One off

[Caroline Brown]

As has been touched upon by other comments, it makes a much better story if the diary was under the floorboards in James Maybrick's room rather than, for instance, a wall space in the servants' quarters. Or the garden, greenhouse, stables, etc...... Maybe the subterfuge is not so much about the diary being found on premises but in possibly manufactured efforts to claim it was under specific floorboards? Maybe the tin and diary were found with a dead cat and a few mouse nests in a wall or ceiling? Maybe the issues are more about improving the provenance rather than wholly manufacturing the background or even the item itself?

Hi Anna,

The problem is that Brian Rawes has consistently and confidently stated over the years that he was told the book had been found under the floorboards and that it could be important. He never worked in the house himself and had no reason to lie about the conversation, nor anything to gain from inventing it. I have no doubt he'd have given the same account to Scotland Yard in October 1993, when the electricians who had worked on the wiring job were busily denying all knowledge.

The other factor to weigh in is that the only time Portus & Rhodes needed to take up floorboards in Maybrick's old room was on 9th March 1992, and there is nothing to suggest they needed to access the loft on that date. However, Brian Rawes had no reason to know what work, if any, was carried out in the house on that day; no reason to know who was present; and crucially, no idea that this date would also become significant, for giving us the earliest known record of the diary's existence. This is reflected in Brian's natural, but mistaken assumption in the July, that the book had just been found. He wouldn't have known any different. So we must ask ourselves how, if he invented the conversation subsequently, or imagined it, or misremembered the details, did he manage to tick boxes and fit facts, of which he knew nothing at the time, and may still be unaware today?

Love,

Caz
X