Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Hi Caroline,

    I hope the families of Gerard Kane or Tony Devereaux didn't burn any diary.
    I don't think you need worry on that score, Scotty.

    The evidence overwhelmingly points against either Kane or Devereux having had anything to do with it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hi Caz -

    This might surprise you, but I don't think there is anything that even remotely rises to the level of 'evidence' against Tony Devereux. He really has 'no case to answer.'

    Even if Barrett was wildly plotting to create the Maybrick Diary in 1991, the fact that he left a 'Maybrick' book with Devereux is not evidence that Devereux had the faintest idea what Mike was up to, or even gave a rat's arse about the Maybrick case. Mike may have just been the annoying fellow from the pub who came over and pestered him about his latest pet obsession. It tends to show that Maybrick was already on Mike's radar, but it doesn't implicate Tony.

    One might even argue that Devereux's willingness to lend Mike's book to his daughter, and admit where he got it, mitigates against his involvement. Would he have so doled out the book and have been so free with information if he had been plotting some nefarious scheme with Bongo?

    I just find it odd that Barrett, once he was in confession mode in 1994, would include Devereux in the mix. Why bother? Why split on a mate? What would be the point of it, unless he was simply telling the truth? It really adds nothing useful to Mike's confession.

    RP




    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Hi Caroline,

    I hope the families of Gerard Kane or Tony Devereaux didn't burn any diary.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Another thought just occurred to me. If Mike and Tony were discussing their plans to create this hoax, right up until Tony's unexpected death [while the Barretts were away on holiday], how would either Anne or Mike have been confident that Tony had not left any really incriminating evidence of their involvement lying around, which would be recognised as such, as soon as they went public with the diary and foolishly brought his name into it?

    Before RJ says it, I suppose it might explain why Anne wanted to burn the diary, if Mike brought Tony's name into it before she could caution him against it.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Hi erobitha, Al,

    If the diary had been discussed between Mike and Tony [presumably without Anne], I wonder what they would have said about it. According to David Barrat's theory there was no physical diary to discuss before Tony died, in August 1991, and IIRC it was eventually established that his daughter had borrowed Tales of Liverpool back in the January, and he had asked her to return it "at the weekend" because it was Bongo's. Clearly that didn't happen, so it was presumably forgotten about after that, by all concerned, until Tony's daughter, 'without being prompted' according to RJ, remembered she still had this little book and mentioned it to the police in connection with their enquiries into the diary's origins. I wonder if she'd have done so if she'd had any idea that Mike would go on to name her Dad as a co-conspirator in a Barrett hoax.

    We have to consider the likelihood that Tony, along with Mike and Anne, had been secretly planning to create this hoax since before January 1990, as Mike claimed in his sworn affidavit. How long would they have known Tony by then, to develop the relationship and gain the trust needed in order to commit this fraud together? When would they have got round to discussing the rather crucial matter of where the diary came from and how long they'd had it before deciding to go public with it? They had a long time to think about it, between January 1990 and August 1991, when Tony suddenly and unexpectedly died, leaving his co-conspirators with a convenient, if far from ideal explanation, plus his share of the profits. Did it really not occur to someone as practical as Anne, at any time between January 1990 and April 1992, to suggest the far superior explanation that it had been in the family for decades, and they had finally decided to interest a publisher, who could fund research into its true origins? All that planning and preparation over the course of more than two years, and then Mike goes and leaves an eleventh hour paper trail with the red diary, before finally buying the photo album, just a few days before he takes it, with the newly penned diary, to his meeting in London on 13th April 1992. Apparently, neither he nor Anne is remotely bothered that if the woeful 'dead pal' story isn't rejected, and the handwriting doesn't give them away - not to mention RJ's 'still damp' ink - then somebody at O&L, or whoever put the album up for sale, could be their downfall at a future date.

    And we have to consider all this, without even blinking at the coincidence of Mike choosing 9th March 1992, out of all the days he could have chosen, to approach a London literary agency about a diary supposedly written by a man who slept in the room where floorboards had been lifted that very morning, and one of the electricians present just happened to drink in the same pub as Mike, and just happened to live on the same road as Tony Devereux.

    I suspect it was Mike's 'brainwave' to use Tony, because he couldn't be questioned, but also the parallels with Eddie Lyons would have made it easier to stick to his story. I can't imagine Anne being too happy about Mike using his dead 'friend', regardless of what she knew about it, but the question was bound to be asked. Did Mike blurt out Tony's name to Doreen and co before Anne could have a say in the matter?

    But what if, despite everything, RJ's suspicions are correct, and Tony really had been involved with the Barretts in fraud up until August 1991, and that's why he had Mike's Tales of Liverpool in his house? Would Anne have thought it anything but insane to use Tony as the provenance in that case, when he had three daughters who would obviously want to know what the hell was going on?

    Mike's more rational self always said it was Tales of Liverpool which had led to him to the identity of the diary author. Even RJ would agree that it wasn't the other way round, with the book leading to Maybrick being chosen as a likely Jack the Ripper. Mike also maintained that he didn't begin researching the diary until after Tony's death, and began with the ripper content, before moving on to the Liverpool connection and finding Maybrick in Tales of Liverpool. Clearly that doesn't work if the only copy he ever had in his hands was by then with Tony's daughter. But the evidence suggests this copy was entirely forgotten about - by Mike and Tony - after it left Tony's house. So was this one ever used in connection with a Barrett hoax, or did Mike simply see another copy in Smiths over a year later, and make the Maybrick connection in time to tell Doreen and co that he had identified Jack the Ripper?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 09-16-2020, 02:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    Tony Devereux died in Walton Hospital in August 1991. Doreen Montgomery was called on the 9th March 1992 - the same day work was being done and floorboards were being lifted at Battlecrease House - a convenience I am unlikely to forget.
    And who did Barratt ring before ringing Doreen Montgomery?

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Obviously, a hoaxer can conveniently use a recently deceased friend as his provenance, but how does he "salt the mine" ahead of time? Barrett and Graham could hardly have guessed that Tony would die suddenly several months before they brought the diary to London.

    Since both Barrett and Graham included Devereux in their tall tales, it is not a coincidence that I'm inclined to swallow and forget.
    Tony Devereux died in Walton Hospital in August 1991. Doreen Montgomery was called on the 9th March 1992 - the same day work was being done and floorboards were being lifted at Battlecrease House - a convenience I am unlikely to forget.
    Last edited by erobitha; 09-16-2020, 12:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied

    This doesn't clarify anything, since both the London address and the Liverpool address seem to be office buildings in the 1860s, but it looks like a fairly well-known local yokel named Edward Mangaud had an office at 46 Lime Street, Liverpool in 1866. He is variously described as a lawyer, an accountant, and an estate agent. He looks like an author as well.

    As for Mr. Devereux, be careful with the spelling. When one becomes a true anti-diarist, these things generally earn you a slap on the back of the head. ;-)

    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    And Deveraux (in) conveniently dead, although his daughters are adamant he's got nothing to do with it.
    But it's a bit more complicated than that, isn't it?

    One can readily imagine a couple of hoaxers coming up with the cliché provenance of: "a recently deceased gentleman gave it to us." Even the master forger Mark Hoffman used that standard gimmick on occasion.

    But we are also told that after the Anne Graham provenance emerged, one of the Devereux daughters began to soften her skepticism, and acknowledged that maybe Mike really did discuss the Diary her father back in the Summer of 1991.

    And little wonder. Without being prompted, she had earlier informed the police that her father had Mike's copy of Tales of Liverpool as early as July 1991, which was several months before Dodd had any work done on his house. There doesn't appear to be any reason she would lie about it, or have been mistaken. She was able to produce the book.

    And this is the same thin booklet that Barrett had mentioned to the diary's early researchers, as the one that led him to identify James Maybrick as the alleged diarist.

    I suppose I will be accused of not having an "open mind," because I am forgetting to forget this fun fact.

    Obviously, a hoaxer can conveniently use a recently deceased friend as his provenance, but how does he "salt the mine" ahead of time? Barrett and Graham could hardly have guessed that Tony would die suddenly several months before they brought the diary to London.

    Since both Barrett and Graham included Devereux in their tall tales, it is not a coincidence that I'm inclined to swallow and forget.



    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Interesting, Erobitha, but keep in mind that there is a famous Lime Street in Liverpool, so you will want to cross the t's and dot the i's.

    Oh dirty Maggie Mae they have taken her away
    And she never walk down Lime Street any more...


    I can remember Johnny Lennon singing it on the Let it Be album.

    Anyway, you may want to check that JM didn't keep addresses in both Liverpool and London in 1866.
    Point taken.

    Liverpool Lime Street is a train station as many of us will know. In the article for the Northampton Mercury in Feb 1866, no London addresses were explicitly listed as London. However, most addresses in areas that were not London were explicitly listed in their locality. The format of the article would suggest they were referring to London and not Liverpool (or Newcastle).
    Last edited by erobitha; 09-15-2020, 04:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    There's also one in Newcastle, which is where the wedding was, (well, Sunderland), but that James is noted as being from London without an address. Make of that as you will.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Interesting, Erobitha, but keep in mind that there is a famous Lime Street in Liverpool, so you will want to cross the t's and dot the i's.

    Oh dirty Maggie Mae they have taken her away
    And she never walk down Lime Street any more...


    I can remember Johnny Lennon singing it on the Let it Be album.

    Anyway, you may want to check that JM didn't keep addresses in both Liverpool and London in 1866.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    I believe I may have found James Maybrick living at 46 Lime Street, London EC3M 7AY in 1866.

    In Feb 1866 this address was listed as the address for "Maybrick, James" (minus the London and post code part) as being someone that NORTHAMPTON BANKING COMPANY as a "Person of whom the Company or Partnership consists" - so I'm guessing he was some kind of investor or client.

    In August that year James Maybrick was named as a guest at the Wedding of William Elliot & Sarah Taylor and lists that he is from London. Put 46 Lime Street, London together and you get the above address. If correct we know he was Living in London from at least 1858 - 1866.

    Guess where it is located? Just one mile from Whitechapel station to the east. In fact the Ten Bells is just a 15 minute walk.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1866 Feb.png
Views:	129
Size:	81.7 KB
ID:	741893

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1866 August.png
Views:	131
Size:	69.5 KB
ID:	741894

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Really good post, Al, showing a mind that's enquiring and still very much open - a world away from the minds that slammed shut many years ago, against any scenario that didn't involve Mike, Anne and probably Devereux in a joint hoax enterprise. This was just one of Mike's claims about the diary, made when he was a broken man, lashing out because he had found himself lost and alone, sans wife and child, and wished he'd never set eyes on the "evil" diary, which he saw as the cause of all his heartache.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Al,

    What makes you assume that Devereux or Kane, or any others for that matter, 'played' Barrett like a Bongo? Who would have gained anything from fooling him?

    If Mike hadn't needed someone just like Devereux, to explain how he had come into possession of Jack the Ripper's diary, would he ever have featured in the story? Would we ever have heard the name of Kane, whose only established connection was as a witness to Devereux's will?

    Devereux was conveniently unable to be questioned in 1992, on account of being dead, so might this not be the only reason we know anything about him at all? What would the story have been if Devereux was alive and kicking when Mike called Doreen on 9th March 1992?

    When we interviewed Mike in 2002, we ran the name of Gerard Kane past him and there was not the faintest glimmer of recognition. The name appeared to mean nothing to him. If Devereux and Kane had 'played' Bongo, it was stupid Bongo who went on to pocket all the diary money - at least until Doreen Montgomery insisted on Anne having a share for their daughter's sake when the marriage collapsed. He spent all his money as fast as it was paid into his bank account, and there is no evidence that Kane would have gained anything but a conviction for fraud, if he had done all the donkey work of copying out the diary into Bongo's scrapbook, only to let him loose with it to bring in the profits. What was in it for Kane, if he had no way of forcing Bongo to share the spoils?

    Regarding Eddie, the same thing applies. If he 'conned' stupid Bongo out of a measly £25 for the "old book", it was stupid Bongo who went on to make many thousands of pounds out of it. No wonder he moved to Southport, if he was worried about the good kicking he might get if he stayed put, raking in money that others thought they were due.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    I've never been to convinced of the Kane involvement, but his name crops up.

    And Deveraux (in) conveniently dead, although his daughters are adamant he's got nothing to do with it.

    I can go along with it all being an early 90's hoax, not masterminded by Barrett. It's a whole lot more likely than it being authentic. I just wonder about Mike bringing it to light. If it's modern, and he didn't fake it himself, you'd expect he'd be in cahoots to some extent. Otherwise it gets a bit odd, someone creates a hoax and unwittingly puts it in the hands of Merseyside's silver tongued cavalier. So it's back to Battlecrease. I can see the appeal, and there's got to be more than sheer coincidence about the 9th March. But modern hoax with Battlecrease? Don't know. It'd all be a whole lot clearer if the characters involved had a straight story, but hey, that's how it is.

    Deveraux's interesting, as you say, what would he say if he was alive when Mike called Doreen? Maybe, his being dead was the reason for his name getting brought in, either, he's an unquestionable provenance, or assuming he was behind the research, he can't blow the case/ take the plaudits / produce the article or something. But I don't know?

    ​​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Well, modern forgery maybe -- but based on an old hoax. Modern forgers? Maybe Devereux and Kane working together or separately. Problem is, there's no trace of an older document.
    And nothing to suggest that if any of this were true, Mike knew about it. He certainly said nothing of the sort in any of his hoax claims.

    Only Anne is left to tell the tale, and even she may only know when the diary first entered their lives.

    Only Anne - and possibly her daughter - could describe exactly what was going on in Goldie Street between 9th March and 13th April 1992.

    But would that tell us anything about its true origins?

    Who knew, back in 1992, who wrote it or when? And if there is nobody alive today who can tell us for certain, because they were directly involved, what are the chances that we'll ever find out?

    I'm sure RJ believes that Anne could tell us whose handwriting the diary is in, and he has the luxury of that belief because whether Anne talks or not in the future, he can interpret it as a "won't say" rather than a "don't know".

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 09-14-2020, 04:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X