Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Announcement

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

  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Iconoclast,

    Your wish is my command.

    But as for apologising, you stand more chance of getting a Blue Whale up your bum.

    Until someone unearths Abberline's personal autograph book, the Diary will remain the ultimate example of Ripperological shenanigans, of which there are many.

    Stay safe.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    You're all being so reasonable, Caz. I think we can draw a line under this one now ...

    Ike
    ...until the next opportunity for one of Lord O's inner circle to take a gratuitous swipe at the authors of Inside Story.

    Shows how much faith they have in LOBSTER Day, if nothing else.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Ike,
    I think the problem was my fault ...
    Love,
    Caz
    X
    Hi Fellow Casebookers,

    Now, this really would 'cork' you! Clearly affected by the blazing heat of the day, I've received another email from Keith Skinner - concerned no doubt that he'll go to bed one night soon with The Switchblade's shadow protruding from that streetlamp outside his bedroom window - to the effect that he takes full responsibility for the error regarding Bongo's bongtastic affy David of Jan 5, 1995.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	2020 07 31 Streetlamp.jpg Views:	0 Size:	98.2 KB ID:	738786

    Keith says:

    I should have read that more closely in the context of what had previously been said. All that was very clear in my mind going into that meeting was I wanted to know why Mike had claimed to have forged the diary [Ike: to Harold Brough in 1994, if you're new to this game]. I knew nothing about the affidavit but had Barrett not signed a statement for Brough that what he had told him was the truth? That was probably the genesis of the confusion resulting in, inadvertently, misleading readers.
    Keith also points out that he only became aware of the maroon diary saga on July 5 1995 and - as it forms a key part of Bongo's bongodavit - this reassures him that he definitely wasn't aware of the latter when he interviewed Barrett on Jan 18, 1995.

    Whether protecting a lady's honour or terrified of her terrible midnight transformations (her favourite pub in Edinburgh is 'Deacon Brodie's', for goodness sake - inspiration for Jekyll and Hyde - what more do I need to say???), it is clear that the authors of Inside Story are hellbent on a dramatic Casebook-enabled re-enactment of the "Oh, by the way, my fork is dirty - could I get another, please?" sketch



    This is brilliant: If I could just entice Seth Linder out of retirement to also take full responsibility for this error, we'd have the hat-trick! And then Sutton Publishing. And then any distributors. Oh and bloody WH Smith for selling dodgy, ill-edited texts! (Is it too late to get a refund???)

    While I'm on a theme, I wonder if I could encourage Simon Wood, Bruce Robinson, Tom Westcott, Stewart Evans, Trevor Marriott, and anyone else who has made the terrible mistake of decrying the case against James Maybrick to come on here and apologise - ideally to me personally - for their heinous mistakes?

    What could possibly go wrong with this wonderful ambition? [Quickly checks his watch ...]

    PS Probably the last time Keith Skinner replies to one of my emails! But I can't help myself! He's like a Jack the Ripper God, for goodness sake - is there no end to my sacrilege???

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Error Reporter and Ruthless Rooterouter of Published Typos
    All in the Name of Truth and Integrity and What Have You

    Click image for larger version  Name:	2020 07 31 Judge.jpg Views:	0 Size:	67.8 KB ID:	738785

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Hi Ike,

    I just realised that we wrote that Mike assented to the meeting at his house on 18th January 1995 'to discuss his sworn statement'. It was a mistaken assumption on our part, writing in 2002/3, that he would obviously be asked to discuss the sworn statement we knew he had made 13 days earlier. We now know that he didn't discuss it at all, and nobody asked him to, because at the time none of those present knew about it.

    A minor error, I would suggest, compared with the error made by Harris and co in keeping the statement under wraps for so long after it was made. Had we been wide awake to this fact at the time, and set it down in print, we'd have been accused of even more bias than we were.

    But people like someone to blame, don't they, and my back is broad enough.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    You're all being so reasonable, Caz. I think we can draw a line under this one now ...

    Ike

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Hi Ike,

    I just realised that we wrote that Mike assented to the meeting at his house on 18th January 1995 'to discuss his sworn statement'. It was a mistaken assumption on our part, writing in 2002/3, that he would obviously be asked to discuss the sworn statement we knew he had made 13 days earlier. We now know that he didn't discuss it at all, and nobody asked him to, because at the time none of those present knew about it.

    A minor error, I would suggest, compared with the error made by Harris and co in keeping the statement under wraps for so long after it was made. Had we been wide awake to this fact at the time, and set it down in print, we'd have been accused of even more bias than we were.

    But people like someone to blame, don't they, and my back is broad enough.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-31-2020, 04:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    Hi Ike,

    I think the problem was my fault ...
    I like it Cazeleon - taking one for the team! Let's hope those fine young men in blue do the same for 'Chelski! Chelski!' tomorrow afternoon and that they are not unduly distracted from their task by the shocking revelations coming out of Chigwell that a Liverpool cotton merchant who died in 1889 was done up like a kipper in 1992.

    Okay, I'd say there's no malice at hand there, Caz, wouldn't you Casebook Contributors?

    Now, here's the rub: I have only just realised that Bongo's affy David was not immediately published. I suspect that this is also true of most of your avid readers and my avid reader (Old Mrs Iconcoclast). A quarter of a century has passed, and it wasn't obvious!

    Now, here's the rubberer rub: Why?

    We know that Melvin Harris was behind the affy David, using the honest but well-intended but rather witless Alan Gray ('Mr Gullible') to do the grunt work of manipulating Bongo's mind (imagine the challenge!). So - given what dynamite it should have been - why the secrecy and the delay in publishing?

    Is it at all possible that Harris - a researcher at heart - went off to check the facts before he dropped his new-found bombshell into the story and realised - Gulp! - not a single ******* word of it was true?

    It is hard to imagine what else would have held back the most honourable Committee for Integrity (i.e., Melvin Harris) around the time he was publishing his own book on Jack.

    Hmmm.

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-31-2020, 02:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Yes, it's obviously not ideal but dealing with the wealth of material they had, and the credits going to three different people, it's probably inevitable that relatively insignificant details get mixed-up (until such time as someone decides they are significant and they can be corrected). I think significant errors would be picked-up at the editorial reviews, in fairness.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Hi Ike,

    I think the problem was my fault, because Seth was working on his narrative from my timeline, and wouldn't have seen from my entry for 5th January 1995 that the affidavit sworn by Mike that day wasn't quickly broadcast to anyone outside of Melvin Harris's inner circle, nor indeed seen by Shirley or Keith until January 1997. He'd have needed to fast-forward through the timeline to January 1997 in order to learn this, and I didn't pick up on it either, because I would have been checking Seth's narrative for early 1995 and not relating it to events in early 1997. I think we both simply assumed at the time of writing that the affidavit would have been pretty much common knowledge soon after the event and, to be fair, Melvin Harris and his supporters didn't exactly rush to set the record straight after our book came out, with the information that it had been kept a closely guarded secret from the 'enemy' and was finally put up on the internet a year or more later.

    I can't find where we state in the book that the affidavit was going to be discussed at either the January 1995 C&D meeting, or the meeting with Mike on 18th of that month, but I can see how it might read that way, in the context of the surrounding narrative. As I say, Seth may well have got the same impression because I didn't think to cross-reference that 5th January 1995 entry with those of January 1997. I've remedied this now on the timeline, so it's clearer who knew about the affidavit and when - and more importantly who didn't know and weren't told:

    Thursday 5th January 1995
    Affidavit sworn by MB:
    MB states he has been trying to expose the diary fraud since December 1993... [and what have you]
    ... [and what have you and that's the God's honest truth]
    Sources: copy of sworn affidavit 5th January 1995 (CAM/KS/1995 – but not seen by SH until 22nd January 1997, when MB sends her a copy. Not seen by KS until 23rd January 1997, when SH gives him a copy. KS faxes a copy to PF on 31st January 1997.)
    https://www.casebook.org/suspects/ja...con.bjan5.html

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    Hi Abe,

    Mike's initial 'confession' was to Harold Brough and the Liverpool Daily Post on Saturday 25 June 1994 so it was 'out there' for six months and more before Melvin Harris persuaded Alan Gray to persuade Barrett to sign the affidavit and the Cloak & Dagger Club decided to mark it with a meeting two days later. The report in the Post quotes MB as saying that he forged the diary because he could not pay the mortgage, and thought he would write the biggest story in history because writing was the only thing he was good at, apart from being a scrap metal merchant. But he was unable to explain how he did it or answer basic questions.

    And while we're on the subject, there has never been any evidence that the Barretts were struggling to pay their mortgage. Nor indeed has there ever been any evidence that Barrett was any good at scrap metal dealing.

    Cheers,

    Ike
    Afternoon Ike and Al,

    Keith confirms that nothing was mentioned about Mike's 5th January 1995 affidavit at that Cloak & Dagger meeting, at least not to him or Paul Begg, who was with him. The two had met Feldman and Anne beforehand and then went to the "Smoke & Stagger" where they met Shirley, her husband and Sally Evemy. Nothing was said by anybody about Mike having sworn an affidavit.

    Al will note from the affidavit that Mike said he had been trying to expose the diary since December 1993 – just two months after it was published. It's not known why, but had Keith been aware of this, he says he'd have asked him about it on 18th January. In fact, he'd have gone through the affidavit with Mike page by page. In June 1994 Mike made his confession to the Liverpool Daily Post and then, with the assistance of Alan Gray, (whose services Mike had previously engaged to track down the whereabouts of Anne and his daughter), he set out to find the proof that he had faked the diary. Everyone at that meeting on 18th January, especially Shirley, wanted to understand why Mike had told the newspaper he had forged the diary. Except Mike was now saying he hadn’t forged it, but said what he did [to Harold Brough the previous June] to get back at Anne. Keith could never get a clear answer as to why and how this was getting back at Anne.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by peg&pie View Post

    Is there any reliable information as to the nature of this call? I mean if it is in any way diary related, it pretty much destroys Robert Smith's so called indisputable evidence. Which wasn't really anything of the sort anyway.
    Or is this call just passed off as part of MB's supposed literary career.

    Sorry if some of these points have been gone over before but there's so much material to read through, it's easier if someone knows the answers already. Not that I'm too lazy to look myself but trying to find a specific piece of info here is like looking for a needle in a haystack!
    You said it, peg&pie! Welcome to the mad house.

    Apparently, all will be revealed tomorrow and we can all go away and stop wondering if or when Mike ever called Pan Books.

    Unfortunately there is no evidence beyond Mike's word for it that he telephoned Pan Books to tell them about the diary. So January, February or March, 1990, 1991 or 1992 - dates are irrelevant if he was making it up. If we allow that he did make such a call, however, and claimed it was in February 1992, he'd have had a good reason for lying about it being before 9th March 1992, if that's when he first saw the diary but didn't want anyone knowing it.

    For what it's worth, Mike said he phoned Pan Books first, but was advised to contact a literary agent instead, and was given Doreen's details. He must have got her details from somewhere, and he has never suggested an alternative method, so your guess is as good as mine.

    IIRC, there were some Pan books on a shelf in the Barretts' house when investigators began arriving, which could explain where Mike got the idea to call Pan first - or where he got the idea to lie about it. Take your pick.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Iconoclast
    replied

    Originally posted by John G View Post
    Brian Rawes account seems to have evolved over the years-he originally told SH that the find under the floorboards took place in June 1992, so I would argue that his account isn't particularly reliable.
    Brian Rawes was, indeed, confident that it was June 1992. Research showed that it simply had to be Friday, July 17 1992. Rawes appears to have got it wrong. If you were completely honest with yourself, you would ask yourself "Why on earth am I claiming that that makes Rawes' account 'particularly unreliable'". If I remember being in Arran on holiday in June 2018 and it subsequently turns out that I was actually in Arran on holiday in July 2018, would you question that I was actually in Arran on holiday in the summer of 2018? Does it matter that he recalled an event which to him must have been quite ordinary as happening in the wrong month?

    How many people who say that they can remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard about the death of Diana could tell us the date (or even the month, possibly not even the year)? Doesn't mean she wasn't killed.

    Meanwhile, Robert Smith triumphantly declared in 2017, "The new and indisputable evidence, that on March 9, 1992, the diary was removed from under the floorboards of the room that had been James Maybrick'a bedroom in 1889, and offered later on the very same day to a London literary agent, overides any other considerations regarding its authenticity." ( Daily Telegraph, 6 Aug, 2017.)

    However, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that RS was relying on research undetaken by Keith Skinner, which showed that work had been carried out at Battlecrease on 14 separate days during March, June and July 1992, of which 9th March was the earliest date. Therefore it would be statistically likely that any find would have been after the 9th March.
    Are you seriously suggesting that the only time the floorboards were raised on those 14 occasions was not the most likely to produce a 'find' simply on the basis that it happened to be the first date of the fourteen?

    And didn't the records show that neither Brian Rawes or Eddie Lyons had been working at Battlecrease on March 9th, which rather throws a spanner in the works.
    Keep up, John. The timesheets (by which Dodds was billed) showed billable work (naturally). Rawes was definitely not there. Eddie Lyons - by Colin Rhodes' admission - could have been there doing non-billable work or 'helping out', and then - by his own admission in 2018 - was there.

    But let's just go with the March 9th date for a moment. This just throws up further problems. Thus, how did the electricians get the diary to MB on the same day that he phoned DM, especially as it has never been shown that MB knew any if the electricians?
    Well, Eddie Lyons drank in The Saddle and so did Mike Barrett. What more do you need to know? It means that two amazing coincidences happened (in your version of events):

    1) The floorboards in BH were lifted on March 9, 1992 and Mike Barrett first revealed his story about having the diary of Jack the Ripper (seriously, stupendously unlikely co-incidence of events)
    2) A member of P&R's team (Eddie Lyons) drank in the same pub as Mike Barrett despite there being eight miles between BH and the pub (seriously, stupendously unlikely event)

    Why would they think MB would be interested in such a find? I mean, I seriously doubt that he put a request on the notice board of The Saddle: " Wanted: one Jack the Ripper diary. Must be in good condition. Must be genuine article."
    We don't know but our not knowing does not weaken the case in the slightest. We are not required to know. Those of us with some knowledge of the case (not you, then) know that Barrett was an aspiring writer. Is it possible he mentioned it once or twice (or every time he went in there)?

    And if he's just contacted out of the blue he's at least going to want to see the alleged find, i.e. to make sure it's not just a wind up or a hoax.
    Warning: A poster is making hideous assumptions to try to 'win' an argument!

    That means they must have got it to him during the hours they were supposed to be working, i.e. in order for him to have contacts DM during working hours, which seems very unlikely. We would also have to assume that MB acted without taking any time to evaluate the diary's authenticity, which again seems doubtful.
    Warning: A poster is making hideous assumptions to try to 'win' an argument!

    What's to stop Mike meeting Eddie at lunchtime in The Saddle, hearing of the find, or even seeing the find, and then ringing Doreen Montgomery? If the answer to that is 'Nothing', you MUST stop making assumptions which implies it is 'Something'.

    And where did he get DM's telephone number from at such short notice? It wouldn't have been in the local tel directory or Yellow Pages. And I doubt he phoned directory enquires, saying something like," Look I've just obtained the find of the century. Please put me through to a random London literary agent immediately.
    Warning: A poster is trying to make an argument from the 'absurd' without bothering first to check their facts!

    Apparently he rang Pan Books who suggested he contacted Rupert Crew. Crikey, that was hard!

    In fact, according to SH he phoned Pan Books in Feb 1992, i.e. a month before the diary was supposedly found, who advised him to get a literary agent.
    The case for a March 9 1992 provenance is not going to stand or fall because SH did not check and double-check the facts. Imagine Mike knows it's hookey? So he has the bright idea to create a back story earlier than March 9 1992 by telling people he contacted Pan Books a month before then. Bingo - Bongo's home and hosed!

    Of course, none if tbis can be remotely reconciled withe AG's account that she found the diary at the family home years earlier, before giving it to TD in 1991, to give to MB in the hope that it might inspire him to write a novel, which simply further undermines the diary's " provenance."
    Warning: A poster is attempting to use multiple irrelevant facts in the name of an argument!

    There can only be one provenance, in truth. You are welcome to attempt to 'reconcile' provenances, but the rest of us will just recognise that only one (possibly none) may be the true one. The ones which remain do not need to be explained, and certainly not 'reconciled'.

    Now John, you have demonstrated time and time again that you have a slender grasp of the Maybrick case. Each post with your thoroughly infantile questions betrays your lack of knowledge.

    And just when I was willing to be conciliatory too!

    Ike
    Last edited by Iconoclast; 07-31-2020, 12:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by John G View Post

    Ike,

    Okay, that's a fair assessment, and I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you say in this post.

    Brian Rawes account seems to have evolved over the years-he originally told SH that the find under the floorboards took place in June 1992, so I would argue that his account isn't particularly reliable.

    Meanwhile, Robert Smith triumphantly declared in 2017, "The new and indisputable evidence, that on March 9, 1992, the diary was removed from under the floorboards of the room that had been James Maybrick'a bedroom in 1889, and offered later on the very same day to a London literary agent, overides any other considerations regarding its authenticity." ( Daily Telegraph, 6 Aug, 2017.)

    However, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that RS was relying on research undetaken by Keith Skinner, which showed that work had been carried out at Battlecrease on 14 separate days during March, June and July 1992, of which 9th March was the earliest date. Therefore it would be statistically likely that any find would have been after the 9th March. And didn't the records show that neither Brian Rawes or Eddie Lyons had been working at Battlecrease on March 9th, which rather throws a spanner in the works.

    But let's just go with the March 9th date for a moment. This just throws up further problems. Thus, how did the electricians get the diary to MB on the same day that he phoned DM, especially as it has never been shown that MB knew any if the electricians?

    Why would they think MB would be interested in such a find? I mean, I seriously doubt that he put a request on the notice board of The Saddle: " Wanted: one Jack the Ripper diary. Must be in good condition. Must be genuine article."

    And if he's just contacted out of the blue he's at least going to want to see the alleged find, i.e. to make sure it's not just a wind up or a hoax. That means they must have got it to him during the hours they were supposed to be working, i.e. in order for him to have contacts DM during working hours, which seems very unlikely. We would also have to assume that MB acted without taking any time to evaluate the diary's authenticity, which again seems doubtful.

    And where did he get DM's telephone number from at such short notice? It wouldn't have been in the local tel directory or Yellow Pages. And I doubt he phoned directory enquires, saying something like," Look I've just obtained the find of the century. Please put me through to a random London literary agent immediately.

    In fact, according to SH he phoned Pan Books in Feb 1992, i.e. a month before the diary was supposedly found, who advised him to get a literary agent.

    Of course, none if tbis can be remotely reconciled withe AG's account that she found the diary at the family home years earlier, before giving it to TD in 1991, to give to MB in the hope that it might inspire him to write a novel, which simply further undermines the diary's " provenance."
    Hi John,

    Could you tell me which diary books you have read, and how recently?

    Also, have you read all the recent posts on this very subject?

    I ask, because the above seems to be an almost exact re-run of a previous post of yours, which was responded to in full and in considerable detail, in an attempt to clear up some of the basic and more serious misunderstandings you still appear to be struggling with, concerning the documented events, their chronology and context.

    It must be as frustrating for you as it is for me and Ike, to keep asking the same questions and voicing the same concerns, as if we have made no effort to address them at all.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    Ok, thanks. Yes, it certainly seems unfortunate that Inside Story contains errors of this sort.
    I agree, Kattrup. Our 'error' in this instance was in not putting a date on the communication from Kevin Whay of O&L in early 1997, or clarifying that this was a direct result of Shirley's first sight of Mike's affidavit from 5th January 1995, which wasn't until two years later.

    Shirley had previously dated Whay's statement [which is what we were referring to and quoted from on page 167 of Inside Story] to 30th January 1997, on page 315 of her 1998 paperback, so anyone interested enough in the minutiae could have put two and two together. I admit we could have made it easier for the more discerning and enthusiastic reader to get to grips with, but nobody's perfect! I'm cutting myself a decent slice of humble pie as I type.

    Perhaps we should have used a sledgehammer to drive it home, and emphasised most strongly in Inside Story that Mike's 5th January 1995 affidavit was suppressed by dark forces [hint: Melvin Harris and his foot soldiers] and kept well away from Shirley et al, who didn't get to read it or investigate the content until two years after it was sworn, and only then because Bongo Barrett kindly sent Shirley a copy.

    I can imagine how well that would have gone down.

    I don't think we can win this one, can we?

    Love,

    Caz
    X



    Leave a comment:


  • peg&pie
    replied

    In fact, according to SH he phoned Pan Books in Feb 1992, i.e. a month before the diary was supposedly found, who advised him to get a literary agent.

    Is there any reliable information as to the nature of this call? I mean if it is in any way diary related, it pretty much destroys Robert Smith's so called indisputable evidence. Which wasn't really anything of the sort anyway.
    Or is this call just passed off as part of MB's supposed literary career.

    Sorry if some of these points have been gone over before but there's so much material to read through, it's easier if someone knows the answers already. Not that I'm too lazy to look myself but trying to find a specific piece of info here is like looking for a needle in a haystack!

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
    It is unfortunate that Inside Story (which I think was primarily written by Seth Linder from Skinner and Morris's extensive research, though I could be wrong) is misleading on this point. The fact is that the transcript of the Jan 18, 1995 meeting makes no reference to a Jan 5 1995 affidavit...
    It is unfortunate, Ike, and I have no excuses, other than to clarify that it was primarily Keith's extensive research and documentation, which I used to create a chronology of events from 1992 to 2002, all of which gave Seth the basis for the narrative, which I then proofread and fact-checked, chapter by chapter.

    Kattrup has posted the following:

    It seems the affidavit being made public quickly is mentioned on several other occasions, David Barret mentions a phone call between Whay and Harrison January 16th, by which date the affidavit was known (page 167).

    I’m currently on an island vacationing and don’t have the book close by. If by chance you have a copy, perhaps you could check how much Keith Skinner et al. knew about the affidavit yourself, instead of relying on me googling it off Barrett’s website? It seems to be rather well documented around pages 167-170.
    I hope Kattrup is enjoying the island vacation and staying safe.

    However, I don't know where I suggested I was 'relying' on Kattrup to google anything off Barret's, Barrett's or even Barrat's website, in fact I'd strongly advise against it!

    I don't know where the date of January 16th came from either, because there is no date mentioned on page 167 of our book for any 'phone call' between Kevin Whay and Shirley. It seems that someone has got their wires crossed, or not updated their information, posted earlier this year on these boards, because the conversation between Whay and Shirley on 16th January 1995 had nothing to do with Mike's 5th January 1995, and actually demonstrates that Shirley had no idea on the 16th, that Mike's 'unremarkable empty album' [as she had described it in her 1994 paperback] from O&L had now morphed into a highly collectable album, containing 125 pages of WWI photos - and a fingerless compass to boot! At the time, Shirley could only work with what Mike had told Harold Brough in June 1994, which is why Whay told her that Mike's unremarkable empty album would not have been itemised or sold separately by O&L, but in a job lot of miscellaneous items.

    The further communication with Kevin Whay, which we refer to on page 167, was indeed a direct result of Shirley reading Mike's 5th January 1995 affidavit for the first time, but this didn't happen until 'soon after Barrett's affidavit was made public'. [See bottom of page 167 and top of page 168 of Inside Story, plus Shirley's 1998 paperback, page 315]

    We didn't have an actual date for when the affidavit reached the public domain [I still don't], but the relevant communication with Kevin Whay all took place between 22nd and 30th January 1997, and shows just how quickly Shirley went into action on finally reading Mike's affidavit:

    Wednesday 22nd January 1997
    MB sends SH copy of his January 5th 1995 affidavit.
    Source: email from KS, 23rd April 2020

    Wednesday 22nd January 1997
    Fax from SH to Kevin Whay:
    SH has been sent a copy of affidavit made by MB in January 1995. She is sending relevant page which deals with Outhwaite and Litherland. Would you check what Mike says against your own records? This is becoming increasingly important as deadline for SH's new edition is end of April – so SH needs urgent response to this problem.
    Source: copy of fax (KS master file 1997)

    Thursday 23rd January 1997
    KS learns about, and sees for the first time, MB's 5th January 1995 affidavit.
    Source: fax from KS to CAM dated 2nd May 2001 (CAM/KS/2001)
    Pages one and two given to KS by SH. Notes by KS at top: 'From internet...Shirley gave to KS...' and 'Fax copy to PF – 31.1.1997'.
    Source: email from KS, 23rd April 2020

    Monday 27th January 1997
    Memo from SH to Robert S:
    Director of Outhwaite and Litherland has confirmed no record of a sale such as MB describes in his affidavit, for whole of year in question, and sales procedure he details is nothing like theirs. Mr Whay will email SH a response.
    Source: copy of memo (KS master file 1997)

    Monday 27th January 1997
    Letter from SH to Kevin Whay:
    Would Mr Whay email SH's agent, Doreen M, with his reactions to MB's description of buying diary at Outhwaite and Litherland?
    Source: copy of letter (KS master file 1997)

    Thursday 30th January 1997
    Letter to Doreen Montgomery from Kevin Whay (of Outhwaite & Litherland):
    Confirms that no description or lot number corresponding with details in MB's affidavit exists, and that sales have never been conducted in the manner MB describes. (Refers to a search made on either side of the alleged sale dates for the photo album MB claimed to have bought for the diary forgery.)
    Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1997)

    I'm pretty sure I posted much of this information earlier this year, but it doesn't hurt to try and set the record straight once again, so posters like Kattrup will be wary in future of being misled by sources others than Inside Story.

    Mike did make an affidavit on April 26 1993 (reproduced on page 36 of Inside Story and copied below). The date is significant – four days after the story had broken in the newspapers that JM was going to be named as JtR in a book based on his scrapbook. Why does Mike feel it is necessary to swear an affidavit that he was given the scrapbook?

    Click image for larger version Name:	2020 07 30 MB Affidavit.JPG Views:	0 Size:	59.7 KB ID:	738696
    The date is also significant, Ike, given the emerging stories of Mike's DAiry having been half-inched from Battlecrease by an electrician. I'll bet he was Johnny Kid.

    Shakin' all over.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 07-31-2020, 11:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

    John,

    Just when I was in the mood to be conciliatory, you go and post more notes in the wrong order.

    Brian Rawes claimed that he picked-up the Portus & Rhodes' van from Battlecrease House in the early afternoon of Friday, July 17 1992 - four months after the March 9 work was carried out there. Eddie walked up to the van after Rawes had reversed it out of the drive and suddenly blurted-out what Rawes recalled as "I’ve found something under the floorboards here and I think it could be important. I don’t know what to do about it." Rawes advised him to speak with Colin Rhodes about it and he drove away.

    Now, you will read this literally and say, "Ah ha - proof positive that it couldn't have been the diary!"

    The balanced researcher - on the other hand - would ask themselves whether Rawes had remembered it word-for-word, and whether or not Lyons may actually have said "I found something ...". In that event, Lyons might have been alarmed enough about something that he felt the need to offload his fears onto someone 'safe'.

    We'll never know, probably, for certain what went down in that moment, but it is interesting to note that Lyons was at Battlecrease House around the time Barrett was getting good vibes about this Jack the Ripper diary thing he claimed a mate had given him. Now, if Lyons had taken it from Battlecrease House on March 9, sold it, and then later found this Barrett guy bragging in The Saddle about his impending publishing sensation, maybe his return to the scene of the crime in July 1992 had set off a whole host of alarm bells in his head?

    Cheers,

    ike
    Ike,

    Okay, that's a fair assessment, and I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you say in this post.

    Brian Rawes account seems to have evolved over the years-he originally told SH that the find under the floorboards took place in June 1992, so I would argue that his account isn't particularly reliable.

    Meanwhile, Robert Smith triumphantly declared in 2017, "The new and indisputable evidence, that on March 9, 1992, the diary was removed from under the floorboards of the room that had been James Maybrick'a bedroom in 1889, and offered later on the very same day to a London literary agent, overides any other considerations regarding its authenticity." ( Daily Telegraph, 6 Aug, 2017.)

    However, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that RS was relying on research undetaken by Keith Skinner, which showed that work had been carried out at Battlecrease on 14 separate days during March, June and July 1992, of which 9th March was the earliest date. Therefore it would be statistically likely that any find would have been after the 9th March. And didn't the records show that neither Brian Rawes or Eddie Lyons had been working at Battlecrease on March 9th, which rather throws a spanner in the works.

    But let's just go with the March 9th date for a moment. This just throws up further problems. Thus, how did the electricians get the diary to MB on the same day that he phoned DM, especially as it has never been shown that MB knew any if the electricians?

    Why would they think MB would be interested in such a find? I mean, I seriously doubt that he put a request on the notice board of The Saddle: " Wanted: one Jack the Ripper diary. Must be in good condition. Must be genuine article."

    And if he's just contacted out of the blue he's at least going to want to see the alleged find, i.e. to make sure it's not just a wind up or a hoax. That means they must have got it to him during the hours they were supposed to be working, i.e. in order for him to have contacts DM during working hours, which seems very unlikely. We would also have to assume that MB acted without taking any time to evaluate the diary's authenticity, which again seems doubtful.

    And where did he get DM's telephone number from at such short notice? It wouldn't have been in the local tel directory or Yellow Pages. And I doubt he phoned directory enquires, saying something like," Look I've just obtained the find of the century. Please put me through to a random London literary agent immediately.

    In fact, according to SH he phoned Pan Books in Feb 1992, i.e. a month before the diary was supposedly found, who advised him to get a literary agent.

    Of course, none if tbis can be remotely reconciled withe AG's account that she found the diary at the family home years earlier, before giving it to TD in 1991, to give to MB in the hope that it might inspire him to write a novel, which simply further undermines the diary's " provenance."




    Leave a comment:

Working...
X