Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ever Changing Provenance of the 'Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Ever Changing Provenance of the 'Diary

    I thought I'd help resurrect this thread, originally started by Grey Hunter.

    Here's some of the initial posts:

    These following posts were made to the thread:
    ************
    The Ever Changing Provenance of the 'Diary'

    Posted by: Grey Hunter
    On: 29th May 2007 05:48 PM

    In view of the latest claim that the provenance of the 'diary' has changed, yet again, I thought that a thread covering this aspect would be appropriate. It may be added to at any time as new information comes to light.

    First we should remember that back in the heady days of 1992-1993 it was proposed that it had been found in Battlecrease House in Aigburth, Maybrick's former home, during extensive re-wiring work which had begun in 1990. The owner of the house, Paul Dodd, stated he had no knowledge of any documents being discovered. The head of the company which carried out the work, Colin Rhodes, director of Garston electrical contractors 'Portus Rhodes' said he had spoken to workmen who had been employed on the work and "They haven't been able to shed any light on it at all. It seems strange that if it was found in the house, nobody said anything about it at the time. I am a personal friend of Paul Dodd, so it is very embarrassing to have people suggesting that one of my employees has taken it. I would like to find out what has happened so as to lift the suspicion from my employees."

    Of course Mike Barrett had claimed that he was given the 'diary' by Tony Devereux who had died in 1991. Devereux's daughters stated that they had no knowledge of such a 'diary'.
    ************

    Hi Grey Hunter...doesn't the "JtR" Diary have the same...
    Discussion of other criminal cases that have some relation to the Ripper, including various East End murders, other serial killers (both modern and historical), etc.

    Posted by: cappuccina
    On: 29th May 2007 06:09 PM

    ...provenance as the Hitler Diary and the "Battle of the Alamo" Diary?

    My understanding is that the following works were also found in Tony Devereux' basement:

    _Epistle to the Laodiceans_
    _Theology of Aristotle_
    Ademar of Chabannes' _Life of St. Martial _
    Thomas Chatterton's pseudo-medieval poetry
    Ossianic poems
    _Manuscript of Dvůr Králové _and _Manuscript of Zelená Hora_
    The _Book of the Zohar_, a primary text of medieval Kabbalah.
    The _Salamander Letter_, which offered an alternative account of Joseph Smith's finding of the _Book of Mormon_.
    Clifford Irving's _Howard Hughes Autobiography_

    Each of these works comes with a free "Piltdown Man" tooth as well...
    ************


    Posted by: rjpalmer
    On: 29th May 2007 07:11 PM

    In regards to Grey Hunter’s post above. I’ve been looking for a post on the old Casebook CD but have failed to find it. Four or five years ago a man proporting to be a Liverpool or Merseyside electrician or electrician’s assistant made a one-time post on these forums, claiming to have inside information about the diary’s provenance. He referred to Barrett (Mike, not Syd) and some sort of intrigue (my memory is hazy). His post was entirely ignored at the time, but I noticed that not many months afterwards certain posters began referring to an ‘old provenance re-examined’ or some such phrase, as well as an on-going investigation in Liverpool. Unless he was an impostor, I reckon this fellow was one of the electricians mentioned by Feldman-- part of this same ‘Garston’ episode. If anyone has better luck at navigating the old CD than I do, perhaps they could re-post the original message?
    ************


    Posted by: oberlin
    On: 29th May 2007 08:07 PM

    Hi R.J.,

    Are you referring to this bit? It's from the Maybrick-Diary Archives 2001, archive through April 17.

    "Darren Bytheway, 09 April 2001, 05:49 am":

    As a mater of interest to some of you, a colleague of mine knows the workmen who found the diary. It was found in the loft at Battlecrease House under some rubbish, not under the floorboards as has been suggested.

    And:

    "Darren Bytheway, 09 April 2001, 03:56 p.m.":

    hi caz, this colleague of mine did know these workers very well as at the time he was in the same profession as they are , he comes from liverpool and the guys who found it were two *electrician* who were re-wiring battlecrease and the company was called rigbys (as far as i can remember). this all started a couple of months ago when my mate lent me the video on the maybrick diary,(i am a jack the ripper nut).anyway me and my mate was talking about this the next day ,and my other mate who as only just joined our company,came out with this lot and he as no reason to tell lies,i cant tell names as i work for a very big company in the UK . cheers daz.
    ************

    A Jack the Ripper podcast devoted to discussing all aspects of the Jack the Ripper crimes and times.

    Posted by: rjpalmer
    On: 29th May 2007 08:34 PM

    Well done, Inspector. Mr. Bytheway is indeed the chap I was trying to recall. Many thanks.
    ************


    Posted by: omlor
    On: 29th May 2007 09:58 PM

    My thanks to those who have contributed to this thread with the archive material.

    If I read it right, the second entry is a response to Caroline Morris from someone who calls himself "Daz."

    Daz & Caz. It's just too cute for words.

    Anyway, let's hope this guy proves to be the source of Keith Skinner's super secret squirrel evidence. It would just go to prove that there's never anything really new in Diary World after all. Or, as someone once sang, "everything old is new again."

    Remember, you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.

    --John
    ************


    Posted by: baron
    On: 29th May 2007 10:26 PM

    Bytheway is someone's name? Surely it was made up.


    Mike
    ************

    A Jack the Ripper podcast devoted to discussing all aspects of the Jack the Ripper crimes and times.

    Posted by: PerryMason
    On: 29th May 2007 10:40 PM


    ---Quote (Originally by cappuccina)---
    ...provenance as the Hitler Diary and the "Battle of the Alamo" Diary?

    ---End Quote---

    Hi Ms Caps,

    Actually there are legitimate letters written by the men while in the Alamo, and rememberances by the Mexican townspeople and Mexican military as well as those of Crockett, Houston, Joe the slave of Bowie and many others.........so in the case of the Alamo, the providence is actually real.

    No insult intended to Diary believers.

    Cheers Cap, all.
    ************


    Posted by: simonowen
    On: 29th May 2007 10:54 PM

    Well , Daz didn't remember the name of the company very well ( Rhodes/Rigbys ) but the provenance of this story is dodgy anyway. Its essentially ' I heard this tale from a workmate of mine , who was an electrician in Liverpool , who knew two guys who were electricians who found the Diary in Battlecrease House attic '. Presumably these guys also knew Tony Devreaux since they gave him the Diary which Tony gave to Mike Barrett etc...

    If this is the provenance for the Diary then how can Keith Skinner come up with ' If I were free to disclose everything I know and the evidence I have and were asked in a court of law, I would be prepared to say that yes, this diary came out of Battlecrease House ' ? Maybe hes spoken to the eponymous ' two electricians ' ?


    All the best,
    Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums
    Managing Editor
    Casebook Wiki

  • #2
    Carrying on.....

    These following posts were made to the thread:
    ************
    A Major Blow For the 'Diary'
    Discussion for general Whitechapel geography, mapping and routes the killer might have taken. Also the place for general census information and "what was it like in Whitechapel" discussions.

    Posted by: Grey Hunter
    On: 30th May 2007 07:29 AM

    June 1994 proved to be a torrid month for the 'diary'. For it was on Saturday June 25, 1994 that the Liverpool newspapers carried Mike Barrett's confession to faking the 'diary.' Barrett made the grand claim that he had "fooled the world." This held serious implications for those with a vested financial interest in the dodgy 'diary.' It resulted in some frenetic activity on the part of those interested parties. It also destroyed the shaky provenance that then existed and it demanded that a 'new' one must be found.

    It is interesting to note that the Liverpool reporter Harold Brough said of Barrett's confession, "But he was unable to explain how he managed to write a book which fooled experts..." But, of course, he hadn't fooled the experts at all - for most realised that it was a fake from the very beginning. It was the start of a campaign to emphasise that Barrett had a serious drink problem, was ill, and really didn't know what he was talking about. The problem with that was the fact that he was the sole provenance for the 'diary'. Anne Barrett was famously quoted as saying, "He told me he got the diary from Tony Devereux and that is all I know." The 'diary' supporters, obviously, treated Barrett's claims with contempt while the anti-'diary' faction claimed vindication for their own beliefs. The dollars signs in many eyes were now rolling much more hesitantly.

    Feldman's cigars were blasting out smoke more violently and his trade-mark aggression moved into a higher gear. Research began in order to counter and destroy Barrett's claims. The first noticeable result was the Liverpool Daily Post printing a retraction of Barrett's confession issued via his solicitor Richard Bark-Jones. Damage limitation efforts were now in top gear. Feldman began to develop his own theory that the 'diary' had come down to Barrett from within the family. The 'new' provenance began to take shape. As I previously stated, Feldman's first theory, that Anne Barrett had found it in Knowsley Buildings, where she worked, quickly fell through when it was discovered that the place had been re-built in the 1960s.

    Undeterred Feldman continued to develop the basic idea. My main memory of this period is that soon afterwards Feldman was in Liverpool seeing Anne Barrett. The result of this trip was that Feldman returned with Anne Barrett's 'new' provenance of the 'diary' having been in her family.
    ************


    Posted by: cgp100
    On: 30th May 2007 08:47 AM

    Supposing for the sake of argument that this story, or something like it, is the basis of Keith Skinner's assertion at Liverpool, wouldn't this imply that the diary was legally the property of Mr Dodd, the owner of Battlecrease, and that it had been stolen from him by the electrician in question? Further, that Robert Smith is in possession of stolen goods, that a lot of money has been made as a result of that theft, and that Keith Skinner is, legally speaking, withholding evidence that this crime has been committed?

    Perhaps this sounds a frivolous point, but if the diary were genuine (or even if it stood a reasonable chance of being genuine) it would be extremely valuable - probably worth millions of pounds.

    It would be a very serious matter - if anyone really believed for a moment that the diary could be genuine.

    Chris Phillips
    ************


    Posted by: halomanuk
    On: 30th May 2007 09:40 AM

    Whether or not the diary is a fake,and was planted in the loft of Battlecrease by whoever ,it either way constitutes theft - an item was removed from the house and used for commercial gain !!
    ************


    Posted by: callyphygian
    On: 30th May 2007 11:36 AM

    Hi Chris,
    *Supposing for the sake of argument that this story, or something like it, is the basis of Keith Skinner's assertion at Liverpool, wouldn't this imply that the diary was legally the property of Mr Dodd, the owner of Battlecrease, and that it had been stolen from him by the electrician in question? *
    Haven't we been told that Dodds approached Barrett and attempted to make a claim on a percentage of the diary? A rather cavalier approach on his part to goods stolen from him. And somewhat mysterious too.
    A Battlecrease provenance would have been good news for Barett's credibility, but he would then have been guilty of handling, and eventually, selling stolen goods. The dead man's provenance that he opted for, though lacking in credibility, meant that the diary was a gift, and Baretts ownership of it much more legitimate.


    *Perhaps this sounds a frivolous point, but if the diary were genuine (or even if it stood a reasonable chance of being genuine) it would be extremely valuable - probably worth millions of pounds.*

    Furthermore, wouldn't it count as Criminal Evidence, and have to be handed over the police? Just musing out-loud.

    Love,
    Callyphygian
    ************

    For discussion of general police procedures, officials and police matters that do not have a specific forum.

    Posted by: simonowen
    On: 30th May 2007 12:00 PM


    ---Quote (Originally by halomanuk)---
    Whether or not the diary is a fake,and was planted in the loft of Battlecrease by whoever ,it either way constitutes theft - an item was removed from the house and used for commercial gain !!
    ---End Quote---

    Planted then stolen then given/sold to Tony Devreaux - the plot gets thicker !
    ************


    Posted by: simonowen
    On: 30th May 2007 12:11 PM

    On the ' Outcome of Maybrick Trial? ' thread , Caroline Morris said this :


    ---Quote---

    Maybe I could {ask Keith Skinner about the provenance behind his comments}(when he’s next available to advise me, eh GH? ), or maybe I already know that it’s based on meticulously gathered documentation. And maybe GH can comment on whether he believes Keith is the kind of guy who comes out with claims based on ‘something he heard down the pub’.

    ---End Quote---

    Presuming this isn't just more ' tease and defer ' , it would be interesting to know what those documents are.
    ************


    Posted by: callyphygian
    On: 30th May 2007 12:25 PM

    Hey ho,

    *Planted then stolen then given/sold to Tony Devreaux - the plot gets thicker !*

    And even thicker, if one takes into account the possibility once mooted by Anne that the diary had been stolen by Elizabeth Formby, spirited out of Battlecrease house in a bundle of washing and picked up at the laundry. Anne apparently wrote a report on that particular laundry, for either Feldman, or Harrison, I can't remember which. It'd be great if someone could post that report.

    Love,
    Callyphygian
    ************

    General discussion about anything Ripper related that does not fall into a specific sub-category. On topic-Ripper related posts only.

    Posted by: caz
    On: 30th May 2007 01:23 PM

    Hi All,

    Fascinating stuff!

    I had long forgotten anything about that post from 2001 by 'Daz'. And I'd be very surprised if anything posted to these boards at any time formed any part of Keith's thinking - or documentation.


    ---Quote (Originally by simonowen)---
    Well , Daz didn't remember the name of the company very well ( Rhodes/Rigbys ) but the provenance of this story is dodgy anyway. Its essentially ' I heard this tale from a workmate of mine , who was an electrician in Liverpool , who knew two guys who were electricians who found the Diary in Battlecrease House attic '. Presumably these guys also knew Tony Devreaux since they gave him the Diary which Tony gave to Mike Barrett etc...

    If this is the provenance for the Diary then how can Keith Skinner come up with ' If I were free to disclose everything I know and the evidence I have and were asked in a court of law, I would be prepared to say that yes, this diary came out of Battlecrease House ' ?
    ---End Quote---

    I think you provided the answer to your own question there, Simon.


    ---Quote (Originally by Grey Hunter)---
    It was the start of a campaign to emphasise that Barrett had a serious drink problem, was ill, and really didn't know what he was talking about.
    ---End Quote---


    Blimey, I wouldn't have thought much of a campaign was needed, considering Mike was taken off to Fazakerley Hospital for treatment for alcoholism, and Dr Miller informed Mike's solicitor that his patient had a tendency towards confabulation. What's to emphasise?

    I don't think anyone need worry about criminal proceedings and stolen property, since we have all been reliably informed on these very boards that it is 'common knowledge' and an 'established' fact that the diary is a modern hoax, and as such can't possibly be worth much more than the £1 that was paid to take it off Mike's hands.

    I did observe to Mr Dodd at the trial that if he had found the diary himself, in his own house (like Albert Johnson found the scratches in his own watch), he would long ago have been accused of forging it. And no doubt he would have had "test it! test it! test it now!" ringing in his ears ever since.

    So he has got off lightly.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    ************


    Posted by: cgp100
    On: 30th May 2007 01:34 PM


    ---Quote (Originally by caz)---
    I had long forgotten anything about that post from 2001 by 'Daz'. And I'd be very surprised if anything posted to these boards at any time formed any part of Keith's thinking - or documentation.
    ---End Quote---

    Then again, if you don't know what Keith Skinner's evidence is, none of that means anything at all.


    ---Quote (Originally by caz)---
    I don't think anyone need worry about criminal proceedings and stolen property ...
    ---End Quote---

    Then again, if you don't know what Keith Skinner's evidence is, none of that means anything at all.

    Chris Phillips
    ************


    Posted by: omlor
    On: 30th May 2007 01:34 PM

    Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to hear any cries of "test it, test it now" concerning either of these two suspicious artefacts.

    Well, Caroline wouldn't anyway, since she has already argued that the desire to test a claim scientifically is equivalent to a belief in that claim. (And yes, I can quote her conditional argument and conclusion once again if necessary.)

    As for other people, well they might not have that somewhat unique perspective on how investigations should proceed.

    --John
    ************


    Posted by: jdpegg
    On: 30th May 2007 01:41 PM

    Surely, if the electrians took it out the loft, its stolen, fake or not

    Jenni
    ************


    Posted by: simonowen
    On: 30th May 2007 01:53 PM

    Anyone with an important artifact will need to have it tested , because if genuine it could turn out to be worth millions of pounds. Its very important to establish the provenance of such items as if the item is then sold at auction , the buyer will feel confident that they are buying something that is what its supposed to be.

    But I suspect Caroline knows this already.
    ************


    Posted by: omlor
    On: 30th May 2007 01:55 PM

    Yes, Simon. I suspect she does.

    --John
    ************


    Posted by: jdpegg
    On: 30th May 2007 01:59 PM

    let's ask her...

    no im kidding!!

    anyway
    ************


    Posted by: caz
    On: 30th May 2007 02:15 PM

    Yes, John, I would still argue that your desire to test a specific claim scientifically - Mike's Diamine claim - even though it has already been tested scientifically and found to have no reasonable chance of ever being supported, does indeed suggest to me that you still hold out hope that Mike may have been telling the truth in this instance, despite claiming you never believed a word he said about anything.

    It was purely a comment on how I saw your approach, in relation to your posting history, and not, by any stretch of the imagination, was I suggesting its entry into the good testing guide.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    PS Have we really now gone from an established modern fake to a potentially highly valuable stolen artefact? I'm most impressed - I didn't even see the join!
    ************

    Forum for discussion about how Jack could have done it, why Jack might have done it and the psychological factors that are involved in serial killers. Also the forum for profiling discussions.

    Posted by: omlor
    On: 30th May 2007 02:23 PM

    It seems necessary.

    Caroline's argument was actually clearly written at the time. She argued that if Chris and I never believed Mike's claims about the diary ink then we "would have had no reason" to call for those claims to be tested. She then noted that we did call for those claims to be tested. Therefore, she concluded, we must have believed Mike.

    For this syllogism to make any sense, especially when the existing test results are clearly contradictory, Caroline's position must be that the desire to have a claim thoroughly tested scientifically and all contradictions resolved is equivalent to believing the original claim.

    But of course, this is nonsense.

    It does however, explain a lot about her attitude concerning testing.

    --John
    ************

    A place to discuss other historical mysteries, famous crimes, paranormal activity, infamous disasters, etc.

    Posted by: cgp100
    On: 30th May 2007 03:43 PM


    ---Quote (Originally by caz)---
    PS Have we really now gone from an established modern fake to a potentially highly valuable stolen artefact? I'm most impressed - I didn't even see the join!
    ---End Quote---

    Please read again what I wrote:

    Perhaps this sounds a frivolous point, but *if the diary were genuine* (or even if it stood a reasonable chance of being genuine) it would be extremely valuable - probably worth millions of pounds.

    * It would be* a very serious matter - *if anyone really believed* for a moment that the diary could be genuine.

    I've added some emphasis to help you, but was it really so hard to understand in the first place?

    Chris Phillips
    ************


    Posted by: rjpalmer
    On: 30th May 2007 03:56 PM

    Caz - Hi. Could you explain the following comment?

    "Everyone seems to be remarkably twitchy about this, as if they think a proven Battlecrease provenance would somehow prove who wrote the diary, when or why. It won’t do anything of the sort."

    A strange comment. If Keith Skinner's Battlecrease provenance won't prove 'when' the diary was written, then simple logic suggests the claim must be that it was taken out of Battlecrease in recent years, ie., shortly before Barrett came forward with it: the electrician's story. Otherwise, your comment makes no sense. If Keith had, for example, documentation from the 1920s, showing a diary had been found in the rafters, then this most assuredly _would_ date the diary before a certain era. Or are you merely being coy?

    I'm also at a loss to understand why you find Daz's old post 'fascinating.' If you have access to Keith's information --and I'm in no position to assume that-- you would know already that it either has something directly to do with the 'new' provenance, or you would know it was complete bollocks. 'Fascinating' doesn't seem to be an appropriate response.


    All the best,
    Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums
    Managing Editor
    Casebook Wiki

    Comment


    • #3
      Sir Robert,

      Good idea of yours ... plenty of food for thought there.
      Thanks for that.

      Victoria
      "Victoria Victoria, the queen of them all,
      of Sir Jack she knows nothing at all"

      Comment

      Working...
      X