One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

hi herlock
im sure you remember Lord David Orsam also proved it was a fake once and for all (again) with this tour de force of research and analysis:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/bunnysaunt.htm

Bunny's Aunt is an absolute non-starter, Abby.

• Florence may well had told James that she was going to London to see her godmother and he subsequently misremembered it as a visit to see her aunt (a misunderstanding which had been cleared-up by the time of Dr. Hopper’s visit on April 1) – after all, from Maybrick’s perspective the key information he was recording was the fact that Florence was going to London not her stated reason for doing so.
• Florence was also going to meet with the aunt of her childhood friend John Baillie Knight when she was in London. It is perfectly plausible to imagine Maybrick confusing the two women when writing in his scrapbook in early March 1889.
• On April 1, Florence may have been first to mention to Dr. Hopper that her visit was to see her godmother and James – momentarily surprised to hear it – may have simply concurred, perhaps with no more than a bemused nod of the head (and the thought in it of ‘I could have sworn she’d said she was off to see her aunt’) which Dr, Hopper then recorded as both Maybricks confirming that Florence had been to visit her godmother.

In the real-world scheme of things, this one isn't worth discussing any further.

Stick to 'one off instance'.

Ike

[erobitha]

So, yes and no. Yes, 'one off instance' is an interesting entry in the scrapbook. And no, it is not the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary he claims it to be. If it was, we'd all be dejectedly ripping up our betting slips, looking forlornly around for signs of another race, and being patted on the back and consoled by erobitha.

Ike

“If I lose today, I can look forward to winning tomorrow, and if win today, I can expect to lose tomorrow. A sure thing is no fun.”
- Chico Marx

[rjpalmer]

I think you may be confusing KEITH with SHIRLEY. Granted the names do have three letters in common, but it was SHIRLEY who had checked with O&L in 1995, not KEITH, and SHIRLEY who checked a second time in 1997, using Mike's sworn affidavit as her guide this time. They were no more joined at the diary investigating hip during that period than Alan Gray and Melvin Harris were. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but at the time SHIRLEY checked again with O&L, she would have seen no 'bloody point' in asking about auctions held as late as March 1992, just before both the curator of 19th century manuscripts at the British Museum, and Brian Lake of Jarndyce antiquarian books, had given the diary their tentative thumbs-up. Would she have been armed by January 1997 with enough details about the red diary purchase to know that Mike had lied in his sworn statement, or at the very least been badly mistaken, about when it was obtained?

Hi Caz.

I am not confusing Keith with Shirley. I am just saying that due to a misunderstanding or a lack of communication or a misreading of Mike's sworn affidavit, the wrong dates were checked, and thus Mike's story of visiting Outhwaite & Litherland has not been disproven, because it was never checked properly.

To have properly investigated Mike's claims, one would have needed to investigate BOTH the red diary AND O & L's books, but this apparently never happened; instead, Keith was checking out one end of the equation, and Shirley the other, but never the twain did meet.

Keith's own notes (uploaded to this site) show that he and Shirley jointly quested Mike on Wednesday 19 January 1995--less than two weeks after Mike's signed affidavit of January 5th.

Whether they had a physical copy of Mike's affidavit I cannot say, but it is clear that they questioned Mike about his allegations because Mike's trip to Outwaite & Litherland was mentioned in the notes.

Wednesday 18^th January 1995
Extracts from a recorded conversation between MB and KS, SH, Sally Evemy and an independent witness:
MB admits making false statement to Brough to "get back at Anne" for not speaking to him or letting him see Caroline from January to May 1994.
Says he knows diary is genuine.
Says he made up stuff about forging diary and watch just to "kick up the ****".
He is bitter about his efforts to work out diary author’s identity "night in, night out", hour after hour, while Anne was upstairs.
MB confirms the "bloody great big blazing argument" with Anne over getting diary published, not understanding why she was so against it if it was genuine, as he believed it to be, after all his efforts night after night.
MB bemoans his debts etc. SH asks what happened to all his diary money. He says he "pissed it up against the wall" because Anne wasn't with him.
MB says he wants to prove diary a forgery to "get back at Anne", but is frustrated that he can't do so. Again expresses anger towards PF for various threats, phone-calls and pressure.
KS asks MB about Alan Gray. Says he found him through Yellow Pages, wanting a private detective to find Anne. Says Gray got caught up in diary story. MB gave Gray list of ripperologists, including Melvin Harris.
MB says he made up story about Outhwaite & Litherland while drunk, but is still prepared to "kick up the ****" and swear diary is forgery until he can see Anne.
Sees it as his only way to achieve this.
Talks about his kidney problems, low self-esteem, role-reversal with Anne working, all pre-diary.

* * * *

I accept your statement that 'K' & 'SH' were not "joined at the hip," but they were, to some extent trading information (Keith refers to an "ansafone message left by SH re 'O Costly…' etc., during the same general era.

I am not interested in the "blame game." There was a lot of confusion, and I am just interested in the facts, so let's stick to the point.

Whatever the case, and for whatever reason, Keith later obtained from Anne Graham the receipt for the red diary and a check stub showing its purchase date. Maybe it was because Anne Graham waited and paid for this red diary two months after it had been received (if by design, we cannot say)that the whole episode was disregarded as irrelevant. Or maybe Keith simply didn't pass on this information to Shirley before she rechecked Outhwaite & Litherland's records in January 1997.

But, either way, the connection was not made, and the logical set of dates were not checked.

Isn't that the truth of the matter? Why are you even disputing this?

No, I cannot prove that Barrett's account of visiting O & L is true, but I can point out that it has not been 'debunked,' because the logical set of dates were never checked, and the records have since been pulped.

I think that qualifies as a lost opportunity, but whatever. It's too late now.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike!

Please don't do a statistical analysis for us, RJ. If you do, don't make your population of possible events really really small so that the probability of the first one occurring by chance alone is really really high and then publish this as some sort of meaningful insight as it would make you look really really silly.

The boring answer first. Granted, this will bitterly disappoint.

As a rule, coincidences only seem remarkable because we have incomplete information. Our perspective is limited, so we are stunned by two events that seemingly coincide in a significant way.

And, in this instance, our perspective is limited.

To begin with, we don’t know how frequently Dodd had workmen renovating his house. You will scoff at this, but if, for the sake of argument, workmen were at Dodd’s house every day of the week, there would be no ‘coincidence.’ Whatever date Mike first contacted a literary agent, it would have coincided with work being done on Dodd’s house. Further, as the diary doesn’t say anything about hiding the Diary at Battlecrease, let alone under the floorboards (in fact, the diary’s last entry seems to point towards the Knowsley Buildings), there are many different ‘events’ that would have qualified as being a “coincidence.” Had Maybrick’s old business been torn down on March 9th you would have grabbed hold of this irrelevancy with both fists, and don’t pretend you wouldn’t have.

Further, we also don’t know if March 9th was the first date Mike called a literary agent. This is Keith Skinner’s assumption, based on limited information---the testimony of the literary agent who eventually agreed to meet with Mike, Doreen Montgomery. But we don’t really know if Mike hadn’t been calling literary agents for weeks.

Thus, from our perspective of dual ignorance, there is a ‘coincidence.’ Given more data, this coincidence may well evaporate.

Now for the less boring answer.

Let’s say the ‘double event’ of 9 March 1992 really happened. Fine. I still don’t accept this as proof that the Diary is either genuine or an old hoax, nor that Barrett wasn’t involved.

In theory, Eddie’s presence at Battlecrease on that fateful day (while still unproven) could have an oblique explanation that is perfectly compatible with Barrett having creating the diary after March 9, 1992.

Thus, the Battlecrease provenance is irrelevant, and we can’t dismiss evidence of a recent hoax based on the March 9th “double event.”

Indeed, I’ve even thought of a scenario, which I will outline in Post #2.

[rjpalmer]

Post #2.

If Barrett had already known Eddie in Feb 1992 as Caz speculates (they both drank at The Saddle) it is within the realm of possibility that Mike had learned from Eddy that some electrical work was slated to happen at Dodd’s house in the still undetermined future. Eddie mentioned it to Mike, knowing he had an interest in the Maybrick case, as Mike talked of little else, other than Liverpool football.

This naturally lit a fire under Mike’s backside. He had been working on his Maybrick theory for two years--since the Centenary--but after the death of his friend Tony Devereux, the project had been set aside.

But Mike now realizes it is time for action.

His mind goes into overdrive. He realizes that he can somehow use the Battlecrease renovations to his advantage. He convinces Eddie to finagle his way onto the job at all costs—off the books if necessary—and Eddie will pretend to ‘discover’ the diary at Battlecrease. Mike will take care of the rest. Eddie will receive fifty quid and a 5% share of the profits.

When the fateful day arrives, Mike and Eddie realize the plan is hopelessly flawed, and it quickly starts to unravel. Mike still hasn’t created the physical diary, and they realize Dodd will raise hell and demand a cut (which some claim DID, in fact, happen). Further, Eddie realizes he is risking his skin and his reputation. He gets cold feet and shows up at The Saddle on March 9th and tells Barrett the deal is off, but by now he has already planted the seed with his coworkers that something had been found under Dodd’s floorboards. This rumor will eventually spread.

Further, Eddie is still willing to ‘play ball’—the work at Dodd’s house is on-going—but he now wants 20% of the profits. Mike blows his stack and a few days later runs over to Eddie’s house, pounding on the door. They argue and Eddie backs down. Mike will come up with a new and different provenance—the Devereux one. Eddie, in the future, will now deny the whole Battlecrease fiasco and keep his mouth shut. He is promised a small payment for doing so. They meet with Smith to put this provenance tale to bed, and Dodd fades into the background.

The rest is history. There is no ‘coincidence.’

When Barrett’s royalty checks start rolling in, the money quickly evaporates. And little wonder. He’s paying off not one, but two leeches.

I’m not saying ANY OF THIS happened, or there is a whisp of evidence that it happened, but my explanation is no more outlandish than the story we’re being fed by the believers, and it fits the same ‘facts.’

Thus, I ignore the Battlecrease provenance.

In and of itself, it does not allow me to forget all the evidence that points to a modern fake. Though this is what you and Caz and others evidently want me to believe.

And, of course, there are also the flaws and internal contradictions of the Battlecrease provenance as pointed out by 'Lord Orsam.'

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike!

The boring answer first. Granted, this will bitterly disappoint.

As a rule, coincidences only seem remarkable because we have incomplete information. Our perspective is limited, so we are stunned by two events that seemingly coincide in a significant way.

What information is missing which would otherwise have explained away the staggering coinciding of these two events (the work being done on March 9, 1992 and Barrett contacting Rupert Crew)?

And, in this instance, our perspective is limited.

To begin with, we don’t know how frequently Dodd had workmen renovating his house. You will scoff at this, but if, for the sake of argument, workmen were at Dodd’s house every day of the week, there would be no ‘coincidence.’ Whatever date Mike first contacted a literary agent, it would have coincided with work being done on Dodd’s house. Further, as the diary doesn’t say anything about hiding the Diary at Battlecrease, let alone under the floorboards (in fact, the diary’s last entry seems to point towards the Knowsley Buildings), there are many different ‘events’ that would have qualified as being a “coincidence.” Had Maybrick’s old business been torn down on March 9th you would have grabbed hold of this irrelevancy with both fists, and don’t pretend you wouldn’t have.

And you are right, if work had been done every day since Maybrick died, then the probability becomes 1 (it is a certainty that Mike Barrett would contact Rupert Crew on the same day that work was done on the floorboards in Maybrick's old room). In reality, we know of only one day when that happened prior to or coincidental with Mike contacting Rupert Crew, and it was THAT day.

Further, we also don’t know if March 9th was the first date Mike called a literary agent. This is Keith Skinner’s assumption, based on limited information---the testimony of the literary agent who eventually agreed to meet with Mike, Doreen Montgomery. But we don’t really know if Mike hadn’t been calling literary agents for weeks.

We can't reduce the improbability of an event by arguing that that event MIGHT have been more regular than we know about. We can simply say that the improbability would be reduced IF we knew that any of that was the case, which of course we don't. We can't just 'wish' away a statistic we don't like, RJ!

Thus, from our perspective of dual ignorance, there is a ‘coincidence.’ Given more data, this coincidence may well evaporate.

Yes, that's true. That's how wishful thinking would work (if it ever did).

Now for the less boring answer.

Let’s say the ‘double event’ of 9 March 1992 really happened. Fine. I still don’t accept this as proof that the Diary is either genuine or an old hoax, nor that Barrett wasn’t involved.

In theory, Eddie’s presence at Battlecrease on that fateful day (while still unproven) could have an oblique explanation that is perfectly compatible with Barrett having creating the diary after March 9, 1992.

Thus, the Battlecrease provenance is irrelevant, and we can’t dismiss evidence of a recent hoax based on the March 9th “double event.”

Indeed, I’ve even thought of a scenario, which I will outline in Post #2.

I just think you should steer clear of statistics unless you really understand them, RJ.

If Maybrick's old office had been demolished on March 9, 1992 after 35,000+ days when they could have been, and Mike Barrett claimed to have contacted Rupert Crew on that very day, then of course I'd link the two! Any statistician worth their salt would say, "That's almost certainly NOT a coincidence". For you to claim that that would be an irrelevancy tells me that you do not understand the scale of the improbabilities we are talking about here. And that's just the 'single event'! The 'double event' occurs when it turns out that there is a direct link (The Saddle pub) between a member of the Portus & Rhodes' team and Mike Barrett. That is also a staggering coincidence (do you know how big Merseyside is?).

I live in trepidation of the threatened Post #2, but bring it on nevertheless (he typed wearily and warily).

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Post #2.

If Barrett had already known Eddie in Feb 1992 as Caz speculates (they both drank at The Saddle) it is within the realm of possibility that Mike had learned from Eddy that some electrical work was slated to happen at Dodd’s house in the still undetermined future. Eddie mentioned it to Mike, knowing he had an interest in the Maybrick case, as Mike talked of little else, other than Liverpool football.

This naturally lit a fire under Mike’s backside. He had been working on his Maybrick theory for two years--since the Centenary--but after the death of his friend Tony Devereux, the project had been set aside.

But Mike now realizes it is time for action.

His mind goes into overdrive. He realizes that he can somehow use the Battlecrease renovations to his advantage. He convinces Eddie to finagle his way onto the job at all costs—off the books if necessary—and Eddie will pretend to ‘discover’ the diary at Battlecrease. Mike will take care of the rest. Eddie will receive fifty quid and a 5% share of the profits.

When the fateful day arrives, Mike and Eddie realize the plan is hopelessly flawed, and it quickly starts to unravel. Mike still hasn’t created the physical diary, and they realize Dodd will raise hell and demand a cut (which some claim DID, in fact, happen). Further, Eddie realizes he is risking his skin and his reputation. He gets cold feet and shows up at The Saddle on March 9th and tells Barrett the deal is off, but by now he has already planted the seed with his coworkers that something had been found under Dodd’s floorboards. This rumor will eventually spread.

Further, Eddie is still willing to ‘play ball’—the work at Dodd’s house is on-going—but he now wants 20% of the profits. Mike blows his stack and a few days later runs over to Eddie’s house, pounding on the door. They argue and Eddie backs down. Mike will come up with a new and different provenance—the Devereux one. Eddie, in the future, will now deny the whole Battlecrease fiasco and keep his mouth shut. He is promised a small payment for doing so. They meet with Smith to put this provenance tale to bed, and Dodd fades into the background.

The rest is history. There is no ‘coincidence.’

When Barrett’s royalty checks start rolling in, the money quickly evaporates. And little wonder. He’s paying off not one, but two leeches.

All of this is perfectly true. There's no evidence for it but it fits the known facts (as best I can recall them before my tea).

I’m not saying ANY OF THIS happened, or there is a whisp of evidence that it happened, but my explanation is no more outlandish than the story we’re being fed by the believers, and it fits the same ‘facts.’

Thus, I ignore the Battlecrease provenance.

In and of itself, it does not allow me to forget all the evidence that points to a modern fake. Though this is what you and Caz and others evidently want me to believe.

And, of course, there are also the flaws and internal contradictions of the Battlecrease provenance as pointed out by 'Lord Orsam.'

And all of this is not necessarily true, merely opinion. To ignore the Battlecrease provenance because you prefer a different version of events is reasonable if you have evidence that any of your scenario above occurred. If you don't, it's just more of that wishful thinking from your previous post.

If you want to argue that this is how things panned-out, I'm sure we could put some time aside to consider if it remains perfectly consistent with the evidence.

For now, though, I'm off for my tea.

Ike

[caz]

So what we know so far is that Caroline 'remembered' her dad pestering Tony (because, of course, she had been asked this - not did she remember her dad pestering someone, but did she remember her dad pestering Tony). Well, she's a kid and she's very excited to be in Mr. Feldman's posh Landarn car so she says "Yes", but she may simply mean "Yes, I remember my dad pestering someone on the 'phone".

So:

Premise 1: Young Caroline remembers her dad pestering someone on the 'phone prior to February 1993.
Premise 2: There is no evidence that Mike and Eddie knew each other before June 1993 - four months later!
Premise 3 (unwritten but implied): If there is no evidence for something, it could not possibly ever ever ever ever ever be true!
Conclusion: Therefore young Caroline could not have been remembering her dad pestering Eddie Lyons (or indeed anyone other than Tony D).

The irony here, Ike, is that RJ would swear to his dying day that young Caroline didn't actually remember her dad pestering anyone with questions about the diary, in 1991, 1992 or at any other time prior to February 1993, and must have imagined it, because her dad already knew precisely where it had come from and when.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

In reality, we know of only one day when that happened prior to or coincidental with Mike contacting Rupert Crew, and it was THAT day.

We 'only know' of one day, you write. That's my point. Our ignorance--yours more than mine--is profound. You know of one day; thus you are fascinated by that one day.

In reality, Dodd mentions other days when work was done on Battlecrease, including carpentry work. Further, Smith states that Portus and Rhodes were at Battlecrease for 14 days that year, and I suspect that any one of those dates would have titillated your grey cells. Nor does the work even needed to have been done at Battlecrease. If John Over's outhouse was taken down that same afternoon, you'd still be in hog heaven.

Just a friendly reminder: the diarist explicitly states that he didn't hide the diary, but placed it in a location where it would be found. The floorboards are entirely in your own imagination. The date of that entry (Maybrick's last day at the Knowsley office), coupled the previous ramblings about Lowry, suggest that Barrett meant to imply the Knowsley Buildings---and, quite significantly, Barrett was always trying to point Shirley and Feldman in that direction (including in his bogus "research notes") and lo, Feldman later discovered that Anne Graham's employer worked on the same site (but not in the original building). [note: WHAT A STRING OF COINCIDENCES!!!]

Nor do you know Crew was the first literary agent Barrett contacted, but you are still fascinated with this 'fact,' as of course you would be from your limited field of vision. But no one thought to contact Pan Books, and check the date Barrett contacted them, and we have an experienced and trusted journalist from Fleet Street telling us that Barrett had been trying to sell the diary for weeks. If true, then March 9th WAS a coincidence.

You fail to convince me, Ike.

. I just think you should steer clear of statistics unless you really understand them, RJ.

My understanding of statistics is adequate, but I'm not talking about statistics. There is not enough data to calculate the true odds, since there are any number of different reference points that you would consider a 'hit.' Including John Over's outhouse. Or the day Barrett first bought a copy of Writer's Yearbook.


Granting that Dodd had electricians in his house 14 times in 1992, and this is the one reference point that seemingly fascinates you, I believe Lord Orsam calculated this coincidence as 1 in 18.

But dude. You seem to be missing the point. I am willing to entertain the idea that Barrett's attempt to sell the diary and the work done on Dodd's house was NOT entirely coincidental. That one event inspired the other, in part, by lighting a fire under Barrett's backside.

Finally, you keep stating or otherwise implying that this was the first time Maybrick's floorboards were lifted. 35,000 + blah, blah. Though outside the limits of our discussion, let me remind you:

1. Dodd states otherwise. He states the boards had been previously lifted and even refers to the entire house being 'gutted' in the 1970s. No diary.

2. I remind you again. The diary does not mention floorboards. Unless you can show that Eddie or anyone else pulled the ledger out from under the floorboards on March 9th, this 'coincidence' is in your mind.

Sorry Ike.

[rjpalmer]

To ignore the Battlecrease provenance because you prefer a different version of events is reasonable if you have evidence that any of your scenario above occurred. If you don't, it's just more of that wishful thinking from your previous post.

Evidence? You're suddenly concerned with evidence, Ike? You seem to be forgetting the lack of evidence for the great Battlecrease heist. We are talking theory.

I suggest a hypothesis that does not ignore the Battlecrease provenance (such as it is, and it isn't much).

Even though I readily admit it is not likely to be true, the irony is that the evidence for it having happened is no worse than the evidence for the scenario offered by you and Caz.

In my hypothesis, Eddy brought an old book or maybe a biscuit tin to Battlecrease on March 9th and threw it in a skip, making sure someone saw it or at least heard about it. End of story. This was just to set the stage for Barrett's provenance, and, as time passed, the story of a mysterious book or tin took on all the attributes of urban folklore, until several electricians were describing different versions of it, and some even claiming they had been participants.

Meanwhile, Mike & Eddie belatedly realized the idea was flawed, and it was subsequently abandoned in favor of the 'dead guy in a pub.' March 9th is only a 'coincidence' in so far as the pending work on Dodd's house finally inspired Barrett to get his act together, when he learned about Dodd's upcoming project from his friend Eddy down the boozer.

Which reminds me, I have work to do.

[rjpalmer]

The irony here, Ike, is that RJ would swear to his dying day that young Caroline didn't actually remember her dad pestering anyone with questions about the diary, in 1991, 1992 or at any other time prior to February 1993, and must have imagined it, because her dad already knew precisely where it had come from and when.

Love,

Caz
X

No, not really, Caz.

Paul and Martin quizzed young Caroline about Mike 'pestering' Tony about the diary, and Caroline confirmed it. I have no reason to question Paul and Martin's skill as interviewers. Nor even Feldy's memory, which Paul and Martin had opportunity to correct.

You are the one who is implying that this discussion really referred to Eddie (someone who was still unknown to either Paul or Martin).

As far as I am concerned, either Barrett had been pestering Tony about something to do with the Diary, and Caroline remembered it, or Caroline had been coached.

The latter explanation, though possible, doesn't make much sense to me, so I suspect the former, particularly since Tony had Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool, making it entirely reasonable to assume that they had discussed the Maybrick case.

Isn't that what happens when one someone lends a book to a friend? They discuss it.

Enjoy your weekend.

[Iconoclast]

We 'only know' of one day, you write. That's my point. Our ignorance--yours more than mine--is profound. You know of one day; thus you are fascinated by that one day.

You aren't allowed to invoke mythical others days without evidence, RJ!

In reality, Dodd mentions other days when work was done on Battlecrease, including carpentry work.

And the looser analysis could include these (the probability would drop for each one, but that which remained would still be extremely high indeed).

The tighter analysis says the numerator can only be those days when work was known to be done on Maybrick's floorboards in his study, and that's one.

Further, Smith states that Portus and Rhodes were at Battlecrease for 14 days that year, and I suspect that any one of those dates would have titillated your grey cells. Nor does the work even needed to have been done at Battlecrease. If John Over's outhouse was taken down that same afternoon, you'd still be in hog heaven.

Jesus, man, the statistical analysis clearly has to stop the day the 'coincidence' occurs. You cannot include any other day post-March 9, 1992! By then, Mike Barrett had contacted Rupert Crew so the numerator is one (not 14 or any other number), and the denominator is a eye-popping 37,618. Here it is in graphical form starting on the day after Maybrick died and running all the way through to March 9, 1992. The Second World War is highlighted for context:



So Fate could have chosen any one of those 37,618 days for Maybrick's study floorboards to be raised (documented, on the record) and also any one of those 37,618 days for the Victorian scrapbook to reach the light of day. But what Fate actually did was to have those two days be the SAME day. Please ask a statistician whether this is likely to have happened by chance, and I guarantee they will tell you that that is almost certainly NOT the case. Odds of 1/37618 are loser's odds.

Let's not discuss that any further. That's the statistics, and no amount of dancing around the edges of numbers will change that (unless we find other examples of either event).

Just a friendly reminder: the diarist explicitly states that he didn't hide the diary, but placed it in a location where it would be found.

Just a friendly reminder, this is utter bollocks. The diarist writes 'I place this now in a place where it shall be found I pray whoever should read this will find it in their heart to forgive me'. Now, we know that this was written ahead of any act as he couldn't have hidden it first THEN wrote that line. Therefore, we do not know for certain what he decided to do with the document when he completed that final paragraph. He may have changed his mind immediately or later. What he wrote has no bearing on where the document ultimately ended-up.

The floorboards are entirely in your own imagination.

Not so. The 1/37,618 probability tells me that it was almost certain (1/37,618 is what statisticians would call 'almost certain') that the raising of the floorboards on March 9, 1992 was critical to the fact that Mike Barrett was able to make that call to Rupert Crew later in the day.

The date of that entry (Maybrick's last day at the Knowsley office), coupled the previous ramblings about Lowry, suggest that Barrett meant to imply the Knowsley Buildings---and, quite significantly, Barrett was always trying to point Shirley and Feldman in that direction (including in his bogus "research notes") and lo, Feldman later discovered that Anne Graham's employer worked on the same site (but not in the original building). [note: WHAT A STRING OF COINCIDENCES!!!]

Could you write that paragraph again with the string of coincidences articulated more clearly, please, as I can only see the one (and it may be a coincidence but hardly a telling one if it wasn't actually the same building)?

Nor do you know Crew was the first literary agent Barrett contacted, but you are still fascinated with this 'fact,' as of course you would be from your limited field of vision.

Stop it, RJ, you're making a fool of yourself.

But no one thought to contact Pan Books, and check the date Barrett contacted them

So that sounds to me like you're implying something for which there is no evidence whatsoever?

and we have an experienced and trusted journalist from Fleet Street telling us that Barrett had been trying to sell the diary for weeks. If true, then March 9th WAS a coincidence.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where on earth did you get that little gem from????? Have you just made that up?

You fail to convince me, Ike.

Of course I don't, RJ. Only the most hardened of gamblers would stick a pony on those odds.

My understanding of statistics is adequate.

No it most certainly is not.

but I'm not talking about statistics.

Well, it's good to see we can agree on something at long last.

There is not enough data to calculate the true odds, since there are any number of different reference points that you would consider a 'hit.' Including John Over's outhouse. Or the day Barrett first bought a copy of Writer's Yearbook.

Roger, your Irrelevant quota has been used up for this month, and you have 30 days until your allowance is refreshed.

Granting that Dodd had electricians in his house 14 times in 1992, and this is the one reference point that seemingly fascinates you, I believe Lord Orsam calculated this coincidence as 1 in 18.

Honestly, RJ, that piece of analysis is literally the world's worst ever example of statistics. It's actually also one of the world's best ever examples of how to abuse statistics. (If you're wondering, and IIRC, his 1/18 chance came from the massively flawed premise that the denominator had to be derived only from days in 1992 excluding weekends and Bank Holidays or something, and that his numerator consisted of 13 days which were impossible to factor in because the 'coincidence' had already happened and - lo! - on the very first opportunity it had to do so!)

But dude. You seem to be missing the point. I am willing to entertain the idea that Barrett's attempt to sell the diary and the work done on Dodd's house was NOT entirely coincidental. That one event inspired the other, in part, by lighting a fire under Barrett's backside.

I get the feeling you now realise what clutching at straws is all about ...

Finally, you keep stating or otherwise implying that this was the first time Maybrick's floorboards were lifted. 35,000 + blah, blah. Though outside the limits of our discussion, let me remind you:

1. Dodd states otherwise. He states the boards had been previously lifted and even refers to the entire house being 'gutted' in the 1970s. No diary.

2. I remind you again. The diary does not mention floorboards. Unless you can show that Eddie or anyone else pulled the ledger out from under the floorboards on March 9th, this 'coincidence' is in your mind.

See above.

By the way, even if Maybrick's study floorboards had definitely been lifted, say, 14 times and one of them was March 9, 1992, then the odds are still an eye-watering 1/2,687. Would you gamble your life on such unattractive odds? No, of course not. But, before you do, remember that the odds are actually 1/37,618 until we know excatly how many times the floorboards in Maybrick's study were actually lifted after May 12, 1889 and on or before March 9, 1992.

Sorry Ike.

On the contrary - sorry RJ.

[Iconoclast]

No, not really, Caz.

Paul and Martin quizzed young Caroline about Mike 'pestering' Tony about the diary, and Caroline confirmed it. I have no reason to question Paul and Martin's skill as interviewers. Nor even Feldy's memory, which Paul and Martin had opportunity to correct.

You are the one who is implying that this discussion really referred to Eddie (someone who was still unknown to either Paul or Martin).

As far as I am concerned, either Barrett had been pestering Tony about something to do with the Diary, and Caroline remembered it, or Caroline had been coached.

The latter explanation, though possible, doesn't make much sense to me, so I suspect the former, particularly since Tony had Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool, making it entirely reasonable to assume that they had discussed the Maybrick case.

Isn't that what happens when one someone lends a book to a friend? They discuss it.

Enjoy your weekend.

Honestly RJ, you're not having your best day, mate. There is so much speculation in that post I hardly know where to start.

So I won't.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

It looks like my memory might be ‘playing me false’ then. I could only recall him mentioning ‘one off’ being used in prisons but with no further detail. At the time I’d just read a book on the prison system and I thought I’d indulge in a bit of in depth research so I asked a bloke in the pub There was an oldish bloke in my local who’d been ‘detained’ around half a dozen times since the late 70’s purely because of his obsession for collecting (lead and copper piping mainly) A bit of a character who sadly died a couple of weeks ago. He told me that ‘one off’ was a well known and long-standing phrase in prisons but that it was to do with roll calls. Understandably prisons have to do roll calls at various times during the day to ensure that no one has ‘popped out’ so each area within the prison has to be certain of how many prisoners are there. If a prisoner has to be moved from one area to another (say for a dental appointment) the officer escorting him will say to the person in charge of the area “one off Mr ……..” Meaning “you need to take this prisoner off your roll and he’ll be added to the dentists roll.”

Cheers Herlock. Nice post.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No, not really, Caz.

Paul and Martin quizzed young Caroline about Mike 'pestering' Tony about the diary, and Caroline confirmed it. I have no reason to question Paul and Martin's skill as interviewers. Nor even Feldy's memory, which Paul and Martin had opportunity to correct.

You are the one who is implying that this discussion really referred to Eddie (someone who was still unknown to either Paul or Martin).

As far as I am concerned, either Barrett had been pestering Tony about something to do with the Diary, and Caroline remembered it, or Caroline had been coached.

The latter explanation, though possible, doesn't make much sense to me, so I suspect the former, particularly since Tony had Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool, making it entirely reasonable to assume that they had discussed the Maybrick case.

Isn't that what happens when one someone lends a book to a friend? They discuss it.

Enjoy your weekend.

I've yet to read some previous posts, but saw this one and wanted to make a quick point.

Caroline was a child. She was being asked about the diary. Not JtR, not the Maybrick case, not Tales of Liverpool, not her dad's word processor or her mum's favourite perfume. The diary - you remember - the old book, which Caroline remembered her dad bringing home, and which caused the row between her parents, which no child of that age was likely to forget in a hurry.

Your belief is that Mike arrived home on 31st March 1992 with an album of WWI photos, which had to be removed so Anne could get to work right away on transferring the Maybrick text into it, in time for it to be seen in London on 13th April. Mike later claimed that Caroline witnessed this going on, but let's ignore the fact that he dated it back to 1990 and also claimed that the whole process, from inspiration and raw materials to completion, was done and dusted before Tony died.

My belief is that Caroline remembered her dad arriving home with the old book with writing in it, which he called Jack the Ripper's diary from day one. He was immediately pre-occupied with what he had and where it could have come from, asking questions of some bloke from the pub and getting no answers. The arrival, the questions and the row were all about this 'old book' that had just come into her dad's life and taken it over. A year later, she remembered the events of those days, which had led up to her Easter holidays from school, when her dad went off on the train to London with his diary.

If you want to believe that Caroline was remembering her dad discussing aspects of a theoretical diary, with someone who had died in August 1991, many months before it took on the physical form that she was actually being asked about, I won't be a bit surprised - nor even disappointed. It's all a bit late for that.