanation might be, but is there enough wine in the world to induce me to tell?

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  And RJ was so emphatic about it too!
                  Nope. I was not being emphatic. The exact opposite. I find the Battlecrease provenance so ridiculous that I simply didn’t bother to go back and check whether Eddy Lyons was at Dodd’s house in June or July, because it didn't really matter. I knew it was one or the other, which is why in my earlier post I simply wrote “later that summer.”

                  The point being that the documentation doesn't show him there on 9 March.

                  What my lapse demonstrates is that memories cannot be trusted. You have proved my point admirably, Caz, so thanks for that. I read Smith’s account and David Barrat’s response to it a year or two ago, and already couldn’t remember whether Eddy was there in June or July.

                  Yet we are supposed to trust --some twenty+ years after the fact—a vague memory of Eddy possibly being at Dodd’s house on 9 March 1992, when the contemporary documentation shows that it was actually later that summer?

                  Good luck with that.


                  Comment


                  • As for Post #5347, you’re being increasingly ridiculous, Caz.

                    All I did was to pose two questions in order to hear your explanation. a) was Billy lying; or b) was he UNINTENTIONALLY being fed leading questions?

                    It had to be one or the other. It was simply an exercise in logic. And note my use of the word “unintentionally,” which I specifically used in order NOT to challenge the interviewer’s integrity or to claim that the interviewer had deliberately mislead the public.

                    Thus, your outrage is both misplaced and disingenuous.

                    But I guess when your arguments are falling flat, you have to play the “outrage” card.

                    Moving on, you now accept that Billy Graham lied to Feldman and Skinner, and they evidently accepted this lie, at least for a decade or so. What you didn’t quite answer is whether you now believe Anne coached her dying father to go along with this charade, and if so, why? It seems a rather ‘low’ and desperate move, does it not? To involve an ailing old man? (This was your own argument, if you recall). Or, if it was not Anne, why would Billy have done this on his own?

                    In other words, are we really supposed to believe it was in order to protect Anne’s estranged husband Bongo, who, by your own account, violent abused her? Why not just say “the sorry bastard got it from a man in a pub and paid $25 for it? I had nothing to do with it! I am tired of his lies!” By your own account, Anne was not accepting royalty checks at this point, and was filing for divorce. And Billy never got a dime! So why would they have been motivated to protect Barrett?

                    It’s a hard sell, Caz. I don’t envy your position. You evidently wish us to believe that Anne and Billy both lied in order to protect the man who had thrown a wrench into their lives and had proved an embarrassment and a potential legal liability.

                    No; I don’t find it the least bit plausible. If Billy lied,he lied to protect his daughter, not to protect Barrett. And Anne lied to protect herself.

                    Why would that be? Why would Anne need protecting?

                    But don’t bother to answer. As long as you’re going to be playing these games, I have no intention of discussing the matter further.

                    As for Fido, Evans, etc. from what I’ve read, none of them thought the Diary was anything other than a simplistic fake, and you never convinced them otherwise.

                    Anyway, I tend to agree with David B. that these forays into psychology are really neither here, nor there. The circumstantial evidence is what buries the Barretts; I don't really give a toss what they said or did on any given day.

                    Why don't you and Ike and the crickets talk it over? I’ll check back in come August.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      Nope. I was not being emphatic. The exact opposite. I find the Battlecrease provenance so ridiculous that I simply didn’t bother to go back and check whether Eddy Lyons was at Dodd’s house in June or July, because it didn't really matter. I knew it was one or the other, which is why in my earlier post I simply wrote “later that summer.”

                      The point being that the documentation doesn't show him there on 9 March.

                      What my lapse demonstrates is that memories cannot be trusted. You have proved my point admirably, Caz, so thanks for that. I read Smith’s account and David Barrat’s response to it a year or two ago, and already couldn’t remember whether Eddy was there in June or July.

                      Yet we are supposed to trust --some twenty+ years after the fact—a vague memory of Eddy possibly being at Dodd’s house on 9 March 1992, when the contemporary documentation shows that it was actually later that summer?

                      Good luck with that.

                      You couldn't be more wrong, RJ. But carry on imagining that you have proved some kind of point.

                      Good luck with that.

                      Love,

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


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        Nope. I was not being emphatic. The exact opposite. I find the Battlecrease provenance so ridiculous that I simply didn’t bother to go back and check whether Eddy Lyons was at Dodd’s house in June or July, because it didn't really matter. I knew it was one or the other, which is why in my earlier post I simply wrote “later that summer.”

                        The point being that the documentation doesn't show him there on 9 March.

                        What my lapse demonstrates is that memories cannot be trusted. You have proved my point admirably, Caz, so thanks for that. I read Smith’s account and David Barrat’s response to it a year or two ago, and already couldn’t remember whether Eddy was there in June or July.

                        Yet we are supposed to trust --some twenty+ years after the fact—a vague memory of Eddy possibly being at Dodd’s house on 9 March 1992, when the contemporary documentation shows that it was actually later that summer?

                        Good luck with that.

                        Now, RJ, you are almost right - but it is not good 'luck' we are addressing here but amazing 'chance'. The fact that someone connected to the crew who worked under the floorboards of Battlecrease House for the first time in over a hundred years happened to drink in the same pub as the bloke who - the SAME AFTERNOON - attempted to gain an agent's interest in the diary of Jack the Ripper (who lived in Battlecrease House, apparently!) is not amenable to mere chance alone. Any good statistician will tell you that the two events must be inextricably linked.

                        I totally understand your concerns about this as it completely ruins your position that Mike Barrett - for the one and only time in his life - wrote this brilliant piece of work, so obviously you and Lord Orsam are compelled to understate it as best you can. Orsam's grasp of statistics is so bad that I can well understand why he clings to his beliefs. Is your grasp of stats so bad too or are you just unseeing what needs to be unseen?

                        As I say, I totally get why it's so key that this link should not be understood for what it is. Thankfully, the world has got me to stop you and Orsam doing so.

                        Cheers,

                        Ike
                        Iconoclast

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                          [FONT=Georgia]
                          Moving on, you now accept that Billy Graham lied to Feldman and Skinner, and they evidently accepted this lie, at least for a decade or so. What you didn’t quite answer is whether you now believe Anne coached her dying father to go along with this charade, and if so, why? It seems a rather ‘low’ and desperate move, does it not? To involve an ailing old man? (This was your own argument, if you recall). Or, if it was not Anne, why would Billy have done this on his own?

                          In other words, are we really supposed to believe it was in order to protect Anne’s estranged husband Bongo, who, by your own account, violent abused her? Why not just say “the sorry bastard got it from a man in a pub and paid $25 for it? I had nothing to do with it! I am tired of his lies!” By your own account, Anne was not accepting royalty checks at this point, and was filing for divorce. And Billy never got a dime! So why would they have been motivated to protect Barrett?

                          It’s a hard sell, Caz. I don’t envy your position. You evidently wish us to believe that Anne and Billy both lied in order to protect the man who had thrown a wrench into their lives and had proved an embarrassment and a potential legal liability.

                          No; I don’t find it the least bit plausible. If Billy lied,he lied to protect his daughter, not to protect Barrett. And Anne lied to protect herself.

                          Why would that be? Why would Anne need protecting?
                          Anne Graham lied because she genuinely believed that Barrett had received the scrapbook from Tony D and she wanted to take away Mike's control of the narrative by claiming she had given it to Tony herself. This served two purposes - excluding Mike from the story that he was drunkenly destroying and giving Feldman his film deal (which she believed he deserved because she believed Tony D had given Mike the scrapbook and that it was authentic).

                          She then had to enlist her old dad Billy into the lie. It was a white lie in her eyes, no biggee. Billy went along with it for similar reasons.

                          Now, the obvious question is why on earth are you appearing to defend Anne's version of events??? If they were true, your little Bongo-Did-It version definitely flies out the window, does it not?

                          Cheers,

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • I think we can start to finally piece together what actually happened here:
                            • Mar 9, 1992: Eddie Lyons tells Mike Barrett of a Jack the Ripper diary he has in his possession (he may or may not have it in his possession on that day, note)
                            • Mike goes home, makes some light enquiries, and ends up speaking to Doreen Montgomery who is interested in Mike Williams' story (Mike knows there is a strong possibility that something is not entirely legal about this so he uses the surname of the guy who lived in his house before him)
                            • Mike then procures the scrapbook from Eddie Lyons - perhaps for a fee, perhaps for a cut of profits, perhaps for both
                            • Mike has to explain his new acquisition to Anne so he tells her that Tony D gave it to him the previous year as a Thank You for Barrett's occasional help (Tony has sadly passed away at this point so he can't ever deny it, obviously)
                            • Mike then gets the book published
                            • Anne suspects not everything is entirely right - at one point asking Barrett in front of witnesses "Did you nick it, Mike?"
                            • Once published, it has the potential to be a worldwide sensation but the Barretts break up and Mike breaks down
                            • Mike - for any number of not entirely logical reasons - announces (not 'confesses' - that would have required some evidence, none of which he ever provided) that he had created the tale in the scrapbook
                            • Despite Mike's inability to tell the same tale even for the length of a single sentence sometimes, certain motivated individuals jump on his claims, arguing that they were right all along and here was the proof (there wasn't, of course, any proof, only a determination to marginalise the scrapbook)
                            • The claims start to impact on the sales of the book and the mooted sale of film rights
                            • Anne Graham (nee Barrett) has become close (emotionally, not physically) to Paul Feldman and either she suggests, or he suggests, or they both suggest that they need to take control of the narrative away from Barrett and as conclusively as possible, so Anne announces that the scrapbook came from her, via Tony
                            • Anne needs to corroborate the story so she asks her elderly father Billy for a favour - the scrapbook is almost-certainly stolen property and Barrett has therefore put her in huge legal danger, so could he just agree that the scrapbook was in the family for at least half a century?
                            • Billy - worried that his idiot son-in-law has put his beloved daughter and granddaughter in huge danger - agrees to support the new version of the provenance
                            • Neither Anne, nor Billy, nor Feldman know about the sirens blaring out of Battlecrease House on that crucial day - Mar 9, 1992 - so they do not realise their tale will not hold up to the enquiries of time
                            • Time passes, enquiries are made, the link with Eddie Lyons and the Battlecrease House crew is established, and Anne's cover story is blown
                            • Finally, we know where that Victorian scrapbook came from (Battlecrease House)
                            • Finally we know that either it is genuine or else - slightly surreal this one but I didn't suggest it - someone visited Battlecrease and managed to secrete the scrapbook somewhere where it would not be found too easily but neither with too much difficulty (they also managed to secrete Florence Maybrick's initials into a police photograph from 1888 - now that's what I call forgery)
                            • The story is complete
                            • Barrett is categorically out of the provenance
                            • The vast majority of us (who have no axe to grind) can say for certain that Jack the Ripper was James Maybrick
                            Ike
                            Last edited by Iconoclast; 06-24-2020, 07:54 AM.
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
                              I think we can start to finally piece together what actually happened here:
                              • Mar 9, 1992: Eddie Lyons tells Mike Barrett of a Jack the Ripper diary he has in his possession (he may or may not have it in his possession on that day, note)
                              • Mike goes home, makes some light enquiries, and ends up speaking to Doreen Montgomery who is interested in Mike Williams' story (Mike knows there is a strong possibility that something is not entirely legal about this so he uses the surname of the guy who lived in his house before him)
                              • Mike then procures the scrapbook from Eddie Lyons - perhaps for a fee, perhaps for a cut of profits, perhaps for both
                              • Mike has to explain his new acquisition to Anne so he tells her that Tony D gave it to him the previous year as a Thank You for Barrett's occasional help (Tony has sadly passed away at this point so he can't ever deny it, obviously)
                              • Mike then gets the book published
                              • Anne suspects not everything is entirely right - at one point asking Barrett in front of witnesses "Did you nick it, Mike?"
                              • Once published, it has the potential to be a worldwide sensation but the Barretts break up and Mike breaks down
                              • Mike - for any number of not entirely logical reasons - announces (not 'confesses' - that would have required some evidence, none of which he ever provided) that he had created the tale in the scrapbook
                              • Despite Mike's inability to tell the same tale even for the length of a single sentence sometimes, certain motivated individuals jump on his claims, arguing that they were right all along and here was the proof (there wasn't, of course, any proof, only a determination to marginalise the scrapbook)
                              • The claims start to impact on the sales of the book and the mooted sale of film rights
                              • Anne Graham (nee Barrett) has become close (emotionally, not physically) to Paul Feldman and either she suggests, or he suggests, or they both suggest that they need to take control of the narrative away from Barrett and as conclusively as possible, so Anne announces that the scrapbook came from her, via Tony
                              • Anne needs to corroborate the story so she asks her elderly father Billy for a favour - the scrapbook is almost-certainly stolen property and Barrett has therefore put her in huge legal danger, so could he just agree that the scrapbook was in the family for at least half a century?
                              • Billy - worried that his idiot son-in-law has put his beloved daughter and granddaughter in huge danger - agrees to support the new version of the provenance
                              • Neither Anne, nor Billy, nor Feldman know about the sirens blaring out of Battlecrease House on that crucial day - Mar 9, 1992 - so they do not realise their tale will not hold up to the enquiries of time
                              • Time passes, enquiries are made, the link with Eddie Lyons and the Battlecrease House crew is established, and Anne's cover story is blown
                              • Finally, we know where that Victorian scrapbook came from (Battlecrease House)
                              • Finally we know that either it is genuine or else - slightly surreal this one but I didn't suggest it - someone visited Battlecrease and managed to secrete the scrapbook somewhere where it would not be found too easily but neither with too much difficulty (they also managed to secrete Florence Maybrick's initials into a police photograph from 1888 - now that's what I call forgery)
                              • The story is complete
                              • Barrett is categorically out of the provenance
                              • The vast majority of us (who have no axe to grind) can say for certain that Jack the Ripper was James Maybrick
                              Ike
                              Lock up on the way out Ike...
                              Thems the Vagaries.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                Lock up on the way out Ike...
                                I will.

                                Rather carelessly, I banged my head on something when I switched the lights out. The things I have done for you lot over the years ...
                                Iconoclast

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X