One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

This has got to be the most profound prose I've ever read on these boards, Caroline.

And it applies beautifully to the Great Battlecrease Heist of 9 March 1992.

But for some irony is merely the opposite of wrinkly.

[rjpalmer]

Here's another account by Martin Fido, describing a day that Anne would later describe as 'the worse day of my life.' Bonsey is DS Thomas of the Fraud Squad.




I suppose the above will be dismissed as hearsay evidence, since it is Martin's recollection of what Bonsey described, rather than Bonsey's own account.

But can anyone still seriously support the contention that Anne had nothing to fear?

Why would she have been deeply afraid and 'nearly-hysterical' if all she knew was that her husband bought the diary down the boozer? That knowledge wouldn't have been appreciably different from Mike having got the diary from Tony Devereux.

Why would she be visually distressed by this, if that is all she knew?

[Iconoclast]

Why would she be visually distressed by this, if that is all she knew?

Yes, she had absolutely nothing to lose from the police interviewing her husband about an artefact which appeared from nowhere in her house in March 1992. It's not as though she might have thought it was stolen or anything!

I really can't see any reason for her worrying her little ol' head about the possibility of her husband going to prison.

(Again.)

[rjpalmer]

Yes, she had absolutely nothing to lose from the police interviewing her husband about an artefact which appeared from nowhere in her house in March 1992. It's not as though she might have thought it was stolen or anything!

I really can't see any reason for her worrying her little ol' head about the possibility of her husband going to prison.

(Again.)

In answer, I give you Caroline Brown, 29 November 2022:

but if she still suspected the diary was stolen property, so what? She wasn't the thief, and could not be held responsible for what Mike did or didn't know when he brought the old book into their home. If anyone was ever unwise enough to claim that they stole it and passed it on to her ex husband, that would be for the self-confessed thief and his suspected receiver to worry about. As I say, Anne was already free and clear of the latter.

Note especially the phase what Mike did or did not know about the old book.

You are suggesting that Anne was shaking like a leaf because her unemployed and abusive husband might get in trouble for buying a book that he may or may not have known was stolen?

You're joshing me, right?

And if it was her present marriage to Mike that was the cause of this anxiety, why was she was still shaking like a leaf in late 1995 at the mere introduction of Martin Fido? She was, we are told, 'free and clear.'

It makes no sense.

Interestingly, we are also informed that Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman.

Let's face it, Old Boy. At this moment, Mike would have flipped on Eddie Lyons in a New York minute had Eddie had anything to do with the diary. Right then and there. And how on earth could the cops have proved that Barrett had KNOWN that this hadn't been an innocent purchase of an "old book"? Barrett could have played dumb--Eddie would have been the one with some 'splaining to do. A case of he said/he said.

Abandon this charade, Thomas. After Mike's spontaneous confession to Harold Brough, Anne had every opportunity in the world to tell her suspicions about the Battlecrease heist had it really happened--she was 'free and clear.'

But she didn't do that.

Anne's involvement in this escapade must have run a lot deeper than the wife of a man who showed up one day with the diary.

That's how I read it, but I do acknowledge that not everyone has the same powers of deduction and discernment; I am merely attempting to guide you through the palace of wisdom, but not all are willing to walk those icy corridors. Many take comfort in blind belief.

Have a good evening.

[Iconoclast]

That's how I read it, but I do acknowledge that not everyone has the same powers of deduction and discernment

There are many things in life that I am eternally grateful for, and this is definitely one of them. I'll stick with my own, thank you, as yours are irrevocably stained with bias and an unhealthy dose of logic failure.

Many take comfort in blind belief.

Oh, I did so chuckle at the need to smooth out the wrinkly! Wonderful moment of borderline bathos there - your crescendo ruined by cold irony, self-imposed.

Whenever I see the words (or similar), "It makes no sense", I hear the argument of the tunnel-visioned. I've probably used them myself, and - in so doing - I am just as guilty. As much as I admire the research which has gone into Chris Jones' new book (well worth a read, especially on the tragedy of Florrie's trial and imprisonment), the reality is he relies time and time again on incredulity: "It's impossible to believe" permeates his conclusions regarding the Victorian scrapbook. You're there in the same game, RJ. "It makes no sense" is not a categorical, however often you use the device: it is an opinion.

If Caz and I differ on our interpretation of Anne Graham's behaviour it is because there are no categoricals here - only opinions. And opinions can change. Originally, Anne's provenance was the only provenance in town (if you exclude the inanity of her husband's woeful confession), but 2004 came around and the 'Double Event' of March 9, 1992, was discovered by Keith Skinner and - really not unreasonably - minds shifted rapidly and firmly to a Battlecrease provenance (not least, because it answers all the questions). That does not equate to, "Anne must have been lying", however much it may now seem so. Personally, I think she did lie, but I do not exclude the possibility that she didn't. Her behaviour tells us nothing - bar much about our biases - about the truth of the matter.

Oh, and you've done that 'shifting facts for convenience' trick again. You claimed that "Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman". It was Anne who begged Bonesy to say they were insurance men. I don't ever recall a version where Barrett gave a Christmas fig who was in his house or how Billy Graham would react to them.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by caz View Post
But belief is a powerful beast, like religion, and the more people who believe the Barretts and the Johnsons were hoaxers, the more powerful the beast will appear to be, while being toothless without the evidence needed to turn it into the truth. Truth demands evidence; belief requires none. It thrives and spreads well enough without it. Proof doesn't even get a toe in the door when belief owns the room. As for doubt, you can forget it - and believers do. When doubt goes from being a beautiful and essential human quality to an outdated, discarded and forgotten concept, you'd better believe that belief has taken over and is dictating its own truth to all comers who will happily lap it up without question.

This has got to be the most profound prose I've ever read on these boards, Caroline.

Agreed Scott. I think - despite the vicious, unyielding, eviscerating tyranny of her ever-watchful switchblade - Caz has as much Shakespeare in her as mere spear. Whatever inspired her to write the above, I hope she's willing to share the pills around.

Mind you, I still wouldn't want to get bevied-up and senseless on Newcastle Brown Ale for six hours with her down the Bigg Market then accidentally spill her pint, would you?

[rjpalmer]

Oh, and you've done that 'shifting facts for convenience' trick again. You claimed that "Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman". It was Anne who begged Bonesy to say they were insurance men.

I think you’re wrong about that, Old Boy, but I am at the moment relying on memory. It was discussed in the Blake edition of Shirley’s book and in an account Peter Birchwood had sent me. But I can’t check at the moment. The Covid test strip came back with the dark line and I’m coughing my lungs out, so I’ll be in isolation for a week or so. If I die, which is exceedingly unlikely, let my last post be “Mike and Anne dunnit, and it’s as plain as the nose on Mary Kelly’s face, which they failed to accurately describe”

[rjpalmer]

It’s the first time I’ve heard it suggested that diving accidents can leave one illiterate, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

The reason I asked about Albert’s handwriting is that the diagram of the watch reproduced by Mr. Feldman bears some resemblance, to my amateur and watery eyes, to the sample we have of Albert Johnson’s penmanship.

Yet someone evidently told Feldman that it was in fact the artistry of one of Johnson’s workmates. This could be true or it could not be true. There is so much about the watch we do not know, and so much that has been written about it that seems of doubtful reliability. All in my humble opinion, of course.

And so to bed.

[Iconoclast]

It’s the first time I’ve heard it suggested that diving accidents can leave one illiterate, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

The reason I asked about Albert’s handwriting is that the diagram of the watch reproduced by Mr. Feldman bears some resemblance, to my amateur and watery eyes, to the sample we have of Albert Johnson’s penmanship.

Yet someone evidently told Feldman that it was in fact the artistry of one of Johnson’s workmates. This could be true or it could not be true. There is so much about the watch we do not know, and so much that has been written about it that seems of doubtful reliability. All in my humble opinion, of course.

And so to bed.

Well, it's quite an anti-wrinkly that I am also coughing my lungs out but don't have Covid - I feel almost robbed as everyone else seems to have it.

I'm pretty sure that that drawing of the watch scratchings was in Albert Johnson's hand, just as I'm pretty sure that it was Anne who feared the impact on Billy if he realised the Fuzz had stormed 12 Goldie Street.

And also to bed.

[caz]

Yes, she had absolutely nothing to lose from the police interviewing her husband about an artefact which appeared from nowhere in her house in March 1992. It's not as though she might have thought it was stolen or anything!

I really can't see any reason for her worrying her little ol' head about the possibility of her husband going to prison.

(Again.)

Indeed, Ike. Plus the fact that if Bonesy were to find enough evidence, from his interviews with the electricians and Paul Dodd, to charge Mike with receiving stolen goods, on or after 9th March 1992, it would quickly emerge that Anne had lied for him by omission at the very least, by going along with his bullshi* about Devereux. That would make her an accessory, and I'm not talking handbags. I'm not even sure domestic abuse would have been a foolproof defence back in 1993 either, but she'd have to prove a real risk of violence if she had refused to support his lies.

RJ tries to play down the legal consequences of faking the diary, arguing that it was a 'literary enterprise', which for Anne began as a harmless fictional story, dressed in Victorian rags by Mike to effect some sort of eccentric marketing gimmick. Never mind that Mike had told Doreen from the off that he had Jack the Ripper's diary. Anne was sure she would not take it seriously and send him packing.

In short, according to RJ in one wheezy breath, Anne had little to beat herself up about, and was more concerned with Mike doing it, and in the next wheezy breath he is using Anne's alleged 'near-hysterical fuss' when the cops finally come to call, to make it sound like she has fifty other fake diaries in her handbag waiting to be taken into consideration when she gets lawyered up.

The legal consequences of theft do not concern RJ, as he has no doubt in his mind that no theft took place, but they would have concerned Anne if she knew Mike didn't get the diary in good faith from Tony, and just like his daughters, assumed he got it from "somewhere he shouldn't".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Here's another account by Martin Fido, describing a day that Anne would later describe as 'the worse day of my life.' Bonsey is DS Thomas of the Fraud Squad.




I suppose the above will be dismissed as hearsay evidence, since it is Martin's recollection of what Bonsey described, rather than Bonsey's own account.

But can anyone still seriously support the contention that Anne had nothing to fear?

Why would she have been deeply afraid and 'nearly-hysterical' if all she knew was that her husband bought the diary down the boozer? That knowledge wouldn't have been appreciably different from Mike having got the diary from Tony Devereux.

Why would she be visually distressed by this, if that is all she knew?

Why is RJ going to the bother of raking up this ancient hearsay evidence, when nothing will ever shift him from his certainty that Mike and Anne faked the diary, in which case everything they ever said or did will be seen in that light and no other?

Why is he not tucked up in bed with his imaginary puppy and a soothing Lemsip?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Indeed, Ike. Plus the fact that if Bonesy were to find enough evidence, from his interviews with the electricians and Paul Dodd, to charge Mike with receiving stolen goods, on or after 9th March 1992, it would quickly emerge that Anne had lied for him by omission at the very least, by going along with his bullshi* about Devereux. That would make her an accessory, and I'm not talking handbags. I'm not even sure domestic abuse would have been a foolproof defence back in 1993 either, but she'd have to prove a real risk of violence if she had refused to support his lies.

RJ tries to play down the legal consequences of faking the diary, arguing that it was a 'literary enterprise', which for Anne began as a harmless fictional story, dressed in Victorian rags by Mike to effect some sort of eccentric marketing gimmick. Never mind that Mike had told Doreen from the off that he had Jack the Ripper's diary. Anne was sure she would not take it seriously and send him packing.

In short, according to RJ in one wheezy breath, Anne had little to beat herself up about, and was more concerned with Mike doing it, and in the next wheezy breath he is using Anne's alleged 'near-hysterical fuss' when the cops finally come to call, to make it sound like she has fifty other fake diaries in her handbag waiting to be taken into consideration when she gets lawyered up.

The legal consequences of theft do not concern RJ, as he has no doubt in his mind that no theft took place, but they would have concerned Anne if she knew Mike didn't get the diary in good faith from Tony, and just like his daughters, assumed he got it from "somewhere he shouldn't".

Love,

Caz
X

I meant to add that time is a great healer, and by early 1994 Anne had left her marriage behind, and Bonesy had gone back to the Yard with nothing to show for the investigation, which in any case was into whether Robert Smith had published the diary, knowing it to be fraudulent.

The electricians heard no more from the police either, so they were very unlikely to rock Anne's boat in the foreseeable future, and she could begin to rest easy.

Almost as easy as RJ rests now, in his certain knowledge that he will not be visited by any ghosts of electricians, past, present or future.

[caz]

Oh, and you've done that 'shifting facts for convenience' trick again. You claimed that "Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman". It was Anne who begged Bonesy to say they were insurance men. I don't ever recall a version where Barrett gave a Christmas fig who was in his house or how Billy Graham would react to them.

Ike

I'm sure you're right that it was Anne who wanted her father to think the men from the Yard were from the insurance. I'm not sure Mike would have been considering his father-in-law's feelings at that point. After all, it was Anne who described it as the worst day of her life.

I suspect she had been quietly dreading something of the sort ever since Mike came home with the diary and then proceeded to tell lies about how and when he got it. I don't know what he told Anne at the time, but I doubt it could have reassured her. Once the ordeal was over, and it became clear that the police had only been investigating Robert Smith, and were not interested in pursuing the possibility of a theft from Paul Dodd's house, I bet she breathed a sigh of relief. She knew Mike hadn't offered Robert a diary, knowing it was a recent fake. She knew Mike had spent night after night trying to make sense of it, and had come to believe it was genuine. She knew she had nothing to fear on that score.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The tale we were originally told wasn't merely that this Alan chap mentioned the book (ie., the diary) in APS in or after November 1992, he was trying to sell the book (and a ring) to the manager, Tim Martin-Wright.

To sell: a verb, meaning to exchange for cash. This implies possession of the merchandise, and I believe the price stated was twenty-five clams.

[Note to self: is it normal to fence merchandise allegedly ripped-off from a customer's house to a company that trades in home security alarms???!].

So, at the risk of still being seen as dim, please explain why he is trying to sell the book (and a ring) seven months after that ship has already sailed and was never in his possession in the first place, having been either tossed into a skip, or peddled to Barrett in The Saddle back in March?

It seems to me that you're rather desperately trying to backdate this proposed sale to before March 1992 [by which I mean 9 March, for those who aren't being 'deliberately dim'], not unlike someone trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

What I think is also fairly obvious is that none of these tales about objects being found in Battlecrease came into circulation until after Paul Feldman--he with the deep pockets and the fancy sports car---came onto the scene. The first time Feldy heard about this Alan chap wasn't until mid to late 1994¹--somewhere James Johnston has recorded a fairly exact date.

Whatever his deficiencies as a genealogist, Feldman was an astute businessman, and he quickly realized that he was being played by someone out for a quick payday, and he further realized the chronology didn't work.

I think Ike's friend Lord Orsam made an astute point somewhere in these threads that the electricians were happy to date these events to a time that didn't work--that is, after Barrett had already brought the diary to London--because they didn't know any better.

There was a delay between when Barrett brought the diary to London (April 1992) and when the story leaked to the press, and thus became public knowledge.

The electricians were therefore under the false impression that the diary had surfaced sometime around June 1992 and thus had no problem dating these shadowy and conflicting events to a time that makes no sense whatsoever.

They didn't have all the facts and thus their bogus chronology exposed the fact that it was all blather. Feldman worked this out over twenty-five years ago.

That's what I think--take it or leave it.

¹According to an old post, Feldman's discussion with Martin-Wright was in June 1994.

I have been meaning to address this pile of assumption and muddled thinking for ages, and to remind RJ of the timeline, context and some basic facts, with reasonable inferences included, so I'll try to make it as simple and as brief as poss:

9th March 1992: Eddie helps out at Battlecrease for the first time, with his best mate Jim Bowling; Mike gets on blower to Doreen.

13th March 1992: Eddie absents himself from the resumed contract over at Skem - no known explanation.

17th March 1992: Jim Bowling and Alan Davies work on the Skem contract, giving Jim the opportunity of telling Alan what Eddie found last week at Dodd's house. Jim hasn't seen Eddie since because he has not been at work so he doesn't know what Eddie is doing with this diary by Jack the Ripper. He will probably be looking for a buyer.

Eddie doesn't return to complete the contract, and nothing more is heard about his "find".

13th April 1992: Mike has the diary in his possession and takes it to London.

June 1992: Alan Davies is injured in a serious car crash and is off work on sick leave for the next 6 months.

17th July 1992: Eddie is back at Battlecrease for his second and final job there. Brian Rawes is sent to the house [for the first and only time] to pick up the firm's van, and Eddie tells him about finding something in the house which could be important. He doesn't elaborate on when this was, and Brian doesn't know how many times Eddie has worked there. He advises Eddie to speak to the boss about it. At the time of this conversation, Mike Barrett has managed to interest a publisher in the diary.

Fast forward to early December 1992: Alan Davies is back off sick leave and has heard nothing more about JtR's diary so he assumes that it hasn't yet been sold to anyone. He mentions it to a pal, another Alan, who knows someone - Tim Martin-Wright - who is into old books and stuff and might be interested. Before Tim can get to see this diary he is told that it had been sold after all, to a chap in an Anfield pub.

Now I don't know about anyone else, but I have never heard of three people - two Alans and a Tim in this case - experiencing the same dream and then each giving their own accounts of it, believing it really happened.

So if this incident never actually took place, RJ will need it to have been a shared dream or a wholly pointless conspiracy, conjured up between these three individuals, who stood to gain nothing from it and asked for nothing. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. I do think a decent sized iceberg should be capable of sinking 'unsinkable' beliefs.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Agreed Scott. I think - despite the vicious, unyielding, eviscerating tyranny of her ever-watchful switchblade - Caz has as much Shakespeare in her as mere spear. Whatever inspired her to write the above, I hope she's willing to share the pills around.

Mind you, I still wouldn't want to get bevied-up and senseless on Newcastle Brown Ale for six hours with her down the Bigg Market then accidentally spill her pint, would you?

Thank you kindly, Scotty and Ike.

Generous spirits that make up for the odd mean one.

I was in part inspired by some of the sentiments expressed in the latest series of His Dark Materials. Not normally my cup of tea, but Mister Brown loved the books and got me to love the bbc drama.

We binge-watched the eight parts over the last three evenings.

Happy Christmas everyone.

Love,

Caz
X