Special Announcement

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[Iconoclast]

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

[caz]

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

[caz]

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

[peg&pie]

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!

[caz]

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?

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

[John G]

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."

[caz]

Is there any evidence for any of this?

No John, I just made it all up.

Actually, I just made that up.

Yes John, there is evidence [documentary, multiple witnesses, recorded interviews, correspondence and what have you] behind everything I post, and I try to make it very clear when I'm giving my personal opinion or interpretation based on that evidence.

According to Robert Smith the diary was found on the 9th March, the same say MB phoned the literary agent, not that I believe it was! Meanwhile, Brian Rawes told SH that whatever had been hiding under the floorboards was discovered in June 1992. And this counts as provenance? What a complete mess.

Did you actually read my post? Brian Rawes was told by Eddie Lyons, on 17th July 1992 in the drive of Battlecrease, that he [Eddie] had found a book under the floorboards. He didn't tell Brian when he had found it, and Brian simply assumed he meant recently, which wasn't the case. Working from memory alone, Brian initially thought this conversation had happened in the June, but the documentary evidence and circumstances, plus the accounts given by Colin Rhodes and Brian himself, pinned it down to 17th July, because that is the first and only time Brian ever went to the house, and it was also when Eddie and Graham Rhodes were there, working on the ground floor.

Are you suggesting the diary was found 4 months after MB phoned the literary agent? Actually, what are you suggesting?

Ah, so you didn't actually read my post. Why do I bother?

By the July, the "old book" was getting close to a publishing deal. If Eddie got a sniff of this it would explain why he told Brian he thought what he'd found [back in March, when he insisted he had previously been at the house and floorboards on the first floor were taken up] could be "important".

In short, Eddie couldn't have found anything under floorboards on any other occasion than 9th March 1992, because none of the other work at the house up to and including July 1992 involved taking up any floorboards.

Alan Davies told SH the following:

"He recounted a story by another electrician at Portus and Rhodes, Brian Rawes. At the end of one day, Mr Rawes had been picking up two other employees from Battlecrease House in the firm's van. He recalls one of them saying, "I've found something under the floorboards. I think it could be important."

Yep, Chinese whispers. What Alan told Shirley was broadly, but not precisely, what Brian's experience was, so the documentary evidence and testimony from Colin Rhodes shows why Brian was really sent to the house and when. Alan wasn't there; he got his information from Brian, who was. If they'd both said precisely the same thing, and given precisely the same information, down to Eddie's inside leg measurement, you'd have more reason to be suspicious.

We can see how the Chinese Whisper machine works on these boards, on a daily basis, with one poster giving out information and the next poster either ignoring it, misreading it, or posting a version of it that bears only a passing resemblance to the original. And the original is still there in black and white for people to consult, which makes it all the more frustrating, because nobody has to rely on their naturally imperfect memory, like the electricians would have done, for what was said and done by whom on any particular occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Monday 12th December 1994
...You know what, when we get to write this affidavit, we'll need a lot of detail you know. Then we'll sign it and swear it before a solicitor. That's what we'll do.

Love,

Caz
X

MB [Thinks]: I don't want to let my new important friends down here. I've got less than a month to think up some of the details, by the looks of it. Hmmm. A military man, I think. Have him bidding for it. Make it part of a job lot. Add in a compass. I nearly lost two fingers - so I'll have the compass lose its fingers too! Brilliant. Erm, I could say there were some World War One photographs inside - better check to see if they would have been valuable and maybe therefore not likely to be part of a single job lot. I can't write a note because of my hand so I'll just have to remember to check that. I'll find an auction house somewhere in Liverpool, and somewhere I could have bought the ink and nibs. I'll say I gave it all to Lynn to get rid of. This is easy peasy. I wonder if there'll be a few bob in it for me?

AG: I have to go now, Mike. Can I do anything for you before I go?

MB: Yeah. You could pour me some of that Lucozade, please. It's in the cabinet here, underneath me jumper and what have you.

AG: Sure thing, Mike. Hmmm. That's interesting. I didn't realise Lucozade was made by Whyte and Mackay.

MB: Thanks Alan. Yer me best ******* pal and I empathise that.

[caz]

I suspect that there is an undercurrent with all of this somewhere, and those ripper researchers "directly" involved with Barrett in this probably know a lot more than has been disclosed.

The truth is out there!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Morning Trev,

Shortly before the affidavit of 5th January 1995, when Mike had injured his hand badly, Alan Gray was heavily involved, on Melvin Harris's behalf, with getting enough information out of Mike Barrett to put together a detailed statement of how and when the diary was created, and by whom.

From my timeline:

Wednesday 7th December 1994
AG and MB divorced

Thursday 8th December 1994
Evening Standard article: 'At last – the truth about Jack the Ripper'
Melvin Harris is quoted: "There is now no doubt whatsoever that they [the diary] are a recent fake...The identities of the three people involved in the forgery will soon be made known."

Monday 12th December 1994
Alan Gray and Mike Barrett in conversation, during visit by Gray to MB at Liverpool Royal Infirmary.
AG: What he [Melvin Harris] was saying to me was as soon as Mike comes out, it's in the best interest of everyone to take a concise statement and all the newspapers will [take it] and at the end of it we go down together and swear it as an affidavit and that will be it nailed down, right. It will take a few hours.
MB: I'll get nicked then.
AG: No, you won't, because this statement will safeguard you is what Melvin tells me.
MB: Yeah, yeah.
AG: Just stay as you have been and let the others handle it. Let everyone get on with it and that's it. You know the saying, 'every dog has its day'...
...You know what, when we get to write this affidavit, we'll need a lot of detail you know. Then we'll sign it and swear it before a solicitor. That's what we'll do.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Ok, thanks. Yes, it certainly seems unfortunate that Inside Story contains errors of this sort.

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

[Kattrup]

This relates to when Caroline Morris wrote to R.J. Palmer on another thread:



Inside Story (p170) states that on Jan 18 1995 (13 days after Barrett signed the affidavit): 'Barrett had assented to a meeting at his house with Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison, Sally Evemy...to discuss his sworn statement'.

How could Keith Skinner have attended a meeting n January 1995 to discuss with Mike Barrett a sworn statement the existence of which he wasn't aware of until two years later?

I have taken the opportunity to ask Keith for a response to this and he has emailed me the following:



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.

Ok, thanks. Yes, it certainly seems unfortunate that Inside Story contains errors of this sort.

[Iconoclast]

Is there any evidence for any of this? According to Robert Smith the diary was found on the 9th March, the same say MB phoned the literary agent, not that I believe it was! Meanwhile, Brian Rawes told SH that whatever had been hiding under the floorboards was discovered in June 1992. And this counts as provenance? What a complete mess.

Are you suggesting the diary was found 4 months after MB phoned the literary agent? Actually, what are you suggesting?

Alan Davies told SH the following:

"He recounted a story by another electrician at Portus and Rhodes, Brian Rawes. At the end of one day, Mr Rawes had been picking up two other employees from Battlecrease House in the firm's van. He recalls one of them saying, "I've found something under the floorboards. I think it could be important."

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