Special Announcement

[c.d.]

If you you smellllllllllllll what the Rock is cooking!

c.d.

[Iconoclast]

And once again I rest my case, Your Honour ...

[Iconoclast]

I see it more like Orville the Duck speaking to Keith Harris.

Doh - I've only just twigged!

(Actually, the twigging was done for me.)

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

How come Orville wore a nappy? Maybe he should have spent less time wishing he could fly and more time wishing he didn't **** himself. That must have made things awkward between him and Keith.

[Iconoclast]

How come Orville wore a nappy? Maybe he should have spent less time wishing he could fly and more time wishing he didn't **** himself. That must have made things awkward between him and Keith.

For ****'s sake, Abe, I almost spilt my lovely cup of tea!

Best laugh for a long time, young man ...

[John G]

Hoaxer, not forger, John. Get with the zeitgeist. RJ Palmer wants it known that this was only a hoax, not a forgery, because it makes it easier to explain why the Barretts knew it didn't matter that the handwriting would look nothing like Maybrick's.

Has anyone checked Caroline Barrett's handwriting? In April 1992 there were only three people in that house in Goldie Street, and she was a witness to the diary being transferred into the scrapbook from Bongo's word 'prosser'. Caroline would have been ten and a half, so could have done a much better job of it than her Dad.

Of course, back in the real world, what Caroline actually witnessed was her Mum typing up a transcript from the Maybrick diary, using the word processor they'd had since 1986.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, it's all a complete mess, isn't it? It all comes down to that important word "provenance", and for the diary provenance is completely non existent. What we have is a series of somewhat bizarre accounts, which essentially amount to three basic versions.

Firstly, we have MB's ever changing story. Secondly , Ann's account that it had been in her family for generations, although how it came to be in her family's possession is not explained; it just seems to have, sort of, appeared! And then, instead of giving it to her husband directly, which would have been the sensible/sane thing to have done, devises a fantastical plot, whereby it's handed to Mike by a man in a pub, because she thought it might satisfy is literary ambitions! Thirdly, there's the Battelecrease find, in which the diary was apparently found by three builders/electricians which, it turns out, isn't just one story but several. And none of the different versions are presented by any of the three witnesses directly-in the rarefied world of Ripperology that's hardly an essential prerequisite for solid evidence! No, it's all based on anecdotal evidence. One version has the diary, or wherever it was, being discoveres on the day off of one of the workman (a bit of an inconvenient fact), whilst another version has it being discovered under the floorboards, even the rhe owner of the house confirmed the floorboards were lifted in 1977 during some electrical work (a very inconvenient fact!).

Just out of interest, Caz, do you think the diary could have been written by Tony Devereux? After all, for what it's worth, Mike originally claimed to have received it from him.

[John G]

Yes, I suppose it's possible that a dedicated-enough researcher could have accounted for Maybrick's whereabouts every day, and then worked those details into a fake diary. But what I always circle back to is...WHY?

Why go to such extraordinary lengths to frame up a man who otherwise has no business being in a discussion of Ripper suspects?

Was it a complex hoax for Florence to use as a defense of murder charges? If so, why didn't she use it?

It's the WHY question that I can't get around with this cursed diary.

That's a fair point. However, I don't think the idea was to frame Maybrick. One possibility is that the hoaxer decided to write a fake JtR diary and selected Maybrick as the subject because he/she was knowledgeable about his life. Maybe they'd previously researched James Maybrick for other reasons.

Of course, successful hoaxes/forgeries/frauds tend to work because people say, "surely no one would no to that much trouble." The problem is that there are plenty of people who would and do go to that much trouble.

[Kattrup]

Hi Caz,

Yes, it's all a complete mess, isn't it? It all comes down to that important word "provenance", and for the diary provenance is completely non existent. What we have is a series of somewhat bizarre accounts, which essentially amount to three basic versions.

It seems that to a Diary Defender, having more provenances is a plus. It means it’s MORE of a mystery!

In addition to having no provenance, the guy who first produced the diary went shopping for a blank Victorian diary.

out of curiosity, has the sales contract between MB and Robert Smith ever been made public?

[Iconoclast]

Yes, it's all a complete mess, isn't it? It all comes down to that important word "provenance", and for the diary provenance is completely non existent. What we have is a series of somewhat bizarre accounts, which essentially amount to three basic versions.

Hi John,

It's truly only a mess if you don't bother to be clear about the facts. For example, the floorboards being lifted in 1977 is - I think - completely new to me. I can't seem to put my hands quickly on any reference to it and it's absolutely massive in terms of potential impact. You need to clarify this, please, if your argument is to hold water. The inconvenient fact of Eddie Lyons being on a day off on March 9, 1992 is also brand new to me. He said in 2018 that he was at Battlecrease House that morning. You need to clarify this, please, if your argument is to hold water.

You make a very typical argument which we see many many times on the Casebook. It's the See No Evil argument. For example, you say "even the the owner of the house confirmed the floorboards were lifted in 1977 during some electrical work (a very inconvenient fact!)" but you are unclear if you mean all of the floorboards were lifted or just some. The 'tin box, not empty' may have been underneath one or more floorboards which did not need to be lifted on that occasion (if that occasion ever in fact happened). So what you have done with the SNE argument is to take a general statement and transform it miraculously into a very specific one by implication: by implication, we are left to infer that all of the floorboards were lifted but in reality that may not have been the case (if indeed any were lifted in 1977).

The See No Evil argument runs rife here on the Casebook. The number of times weakly-constructed arguments are put forward which imply sweeping detail but generally are a sweeping exaggeration is one of the Casebook's biggest weaknesses. People - frequently with ill-disguised hostile agenda - come on and post utter mince and the mob howl its approval and the lone voice gets drowned out. Psychology of the chattering classes.

You say regarding Anne's claim to have given the scrapbook to Tony D herself, "And then, instead of giving it to her husband directly, which would have been the sensible/sane thing to have done". Sensible/sane thing to have done in whose opinion? Yours, presumably? But why do you feel you have licence to have done no research to check this and then to come on here and claim it as though it were an absolute, thereby steering the easily-led off the path they may have been on? If you had researched Anne's claim, you would have known that her rationale was to keep the link between her husband and her father (via the scrapbook) very quiet because 1) the two men weren't getting on, 2) Billy Graham's health was failing, 3) Anne didn't want Mike pestering Billy about the book, and 4) she didn't want Mike to feel compromised by this unexpected 'hand-out' from his concerned wife. Now, whether you believe that to be true or not (and I for one no longer do), do you still stand by your otherwise puerile, blinkered view that it "would have been the sensible/sane thing to have done" to give it to Mike directly?

I'm confident I could pick more holes in your argument but I hope the foregoing means I don't need to. I would only add here that - instead of addressing the SNE phenomenon on this Casebook - those who exercise it will simply come along and post the Na-Na-Na-Na-Na argument - by pointing-out that everyone does it, or I do it, or erobitha does it, or X, Y, or Z does it. That's how we roll on this site.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

That's a fair point. However, I don't think the idea was to frame Maybrick. One possibility is that the hoaxer decided to write a fake JtR diary and selected Maybrick as the subject because he/she was knowledgeable about his life. Maybe they'd previously researched James Maybrick for other reasons.

Of course, successful hoaxes/forgeries/frauds tend to work because people say, "surely no one would no to that much trouble." The problem is that there are plenty of people who would and do go to that much trouble.

So someone went to all this trouble but NOT to frame Maybrick? They went to all this trouble in order simply to write a hoax about someone they were quite knowledgeable about?

That's a LOT of trouble just for a bit of jolly one wet weekend. Your argument is riddled with bias.

[Iconoclast]

It seems that to a Diary Defender, having more provenances is a plus. It means it’s MORE of a mystery!

In addition to having no provenance, the guy who first produced the diary went shopping for a blank Victorian diary.

out of curiosity, has the sales contract between MB and Robert Smith ever been made public?

Having more provenance makes it more of a mystery? How so?

Having two provenances, both of which invoke astonishing coincidences if they are false, is a very good thing indeed. It creates an element of mystery around which of the two provenances is the correct one (if either) but it certainly can't be said to increase the mystery around the case to any meaningful extent.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I seem to recall Dodd saying on camera in that Michael Winner documentary about the rewiring and heaters? I'm sure he says he would have found it then, but I might be wrong on that point. What I mainly recall from that programme is the amazing fashion, grown men in tank tops knitted by their mam's. And of course, Fido in a lacey pink shirt, complete with pack of fags in pocket.

[erobitha]

Via rumour I am led to believe there was a antiques dealer who had took a job lot of furniture out of Battlecrease House in the 70’s. I have no idea if it was around the time of the rewiring, which I understand Paul Dodd is adamant about. Whispers, and they are whispers and no more, have suggested the same antiques dealer has a connection to the antiques shop where the Maybrick watch was purchased. None of this is verified and is pure speculation and what any of it could mean, if true I have no idea. It just makes something quite complicated even more complex.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Having more provenance makes it more of a mystery? How so?

Having two provenances, both of which invoke astonishing coincidences if they are false, is a very good thing indeed. It creates an element of mystery around which of the two provenances is the correct one (if either) but it certainly can't be said to increase the mystery around the case to any meaningful extent.

The way I see it, Anne's story doesn't contradict Mike's, it's just unfortunate that she didn't mention it until alot if people sunk and lost alot of money in the project. Anne's statement that ends with her reassuring everyone that their book / film deals are intact doesn't help convince the sceptics, but it supports a genuine diary over old hoax.
It is however, incompatible with the Battlecrease provenance. One of the parties is lying. If the book came from Battlecrease, it has to be genuine. Theories abound as to why Anne and Feldman devised the Graham heirloom story, because an increasingly unstable Mike was about to destroy the whole thing. Fair enough, say it really did come from Deveraux, Anne just garnishes the story to protect what she believes to be a true provenance. Did it come from Lyons, but Mike told Anne it was from Deveraux, hence she goes on record with the false story to protect Deveraux, either way you look at it, the Graham family background is thin ice. And that's without getting into the family tree, or lack thereof. So if it wasn't perpetrated by the Barrett's, maybe with Deveraux doing the hard work, you have to go for the Battlecrease origin, because it allows for Anne's shonky story to remain as an embellishment on what she thought was the truth, Mike got it from someone else. But supporting the Graham family origin rules out Battlecrease.

We'll, that's how I see it. I think?

(PS. I do wish my spell correct would stop thinking I want to write battle tease )

[Iconoclast]

The way I see it, Anne's story doesn't contradict Mike's, it's just unfortunate that she didn't mention it until alot if people sunk and lost alot of money in the project. Anne's statement that ends with her reassuring everyone that their book / film deals are intact doesn't help convince the sceptics, but it supports a genuine diary over old hoax.
It is however, incompatible with the Battlecrease provenance. One of the parties is lying. If the book came from Battlecrease, it has to be genuine. Theories abound as to why Anne and Feldman devised the Graham heirloom story, because an increasingly unstable Mike was about to destroy the whole thing. Fair enough, say it really did come from Deveraux, Anne just garnishes the story to protect what she believes to be a true provenance. Did it come from Lyons, but Mike told Anne it was from Deveraux, hence she goes on record with the false story to protect Deveraux, either way you look at it, the Graham family background is thin ice. And that's without getting into the family tree, or lack thereof. So if it wasn't perpetrated by the Barrett's, maybe with Deveraux doing the hard work, you have to go for the Battlecrease origin, because it allows for Anne's shonky story to remain as an embellishment on what she thought was the truth, Mike got it from someone else. But supporting the Graham family origin rules out Battlecrease.

We'll, that's how I see it. I think?

(PS. I do wish my spell correct would stop thinking I want to write battle tease )

This is a perfectly reasonable way to reconcile the provenances, Abe. It doesn't make either of the remaining ones true, but it at least allows them to align.

Cheers,

Ike