One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[jmenges]

Members can post on any thread they wish, regardless of what they have and haven’t read. You’ve got no business subjecting other members to your own personal ego-driven litmus test by asking such questions.
It doesn’t matter.

JM

[Iconoclast]

My theory has nothing to do with Mike's 1995 affidavit, which I wouldn't trust anyway. The diary saga was mis-managed from its beginnings. Now, so much time has lapsed, one can never hope to uncover the truth. It therefore becomes the task of interested individuals to propose a hypothetical diary origin by reasoning out what may have happened without direct evidence.

Is that a cop-out explanation, or what?

Genuine question, Scotty: Is your knowledge about the scrapbook purely based upon what you have read on the message boards?

If not, which books have you read?

PS As you may know, I have a strong suspicion that the vast majority (maybe 90%+) of people who come on the message boards making bold claims about the inauthenticity of the scrapbook do so from a position of having failed to read a single book on the subject, so I'm just checking if you're one of those or not.

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

My theory has nothing to do with Mike's 1995 affidavit, which I wouldn't trust anyway. The diary saga was mis-managed from its beginnings. Now, so much time has lapsed, one can never hope to uncover the truth. It therefore becomes the task of interested individuals to propose a hypothetical diary origin by reasoning out what may have happened without direct evidence.

Is that a cop-out explanation, or what?

[Iconoclast]

I hope you can see that there are one or two gaps in your reasoning which do need to be explained and evidenced before we really start to take a deep dive into your theory ...

Okay, Scotty, so that's you providing us with the explanation (based upon your beliefs). Can you now take us through the evidence you have for your explanation (your beliefs), please?

By the way, I would need to check this but I am sure there was an 18 year age difference between Billy and Tony.

Also, have you read Mike's very detailed affidavit of January 5th 1995 and - if so - how do you reconcile this with your theory?

[Scott Nelson]

This original diary or text describing the story of James Maybrick was produced sometime during the run of Dam's play, The Shop Girl.

[Scott Nelson]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;n840468]

Okay, Scotty, I'll engage:

Is there is any evidence you know of which shows that Billy knew Tony Devereux?
What would Billy's motive be for giving the old photo album to Tony?
Are you suggesting that Tony had the original scrapbook containing the Maybrick as Ripper Story which they then rewrote into Billy's family photograph album?
If so, whose handwriting was it in?
And why?
How did Billy know Tony had this diary (or 'text')?
Why did Billy give the diary to Anne?
Are you saying that Anne then gave the diary to Mike who then would go on to say he was given it by Tony?
How did the original diary (or 'text') come into Tony's hands?

I hope you can see that there are one or two gaps in your reasoning which do need to be explained and evidenced before we really start to take a deep dive into your theory ...

Cheers,

Ike

I've already posted my beliefs in some of these before on your thread (back many pages), but:

Tony knew Anne through Billy. And Billy and Tony were about the same age.

Billy had no known motive except to help Tony with rewriting the 'diary.' Tony had the original and he and Billy discussed it at length, and got Billy interested enough to help with it.

The handwriting was either Tony's, Billy's or an unknown third person. The original diary was rewritten to make it more modern, especially with spate of television programs and centennial books that appeared at that time.

When Tony knew he was dying, he gave the diary to Billy.

When Mike was struggling with an attempted writing career, Billy gave the diary to his daughter so she could present it to Mike.

The original 'text' was found somewhere (possibly associated with Maybrick) and ended up being taken to the Liverpool Echo offices where it was eventually 'discovered' by Devereux.

I believe contemporaries of the organist Michael Maybrick, such as actor George Grossmith and playwright Harry Dam, were involved in producing the original.

[Iconoclast]

Yet...nothing. Feldman doesn't even allude to TMW in his book. Feldman has written TMW out of the story--the man who supposedly knew the answer. He is "ghosted."
I have a strong suspicion why that might be, and if you think it over carefully, maybe it will dawn on you, too.

I'm maybe being a bit obtuse, but it hasn't dawned on me yet. Am I supposed to sleep on it or something?

[rjpalmer]

Enjoy yourself, Ike. On my way out the door, I just want to reiterate that your following statement is incorrect.

As I recall, this is explained by Feldman in Feldman.

Again, no. Feldman does not mention Tim Martin-Wright in his book, and I find that highly interesting.

TMW was a member of Feldman's own social class--a businessman of some prominence. From the partial transcript you have provided they may have also retained personal attorneys in the same law office.

TMW tells Feldman on 6 June 1994 that he has taken legal advice and cannot offer precise details, but he knows who obtained the diary and where, and Feldman knows he is referring to an electrician.

But on June 6, 1994, Mike Barrett had not yet confessed to forging the diary; that would come two weeks later when Mike confessed first to Shirley Harrison, and then to Harold Brough. Nor was Feldman yet in contact with Anne Graham to hear her 'in the family' provenance--that would come during a six-hour marathon meeting in the Moat House the following month--23 July.

At this juncture Feldman would have had every reason to take Martin-Wright seriously and to probe the depths of his story. He would have had no choice, and TMW's respectability would have appealed to him, just as it so obviously appeals to you.

Yet...nothing. Feldman doesn't even allude to TMW in his book. Feldman has written TMW out of the story--the man who supposedly knew the answer. He is "ghosted."

I have a strong suspicion why that might be, and if you think it over carefully, maybe it will dawn on you, too.

Enjoy your new foliage.

[Iconoclast]

Thanks, Ike, but I'm going to ride off into the sunset now and let you discuss the diary with John Wheat and Scott Nelson. I prefer to question the minutia and you're obviously content to paint with a broad brush.
You now write (in purple prose, no less) that the 'only thing that matters' is Davies' account. Yet you spent three longish posts seeing it through the eyes of Tim Martin-Wright.
When I asked about some oddities and unexplained discrepancies in TMW's account, you changed the subject and accused me of focusing on trivial matters---even though it was you who introduced these trivial matters. Tut, tut.
You're playing Musical Chairs, Old Bean, and I never cared much for Musical Chairs. I always ended up without a place to sit. As the saying goes, "I'll wait for the movie."

As I'm sure you know, RJ, I was simply keeping our dear readers focused on the critical information in case all of the minutiae was overly-obfuscating.

[rjpalmer]

Thanks, Ike, but I'm going to ride off into the sunset now and let you discuss the diary with John Wheat and Scott Nelson. I prefer to question the minutia and you're obviously content to paint with a broad brush.

You now write (in purple prose, no less) that the 'only thing that matters' is Davies' account. Yet you spent three longish posts seeing it through the eyes of Tim Martin-Wright.

When I asked about some oddities and unexplained discrepancies in TMW's account, you changed the subject and accused me of focusing on trivial matters---even though it was you who introduced these trivial matters. Tut, tut.

You're playing Musical Chairs, Old Bean, and I never cared much for Musical Chairs. I always ended up without a place to sit. As the saying goes, "I'll wait for the movie."

[Iconoclast]

My Dear Readers,

Tim Martin-Wright was only one degree of separation from Alan Davies, who said he heard that someone (he couldn't quite remember whom) had found a diary and a ring inside a biscuit tin.
Ciao.

Please be clear that the only thing that matters here is that the diary of Jack the Ripper was being discussed by at least one Portus & Rhodes electrician in 1992, before Paul Feldman came on the scene in 1993. That should not be possible in itself but it gets better and I have my good friend RJ Palmer to thank for reminding us all of an even more startling truth - namely, that (and I quote):

"Alan Davies, who said he heard that someone (he couldn't quite remember whom) had found a diary and a ring inside a biscuit tin."

So in 1992 an electrician working for Portus & Rhodes was talking in loose terms about a diary of Jack the Ripper and a ring being found in a biscuit tin, and this after the staggering double event of March 9, 1992 when Portus & Rhodes electricians were working in James Maybrick's old home in the morning and an ex-scrap metal dealer who happened to drink in the same pub as some of those electricians eight miles away was ringing a London literary agency saying he thought he might have the diary of Jack the Ripper.

All we need to hear now is that rumours were rife that inside that biscuit tin was a watch!

My best wishes,

Ike
Ike Iconoclast
Detective to the Stars

[rjpalmer]

That's the thing about Chinese Whispers - the "fourth, fifth, or possibly even sixth-hand" version does not crystallise the original truth - it progressively distorts it until it no longer simulates even a vague version of the original.

Where do you come up with these nonsensical platitudes and weakly thought-out arguments?

Tim Martin-Wright was only one degree of separation from Alan Davies, who said he heard that someone (he couldn't quite remember whom) had found a diary and a ring inside a biscuit tin.

Yet, when Martin-Wright tells it to Feldman, it is his own employee--not Alan Davies--who had seen 'a copy of the diary of Jack the Ripper' with his own eyes while in a pub.

This is your idea of the tale "crystalizing" into truth?

It's sounds precisely like the sort of progressive distortion one would expect to find when dealing with Chinese whispers being passed on from person to person.

Even a raw greenhorn in History 101 knows not to base their theorizing on second or third or fourth-hand information, yet you're trying to lecture me on proper historic methodology?

Keep it real, Ike.

But what your recent posts show, Ike, is that I'd rather hear or discuss this theory from the lips of James Johnston or Keith Skinner who tend not to paint with quite the broad bush that you do, Ike, and are more interested in kicking the tires of the minutia. No offense, Old Bean, but you're too much into theatrics and evasion of the hard questions for my taste, so if it's okay with you, I'll wait until either Johnston's documentary is out or whether Keith Skinner becomes interested (if he ever become interested) in sifting this again.

One thing is for certain, if Barrett had shown up in Goldie Street one day in April 1992 with the Diary of Jack the Ripper, Anne Graham would have told this vital information to Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, and Carol Emmas when she became close to them and started working with them over a period of several years. She would have thrown Barrett under the bus in a New York minute and would have made Robert Smith's ownership of the diary a legal nightmare because she resented him, too.

That she didn't--and instead led her friends on a merry dance--speaks volumes.

Ciao.

[Iconoclast]

And the only reason you are doing this is because he’s the only person who claims to have heard these allegations about the the diary coming from Dodd’s house before Feldman got hold of the electricians.

Is his testimony worth less simply because you position him as the only person hearing these allegations? Is this not a sort of anti-argumentum ad populum? He's the only one therefore he's no-one?

And do you exclude Alan Davies who told the story to Alan Dodgson who passed the story to Tim Martin-Wright, all confirming that the story was being discussed long before the Battlecrease provenance was on the table?

Do you just conveniently ignore the testimony of all three - perhaps because it just doesn't work with your playbook?

Surely - as a balanced and reasonable thinker - you should be struck by the fact that these three men were discussing the diary of Jack the Ripper being sold in a pub in Liverpool almost a year before the first book on the subject was published? Does it not make you pause for a moment and wonder exactly how that comes to pass?

The "fourth, fifth, or possibly even sixth-hand information" of which you speak so disparagingly just happens to take us back to Battlecrease House and a light-fingered electrician lifting an old book from - almost certainly - under Maybrick's old floorboards on the same day that we know for certain that a fellow drinker from The Saddle Inn was seeking to gain interest in - drum roll, please - a diary of Jack the Ripper purportedly written by James Maybrick?

That's the thing about Chinese Whispers - the "fourth, fifth, or possibly even sixth-hand" version does not crystallise the original truth - it progressively distorts it until it no longer simulates even a vague version of the original. And yet this 'Chinese Whispers' does exactly what it shouldn't be doing - it focuses down on the very possibility which Keith Skinner (and Coral Atkins) uncovered in 2004 and which could not be revealed until Bruce Robinson gave the green light to in 2017. Extraordinary. The truth was out there in Liverpool in 1992, and finally it was evidenced in 2017.

As a rational and well-intended researcher, you should want to understand this better not worse.

It's your choice what sort of researcher you wish to be.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Cut the b.s., Ike. Martin-Wright is himself tangential.

He’s passing along fourth, fifth, or possibly even sixth-hand information. Yet you make him a “witness” and introduce make him as the centerpiece of your tale.

And the only reason you are doing this is because he’s the only person who claims to have heard these allegations about the the diary coming from Dodd’s house before Feldman got hold of the electricians.

Thus, my focus is entirely valid and relevant. No amount of waffle and evasion from you will change that.

But since you clearly don’t wish to peer behind the painted veil, I’ll wait until the winter of 2025 when your treatise appears and again raise the relevant points.

[Iconoclast]

I don't know, but as it is currently being told, it doesn't make any sense. At least not to me.

Goodness, RJ, you do like to get yourself in an fankle about the tangential stuff, don't you? Personally, I'm seriously interested in hearing about the critical stuff and that would consist - in this case - of the following:

1) Alan Davies, an electrician with Portus & Rhodes, told Alan Dodgson about a diary of Jack the Ripper that was 'up for sale' and that conversation happened in or very near to early December 1992. All of this is backed-up by Dodgson and Martin-Wright's evidence and personal testimony. This is the BIG message, the one that clearly needs to be either right or wrong. A lot of the other details can be right or wrong but not alter for one moment the BIG message - which is (for those who are not keeping-up) that an electrician with Portus & Rhodes, told Alan Dodgson about a diary of Jack the Ripper that was 'up for sale' and that conversation happened in or very near to early December 1992.

2) Alan Davies had been off work since June 1992 after a bad motorbike accident so it is perfectly plausible that he was unaware that the diary to which he referred had already long since been sold in a pub in Liverpool. I agree (before you say it again) that one might have expected Davies to have known before his accident the diary of Jack the Ripper had already been sold in a pub in Liverpool, I can't answer to why he implied in December 1992 that it might still be available for sale. That's a gap in our knowledge.

But point number 1 is problematic for Hoax Defenders because it implies that Mike Barrett may very well have been the person who bought the diary of Jack the Ripper earlier in 1992, and therefore it also rather implies that the diary could well have come out of Battlecrease House on March 9, 1992 when work was done in it involving at least one Portus & Rhodes electrician who drank in The Saddle Inn, Kirkdale, where Mike Barrett enjoyed the occasional couple of pints.

So none of this is necessarily certain proof that the Battlecrease provenance is the true one (Mike may have bragged about having or even publishing the diary of Jack the Ripper and Alan Davies may have picked up on that and he may have simply added the detail about it doing the rounds of a pub in Liverpool), but it must - surely??? - give Hoax Defenders all the world over a moment of pause during which their terrified brains try to concoct a dismissal of the Battlecrease provenance which adequately and irrevocably sidelines (and ideally removes) this exchange between Alan Davies and Alan Dodgson in APS Security in almost certainly early December 1992.

So, dear readers, when you see the tangential stuff being thrown around like confetti, you can rest assured that the BIG message is scaring the hell out of someone somewhere. In this case, it will be RJ Palmer and Lord Algernon Orsam, but it really ought to be every Hoax Defender wherever they gather in their dusty little corners to distract, sidetrack, and be anywhere other than on the right track.

Amen to that your graces.

The Honourable Ike