Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[Abby Normal]

All this sir Jim crap has got me wondering if mb was reading the graphic novel from hell.


Btw what’s taking mr skinner so long to get on here. We got lawyers working out stuff? Lol

[Henry Flower]

"shambolic word-dump"

That. Is. Beautiful. I intend to make that phrase part of the permanent furniture of my mind. Thank you.

[James_J]

Passing this on from KS:


TO DAVID O

David. On the day that Newport knock Spurs out of the FA Cup 4th round and Chelsea, (tomorrow), comfortably go through to the 5th round, (Wednesday’s defeat against Arsenal typically demonstrating Chelsea’s generosity of spirit in allowing a fellow London team to play in the final of the Carabeo cup), I just wanted to factor in some information relating to an observation you made in post # 678. I’ve edited your full post and only retained the relevant section.

You are quite mistaken, No evidence has ever been produced that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.

The author Trevor Christie acknowledges his grateful appreciation to Florence Aunspaugh (1873-1949) in his book on the Maybrick Case, ‘Etched In Arsenic’ published by George G Harrap & Co in 1969. The American Heritage Center in the University of Wyoming has Christie’s Archive and collection of papers related to his extensive research into the case. I believe this was donated to the University by Christie’s widow circa 1970 – the precise date not to hand. In June 1993 I went to Wyoming, (bought a mug) and spent a couple of days photocopying the collection, including Christie’s correspondence with Florence Aunspaugh who, as a young girl, had spent the Summer of 1888 at Battlecrease House. My complete set of these photocopies are not to hand but I do have a photocopy from a page of a letter Florence Aunspaugh wrote to Trevor Christie describing her time at the house.

Trevor Christie, (page 44), paraphrases from this letter :-

“[John] Aunspaugh’s eight- year old daughter Florence, who had accompanied him to England, was a guest for some weeks in the Maybrick home while her father [John Aunspaugh] was touring the Continent on business and got a critical close- up of Alice Yapp. The nanny was a strict disciplinarian to six- year- old Bobo [James Chandler Maybrick 1882-1911].”

Of interest here is a conflict of dates which I’ve just noticed. Allowing I have the correct dates for Florence Aunspaugh, (which I’ve lazily taken off the internet), then Florence Aunspaugh would have been fifteen in 1888 and not eight? Aunspaugh’s original letter to Trevor Christie reads:-

“The boy, [I take this to be James Chandler Maybrick], was why I gave Yapp so much trouble. I raced around the grounds like a wild animal down to the “pool”, the stable lot, dog kennels and everywhere the boy, child like, would be right behind me, and would go to places he was not allowed to go. Yapp told the lodge-keeper “she certainly would be glad when that damned little American left Battlecrease, she could then do something with Sonny.” “She did not see why Sir James (Mr.Maybrick) ever brought me there, any way.”

Best Wishes

Keith

(Incidentally, your request to have sight of the receipt for the Amstrad Word Processor purchased by Mike Barrett has not been ignored. The bulk of my huge Diary archive is down with Bruce Robinson. I’m relying on memory here but I seem to think Shirley Harrison photocopied the receipt and faxed it through to me. I believe the issue is around precisely when and why did Mike Barrett purchase his word processor? A year of 1986 has been cited by Pinkmoon in post #652 and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this date – so am assuming there is a hard source which I’ll try and identify.)

[James_J]

TO ABBY NORMAL


Thank you for your post #691 querying why it has taken me so long to apply for membership to Casebook.


The answer to your question is because of personal circumstances I now find I have more time to myself.

I share Steven Owl’s sentiment, expressed in post #681, of how frustrating it is to constantly wade through so much misinformation. If I can help to highlight these areas and offer something new and constructive to the discussions, in terms of primary source material extending back over the past 25 years, then I’ll take satisfaction in hopefully having made some contributions of significance.

I’m not sure what you meant by having “lawyers working out stuff?”

Could you clarify please?

Best Wishes, Keith Skinner

[David Orsam]

Aunspaugh’s original letter to Trevor Christie reads:-

“The boy, [I take this to be James Chandler Maybrick], was why I gave Yapp so much trouble. I raced around the grounds like a wild animal down to the “pool”, the stable lot, dog kennels and everywhere the boy, child like, would be right behind me, and would go to places he was not allowed to go. Yapp told the lodge-keeper “she certainly would be glad when that damned little American left Battlecrease, she could then do something with Sonny.” “She did not see why Sir James (Mr.Maybrick) ever brought me there, any way.”

Thanks Keith. So for the benefit of those people who don't seem to read posts properly, you are, I think, confirming the accuracy of what I said, namely that no evidence has ever been produced that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.

[David Orsam]

(Incidentally, your request to have sight of the receipt for the Amstrad Word Processor purchased by Mike Barrett has not been ignored. The bulk of my huge Diary archive is down with Bruce Robinson. I’m relying on memory here but I seem to think Shirley Harrison photocopied the receipt and faxed it through to me. I believe the issue is around precisely when and why did Mike Barrett purchase his word processor? A year of 1986 has been cited by Pinkmoon in post #652 and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this date – so am assuming there is a hard source which I’ll try and identify.)

I don't suppose the receipt will reveal why Mike bought a word processor but I think some of us would like to know where Mike bought it and how much it cost.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for your post #691 querying why it has taken me so long to apply for membership to Casebook.

If I may be so bold, I think Abby was querying why it is taking so long for your membership to be approved and for you to be able to post here in your own name, which thought has also been occurring to me.

[Abby Normal]

TO ABBY NORMAL


Thank you for your post #691 querying why it has taken me so long to apply for membership to Casebook.


The answer to your question is because of personal circumstances I now find I have more time to myself.

I share Steven Owl’s sentiment, expressed in post #681, of how frustrating it is to constantly wade through so much misinformation. If I can help to highlight these areas and offer something new and constructive to the discussions, in terms of primary source material extending back over the past 25 years, then I’ll take satisfaction in hopefully having made some contributions of significance.

I’m not sure what you meant by having “lawyers working out stuff?”

Could you clarify please?

Best Wishes, Keith Skinner

I meant why is it taking so long to get your account set up, and lawyer stuff was a (bad) joke , re how contentious this whole diary business is.

[Observer]

What about the fact that the Diary contains several throwaway references to everyday things/events in the life of the Maybricks which, between 1989 and 1992, could only be obtained from documents buried in rarely accessed archives? I find it hard to believe that old Bongo managed to do that all on his tod.

Hi Steven

It seems David Orsam has debunked those "throwaway references to every day things/events in the life of the Maybricks which between 1989 and 1992could only be obtained from documents buried in rarely accessed archives"

However, the exercise you initiated with the above statement is a fine example of the tangled web of lies and deceit that runs through the core of the supposed Maybrick Diary

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks Keith. So for the benefit of those people who don't seem to read posts properly, you are, I think, confirming the accuracy of what I said, namely that no evidence has ever been produced that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.

I said it was Florence Aunspaugh who called that Maybrick "Sir James", not Maybrick himself.

[David Orsam]

I said it was Florence Aunspaugh who called that Maybrick "Sir James", not Maybrick himself.

That's simply not true Scott.

In #679 you said:

"Didn't one written by Florence Aunspaugh allegedly state that Maybrick referred to himself as "Sir Jim"?"

All you subsequently did in #686 (after I told you the answer to the above question was no and then you asked me if the Maybrick A-Z entry was wrong, which I told you it wasn't) was to quote from the entry in the Maybrick A-Z. You never made clear that you personally understood that it was not saying what your earlier question was premised on. So you did not say what you are now claiming you said, as the record of this thread clearly shows.

[James_J]

Evening all, just passing this along from KS.

TO ABBY NORMAL & DAVID ORSAM

My apologies for foolishly reading “taking” for “taken” in Abby’s post thereby completely altering the meaning of the sentence. I should have realised, of course, that if Abby had a query for me then he would have asked me direct. Thank you to David for picking up on my mistake and pointing it out to me.

David – in answer to your question:-

Thanks Keith. So for the benefit of those people who don't seem to read posts properly, you are, I think, confirming the accuracy of what I said, namely that no evidence has ever been produced that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.

I can confirm that no evidence has ever been produced, (outside of a suspect and unauthenticated document), that JM ever referred to himself as either Sir Jim or Sir James nor that he liked to be called this when at home.

The only reason I involved myself in this discussion was to inform interested readers that I have a photocopy of an original letter from Florence Aunspaugh to Trevor Christie written, I think, during the 1940s (the complete letter is in my file which, at present, is not with me – and even them I’m not at all sure whether it is dated), which associates the name ‘Sir James’ with ‘Mr Maybrick’ during the Summer of 1888. That’s as far as I can go. I cannot specify precisely when it was written to Christie; how old Florence Aunspaugh was when she wrote it; how reliable Florence Aunspaugh was and how much weight or veracity should be given to her account. I reproduced (in transcript) the relevant section of the letter for purposes of information only. In your 2017 critique of Robert Smith’s book, Robert Smith And The Maybrick Dairy [sic]: The False Facts Exposed! Under Sir Jim, you had suggested:- “...that the name ‘Sir James’, if it was used at all, was something said privately to her [I interpret ‘her’ as Florence Aunspaugh] by Nurse Yapp in the same way that an employee might well refer to their employer as ‘his Lordship’ despite that person not, in fact, being a peer of the realm. My reading of Florence Aunspaugh’s letter is that Alice Yapp is expressing her opinion to the lodge-keeper and not to Aunspaugh. Not that it makes any difference to your main point or the argument. It’s just a little detail which suggests Florence Aunspaugh may have overheard this conversation between Yapp and the lodge-keeper, which in turn might supports the speculation that Florence Aunspaugh referred to James Maybrick as “Mr James” out of respect. Not that it makes any difference to your main point, with which I agree, that there is no known evidence that James Maybrick ever referred to himself as ‘Sir Jim’.

And in response to your question generated by my broaching the subject of the word processor...

I don't suppose the receipt will reveal why Mike bought a word processor but I think some of us would like to know where Mike bought it and how much it cost.

...from memory, I believe it was Dixon’s and I just cannot recall what he paid except, confusingly, I believe he may have said it was second hand. I will try and pull together all of the various references. If Pinkmoon is correct with his year of 1986, then it may very well be, as I believe Pinkmoon strongly infers, that the word processor was purchased for the sole purpose of creating the text of the diary – pushing back the year of conceiving the idea to 1986. Barrett in his sworn affidavit of January 1995 states the idea came from discussions between himself, Tony Devereux and Anne Barrett. Certainly there was an association, via the Saddle, between Barrett and Devereux, but I’m not sure when this friendship began and without looking at my notes, cannot recall the year the Barretts moved to Goldie Street.

Best Wishes, Keith

[Scott Nelson]

So you did not say what you are now claiming you said, as the record of this thread clearly shows.

I was simply questioning the allegation that Maybrick was known as "Sir Jim" or "Sir James". Nothing more, nothing less.

Leave it you to twist around the wording in other people's posts to fit your warped preconceptions.

What an insecure ******* you are.

[John G]

Personally, I find the Aunspaugh letter intriguing. It's odd that Maybrick is being referred to as "Sir James", considering that the Victorians were much more formal in their use of etiquette than would be typical today and, as far as I know, this is a form of address that is exclusively reserved for a knight of the realm.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't like to spoil a beautiful argument but, in fact, there are two mentions of "Sir Jim" in the diary prior to the self-appointed knighthood, both crossed out.

Thanks for the correction. I missed the crossed-out entries.

The likelihood, in my mind, is that they are continuity errors by the author of the diary who had already drafted the knighthood section prior to the physical writing out of the diary but then added those lines into the poetry, not realising that he hadn't yet introduced the concept of the knighthood in the actual text.

Makes sense to me.