One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I forgot to add, I can be so forgetful. Bob Lee’s daughter confirmed that her dad did know Eddie.

Well, there you have it, then! The dishonest Bob Lee facilitated the sale of the Diary of Jack the Ripper between two patrons or 'sort of drinking buddies' for twenty-quid and then failed to mention this interesting fact to Feldman and Harrison--and, of course, to the police, etc.

You've cracked it.

[Lombro2]

Currently, I'm not seeing anything worthy of either suspicion or further commentary.

Well then, consider this the last time I’m going to help you out. You can’t help someone who won’t admit they need help.

Auction Provenance Theory

Any Takers?… Going once… Going twice…… …………..Going one millionth time! GONE!

[Scott Nelson]

Devereux's partially filled photo album.

[Lombro2]

Devereux's partially filled photo album.

How did he or Barrett know it was a Guard Book?

[rjpalmer]

How did he or Barrett know it was a Guard Book?

Hi Markus. You've accomplished a rare feat: you've managed to baffle both sides of the aisle.

Ike already admitted that he must be "too old" to understand the relevant distinction between stub books, guard books, scrap books, and photograph albums.

I confess that I haven't the faintest idea what you're driving at, either.

To Barrett, it was a photograph album. That's what he claimed it was when he bought it, so that's what he called it. The forensic evidence also suggests that it was being used as a photograph album. (Caz, or someone similar, will no doubt suggest, as they have already done many times in the past, that Barrett was just mimicking what he heard from Baxendale's report, but that's okay, and it's neither here, nor there).

So why would you expect Barrett to call it a "guard book"? Why would he need to? And what possible difference does it make, since the diarist doesn't do so?

Please explain it to me like I was a third grader.

Thanks.

[Lombro2]

Ike’s very next post implored his readers to reflect on “slice-of-Victorian-office-like-moments” like the one with James and his clerk.

You admit that you didn’t know, and neither did Barrett, that this book was used for office “pasteables” and notes. Time to reflect on the above.

[rjpalmer]

Ike’s very next post implored his readers to reflect on “slice-of-Victorian-office-like-moments” like the one with James and his clerk.

Unfortunately, I'm still reflecting on it and it's not reflecting back.

I think Ike would be better off reflecting on the handwriting not being Maybrick's, or the phrases "one off instance" and "bumbling buffoon" not being Victorian, or Mike and Anne lying about when and why they bought a word processor (or failing to mention Mike's career as a journalist in the 1980s), etc., but to each his own, I suppose. You and Ike look to the thing itself for confirmation of its own authenticity, added in liberal doses of your own imaginations to fill in the gaps, and I'm too much of an empiricist for that.

The only thing that mildly interests about the unknown hoaxer alluding to tensions around the office is that one of our leading suspects in the authorship debate was working in an office when the diary emerged in 1992. I think you'll find that it's pretty commonplace for a writer of fiction to create these 'slices of life' out of their own experiences, so a hoaxer who also is forced to put in the daily grind down in Silk House Court appeals to me, especially if she also has insights about substance abuse and knew a bloke who called his wife 'The Whore.' If there's any verisimilitude in the diary to be detected and you're willing to inject a dose of psychoanalysis into our conversation, I don't think we need to look too far away from the usual suspects.

There's nothing exclusively 'Victorian' about a businessman being irritated with a subordinate, and it might be something that would occur to someone with actual office experience.

[caz]

Thanks, but why are you sending me this?

I already asked my question--the name of the in-house writer that allegedly wrote Barrett's articles in the 1980s--- and you already passed it on to Robert Smith.

He answered that this "could have" happened, which I took to be an admission that he has no actual first-hand knowledge and was merely guessing.

Considering that the company has been defunct for decades, and Smith wrongly assumed it was a Liverpool publisher, it's pretty obvious that he hadn't actually spoken to anyone to determine what Barrett submitted.

Thus, I see no reason to waste a stamp or send an email.

Thanks again, though.

So why the more recent rant, if all the questions had already been asked and responded to, and if the original question didn't need asking in the first place, because the answer had been 'pretty obvious' all along?

It seems pretty obvious to me that Robert was only stating his professional opinion - from his many years of experience in the field, together with Mike's woeful lack of writing skills - on how those articles would have seen the light of day. This must have been 'pretty obvious' to Robert, but I'm not aware that he ever claimed to have identified who had actually enabled this minor miracle to happen, and Palmer has not to my knowledge quoted any such claim.

It struck me that if Robert was still somehow being accused of having claimed some first-hand knowledge, which Palmer doubted he could have obtained for the reasons given, the only way to resolve the issue was for Robert to be contacted directly and challenged, once and for all, to explain what he knew and how he knew it.

At the same time, Palmer could have asked how Paul Dodd's short-lived ownership claim back in June 1993 had been resolved, instead of indulging in idle speculation on a message board about Robert's motivation, and criticism aimed at the authors of Inside Story for not actively pursuing this line of inquiry for our book, even though the same applied to the Battlecrease provenance as a whole at that time, because we simply didn't have the kind of material back in 2003 to justify giving it the same attention as the provenance stories from the Barretts and Mike's forgery claims. We could not have included everything in any case, with the best will in the world, and our decisions were based on what we knew then and not what might be learned in the future. If there had been no substance at all to Feldman's early suspicions about the diary coming out of Dodd's house, one might have expected subsequent inquiries and revelations to rule it out completely and irrevocably, and yet the opposite has proved to be the case thus far, with every little additional piece of documented information still allowing for the double event of 9th March 1992 to have been jointly responsible for what happened next in the diary's own timeline.

It now appears that Palmer was never expecting Robert to substantiate, with actual names or details, what he wrote about Mike's articles, but this is hardly surprising if Robert himself never claimed to have that knowledge.

It's just one more little distraction that takes the eye off the ball, and the games Mike and Eddie were playing.

[Lombro2]

Anne was working in an office in 92. I was working in an office in the printing department in 99. So what? Neither of us would have the faintest idea that your “photo album” would fit nicely into a Victorian office vignette.

The only people that would know work in museum libraries or are pushing 100 and were working in the 50s like Ken Burnett. Ike isn’t too old. He isn’t old enough!

I’ve reflected on your 5 “facts”. If one of them is damning, why list all five? One off and instance? Bumbling and buffoon?

I guess it boils down to whether Anne can think of Maybrick using a guard book in an office versus Maybrick being able to think of putting two words together!

[Slimsid2000]

It was printed in word for Windows 96.

[caz]

Goodness me, man - we know they weren't 'drinking buddies' or 'mates'. We all know that, and indeed I posted this just the other day (my "tongue in cheek" post) and you acknowledged that you had read it by replying to it. There is absolutely no-one on the planet who has ever described them as 'drinking buddies' or 'mates' except as part of a quick delve into irony.

But that doesn't mean they didn't know of one another or even know one another, just without the Christmas cards and the occasional curry.

I promise to try my best to be more literal in future.

Ah, but one way to demolish an argument is to demolish another argument which would sound ridiculous if only anyone had actually tried it on. Thus, the less observant reader may end up actually believing that you or I have argued that Mike and Eddie were undoubtedly joined at the hip down the Saddle, supping beer from noon to midnight, well before 9th March 1992. This argument can then be demolished with the greatest of ease, using heavy, but unwarranted sarcasm and an absence of discernible wit. The fact that nobody ever tried to make such an argument - apart from the one demolishing it - never seems to hinder the practice.

Can we all just agree that there is no actual evidence that rules out an acquaintance springing up between Mike and Eddie before Feldman stuck his oar in? I'm not sure why relying on the word of Eddie "The Skip" Lyons is considered any wiser than relying on the word of Mike "The Auction Ticket" Barrett. But here we are. I wouldn't want either for a drinking buddy, frankly, but that would be preferable to one called Cognitive Dissonance.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So, Caz is also being ironic in her previous post?



Sure sounds like she's attempting to imply that were 'mates.'

Who is 'she'? The cat's mother?

It was Mike who was attempting to imply, back in February 1993, that he had a 'mate' by asking: "Would you split on a mate?" in answer to the suggestion that he had to know more about the diary than he had so far admitted.

I don't see why this is so controversial. It could hint at someone very much alive and known to Mike, who had done something he shouldn't have done, such as - ooh, I don't know, let's take a wild guess - nicking the diary off its rightful owner? By January 1995, Mike was prepared to 'split on' pretty much anyone, including his old pal Tony and his own ex wife and daughter, for personal revenge. If he wasn't prepared to split on this unidentified "mate" of his in February 1993, was it not more likely to have been for purely selfish reasons than the genuine loyalty of a good friend?

[caz]

Would it be that you grow edible plants from snips or snippings?

Love

Mr Snippet View Error

Well, Lombro, we do sometimes have herbs growing in our garden, but I wasn't called Mrs Snips on account of gathering them in for cooking purposes. That is more in Mister Brown's line. You are getting much warmer though, and there is a bit of a herby link.

Love,

Mrs S
X

[Lombro2]

It was printed in word for Windows 96.

…on an Amstrad word processor. An Amstrad PCW is obviously something you need to forge a Victorian diary! Not for transcribing something to send to publishers and authors.

And what’s £500 ?! Your forgery skills are so good, you’re bound to make that back and more in no time. It’s a much better to invest in a first-time forgery than actually having an authentic document to present!

[caz]

Your world is rather fascinating RJ. In it the local pub landlord who has had the pub for donkeys years and whose family still own and run it, could feasibly be completely unaware of Eddie Lyons, a very local man whose family were local for many years, did know of Eddie until much later after the diary bandwagon had left town?

He would not know this Kirkdale born and bred local who lived a mere hop and skip away from the premises of the pub? A man who admitted he had often been in The Saddle. Bob Lee wouldn’t have even known him through the jungle grapevine? A man who even went to school next door to the pub? He only become aware of Eddie post diary did he?

Yet, he knew all about Mike. A man who lived well over a mile away who came in for a pint (however long that took) before collecting his daughter from school.

Eddie moved away from the area before Bob died. So, Bob knew him well enough to call him Jack the Ripper after the book came out but not before. It is impossible apparently.

I don’t know if Bob was complicit in the introduction of the two men, but it could explain how Mike got Eddie’s address when he went to see him. Quite feasibly, it could have also been the first time Eddie and Mike actually met. Hence the “so your’e the famous Eddie Lyons who found my diary”.

That could more than adequately explain the how. The why, well that’s a whole other post.

One thing we can perhaps all agree on is that whenever Eddie and Mike first met and spoke for the first time, the one common topic of conversation seems to have been Mike's diary - otherwise known as Eddie's "old book".

But who saw it first, and was there a pact between these two live wires in March 1992 not to 'split' on each other, which Mike was led by Feldman to believe that Eddie was about to break a little over a year later?

Love,

Caz
X