One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

I'm sorry, Ike, I have to ask. Were you buying?

Well it wasn't Mike JG at the bar, that's for sure, though I was absolutely certain he was sitting a few tables away - and that was before I started on the demon drink.

I do think I bought at least one round but after four pints I can never be too sure of anything. I don't think I had to bribe the young lady to come out with her support for the scrapbook's authenticity, but - as I say - certainty is no friend of mine when in my cups.

Speaking of which, Tonali is back tonight after a scurrilous ten-month ban and the mighty Magpies are away at Forest in the EFL Cup. Time for a quick Guinness or four, anyone???

[Mike J. G.]

Well it wasn't Mike JG at the bar, that's for sure, though I was absolutely certain he was sitting a few tables away - and that was before I started on the demon drink.

I do think I bought at least one round but after four pints I can never be too sure of anything. I don't think I had to bribe the young lady to come out with her support for the scrapbook's authenticity, but - as I say - certainty is no friend of mine when in my cups.

Speaking of which, Tonali is back tonight after a scurrilous ten-month ban and the mighty Magpies are away at Forest in the EFL Cup. Time for a quick Guinness or four, anyone???

You should have given me a shout, Ike, I'd have bought you a bag of crisps!

What boozer were you in? Deffo wasn't me in there, anyway, I'm too busy working to be boozing, such is life. Hope you enjoyed your stay.

[Iconoclast]

You should have given me a shout, Ike, I'd have bought you a bag of crisps!
What boozer were you in? Deffo wasn't me in there, anyway, I'm too busy working to be boozing, such is life. Hope you enjoyed your stay.

It wasn't actually a boozer, Mike - I was having me tea at the Brewer's Fayre in Aigburth having walked the streets and become very familiar with them, etc.. It was a brilliant couple of days - always enjoy a bit of craic with the scousers.

[Mike J. G.]

It wasn't actually a boozer, Mike - I was having me tea at the Brewer's Fayre in Aigburth having walked the streets and become very familiar with them, etc.. It was a brilliant couple of days - always enjoy a bit of craic with the scousers.

I had to Google that! Was it the Toby? It's a shame it's not really a pub these days. It used to be the Aigburth hotel, as I'm sure you'll know. It pretty much shuts about 9pm, but I stop in for a quick pint every once in a while.

Did you pop up Homefield road and see Nicholas Montserrat's old house?

There's a new wine bar just past St. Mary's church, and a real ale house in what was once a Victorian hotel, now called Solomon's, just past the wine bar near the site of the former Portus and Rhodes, now a garage, if I'm remembering correctly, but it still has the old signage.

If you ever stroll up Sudley house ways, which is always worth a visit, you've got some lovely bars and restaurants along Rose lane. Sir Jim would have definitely approved of the changes to the local watering holes.

[Scott Nelson]

Billy Graham took his photo album, which had been in his family for years, and pulled the photos out before giving it to Tony Devereux. Together, they rewrote the Maybrick as Ripper story and Billy gave the diary to Anne. Then she gives it to Mike.

[Mike J. G.]

Billy Graham took his photo album, which had been in his family for years, and pulled the photos out before giving it to Tony Devereux. Together, they rewrote the Maybrick as Ripper story and Billy gave the diary to Anne. Then she gives it to Mike.

I mean, it's a possibility, but not a likely one for me.

I'm obviously in the hoax camp, and I believe it was penned, at most, a year or two before it was released to the world.

While I'm not entirely sold on Mike having penned it, he was the guy who presented it to the public, and so he had something to do with it.

Was Anne involved? Yeah, to some extent. Did she pen it? It's only fair to say that neither Mike's nor Anne's handwriting match the "diarists", but neither does Maybrick's.

So it's a relatively modern hoax, imo, but the truth behind who wrote it is up for debate and may never be known. We can safely assume that Mike and Anne are involved on some level, great or small.

I don't believe it ever came out of Riversdale. Its provenance story doesn't add up, and you can basically take your pick as to which particular story you prefer. The waters are far too muddied in general... Which doesn't exactly lend much credibility to it ever being the genuine article.

So ... Hoax? Very likely. Modern? Probably.

[Iconoclast]

I mean, it's a possibility, but not a likely one for me.
I'm obviously in the hoax camp, and I believe it was penned, at most, a year or two before it was released to the world.
While I'm not entirely sold on Mike having penned it, he was the guy who presented it to the public, and so he had something to do with it.
Was Anne involved? Yeah, to some extent. Did she pen it? It's only fair to say that neither Mike's nor Anne's handwriting match the "diarists", but neither does Maybrick's.
So it's a relatively modern hoax, imo, but the truth behind who wrote it is up for debate and may never be known. We can safely assume that Mike and Anne are involved on some level, great or small.
I don't believe it ever came out of Riversdale. Its provenance story doesn't add up, and you can basically take your pick as to which particular story you prefer. The waters are far too muddied in general... Which doesn't exactly lend much credibility to it ever being the genuine article.
So ... Hoax? Very likely. Modern? Probably.

For obvious reasons, I can't agree with this conclusion, Mike, though I can't fault its logic. On the surface, at least, it must look as though the scrapbook is a shoddy hoax and necessarily a modern one at that (due to its content).

I would challenge your suggestion that the Battlecrease provenance story doesn't add up, though. On the contrary, it very much does: Barrett rings Rupert Crew on the very day that Eddie Lyons' employer was working on Maybrick's old floorboards and Eddie Lyons himself admits to having been there that day; then he's back there in the June of 1992 and - at the very time Barrett is selling the publishing rights to Robert Smith - Lyons tells Brian Rawes that he had found something and he thought it was important. Rates assumes he means Lyons had found something that day but actually Lyons could have been guiltily admitting to something he had done months earlier. Later in 1992, Portus & Rhodes employee Alan Davies mentions a Jack the Ripper diary to Tim Martin-Wright of the newly-opened APS Security (there's an intermediary, but this is the quick version) but when Martin-Wright shows interest in seeing it, Davies has to inform him that it has been sold "in a pub in Liverpool". Davies has been off work for six months or so after a motorbike accident in the summer of 1992 so it is likely he hasn't realised that the scrapbook had long-since been sold (to Mike Barrett). This all happens in 1992, well before Paul Feldman rides into town looking for the fabled electricians who - he has been told - may have been working in Battlecrease House between one and three years ago. Martin-Wright's story dates the diary of Jack the Ripper being sold in a pub in Anfield to well before Feldman has even heard of electricians from Portus & Rhodes. Martin-Wright is of impeccable character (you just have to see and hear him to realise he is no idle fantasist); he is well-educated and from good stock (I'm guessing Ponteland or even Darras Hall, both on the outskirts of Newcastle upon Tyne). He has no obvious reason to lie (nor does Brian Rawes, for that matter). The Battlecrease provenance is very strong indeed.

The alternatives (as we currently know them, and excluding Scotty's regular trips down Hallucination Way) include: Barrett received the scrapbook out of the blue and for no obvious reason from a Tony Devereux who can't explain himself because he was by then sadly diseased; or that that story began with Anne Barrett giving the scrapbook to Tony to give to Mike; or that Mike wrote the text of the scrapbook and that his wife Anne wrote it into the scrapbook for him.

I know which side my money will be on when I get down to the bookies.

On that note, Newcastle have just been drawn away from home in the two English domestic cup competitions (for Premiership teams, that is) for the EIGHTH consecutive time. Unless the Premier League are warming the balls (a charge previously laid against the Scottish FA to keep Celtic and Rangers apart until the showpiece finals), then that is a demonstrable 1-in-256 chance.

To get to 1-in-37,500, they would have to be drawn away around FIFTEEN times consecutively. Fancy those cheeky wee odds, anyone? I know I don't!

PS I wrote all of the above from memory over a cup of tea on a Friday morning so if there are any errors and you've 'resigned' from the Casebook, no need to start your own website and then post endless, repetitive articles about people who get small details wrong or pull together loads of tenuous 'facts' to draw conclusions which you had already drawn before you even gave any thought to them.

[John Wheat]

For obvious reasons, I can't agree with this conclusion, Mike, though I can't fault its logic. On the surface, at least, it must look as though the scrapbook is a shoddy hoax and necessarily a modern one at that (due to its content).

I would challenge your suggestion that the Battlecrease provenance story doesn't add up, though. On the contrary, it very much does: Barrett rings Rupert Crew on the very day that Eddie Lyons' employer was working on Maybrick's old floorboards and Eddie Lyons himself admits to having been there that day; then he's back there in the June of 1992 and - at the very time Barrett is selling the publishing rights to Robert Smith - Lyons tells Brian Rawes that he had found something and he thought it was important. Rates assumes he means Lyons had found something that day but actually Lyons could have been guiltily admitting to something he had done months earlier. Later in 1992, Portus & Rhodes employee Alan Davies mentions a Jack the Ripper diary to Tim Martin-Wright of the newly-opened APS Security (there's an intermediary, but this is the quick version) but when Martin-Wright shows interest in seeing it, Davies has to inform him that it has been sold "in a pub in Liverpool". Davies has been off work for six months or so after a motorbike accident in the summer of 1992 so it is likely he hasn't realised that the scrapbook had long-since been sold (to Mike Barrett). This all happens in 1992, well before Paul Feldman rides into town looking for the fabled electricians who - he has been told - may have been working in Battlecrease House between one and three years ago. Martin-Wright's story dates the diary of Jack the Ripper being sold in a pub in Anfield to well before Feldman has even heard of electricians from Portus & Rhodes. Martin-Wright is of impeccable character (you just have to see and hear him to realise he is no idle fantasist); he is well-educated and from good stock (I'm guessing Ponteland or even Darras Hall, both on the outskirts of Newcastle upon Tyne). He has no obvious reason to lie (nor does Brian Rawes, for that matter). The Battlecrease provenance is very strong indeed.

The alternatives (as we currently know them, and excluding Scotty's regular trips down Hallucination Way) include: Barrett received the scrapbook out of the blue and for no obvious reason from a Tony Devereux who can't explain himself because he was by then sadly diseased; or that that story began with Anne Barrett giving the scrapbook to Tony to give to Mike; or that Mike wrote the text of the scrapbook and that his wife Anne wrote it into the scrapbook for him.

I know which side my money will be on when I get down to the bookies.

On that note, Newcastle have just been drawn away from home in the two English domestic cup competitions (for Premiership teams, that is) for the EIGHTH consecutive time. Unless the Premier League are warming the balls (a charge previously laid against the Scottish FA to keep Celtic and Rangers apart until the showpiece finals), then that is a demonstrable 1-in-256 chance.

To get to 1-in-37,500, they would have to be drawn away around FIFTEEN times consecutively. Fancy those cheeky wee odds, anyone? I know I don't!

PS I wrote all of the above from memory over a cup of tea on a Friday morning so if there are any errors and you've 'resigned' from the Casebook, no need to start your own website and then post endless, repetitive articles about people who get small details wrong or pull together loads of tenuous 'facts' to draw conclusions which you had already drawn before you even gave any thought to them.

The reason you can't fault Mike's logic is that it is a modern hoax. The Battlecrease provenance is terrible. The idea that Maybrick wrote the diary is laughable.

[Iconoclast]

The reason you can't fault Mike's logic is that it is a modern hoax. The Battlecrease provenance is terrible. The idea that Maybrick wrote the diary is laughable.

I see you haven't lost your powers of logical reasoning and evidence gathering. 'Terrible' and 'laughable' trump all the evidence in the world, say I. You definitely don't need to read my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025, mate.

[John Wheat]

I see you haven't lost your powers of logical reasoning and evidence gathering. 'Terrible' and 'laughable' trump all the evidence in the world, say I. You definitely don't need to read my remarkable Society's Pillar 2025, mate.

No I don't. I bet it's full of bullshit.

[rjpalmer]

Portus & Rhodes employee Alan Davies mentions a Jack the Ripper diary to Tim Martin-Wright

Good Evening, Ike.

There's much to unpack in your account, and I'm relatively certain that I don't wish to do it, but I suspect that if your good friend David Barrat was here he might gently ask if you are quite certain that Alan Davies mentioned a Jack the Ripper diary or whether this is your memory playing tricks? Isn't it true that Davies only mentioned a diary or (if his missus can be believed) an old book?

As I understand it, Mr. Martin-Wright, at a later date, had been reading Shirley Harrison's book, and her description of Jack the Ripper' diary triggered his memory of this brief conversation from some months earlier, and Martin-Wright then assumed--rightly or wrongly--that the account he had heard in the alarm shop of a diary or an old book referred to a Jack the Ripper diary, even though it was never described as such.

There's a leap of faith that you've left out of the equation. Perhaps a small leap of faith, but a leap of faith, nonetheless.

Further, your passing acknowledgment that Mr. Martin-Wright heard this through "an intermediary" means that his account is third, fourth, or fifth hand, does it not?

It's not always easy to unsort, but it sounds like Martin-Wright (1) heard it from Dodgson (2) who heard it from Davies (3) who heard it from X (4).

And since X has not been identified (to my knowledge) X could have conceivably heard it from Y (5). Making it fifth hand.

As such, can we even glorify Mr. Martin-Wright, no matter how honest and respectable he might be, with the term "witness"?

With kindest regards.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. Another curious aspect of your account is this: "Davies has been off work for six months or so after a motorbike accident in the summer of 1992 so it is likely he hasn't realised that the scrapbook had long-since been sold."

Thanks, but I find this puzzling.

How would Mr. Davies wrecking his motorbike in the summer of 1992 (you don't tell us which month) have prevented him from knowing what happened back in March-June 1992 when the diary was supposedly sold and news of the sale leaked?

Mr. Davies appears to have been so ignorant of the details of the alleged diary that he was still under the impression it was for sale in what you date to late 1992.

Yet, in trying to wrap my mind around this, I reviewed one of Lord Orsam's articles, and he reposted an interesting note from Keith Skinner describing his telephone conversation with Alan Davies' wife.

She said that the merchandise (she described it, not as a diary, but as an 'old book with old handwriting') as having been sold 'v. quickly'---meaning almost immediately after its alleged discovery in March 1992.

This is a contradiction, is it not?

How did Davies' wife know it was sold 'v. quickly' when her husband (who would have been her source) was under the impression that it was still for sale many months later?

I assume you will argue that Mrs. Davies learned this later, as did Alan, but that still begs the question from whom they learned it.

To quote George Bush, I seek a "kinder and gentler" Maybrickology, so please view these comments in the spirit of constructive criticism, but it seems to me that none of these people would be allowed anywhere near a witness box. It's all hearsay.

If you want to convince the public of your provenance, don't we need to hear from Davies' informant Mr. X?

Salutations.

PPS. It's also possible that if Mrs. Davies heard it was sold 'v. quickly' she was referring to late 1992 and there was no contradiction---in which case the book (or newspaper?) that was sold in Anfield was not the scrap album and Mr. Martin-Wright jumped to a faulty conclusion.

[Scott Nelson]

The alternatives (as we currently know them, and excluding Scotty's regular trips down Hallucination Way)...

What? So you don't take trips down Hallucination Way?? Just about everything I've written about the diary could have happened. It's reasoned from an alternative view of the 'facts' as they have been presented in books and postings by others, including you good self.

[Iconoclast]

What? So you don't take trips down Hallucination Way?? Just about everything I've written about the diary could have happened. It's reasoned from an alternative view of the 'facts' as they have been presented in books and postings by others, including you good self.

Just a bit of good-natured banter, Scotty - no offence intended.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

There's much to unpack in your account, and I'm relatively certain that I don't wish to do it, but I suspect that if your good friend David Barrat was here he might gently ask if you are quite certain that Alan Davies mentioned a Jack the Ripper diary or whether this is your memory playing tricks? Isn't it true that Davies only mentioned a diary or (if his missus can be believed) an old book?

It's Monday morning, RJ, and a spot of work looms (as well as YouTubing Newcastle 2,Tottenham 1 from yesterday about 25 times) so I can't give you a fuller answer to your many interesting questions just yet but I will come back to them later.

First things first, even without any evidence, it is hard to imagine why Tim would have been so taken by Shirley's book in the book shop in Berwick (or was it North Berwick?) on his journey down the A1 back to Newcastle to pick the kids up if he did not already realise that the mysterious diary he was offered was supposedly penned by Jack the Ripper. I doubt he'd have made any connection at all, don't you?

That said, there seems to be verbal evidence that Davies was specific when mentioning the diary to Alan Dodgson who passed the message on to Tim. Apparently, Davies had said (from a telephone called between Paul Feldman and Tim Martin-Wright the day after he found Shirley's book in the book shop in one of the Berwick's on the A1):

TMW: I have just been reading a very interesting book.
PHF: Yes, I heard. I understand you’ve got your story to tell about it.
TMW: Yes, in fact. I’ll go back to the first, the inception of my involvement in the story which is about two years ago, I think. A guy who worked for me said, um, he knows that I collect antiques and am interested in old books etc. He said; “I saw a really interesting book that you would like in the pub the other night”. I said, “Oh yeah”. He said; “It, um, is a copy of Jack the Ripper’s Diary.” I said, “Oh yeah?”
PHF: A copy, a copy of it?
TMW: Well I asked that, and he said it was a copy of Jack the Ripper’s Diary.

Now there are various issues to unpack with this conversation between Feldman and Martin-Wright, not least is his suggestion to Feldman that Dodgson had claimed to have actually seen the book in the pub himself "the other night", but the crucial thing is that he told Feldman that he had been told that it was Jack the Ripper's diary (albeit, he calls it a 'copy' which is another issue). The key bit is that Martin-Wright is clear to Feldman that he had been offered a look at Jack the Ripper's diary not simply an old diary.

PS It turns out that it was Berwick.

More when I have time. May be a while!

Cheers,

Ike