Special Announcement

[Iconoclast]

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.

1989, Abe, IIRC. Same principle applies: which floorboards, and how many of them?

[caz]

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.

Not a chance, John. Sorry. Just IMHO of course.

Re the Battlecrease electricians, what you have to bear in mind is that they were hardly going to sing like canaries from day one, and from the same song sheet, if the diary was pinched from the house on 9th March 1992 and taken over to Anfield. And nobody knew about the double event that day until Keith Skinner and Colin Rhodes examined the Portus & Rhodes work sheets in more detail after Ripper Diary was published in 2003. Keith knew about Mike Barrett's phone call to the London literary agency on 9th March 1992, while Colin knew about the work done that day in Maybrick's old bedroom. Colin told Keith that he'd have sent Eddie Lyons and his mate to help out there for an hour or two to get them out of the office, while the job itself was allocated for invoicing purposes to the two electricians named on the sheet. Eddie has also described these exact circumstances from memory, with no help from Colin or the work sheets. From what he said about the job, the other electricians who were with him, and why he'd been sent there when it wasn't his job, he could only have been referring to one day, 9th March 1992, and could only have known what he knew if he was actually there. He didn't remember the actual date - naturally enough - and had no idea that Mike Barrett had made a phone call about the diary that very afternoon, so he saw no harm in describing his part in the floorboards job on the first floor.

Paul Dodd has given various accounts of what work was or wasn't done in that part of the house over the years, and he got his dates muddled with the storage heater work, so it's not nearly as straightforward as it looks on paper. I don't believe he ever said he'd lifted every floorboard in the entire house in 1977, and in fact it looks like he didn't, considering what he said during one recorded interview in 2016, when it was put to him that, in the hundred or so years since Maybrick owned the house, if the diary had been hidden there, it probably would have been found before Portus and Rhodes arrived. He responded:

'Well, I would actually doubt that, because until my father came and sadly got rid of a number of the old features which I now have in my side of the house which has never been disturbed, there was very, very little done to that house – it was a strange sort of thing. I mean, he replaced fire places and things that he bought in the forties because, you know it was old fashioned to have these old fashioned fireplaces, but really the only work that apparently had been done was the conversion from gas to electricity – but that's another story and I wouldn't know when that was, but even the old gas pipes and servants' bells and things and everything like that - I actually went through that house to some length myself at one point and all those things were still in place, you know. Nothing had moved - the bell system up to the servants' quarters and all the wiring – although I did work myself there, I think it was always untouched. It was very difficult to get the floorboards up, so I doubt if there would have been much work done to be honest.'

If Paul doubted that the diary would have been found prior to any work done by Portus & Rhodes, that would appear to imply it could have been there while he was working on the house without him knowing about it. Or am I misreading this?

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

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.

I just meant that normally, for professionals dealing with historical artifacts, an established and accepted provenance is extremely important. A disputed provenance or no provenance severely lessens the historical significance of the artifact.

But funnily to a Diary Defender the reverse logic is at play: having MORE provenances is better!
I think you pointed it out once, when I mentioned the to most everyone obvious argument that the diary’s lack of provenance points to its recent creation by MB, that the diary actually had two provenances. It seems you think that this makes it twice as trustworthy as having just one - when in fact it does the opposite.
One could imagine that it’s convenient to some to always have one or two disputed origin stories to fall back on when pressed on the MB angle, it serves well as obfuscation.

[erobitha]

I just meant that normally, for professionals dealing with historical artifacts, an established and accepted provenance is extremely important. A disputed provenance or no provenance severely lessens the historical significance of the artifact.

But funnily to a Diary Defender the reverse logic is at play: having MORE provenances is better!
I think you pointed it out once, when I mentioned the to most everyone obvious argument that the diary’s lack of provenance points to its recent creation by MB, that the diary actually had two provenances. It seems you think that this makes it twice as trustworthy as having just one - when in fact it does the opposite.
One could imagine that it’s convenient to some to always have one or two disputed origin stories to fall back on when pressed on the MB angle, it serves well as obfuscation.

I personally would be inclined to aknowledge and accept the provenance is the biggest challenge the scrapbook has faced. This has been it's biggest hurdle since day one and 28 years on it still remains it's biggest hurdle. I don't subscibe however to anyone trying to create more than one provenance as a means of obfuscation, just people trying to seperate truth from fiction. With Mike there has been a lot of fiction and none written by him in the DAIry. If you believe MB was capable of writing the DAiry after the recent examples shown, then more power to you for your faith in his story telling abilities. Just because he claimed he was the one wot wrote it, doesn't mean it is so. The "defenders" are simply looking at other possibilities as to how it came to be. Most "defenders" as far as I can see, believe it came out of Battlecrease House in March 1992. How it got there, who actually wrote it and whether's it genuine - utimately gets parked until the provenance can be properly established. We still have yet to overcome that. Just because you might want it to disappear because the original provenance was a load of old cobblers, doesn't mean those interested in the truth should do the same.

[Harry D]

Your argument is riddled with bias.

[caz]

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?

The blank Victorian diary - with its perfect paper trail back to Bongo in Goldie Street - has been dealt with, Kattrup. It is a dead red herring. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up with the posts, considering your stated lack of interest in the subject or learning more about it.

And whose curiosity are you seeking to satisfy? Not your own, surely, considering your stated lack of interest in the subject or learning more about it.

Oddly, I had Trevor Marriott seeking to satisfy someone's curiosity over the same matter a week or two ago. Must be one of those strange coincidences, eh?

Otherwise it would be called a fishing expedition.

I told Trev to put his rod away.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I just meant that normally, for professionals dealing with historical artifacts, an established and accepted provenance is extremely important. A disputed provenance or no provenance severely lessens the historical significance of the artifact.

But funnily to a Diary Defender the reverse logic is at play: having MORE provenances is better!
I think you pointed it out once, when I mentioned the to most everyone obvious argument that the diary’s lack of provenance points to its recent creation by MB, that the diary actually had two provenances. It seems you think that this makes it twice as trustworthy as having just one - when in fact it does the opposite.
One could imagine that it’s convenient to some to always have one or two disputed origin stories to fall back on when pressed on the MB angle, it serves well as obfuscation.

cmon Kattrup, its the law of probability, the more provenances it has the more chance it has of being authentic! lol
thats how the silly diary defender mind works.

[Abby Normal]

barrett trying to buy a victorian diary with blank pages is a red herring? hahaha. yeah right. more like the elephant in the room. that everyone IS talking about.
the foolishness never ends

[caz]

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.

Hi Al,

Right at the start of the publicity about the diary's emergence, and the rumours about it rising from the Battlecrease floorboards during electrical work done by Portus & Rhodes, Paul Dodd was ready to put in a claim to ownership, via his solicitor, saying that it "must be certainly possible, if not probable", that the diary did come from his house. He wanted to halt its publication until the question of ownership had been resolved.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Oddly enough, erobitha, I heard a similar story recently but can't quite recall where I heard it or the finer details.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

If Paul doubted that the diary would have been found prior to any work done by Portus & Rhodes, that would appear to imply it could have been there while he was working on the house without him knowing about it. Or am I misreading this?

I don't think you're misreading this, Caz. I think the evidence has never pointed towards the floorboards being substantially uplifted prior to March 1992. And that's obviously rather critical.

[Iconoclast]

But funnily to a Diary Defender the reverse logic is at play: having MORE provenances is better!
I think you pointed it out once, when I mentioned the to most everyone obvious argument that the diary’s lack of provenance points to its recent creation by MB, that the diary actually had two provenances. It seems you think that this makes it twice as trustworthy as having just one - when in fact it does the opposite.
One could imagine that it’s convenient to some to always have one or two disputed origin stories to fall back on when pressed on the MB angle, it serves well as obfuscation.

I think the perspicacious reader would have spotted that actually you answered your own question there, Kattrup.

You wrote that the scrapbook has a lack of provenance, and then you noted that I had then pointed-out that it actually had two provenances. You answered your own question.

Did I ever imply that having two provenances makes the scrapbook more likely? If I did, I was a complete idiot, but I'm not convinced that I would have done, and -if I did - what I should have said was having two provenances obviously increases the probability that an accurate provenance could potentially be established (especially as they both carried with them an astonishing coincidence if either or both were incorrect versions).

So you then build on that by implying that having two disputed provenances is a convenient means of obfuscating before the possibility that MB simply forged it. I don't think anyone else would have made that logical leap. I think most people realise that MB's complete inability to forge this document was rather self-evident independent of any distractions caused by likely true provenances.

[Iconoclast]

I personally would be inclined to aknowledge and accept the provenance is the biggest challenge the scrapbook has faced. This has been it's biggest hurdle since day one and 28 years on it still remains it's biggest hurdle.

For me, the provenance is not the big deal that historians would want it to be. The document exists, end of. It has passed the sniff tests of science. Did it exist in 1888-89 in its current form? The provenance to support that would be awesome, but - in the absence of it - we still have the document. Has it been shown to be a forgery? No. So we still have the document, and it is still to be proven a forgery. The provenance would provide the answer (if it was still verifiable through the evidence) but - after 132 years - I suspect the evidence for the provenance may have been lost. That doesn't mean that the scrapbook immediately becomes fraudulent.

For me, the biggest challenges the scrapbook faces are, probably in this order:

We do not have an example of James Maybrick's informal hand, writing for his own eyes (well, we do, but that's obviously the debate that rages)
There may yet be some mileage in the 'one off instance' example (I haven't completely disregarded it yet)
The lack of established provenance

MB's request for a Victorian diary with at least 20 blank pages is a weird one, there is no doubt, but the evidence which exists does not support it being indicative of an attempt to find something to write a forged diary into.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

It's always good fun to chuck in the odd GIF here and there, but - underlying the fun - is it actually fair to say that I was writing ironically on this occasion?

I was objecting to an obvious bias which was influencing the provision of facts. Have I done that? Have I attempted to influence opinion by being parsimonious - or plain out there - with the established facts?

I may have surmised some notions - the GSG, Maybrick having sight of it from his room, etc. - but that is for interest's sake and a little literary licence (if I may flatter myself momentarily, and most unusually). That is not bias. Bias comes in when you present your argument independent of the known facts. Confirmation bias is one of the most common forms of bias - and we are probably all guilty of that. But cold-hearted bias which willingly presents facts which are not fully established and uses these to attempt to win an argument is shallow and deeply suspect and needs to be called-out when it occurs. If I've done that, feel free to call me out for it (with or without a GIF).

Ike

[caz]

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 )

Hi Al,

The main problem here is that the Battlecrease provenance has the diary not emerging until many months after Tony Devereux died, so it could not have entered the Barretts' home before 9th March 1992. This means that for Anne to believe Mike could have got it from his dead mate, he'd have needed to persuade her that he had actually had it hidden somewhere in their house since before August 1991, and then researched it, all without breathing a word to her about its existence until he was ready to contact Doreen Montgomery. I can't see Anne swallowing a lie like that, but in any case it's not the story she went along with. There was no suggestion that Mike suddenly whipped out the diary one day in March 1992 and then told Anne he'd had it since the previous summer. And of course, that could not have worked with her story two years later, in July 1994 [a month after Mike's first forgery claim], that she knew Tony had given it to Mike in 1991 because she had asked Tony to do so!

Three things you need to get to grips with regarding the provenance stories: chronology, chronology, chronology.

Love,

Caz
X