the diary

[pinkmoon]

Work was been done at maybricks old house near the time the diary appeared on the scene.If it was taken from there without the home owners consent and then found its way into the hands of Mr Barrett via the local pub it would explain why we have this confusion over its history.If it was stolen from the house and then stolen of the person or persons who stole it in the first place that would explain why nobody could come forward you can't really complain and say someone's stolen something of me that I stole of someone else

[caz]

Hey Caz, do you think Mike did get the book from the Maybrick house, either first hand or passed onto him? Do you think that part of the story is true? If I'm not mistaken, Keith Skinner is supposed to announce something about the provenance of the book and is sure it came from the house.

Mike

Hi GM,

Oh yes, I'm positive the book was once in James Maybrick's house, before finding its way into Mike's paws. Keith announced back in 2007 that there is evidence to this effect. Obviously we can't expect people to take our word for it, but I'm confident the evidence will become available to all at some point.

Having said that, I am far from confident that we will ever discover how it came to be in the house to begin with. The handwriting continues to confound us, along with the author's motives.

Caz
X

[Kaz]

Hi GM,

Oh yes, I'm positive the book was once in James Maybrick's house, before finding its way into Mike's paws. Keith announced back in 2007 that there is evidence to this effect. Obviously we can't expect people to take our word for it, but I'm confident the evidence will become available to all at some point.

Having said that, I am far from confident that we will ever discover how it came to be in the house to begin with. The handwriting continues to confound us, along with the author's motives.

Caz
X

Wow, can't wait for the proof on that!

On the handwriting matter, where is JM's actual handwriting? I've only seen a signature (with the JTR squiggle) and a will that was very suspect anyway?


What do you mean by 'author's motive' btw ?

[pinkmoon]

Will there be a book coming out to explain this? It would be nice to be able to clear up where the diary came from?

[pinkmoon]

Hi GM,

Oh yes, I'm positive the book was once in James Maybrick's house, before finding its way into Mike's paws. Keith announced back in 2007 that there is evidence to this effect. Obviously we can't expect people to take our word for it, but I'm confident the evidence will become available to all at some point.

Having said that, I am far from confident that we will ever discover how it came to be in the house to begin with. The handwriting continues to confound us, along with the author's motives.

Caz
X

Any idea when this information will be released to us?

[caz]

What do you mean by 'author's motive' btw ?

Hi Kaz,

Apologies for missing your question.

Clearly the author had their own reasons for writing the diary, but it's very far from clear what those reasons were. Even if we could determine how and when it came to be in Battlecrease House, we would not know what its author was personally hoping to achieve by leaving it there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Any idea when this information will be released to us?

Sorry Pinky, when I said 'at some point', that was as much as I know myself.

I know there must be others who could say more if they chose to do so, but they presumably have reasons for their continued silence.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Sorry Pinky, when I said 'at some point', that was as much as I know myself.

I know there must be others who could say more if they chose to do so, but they presumably have reasons for their continued silence.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks caz,I'm sure the new information will come out in book form which me and countless others will buy.xxxxxxxxxxxx

[Graham]

I sometimes think that the closest Paul Feldman ever came to discovering the true origins of the 'Diary' was when he interviewed the electricians who'd carried out work on Battlecrease House, and spoke to person or persons unknown at Liverpool University regarding the examination of a book that had been brought to them. The University did concede that two men had brought in a book of some description, but according to Feldman refused to elaborate.
Fishy, or what?

Feldman said that whereas one of the electricians in true Baldric style denied everything, the other said that he drank at The Saddle, which was Devereux's local and therefore there was a good chance they knew one another. But even if this was the case, even if the 'Diary' had been rescued from Battlecrease, why should its finder(s) pass it on to Tony Devereux?

Why Feldman never pursued this aspect of the story with his customary fervour is something of a mystery to me, but there again he had nailed his colours firmly to the Graham family mast, and kept them flying there. Mike Barrett told Feldman that the electricians' story was nonsense, and it seems that Feldman believed him. I have always wondered if Mike Barrett knew a bit more about what was rumoured to have happened at Battlecrease, ref: electrical stuff and skips and so forth, than he ever let on. On the other hand, he was obviously extremely eager to maintain 'ownership' of the 'Diary' especially after Devereux's death, so it must be assumed that he routinely denied all knowledge of any Battlecrease provenance.

Much more to all this than meets the eye....

Graham

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Graham;274486]I sometimes think that the closest Paul Feldman ever came to discovering the true origins of the 'Diary' was when he interviewed the electricians who'd carried out work on Battlecrease House, and spoke to person or persons unknown at Liverpool University regarding the examination of a book that had been brought to them. The University did concede that two men had brought in a book of some description, but according to Feldman refused to elaborate.
Fishy, or what?

Feldman said that whereas one of the electricians in true Baldric style denied everything, the other said that he drank at The Saddle, which was Devereux's local and therefore there was a good chance they knew one another. But even if this was the case, even if the 'Diary' had been rescued from Battlecrease, why should its finder(s) pass it on to Tony Devereux?

Why Feldman never pursued this aspect of the story with his customary fervour is something of a mystery to me, but there again he had nailed his colours firmly to the Graham family mast, and kept them flying there. Mike Barrett told Feldman that the electricians' story was nonsense, and it seems that Feldman believed him. I have always wondered if Mike Barrett knew a bit more about what was rumoured to have happened at Battlecrease, ref: electrical stuff and skips and so forth, than he ever let on. On the other hand, he was obviously extremely eager to maintain 'ownership' of the 'Diary' especially after Devereux's death, so it must be assumed that he routinely denied all knowledge of any Battlecrease provenance.

Much more to all this than meets the eye....

Graham[I do agree with you Graham I think the timing of the work at battle crease and the appearance of the work men drinking in the same pub is a bit to good to be true I do have my own theory about what happened.I don't have any hard facts for my theory but having met Mr Barrett a few times I have an idea of what might have happened.I was going to put from"private information" but we have had enough of that over the years

[Graham]

I never understood the role of Tony Devereux in the 'Diary' story. Mike Barrett initially claimed that he was given the 'Diary', carefully wrapped in brown paper, by Devereux and told by him to 'do something with it'. Like what? Sadly, Devereux died before the 'Diary' came to light, so he couldn't be questioned, but his daughters vehemently denied that their father had anything whatsoever to do with the 'Diary', and in addition added that their father wasn't even on very good terms with Mike Barrett.

Then Anne Barrett says that when she had decided to let Mike have the 'Diary', again to 'do something with it', she passed it to him via Devereux. Why him? Why anyone? If the 'Diary' had genuinely been in her family since at least 1940, as she claimed, why pass it to Mike via a third party? Why did she not apparently want Mike to know that the 'Diary' was, as she later claimed according to Feldman, a Graham family heirloom?

Frankly, I am inclined to accept the Devereux daughters' claim that their father had nothing to do with the 'Diary', that they had never seen it or heard him refer to it, and that it had never been in Tony Devereux's house.
The plot, as they say, thickens.....

More later.

Graham

[pinkmoon]

I never understood the role of Tony Devereux in the 'Diary' story. Mike Barrett initially claimed that he was given the 'Diary', carefully wrapped in brown paper, by Devereux and told by him to 'do something with it'. Like what? Sadly, Devereux died before the 'Diary' came to light, so he couldn't be questioned, but his daughters vehemently denied that their father had anything whatsoever to do with the 'Diary', and in addition added that their father wasn't even on very good terms with Mike Barrett.

Then Anne Barrett says that when she had decided to let Mike have the 'Diary', again to 'do something with it', she passed it to him via Devereux. Why him? Why anyone? If the 'Diary' had genuinely been in her family since at least 1940, as she claimed, why pass it to Mike via a third party? Why did she not apparently want Mike to know that the 'Diary' was, as she later claimed according to Feldman, a Graham family heirloom?

Frankly, I am inclined to accept the Devereux daughters' claim that their father had nothing to do with the 'Diary', that they had never seen it or heard him refer to it, and that it had never been in Tony Devereux's house.
The plot, as they say, thickens.....

More later.

Graham

If you look at that final story about how Mr barrett came to be given the diary via his wife it very convientally makes it virtually impossible for any criminal charges and it also gives the diary a history very convenient.Mr Devereux had nothing to do with the diary I think he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and in the wrong health

[Graham]

PM,

Mike Barrett, according to what I've read about him at any rate, never once conceded to the possibility that the 'Diary' came to him via his wife. However,
at the same time, there is no chance that he wrote the bloody thing either.
Yes, I think you're right - by claiming that the 'Diary' came to him via Tony Devereux did, in Mike Barrett's mind at least, eliminate the possibility that he'd nicked it, or received it as stolen goods. Anne said she gave the 'Diary' to Devereux to pass on to Mike because she didn't want Mike to know that it had been in her family for many years. I never got my head around that, to be honest. What did she expect Mike to do with it? Write a scholarly treatise, or make a good go at turning it into a few quid? This is Liverpool remember...not Oxford or Cambridge.

However, if you've ever had the navvies in at your house, with a skip on the drive, do you religiously and carefully go through what they chuck out?

Graham

[pinkmoon]

PM,

Mike Barrett, according to what I've read about him at any rate, never once conceded to the possibility that the 'Diary' came to him via his wife. However,
at the same time, there is no chance that he wrote the bloody thing either.
Yes, I think you're right - by claiming that the 'Diary' came to him via Tony Devereux did, in Mike Barrett's mind at least, eliminate the possibility that he'd nicked it, or received it as stolen goods. Anne said she gave the 'Diary' to Devereux to pass on to Mike because she didn't want Mike to know that it had been in her family for many years. I never got my head around that, to be honest. What did she expect Mike to do with it? Write a scholarly treatise, or make a good go at turning it into a few quid? This is Liverpool remember...not Oxford or Cambridge.
However, if you've ever had the navvies in at your house, with a skip on the drive, do you religiously and carefully go through what they chuck out?

Graham

Graham there is no way Mike Barrett could have forged that diary I personally wouldn't even send him to the shop to buy a newspaper for me.By bringing two dead people into this story( Mr devereux and Mr Graham) would make any criminal charges impossible.If that diary came from battlecrease it legally belonged to the owner of battlecrease a Mr dodds I believe

[Graham]

In fairness to both Mike Barrett and Paul Feldman, Billy Graham (Anne's father) was alive at the time Feldman began his investigations and was interviewed, if that is the right word, by both Feldman and Keith Skinner. However, even if Feldman believed it, I could never accept as the Gospel Truth the claim that the 'Diary' had been in the Graham family since at least 1940. I do get the impression that Feldman was putting words into Anne's mouth. Feldman wanted the 'Diary' to be a Graham family heirloom, as it would then fit in with his conviction that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. If the 'Diary' was indeed nicked from Battlecrease, then as far as the law is concerned stealing it out of honest academic interest as opposed to stealing it to make money out of it would be two different things. But we all know that the Liverpool police concluded that no criminal charges of fraud or anything else would be proceeded with, so where do we go from here?

Gotta get some sleep now, so more hopefully tomorrow.

Graham