Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[caz]

I see that in another thread today the following theory has been falsely attributed to me in a classic "straw man" strategy.

"Seems the only 'expert' we need on this one is David "Awesome" Orsam, who has speculated that one of Albert's colleagues could have 'set him up', presumably by asking him to bring in the gold watch he had mentioned buying the year before, whipping out his tools while a second colleague distracted Albert for ten minutes, so he could open up the back of the watch, prepare the inside surface before putting the marks there and some more random scratch marks on top, finally polishing them all until barely visible and looking suitably old and worn. Then it was just a simple matter of closing the watch, drawing Albert's attention back to it, asking him to open it for the assembled company and to hold it up to the light so the faint scratches could be seen, at which point the hoaxer suggested looking at them under the microscopes in the college lab."

The bit in bold, which is virtually all of it, is nothing I have ever suggested or even hinted at.

I am suggesting that the scratches could have already been placed on the watch and that the "Antiques Roadshow" discussion was part of a deliberate attempt for those scratches to be drawn to Albert's attention so that he would think they had been spotted by chance by someone who was not his own brother.

Ah, so now it didn't need to be a recent edition of The Antiques Roadshow at all, but someone may indeed have mentioned the programme in relation to gold watches in order to entice Albert to bring his own into work. That's when it suits one of David's latest suggestions. When it doesn't, it seems it would need to have been a very recent edition for anyone to recall it and bring it up innocently in May 1993, therefore it must all be nonsense or lies because there were no editions between March and May.

Naturally no need for either of us to check whether the show may ever have featured a gold watch up until that point, because we'd both be rather surprised, I would imagine, if it hadn't.

I wonder what happened to David's cynicism over the place where Albert just happened to work also just happening to have a lab with microscopes? Presumably there will be no suggestion that someone in on the scam engineered the win on the horses, or enticed Albert to use it to buy the watch in the first place, because his job was at a college where microscopes were available.

Love,

Caz
X

[David Orsam]

However, the articles were trivial in character, and it is therefore submitted that they do not attest to Mike's literacy skills, or lack thereof. Additionally, we have no idea how much of the work was written by Mike, considering the articles may have been heavily edited by his wife.

We've been over all this before John. You asked for evidence that Mike was a journalist and I provided it. The fact that his wife might have assisted him with the articles published in his name gets us nowhere because the whole point of Mike's 1995 affidavit is that his wife was the person who transcribed the diary so that it was effectively written as a husband and wife team, just like the articles.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

As a Maybrick Diary denier you surely do run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.

No Simon, it's just that I don't ignore evidence that is inconvenient which would lead to me to present a blatantly fictional account of historical events.

I don't know what you think you have achieved by quoting from the judge's summing up but it supports entirely what I have said, thus:

"His last attendance at the office was on Friday morning, the 3rd May."

That's what I said. He got dressed, left his house and went to his office on 3rd May, which is the date of the in final diary entry.

So he could have written this diary entry – which is untimed – before he left for the office or after he returned home from the office (or at the office) and then placed it under the floorboards in his bedroom either before he left or on his return.

The judge doesn't actually say when Maybrick took to his bed but the evidence from Dr Humphreys is actually quite clear on the matter.

Humphreys was summoned to Maybrick's house at 10am on the morning of 3rd May. He saw Maybrick, who was with Florence, in the morning room of his house on the ground floor. So Maybrick was up (and presumably dressed) and already had had time to write an entry in his diary and place it under the floorboards had he wanted to.

Maybrick complained that the medicine he was taking didn't agree with him and he didn’t feel well but the doctor said he could find nothing wrong with him, other than that his tongue was not clean. After the doctor left, Maybrick then went into town (although, before he did so, he could again have written his diary entry and placed it under the floorboards). He evidently visited his office and took a Turkish bath in Liverpool. Dr Humphreys actually said he saw him in Liverpool during the afternoon, at about 4pm, but didn’t speak to him other than to say "Good afternoon".

It was not until shortly before midnight on 3rd May that Maybrick's health worsened such that he again required the attendance of Dr Humphreys. In fact, initially in his evidence, Dr Humphreys suggested that it was after midnight. Thus (from the Times account of his evidence):

"About midnight I was called to go and see him. This was between the 3rd and 4th of May. I went. He was in bed at his home in great pain in the two thighs from the hips down to the knees. "

But in cross-examination he was more specific:

"I saw him again late, between 11 and 12. The prisoner was up. He complained of pains in the thighs, from the hip to the knee; and I suggested the morphia suppository and administered it myself. He said that he had vomited after he arrived home after the Turkish bath in the afternoon."

In other words, therefore, Maybrick had virtually the entire day to write a diary entry and put it under the floorboards on 3rd May before he took to his bed with pains in his legs during the evening. The idea that he had earlier during the day been a dying man who would have had to have emerged from his sick bed to place the diary under the floorboards is a complete fantasy.

As I have stated, however, the evidence that he did not write the diary is found in the expression "one off instance".

[David Orsam]

My goodness, it was only four days ago that I was told :

"why would [Anne Barrett] imagine [Eddie Lyons] would object to her story, much less want to challenge it, with evidence of his own criminal activity, in stealing from a house he had worked in?... by July 1994, Anne had less to fear from an electrician, if he pinched the diary one morning in March 1992, than she had to fear from Mike if they had spent time forging it together."

Yet today, in another thread, the possibility is raised of Eddie Lyons doing exactly the thing that I was told Anne would not have worried about for one second. Thus, it is said:

"Had Eddie said bluntly to Feldy in early 1993: "Look, here's my daily work sheet for March 9th 1992, showing I helped out in Maybrick's old bedroom by lifting the floorboards first thing, and I know for a fact that Mike called an agency that same afternoon about the diary I seen and shown him down the Saddle that lunchtime. Check with the agency if you don't believe me. Now what's my confession worth?"

Obviously Eddie could have said exactly the same thing to Feldy in July 1994. So doesn't that mean that Anne should have been worried that he might have done so?

Yet, hold on, has anyone ever actually seen a daily work sheet for March 9th 1992 showing that Eddie Lyons helped out in Maybrick's old bedroom or, indeed, that he was anywhere in Battlecrease on that day? No such document is known to exist.

Is Diary Defending now based entirely on imaginary documentation?

[David Orsam]

As I'm quite certain I mentioned in my last post, I have seen it stated as fact many times that no floorboards were lifted in July but where is the actual evidence of this?

Let's look at the above quote. Do I mention documentary evidence? No I do not. So why am I asked "What documentary evidence would you expect to see for something not happening?"

I asked and ask again: where is the evidence that no floorboards were lifted in July? That evidence could come from the people who worked in Battlecrease in July, obviously.

If there is no evidence available that floorboards were not lifted in July then we should obviously not be repeatedly told, as a fact, that floorboards were not lifted, because, in the absence of evidence, that can only be an assumption. THAT is the point I'm making!

And of course I was asked for the evidence that floorboards were lifted in July and I actually gave some evidence. The recollection of Eddie Lyons who only worked there in July!!!!!

[David Orsam]

How ridiculous to assert that for me to correctly say "she strongly believes that Barrett was presented with a diary of JTR on 9 March 1992 about which he was told absolutely nothing" I need to provide an exact quotation in which there is no deviation not even by a single word as if this is "my world" or something I have ever said. Clearly this person does strongly believe that Barrett was presented with a diary of JTR on 9th March 1992 about which he was told absolutely nothing and I have already provided the quotes which demonstrate this. This view may or may not be set in stone but it is clearly what she strongly believes. There is really no argument about this and to say that it's "more a case of not having seen any reliable evidence that demonstrates otherwise" is pure bunkum. Whether it is a bare-faced lie I wouldn't like to say but it certainly doesn't reflect the reality of her posts on this or any other forum.

[David Orsam]

I'm not actually doubting that no work was done at Skelmersdale between 9th and 12th March inclusive – although I haven't seen the timesheets and for some reason they haven't been made public – I'm questioning the reason for it. I'm asking if it can be right that Portus & Rhodes was unable to work on more than one contract at a time. It does not seem, at first blush, a very likely explanation.

Now for some odd reason I am being asked what Graham Rhodes, Alan Davies and Brian Rawes were doing in that period. How can I possibly know? But I would naturally have assumed that, if they (or Eddie and Jim) were not off sick or on leave, that they were doing exactly the same as what Eddie Lyons and Jim Bowling were doing in that period. My question is: Were they ALL working unrecorded at Battlecrease? If not, perhaps none of them were.

Unfortunately, yet again we are told through a third party, who has a renowned poor memory, what Colin Rhodes thought or said without any proper evidence provided. Without knowing what he actually said I have no idea if he was lying or confused or whatever. I simply do not know why the full note or transcript of Keith Skinner's 2004 conversation with Colin Rhodes has not been provided.

But one thing I can say with certainty is that none of my questions on this issue have been answered.

[David Orsam]

11th October 1888

Got called up to see the Head. He wasn't happy at the events of last night. Peter said I was a bloody fool. I have all the memories of last month. Not sure if I want to do it again. The tea they gave me afterwards wasn't very nice. I think my mother once told me what to do in situations like this but I can't repeat it to anyone. Mind you, they'd probably just laugh. Stephen gave me a call in the afternoon. He invited me round to The Mallows but I'm not sure I'll be able to make it. There was a terrible incident involving the girls but it's all been hushed up now. The twins made sure of it. A one off instance they assured me. I'm planning to go to Blackfriars later in the year to see the members of the "Society" but I'm a little bit frightened by them and might ask my brother for advice. I think November will be a better month for me but I never usually like the weather.

Anyone who assumes I gave some thought to the above and chose every word with care is very badly wrong with their assumption. I just typed the first thing I came into my head having literally decided on the spur of the moment to choose Druitt as an example. The above paragraph took as long for me to write as it took to type out with my fingers.

That post was not pre-typed or pre-planned. I just typed it all in the white message box in real time. I see the previous post before that one was posted at 1.49pm and that post was posted at 2.03pm so the fact of the matter is that the whole post took me just 14 minutes to type, preview, check for errors and post.

That's how much care and effort I put into it. I don't even know who Peter or the twins are. Stephen may or may not be J.K. Stephen, I really haven't a clue. What is The Mallows? No idea. I had no reason to write those things, I just wrote them. It's very easy. Clearly possible.

[David Orsam]

I see that when trying to understand why Mike bought a Victorian diary in March 1992 we are now back to assuming that he must have been crazy, acting irrationally, because the only sensible explanation is unpalatable.

Whatever lies Mike told others, he was obviously not mentally incompetent. He would have known that the availability of Victorian diaries with blank pages after 9th March 1992 could have told him absolutely nothing about the availability of Victorian diaries with blank pages prior to that date, even assuming (as is a crazy enough notion) that he thought Martin Earl would have access to, and knowledge of, every single Victorian diary with blank pages in existence.

For all Mike knew, the electricians had acquired the very last remaining and available Victorian diary with blank pages to forge the Maybrick/JTR Diary. That being so, his supposed investigation as to the availability of Victorian diaries, including actually paying for one, after 9th March, would have been pointless.

No, we surely have to assume that Mike acted rationally here and, that being so, the only possible explanation for his acquisition of a Victorian diary with blank pages is to forge a Victorian diary.

[David Orsam]

I honestly don't know how many times I have to say that the wording of the advertisement was perfect for forgery purposes but that this is qualified by the fact that it was never guaranteed to produce a perfect diary. In other words, it was perfect if the perfect diary was available in the bookdealing community (which in fact it wasn't). I also made clear that the wording could have been improved but only by explaining why the diary was needed. That explains why I wrote that it wasn't so much the wording of the advertisement that was the problem and I haven't moderated any previous statements because they were already clearly moderated.

[David Orsam]

My goodness, the Caroline thing is not difficult.

If she genuinely has a memory of her father pestering Tony Devereux about the Diary then it must be obvious that the Diary was in existence before Tony died. It would mean that I am wrong about Mike's reason for buying a Victorian diary (unlikely) and it would equally mean that the Diary was not lying under the floorboards of Battlecrease for 125 years until 9th March 1992 (likely).

So my theory doesn't fit in any way with what Caroline remembered.

But what I have been saying is that it is a nonsense to argue that Caroline's memory is genuine AND also to say that she confused Eddie Lyons with the late Tony Devereux. Absolute and pure nonsense.

[David Orsam]

I have no idea what the significance of the observation that Caroline went down to London in June 1992 is supposed to be. Nor what response to that is awaited. Caroline going to London in 1992 seems to me in no more need of explanation than her parents allowing her to speak to researchers.

[David Orsam]

The latest post on the Antiques Roadshow strikes me as garbled and incoherent. As far as I can make out there seems to be some suggestion that I have changed my position or something, which is not the case.

Here's what I said about the Antiques Roadshow in my first post on the subject (#1418):

"If, therefore, someone did actually claim to have seen a feature on gold watches on the Antiques Roadshow at some point in the weeks prior to 3 June 1993, or indeed any episode of Antiques Roadshow in that period, they cannot possibly have been telling the truth."

Then to RJ Palmer shortly afterwards I said (#1421):

"So it was absolutely impossible for them to have been chatting about a recently seen television programme which led Albert to bring the watch in."

Those points are as true today as when I first made them. To repeat: The discussion about the watch could not have been "triggered" by a recent episode of Antiques Roadshow.

That strikes me as a very important point. It's natural for work colleagues to discuss a programme they saw on television the previous evening, or perhaps even a few days earlier, especially over the weekend, but odd and unnatural for them to be discussing a programme that must have been broadcast at least six weeks earlier (and possibly much, much, earlier than that, who knows?)

The point is that this long gap is entirely consistent with my theory that the discussion in the college about 18 carat gold watches was a blatant pretext to induce Albert to bring his watch into work. It will be recalled that the initial response to this was that the BBC people must have somehow been involved! But they could only have been involved if there had been a recent broadcast of Antiques Roadshow involving a gold watch. That was what we were being told although now, having learnt that there was no such programme, that line of attempted mockery is abandoned.

But if not a recent programme when was it broadcast? And why were the security guards discussing it on that day?

It surely goes without saying that one of the reasons I am suggesting Albert was induced to bring the watch into work was because it was known by the scamster that there was a microscope available. It was part of the plan!

[David Orsam]

This just goes on and on and on.

There is really only one question.

Caz do you beleive that Maybrick wrote the diary?

If the answer is yes then carry on. If however the answer is no ( and I have read all these tideious posts, so have a good idea about the answer) then all this is an irrelevance.
If James Maybrick did not write the document it is by definition A FAKE.

It does not matter at all if it is modern or old, it's will still have no factual bearing the Whitechapel killer.

I am aware of about 3 regular posters who still beleive it is genuine, several others are still sitting on the fence. That should be the only debate.

I happen to entirely agree with you Steve. I'm fully aware that I am a participant in this tedious and completely pointless discussion and my only defence is that there is so much disinformation that I feel needs correcting. It seems to just go round and round in circles with points I thought had been disposed of a long time ago just being repeated after a certain amount of time and we go round and round again.

There is obviously a complete stalemate and without any new information the discussion is going nowhere. Occasionally we get snippets of what seems to be new evidence but no source is ever provided and it's unclear if what we are being told is a fragment of some misremembered conversation or accurate information. I had high hopes of James Johnston but, for reasons best known to himself, he point blank refused to post transcripts of his interviews with the electricians, having posted some selective and possibly downright misleading snippets. Keith Skinner has thankfully posted some real new information but he seems to have disappeared and I'm not sure if the documents that we were promised are now going to materialise.

But, yes, this never ending argument (in which I find myself involved) about whether it was Person A who forged the diary or Person B is beyond satire!

[Spider]

But, yes, this never ending argument (in which I find myself involved) about whether it was Person A who forged the diary or Person B is beyond satire!

......... or of course whether it is in fact genuine (for us in the minority )