One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Nice try, Caz.

My own dates?

You missed your calling. You should have worked in politics.

If these dates don't appeal to you, don't blame me. They are the dates given by Shirley Harrison, who carried out her own investigation, and by your own friend, Robert Smith.

The end of June 1992 is the date Harrison gave for Eddie Lyons running down the drive with news of an 'important' discovery at the Battlecrease job site. 'American Connection' p. 291-292. Her source was Mr. Rawes:




Of course, that's too late for this discovery to have had anything to do with the Maybrick Hoax, but if you're now trying to backdate this to before March 1992, when Barrett made his phone call, color me unsurprised.

As for Davies and the Bootle shopkeeper and the book in the biscuit tin, Harrison has this happening at the end of 1991 (too early for Battlecrease) but Smith said the shop didn't open until November 1992 (too late for Battlecrease).

Of course, it is not the least bit surprising that you are trying to blame me for the shifting chronology of the diary supporters, but what are you trying to say?

That Robert Smith was wrong?

If you will rely on old information, which you know has long since been clarified, updated, corrected and posted, you are beyond help.

And you suggest that I should have worked in politics?

I don't know what you think I am 'trying to backdate' to before March 1992. You are making less sense with every post these days. Only the other day I reminded you that there is not a single independently confirmed mention of the diary - in any shape or form - dating from before 9th March 1992.

[caz]

In case RJ is confused, or is just trying to confuse his readers, Brian Rawes described a conversation about a find which Eddie said he had made in Battlecrease. Brian gave several separate investigators, authors and researchers the same account, which has remained remarkably consistent considering he spoke from memory.

However, nothing was mentioned during this conversation about when the find was supposedly made, and Brian knew nothing about Eddie's work there, so he'd have been unaware that this was the second job he had worked on at Battlecrease - the first being the wiring job on 9th March 1992. It was eventually established by independent records and a process of elimination that the conversation, in the circumstances accurately recalled and described by Brian, could only have taken place on 17th July 1992, when Eddie might well have had this 'find' on his mind, due to what was happening down in London at the time.

This of course allows for Eddie to have made his find on that first occasion in March - one you'd only be able to describe in later years, as Eddie did, if you were actually there. God knows what made this particular wiring job so memorable, but Eddie insisted he was there, after Keith Skinner tried to tell him he couldn't have been because his name wasn't on the timesheet for that job! That's just a tiny clue to how annoyingly objective Keith is and has always been while I've known him.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

If you will rely on old information, which you know has long since been clarified, updated, corrected and posted, you are beyond help.

Clarified and corrected? Did I miss you ever doing that?

Please clarify the following, because I can't imagine that I'm the only one baffled by your clarifications.

Tom "Soothsayer" Iconoclast: "APS began trading on October 26, 1992."

[For the six people following along at home, APS is the name of the security firm in Bootle, Liverpool, operated by Tim Martin-Wright, who said that an electrician tried to sell him the diary sometime around Nov 1992 --in other words, at a time when the Maybrick Hoax was already safely in London].

Caz A. Brown: "Alan's only knowledge when he walked into APS may have dated back to Tuesday 17th March 1992, when he was down on the Skem contract timesheet with Eddie's best mate, Jim Bowling."

Is there a phantom tollbooth somewhere in this story?

Can you explain to us dunderheads how Alan had knowledge of APS in March 1992, when the firm didn't open until seven months and nine days later in October 1992?

I thank you in advance for your always cordial reply.

[caz]

Yes Caz, thanks. I think this has been discussed and acknowledged about 25,000 times but I suppose there is no harm in saying it yet again.

And because 'Mr. Williams' (the name Mike was using on that date) mentioned the diary while on the telephone, is that credible evidence that the diary actually existed?

Because Mike said so?

Like when Mike mentioned that he had an auction ticket from O & L in his pocket? Does the mere fact that Barrett mentions something allow us to conclude that it exists?

I will assume not.

So, with this in mind, let's regroup and rephrase.

There is no independent confirmation that the diary physically existed until Barrett showed up in London and showed it to Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery a little over a month later, on 13 April 1992.

I hardly think that amounts to confirmation that the diary didn't exist before All Fools' Day.

We can all pick and choose when Mike was telling the truth and when he was lying, but you said yourself that not even Mike could have been lying about everything, all the time. After all, his name wasn't Boris Johnson.

What a pity Mike only told Doreen it was Jack the Ripper's diary and failed to mention James Maybrick - until he would have had time to work out that this real historical figure was the supposed author and murderer. It allows for him to have been entirely ignorant of this on 9th March, and might also explain his curious request for a diary dating back to 1880-90. It's as if he saw the only date in the scrapbook on the last page of writing - May 1889 - and, having no idea of its significance, or that the period covered by the contents was 1888-9, based his request on the whole decade. 1880 would have been 8 years too early for the start of Anne's 'novella', and 1890 a year too late for its final scene.

[caz]

Clarified and corrected? Did I miss you ever doing that?

Please clarify the following, because I can't imagine that I'm the only one baffled by your clarifications.

Tom "Soothsayer" Iconoclast: "APS began trading on October 26, 1992."

[For the six people following along at home, APS is the name of the security firm in Bootle, Liverpool, operated by Tim Martin-Wright, who said that an electrician tried to sell him the diary sometime around Nov 1992 --in other words, at a time when the Maybrick Hoax was already safely in London].

Caz A. Brown: "Alan's only knowledge when he walked into APS may have dated back to Tuesday 17th March 1992, when he was down on the Skem contract timesheet with Eddie's best mate, Jim Bowling."

Is there a phantom tollbooth somewhere in this story?

Can you explain to us dunderheads how Alan had knowledge of APS in March 1992, when the firm didn't open until seven months and nine days later in October 1992?

I thank you in advance for your always cordial reply.

Blimey, are you deliberately being dim, or are you just not reading my posts carefully?

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Alan's knowledge of the diary, when he walked into APS in late 1992. By June 1992, when he had his car accident, his only awareness of the diary would have been whatever he may have been told about it back in the March. Being out of the loop from June until late 1992, due to being on sick leave, he was unaware, when he walked into APS, that it had long since changed hands and was with a publisher.

Now do you get it?

[milchmanuk]

hi
i like to interlude with a question while it,s fresh .
as i feel your the people that specializes in the diarie.
i read some books a while ago on the diary as it was of great interest the stories and everything about it and discovery.
i read a cross from Whitechapel nunnery was also found with this book when presented in modern times.
also i read it was belonging to MJK /cross ,and taken from her room ?
is there any photos of this cross !
also if Maybrick ( which one ) was in the room could it been dropped as there visits to church as belonging to one of them ?

[erobitha]

hi
i like to interlude with a question while it,s fresh .
as i feel your the people that specializes in the diarie.
i read some books a while ago on the diary as it was of great interest the stories and everything about it and discovery.
i read a cross from Whitechapel nunnery was also found with this book when presented in modern times.
also i read it was belonging to MJK /cross ,and taken from her room ?
is there any photos of this cross !
also if Maybrick ( which one ) was in the room could it been dropped as there visits to church as belonging to one of them ?

Hi. I am not aware of any crucifix (which I assume is what you mean by Cross?).

I am aware there were some rumours of various items found with the book such as a key, a suede bag and even some rings.

We have to wait for those who have not been telling the whole truth to do so and understand what happened next to all the items (if such existed or not).

Eddie Lyons has not told the world the truth of what happened on the 9th March 1992. One thing RJ and I can agree on is that neither of us believe Anne Barratt has been honest either.

So until both (or at least one) of those parties starts telling the world the truth we continue to debate and speculate.

[Iconoclast]

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to Alan's knowledge of the diary, when he walked into APS in late 1992.

Hi Caz,

It was obviously obvious (as I'm sure you knew), but when has 'obvious' meant anything to the drainpipe-visioned interpretations of two people (Orsam and Palmer) who are hellbent on finding error in order to undermine any argument they do not happen to favour?

The chronology of hard dates tells its own clear story (and you have told it in regard to Alan Davies so I shan't iterate it on this occasion), but 'hard dates' are only 'hard' to some people when they suspect they can spin an angle.

And, no, I'm not referring to our finally outgoing prime minister.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi. I am not aware of any crucifix (which I assume is what you mean by Cross?).

Hi ero B and Milky,

There was indeed a Kelly crucifix somewhere in the story but I had forgotten about it until Milky's interlude reminded me of it.

Can I remember where one would find it, though? Can I cocoa ...

Ike

[milchmanuk]

Hi ero B and Milky,

There was indeed a Kelly crucifix somewhere in the story but I had forgotten about it until Milky's interlude reminded me of it.

Can I remember where one would find it, though? Can I cocoa ...

Ike

might be the book by feldman. ( THE FINAL CHAPTER)
i only have three Maybrick books.
i also looked on internet to try and find a copy of the cross.

as the nunnery still give these crosses out till this day to there followers.
it is specific to that nunnery in Whitechapel also.

[milchmanuk]

if the cross exists it,s a clincher how Barrett had it !
it was supposed to of been resting on top of the book in a like ottoman box or similar type .

[milchmanuk]

the thought crossed my mind if it is a similar crucifix to the headstone that was vandalized .

[rjpalmer]

What a pity Mike only told Doreen it was Jack the Ripper's diary and failed to mention James Maybrick - until he would have had time to work out

I think I already know how this will play out, but I'll be curious to see if Ike--or Keith, who we are told pays great attention to details like this--will challenge you about this 'fact.'

Has it been positively proven that Mike didn't mention Maybrick, or would it be more accurate to say that it is really a matter of Doreen never leaving a record of whether he did or not?

I recall Keith and David Orsam discussing this topic at some length, and at one point trying to work out if there was any clue in the three books that Mike recommended to Doreen the next morning.

I also seem to remember Ike trying to work out when Barrett first mentioned Maybrick--and being frustrated that he failed to come up with a definitive answer.

Yet, now it is being stated as a fact that Mike didn't mention Maybrick on 9/10 March 1992. This is the sort of thing that happens when one's desire pushes them beyond what the evidence allows us to state.

And, as always, I am happy to point out that one of the vehicles of Mike's "research," Tales of Liverpool, with two chapters on the Maybrick case, was already in Tony Devereux's possession before August 1991, because Mike had left it there.

Another 'hard date' for your timeline? Or a date to sweep under the rug and forget about, because it so obviously clashes with the rest of your proposed chronology?

More anon.

[rjpalmer]

I thank you in advance for your always cordial reply.

---He writes, unsuspectingly.

Blimey, are you deliberately being dim, or are you just not reading my posts carefully?

Well, there is always hope the next reply will be cordial. Cheers!

Yes, I do read your posts carefully (for the most part), so it must be the former of the two choices---I am dim--because I still can't work out how your chronology is anything other than moonshine.

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.

[rjpalmer]

The chronology of hard dates tells its own clear story (and you have told it in regard to Alan Davies so I shan't iterate it on this occasion), but 'hard dates' are only 'hard' to some people when they suspect they can spin an angle.

See above.

Davies hears about this diary in March 1992 but inexplicably waits eight months before trying to peddle it to someone who sells burglar alarms---and even though he doesn't own the merch in question and his work buddy had already allegedly sold it to a chap in a pub sometime before mid-April.

Is this what you are calling 'clear'?