Special Announcement

[caz]

I get the sense from the interviews and footage I have seen and heard with Mike that he was in a constant state of confusion. He wanted to appear ahead of the game at every step of the way due to his own insecurities and personal issues, but he kept changing his tune on everything - becoming less and less credible every step of the way. In the end the scrapbook was a curse to him - a juggernaut he never had control over from day one. I actually feel a little sorry for him. The story was far bigger than he was able to cope with. I do not doubt for one moment he over-egged his writing credentials after a whiskey or two in The Saddle to anyone who would listen. One fateful day in March 1992, an electrician was to change Mike's life forever with the promise of fame and fortune. Turned out to be infamy and poverty in the end.

Goodness, erobitha, talk about hitting the nail on the jolly old h. Best post I've seen, summing up the situation admirably.

You understand that psychology is key to the whole story, while others, like RJP, eschew it in favour of chewing on the rotting gristle of poor Bongo's circumstantial evidence against himself, which he never had a cat in hell's chance of substantiating.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I knew that a one word answer would not be forthcoming! lol

You are ducking and diving a little bit, no one has suggested he had anyone egging him on.

For the purpose of this discussion a conspiracy is two or more people who agree to embark on an act which they know to be illegal !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No ducking and diving, Trev, simply answering the actual question you posed.

My response here is still no.

While the evidence leads me to believe that Anne must have wondered if Mike's DAiry had been half-inched from somewhere, and that Mike himself probably pestered the life out of Eddie about where he got it, neither Barrett would have known it had been taken from anyone's house when Mike handed over £25 for it. Never mind that it could have been taken from JM's old bedroom, and on the same day that Mike revealed its existence to the book publishing world.

When Paul Dodd didn't press his claim to ownership, I presume they were all home free. You'll know better than anyone if this would mean the Barretts knowingly embarked on an act that was illegal, when Mike first took the diary to London, curious to know what he had. But if I were the Judge - Justice Once - I'd throw it out of court before you could get yer truncheon out.

Hope this helps.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So when I responded to John G’s post, you felt called upon to comment on the question and wonder about it, in a manner that to me reads as haughty and derisive, but when pressed for an answer suddenly you notice it wasn’t directed at you. How pleasant.

It seems to be a very simple question: has it, to your knowledge, been made public, yes or no?

"Darling, it's that bloody cold caller again, asking me to press one if I want to invest all my life savings, and to press two if I want to invest all yours."

"Do they say press three to transfer the originator to Robert Smith's office number?"

"No".

"Then just hang up love and report it as a nuisance call."

"Good thinking, my sweet."

[Hangs up and goes back to her cuppa.]

[caz]

Thanks Caz for your very informative reply. Much appreciated. The "double event" you refer to on the 9th of March is difficult to explain, unless at least one of the workman was part of the conspiracy, maybe after a chance meeting with MB in a pub during a pint or ten!

However, as to what was found, or whether anything was found, is simply based upon anecdotal evidence, which is deeply unsatisfactory. Not only that, if the Diary was discovered at Battelecrease it means Ann must have lied, which undermines her.

Moreover, if there was a genuine find I can't understand why the workman didn't acknowledge the fact. I mean, in these circumstances they can't surely have believed that they could have been accused of being part of a hoax conspiracy, unless they thought that MB might have sneaked into the house in the dead of night, ripped up the floorboards, and buried the thing there!

You are most welcome, John.

I'm not sure I grasp your argument in that last paragraph, though. But I can tell you there is much more 'anecdotal evidence' out there than can easily or concisely be gathered all together here in the one place, so I can't even say watch this space!

Do you not think it would have been rather damaging to an electricians' future job prospects to acknowledge the fact that he, or a workmate, had taken something of potential value from a house where they had been working, while the owner was absent? What would be a good reason for coming clean about something like that - until perhaps enough time had passed for it not to matter much any more? For instance, if those in the know had either long since retired or were no longer with us? Nobody had to say anything, of course, but if two or more of the electricians knew about it, you can bet they'd have talked among themselves - which they did - and the word would inevitably have spread abroad - which it did. Hard to keep a lid on something like that forever.

And there's a large juicy can of worms out there for someone with the right can opener.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I think someone asked for a reference for my post in which I referred to the floorboards being taken up in 1977.

" Paul was adamant. The house was originally gaslit and converted to electricity in the 1920s. It was re-wired when his father bought it in 1946 and again in 1977 when Paul himself had gutted the place ans lifted the floor boards. Had amytbing been hidden, had was sure that he would have found it then." (Harrison, S, The Diary of Jack the Ripper, Ch 18.)

But now you know that Paul's accounts have been inconsistent, John, and he has never claimed to have lifted every one of those tough old floorboards in the entire house, or he would have been 100% certain the diary was not underneath one of them in 1977. Yet in 1993, months before Shirley's book was published, he had said it was certainly possible, if not probable, that it did come from somewhere in his house.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

No ducking and diving, Trev, simply answering the actual question you posed.

My response here is still no.

While the evidence leads me to believe that Anne must have wondered if Mike's DAiry had been half-inched from somewhere, and that Mike himself probably pestered the life out of Eddie about where he got it, neither Barrett would have known it had been taken from anyone's house when Mike handed over £25 for it. Never mind that it could have been taken from JM's old bedroom, and on the same day that Mike revealed its existence to the book publishing world.

When Paul Dodd didn't press his claim to ownership, I presume they were all home free. You'll know better than anyone if this would mean the Barretts knowingly embarked on an act that was illegal, when Mike first took the diary to London, curious to know what he had. But if I were the Judge - Justice Once - I'd throw it out of court before you could get yer truncheon out.

Hope this helps.

Love,

Caz
X

I am sure Barrett was not as naive, or as innocent as he has been portrayed nor was his wife. I dont think for one minute he went to London with his head buried in the sand. He clearly knew what he was in possession of, and how it came to be in the format he took with him, and knew that it was of some monetary value, otherwise why would he have taken the trouble to go to those lengths.

Could it be that all the conspirators fell out, you know the saying no honour among thieves, especially if Barrett had done the dirty on those others involved and refused to cut them a share of the intended royalties, or anything from the advance payments that Robert Smith received, which we still don't know if any payments were made to Barrett from payments Robert Smith received.

Of course if that happened those other conspirators were stuck between a rock and a hard place, they could hardly go to the police and make a complaint without incriminating themselves in the original conspiracy that's perhaps why there are so many conflicting accounts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

I'm not sure I grasp your argument in that last paragraph, though. But I can tell you there is much more 'anecdotal evidence' out there than can easily or concisely be gathered all together here in the one place, so I can't even say watch this space!

Do you not think it would have been rather damaging to an electricians' future job prospects to acknowledge the fact that he, or a workmate, had taken something of potential value from a house where they had been working, while the owner was absent?

It is precisely this kind of selective vision which I constantly seem to have to rail against, Caz. John G has made a sweeping assumption about what the electricians would have done without stopping seemingly for a moment to reflect on what he is arguing. And then it gets posted, and if other posters do not challenge it, it lies there like a stagnant, stinking pool into which so many other ill-informed posters frequently stumble.

When I read his post, I had the same thought as yourself. He has managed to strip every last layer of nuance and context out of the moment he was describing. The act he has described was THEFT, not some cosy debate about Liverpool's strongest forward line over a pint or two down the boozer! So - of course - nothing is going to be said! If you (John G, not Caz - you'd obviously leave it to one of your mob) nicked a Mars Bar from Joe's Newsagent, would you skip out of the shop waving it in the air, crowing about how you'd 'found' a Mars Bar on a shelf in a newsagent's shop???

When I rail at my most frustrated it is against these woefully ill-thought out posts which have the potential to do so much damage to the Maybrick cause.

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

You are most welcome, John.

I'm not sure I grasp your argument in that last paragraph, though. But I can tell you there is much more 'anecdotal evidence' out there than can easily or concisely be gathered all together here in the one place, so I can't even say watch this space!

Do you not think it would have been rather damaging to an electricians' future job prospects to acknowledge the fact that he, or a workmate, had taken something of potential value from a house where they had been working, while the owner was absent? What would be a good reason for coming clean about something like that - until perhaps enough time had passed for it not to matter much any more? For instance, if those in the know had either long since retired or were no longer with us? Nobody had to say anything, of course, but if two or more of the electricians knew about it, you can bet they'd have talked among themselves - which they did - and the word would inevitably have spread abroad - which it did. Hard to keep a lid on something like that forever.

And there's a large juicy can of worms out there for someone with the right can opener.

Love,

Caz
X

But the electricians could have made up any account they wouldn't have needed to tell the truth. Surely if they had found it they would have realised that it was an old book and when they read the content realised that it related to Jack the Ripper, and most people are familiar with the crimes of Jack the Ripper and kept it and sold it as is being alleged.

Or alternatively handed to their boss, or directly to the house owner.

By keeping it and saying where they acquired it and how, and then selling it they were committing a criminal offence of theft by finding, which the police would have been aware of when they were interviewed. So when interviewed they either had to say they didn't find it or admit to theft.

My understanding is they stated they didn't find it, that of course casts doubt about the pub transactions

I have that can opener in my drawer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Iconoclast]

I am sure Barrett was not as naive, or as innocent as he has been portrayed nor was his wife. I dont think for one minute he went to London with his head buried in the sand. He clearly knew what he was in possession of, and how it came to be in the format he took with him, and knew that it was of some monetary value, otherwise why would he have taken the trouble to go to those lengths.

Could it be that all the conspirators fell out, you know the saying no honour among thieves, especially if Barrett had done the dirty on those others involved and refused to cut them a share of the intended royalties, or anything from the advance payments that Robert Smith received, which we still don't know if any payments were made to Barrett from payments Robert Smith received.

Of course if that happened those other conspirators were stuck between a rock and a hard place, they could hardly go to the police and make a complaint without incriminating themselves in the original conspiracy that's perhaps why there are so many conflicting accounts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, all of that may have been the case.

Or, he may have received the scrapbook from Tony D (legitimately, in his view) or Eddie Lyons (questionably, in his view) and still taken it to London to see how what it was worth without having created the thing himself nor feeling particularly under the threat of imprisonment if he did. In the former case (Tony D), Mike was on safe ground legally. In the latter case (Eddie L), he was on somewhat rockier ground legally so either he went with great confidence that there could be no negative consequences for him personally, or else he went with an uneasy feeling that he was on dangerous ground. Either way (assuming one of these ways was the truth) he went to London. Either way, there was no need for a nest of conspirators so no need for us to imagine that there were "so many conflicting accounts" when there were just three: Mike got it from Tony D, Mike got it from Tony D who got it from Anne, and Mike got it from Eddie Lyons who had nicked it that morning from Battlecrease House where he has gone on the record as saying he was working.

If it came to Mike from Tony D, then it almost certainly came to Tony D from Anne.
If it came to Mike from Eddie L, then it almost certainly was said to have come from Tony D in order to avoid accusations of theft on Mike's part.
If it was said to have come from Tony D in order to avoid accusations of theft on Mike's part, it is almost certain that Anne said she gave it to Tony D in order to stop Mike making any more of a pig's ear of the provenance as he was attempting to do.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

My understanding is they stated they didn't find it, that of course casts doubt about the pub transactions
[/url]

Of course they said they didn't find it, because most of them didn't find it. It was Eddie Lyons who found it, and he kept schtum because he knew (or believed) it was theft.

One of Eddie's fellow crew members later went on the record as saying that Eddie had admitted to him that he had found something valuable under the floorboards. I'm not sure why someone would make such a strong claim if there wasn't a kernel of truth about it. There was nothing apparently in it for him to say it, unless someone wishes to suggest that Paul Feldman reached out from the grave with a was in a brown paper bag as an inducement?

Cheers,

Ike

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course they said they didn't find it, because most of them didn't find it. It was Eddie Lyons who found it, and he kept schtum because he knew (or believed) it was theft.

One of Eddie's fellow crew members later went on the record as saying that Eddie had admitted to him that he had found something valuable under the floorboards. I'm not sure why someone would make such a strong claim if there wasn't a kernel of truth about it. There was nothing apparently in it for him to say it, unless someone wishes to suggest that Paul Feldman reached out from the grave with a was in a brown paper bag as an inducement?

Cheers,

Ike

Your reply is somewhat pedantic with regards to the electricians

Where is the corroboration to Eddie finding it, what you refer to is nothing more than hearsay?

"Something of value" could mean anything. You are drawing an inference that it was the diary

I am not as well versed in the diary as you and others but isn't it correct that there is no record of Eddie Lyons working at the house at the time the diary was purportedly found?

So we have the electricians saying nothing was found, and nothing to show Eddie was at the house, and this is what you and the other diary believers seek to rely on to show i was found at the house, not very good is it?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

The Zerohour is approaching ladies and gentelmen, the point of no return in the whole history of the Scrapbook called "The Diary"

On Saturday, first of August at 2pm UK time the fatal error will be revealed once and for all!

Better for the diary defenders to start writing their own diaries by now!



The Baron

[Iconoclast]

The Zerohour is approaching ladies and gentelmen, the point of no return in the whole history of the Scrapbook called "The Diary"

On Saturday, first of August at 2pm UK time the fatal error will be revealed once and for all!

Better for the diary defenders to start writing their own diaries by now!



The Baron

Okay.

[Ven]

Looking forward to the big announcement!!

[erobitha]

The Zerohour is approaching ladies and gentelmen, the point of no return in the whole history of the Scrapbook called "The Diary"

On Saturday, first of August at 2pm UK time the fatal error will be revealed once and for all!

Better for the diary defenders to start writing their own diaries by now!



The Baron

Cheers Lord O. I mean Dave. I mean Baron.