Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Acquiring A Victorian Diary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abby Normal
    replied
    he couldn't have died from the poison, as he was found still clutching the casho.. uh sandwich in his hand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Calgary Herald, 12 April 1911. The final moments of Bobo Maybrick.
    Poor Bobo. Being poisoned seems to have run in the family.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Calgary Herald, 12 April 1911. The final moments of Bobo Maybrick.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Bobo One.JPG
Views:	149
Size:	43.6 KB
ID:	722315
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Bobo 2.JPG
Views:	148
Size:	32.6 KB
ID:	722316


    With that melancholy thought in mind, I think I will go have a sandwich.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmenges
    replied
    From Keith Skinner-

    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Years ago it was wondered if the Diary's phrase

    Sir Jim with his fancy cane

    may have been an inside joke and a triple entendre--a pun on Caine [from the miniseries] and Kane, the alleged penman.

    Iím still lurking about Roger Ė and thank you for your good wishes.

    Re the above post, as a rule I tend not to discuss the text of the diary because if it was created by Mike Barrett (as he says it was) then itís a pointless exercise as far as Iím concerned. But 27 years ago when I first read the narrative, I did wonder if this might have been a reference to the Emma Smith murder and the injuries she sustained? And that is as far as I took my thought because I was aware the recorded historical evidence stood against that line of speculative interpretation Ė and Mike Barrett was never asked what he had in mind when he wrote the line. It may well have been everything you suggested Roger Ė or possibly it could have had something to do with Mikeís writers creativity and spotting an opportunity to have yet another laugh at those gullible and foolish enough to invest those words with their own meaning? Or perhaps we are both wrong Roger? But it is interesting that you raise the ghost of Gerard Kane fingered, I believe, by Melvin Harris as theperson who physically penned the diary Ė but not implicated by Mike Barrett in his sworn affidavit in which, correct me if I am wrong, in part you place great faith?

    I see you have left a long post for me to which I will respond but only where I can offer you something positive and constructive. What I think and believe Ė why I think and believe Ė is of little consequence or value. As I have said countless times Roger, I do not seek to try and persuade anybody over to my way of thinking.

    Best Wishes

    KS

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hello Keith, (if you're still in the shadows).

    I didn't wish to snub your question in Post #1861: why didn't Mike Barrett produced the receipt during his presentation at the Cloak and Dagger?

    I'm not certain why you wish to hear my answer, because it can't be anything other than pure speculation.

    Personally, I think Barrett may have been bluffing. Mike was a fabulist, and from my observations of his meandering conversations, he seemed to have lived by some strange credo of never giving a stranger (or a Londoner?) a straight story. He embellished even when it served no rational purpose. I suppose it goes back to his youth on the rough streets of Liverpool, the sort of bloke that might say "go ahead and work me over, but don't call the police."

    On the other hand, if Mike did have the receipt, perhaps he simply got "cold feet" and decided to hold on to it in case he later needed to apply "leverage" if the film deal went through. I have no idea.

    What I don't think Mike's bluff proves is that the diary isn't a modern hoax. I never received a response to my observations about Mike's interview on Radio Merseyside. You earlier cited Mike's rationale for confessing to Harold Brough as being motivated by not wanting his little daughter Caroline accused of being related to Jack the Ripper. Am I wrong in assuming that you were lending credence to this explanation? But, as I pointed out earlier, isn't the chronology wrong? Didn't Barrett first confess to Brough (and Harrison) in June 1994--that is, BEFORE Feldman attempted to link Anne Graham's genealogy to that of Florence Maybrick? If so, the "explanation" makes no sense.

    So we are left with Barrett sometimes telling whoppers (and wild ones!) when he is confessing, sometimes telling whoppers when he is retracting his confession, and sometimes telling whoppers when he is acting the innocent scrap metal dealer who knows utterly nothing about the Diary (for example, lying about when and why he purchased the word processor).

    As I say, Mike was a fabulist. He had the gift of the gab, and that is why I think Alan Gray did a service by trying to keep Mike to a coherent story in the weeks leading up to January 1995. It must have been a tedious and thankless task. Yes, a disgruntled Gray eventually threw his hands in the air and quite understandably gave up on Barrett, but, other than a few mistaken dates, it is my opinion that the January 1995 confession has never been disproven and represents the most likely explanation for the diary's creation.

    A final point, for I am planning on moving my Maybrick collection, not to Wales, but to the root cellar, burying it underneath old cans of paint and garden tools, never to be unearthed again before the year 2040.

    The scientists and document examiners who studied the Diary were not Ripperologists. They had no axe to grind. There is no reason to question their honesty. While we might argue about their interpretations (or, more probably, the interpretations that others gave to their work) I don't think we can question their observations. Their reports can't be anything other than honest descriptions of what they were observing.

    And what did they observe?

    For one, in July/August 1992 Dr. Baxendale observed that the Diary's ink was readily soluble (giving up color) when exposed to a solvent. This happened in "seconds" while his specimens of old ink all took much longer.

    In November 1994, you and Shirley Harrison brought the Diary to Leeds University, who found that the ink was NOT readily soluble when placed in a solvent.

    Judging by Harrison's repetition of these experiments in her book, the conclusion seems to be that Leeds disproved Baxendale's test.

    But is that a rational conclusion?

    Over time, ink integrates with the fibers of the paper. The bond becomes greater and greater --which is the whole point of a solubility test.

    Between Baxendale's honest observations around July 1992 and Leed's honest observations in November 1994, two years and 3 months (or two years and four months) had passed.

    Why wouldn't I simply conclude that the Diary's ink was of recent origin in the summer of 1992, and in the intervening two + years it further bonded to the paper, thus explaining Leeds results?

    What other explanation can there be?

    And since none of us can alter the laws of chemistry, this would seem to be conclusive proof that the diary was a recent creation when Barrett brought it to London in April 1992, which, of course, is supported by the advertisement that led to the purchase of the red diary, "one off," the Abberline obsession, the police inventory list, the use of secondary sources, etc.

    You disagree, of course, but, for the life of me, I can't understand why you disagree. I suppose it has a little to do with wanting to prove the doubters wrong, and little to do with McNeil's ion migration claims--which other scientists seemed to have dismissed on technical grounds. Perhaps that conversation is for another day, or another incarnation.

    Good wishes and good luck. RP
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-17-2019, 05:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Perhaps because "Abberline" is a more telegenic (cine-genic?) name than boring old "Reid" and "Arnold", so it's Abberline who gets to be the star detective in TV dramas or movies about the case.
    Years ago it was wondered if the Diary's phrase

    Sir Jim with his fancy cane

    may have been an inside joke and a triple entendre--a pun on Caine [from the miniseries] and Kane, the alleged penman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Graham View Post

    But that, my dear chap, is precisely what you do to all and any poster who disagrees with what you write! If you can't see that, well.....

    And so you HAVEN'T read anything that Mike Barrett had published, then? Having seen examples of his writing style, if that's the correct word, I can assure you that someone - could have been Anne - cleaned up his articles prior to publication, with regard to syntax, spelling, etc. Now you'll be crawling all over me saying, "Nah, naaah, told you so! You're admitting that Mike Barrett could have conceived and draft-written the Diary, and that Anne could have 'cleaned it up' on their processor!" Well, no. I defend what I said. Mike Barrett may well have obtained the Diary, but I cannot accept that he conceived and wrote it. Erobitha's Post No 1958 is laudable and should be read carefully by one and all.

    Graham
    The answer to your question is yes, I've seen Mike's published work, and I provided a link to this, courtesy of David Orsam, yet you seem disinterested in reading it. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest Mike, with or without Anne, could not conceive of and write the diary. Likewise, I've seen nothing in the diary that couldn't be conceived or written by Mike. The pro-diary crowd said for years that Mike wasn't a writer, yet he was, and he was obviously deemed capable enough to interview "celebrities," so this perception you have of Mike, IMO, is naive and simplistic. If you're in any way interested in hoaxes, you'd see how Mike fits the part of the hoaxer quite well.

    Erobitha's post in 1958 is factually incorrect, as pointed out by me in my last post which you've apparently ignored.


    As for me ignoring any questions, can you please post them up here for me, as I've never, to my knowledge, ignored any questions from you or anyone else, I actually try to take the time to address anything people post in my direction, a courtesy that isn't returned, oddly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    What about Maybrick's obsession with Abberline when Abberline was rarely mentioned in the press?
    Perhaps because "Abberline" is a more telegenic (cine-genic?) name than boring old "Reid" and "Arnold", so it's Abberline who gets to be the star detective in TV dramas or movies about the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    What about Maybrick's obsession with Abberline when Abberline was rarely mentioned in the press?

    And there's still Harry, George and Michael to consider.

    Leave a comment:


  • Graham
    replied
    Of everything I've ever posted, all you and Graham seem to do is question it, which leads me to answer it, and then you basically ignore what I post and pretend it never happened. I ask you both questions and you avoid them like the plague
    But that, my dear chap, is precisely what you do to all and any poster who disagrees with what you write! If you can't see that, well.....

    And so you HAVEN'T read anything that Mike Barrett had published, then? Having seen examples of his writing style, if that's the correct word, I can assure you that someone - could have been Anne - cleaned up his articles prior to publication, with regard to syntax, spelling, etc. Now you'll be crawling all over me saying, "Nah, naaah, told you so! You're admitting that Mike Barrett could have conceived and draft-written the Diary, and that Anne could have 'cleaned it up' on their processor!" Well, no. I defend what I said. Mike Barrett may well have obtained the Diary, but I cannot accept that he conceived and wrote it. Erobitha's Post No 1958 is laudable and should be read carefully by one and all.

    Graham

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    The internet is a wonderful breeding ground for tribalism. You are either in one camp or the other - there apparently is no in between.

    For what it is worth, and being from a line of actual police detectives - I can assure you nothing is impossible. Everything is possible.

    Park your feelings and conjecture and examine the facts and you must like me can only be open minded to the possibility of the Maybrick document being genuine.

    - it has not been scientifically disproven or proven either way via numerous paper and ink testing
    - it contains at least two references which simply could not have been known by a forger pre 1987
    - Intimate knowledge of the household such Evelynís illness and Sir Jim could only be found via documentation that was locked away in American archives which were never accessed only until recently by researchers

    These are not opinions - these are facts so the improbable remains probable. Either it is indeed a modern forgery by someone who had access to intimate household knowledge not previously known by the public or it is genuine.

    Then the watch throws up something different altogether. Even the much missed Martin Fido admitted that the science on the watch troubled him. The results of which stated in no doubt that the engravings are many decades old.

    The evidence therefore weighs just in favor of the diary and watch being genuine as one supports the other and cannot be independently dismissed by science.

    The diary continues to ask more questions as time passes than it answers and therefore we have to be open to the improbable - either way.
    hi ero
    the answers to these questions/ comments are all on here or more specifically on Lord Orsams website (just google Orsam Books). he has many articles, comments, snippets to these questions and many others. His writings on the subject really is the last word IMHO that should have finally put this silly diary to bed once and for all. Plus there is a lot of great research on other ripper related/true crime issues. his site really is must read for ripper related stuff. brilliant work by an "outsider"!
    Great sense of humor too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post
    The internet is a wonderful breeding ground for tribalism. You are either in one camp or the other - there apparently is no in between.

    For what it is worth, and being from a line of actual police detectives - I can assure you nothing is impossible. Everything is possible.

    Park your feelings and conjecture and examine the facts and you must like me can only be open minded to the possibility of the Maybrick document being genuine.

    - it has not been scientifically disproven or proven either way via numerous paper and ink testing
    - it contains at least two references which simply could not have been known by a forger pre 1987
    - Intimate knowledge of the household such Evelynís illness and Sir Jim could only be found via documentation that was locked away in American archives which were never accessed only until recently by researchers

    These are not opinions - these are facts so the improbable remains probable. Either it is indeed a modern forgery by someone who had access to intimate household knowledge not previously known by the public or it is genuine.

    Then the watch throws up something different altogether. Even the much missed Martin Fido admitted that the science on the watch troubled him. The results of which stated in no doubt that the engravings are many decades old.

    The evidence therefore weighs just in favor of the diary and watch being genuine as one supports the other and cannot be independently dismissed by science.

    The diary continues to ask more questions as time passes than it answers and therefore we have to be open to the improbable - either way.
    I'm not sure how anyone could profess to having had history within the police and then say most of these things, and that's not an insult, it's a genuinely perplexed opinion.

    The ink was shown to be consistent with a modern time-frame, with others stating it could be older, but seeing as we already have well-documented examples of forgeries appearing to fool the experts at a glance, coupled with the fact that ink can and has been aged many times before, should make you take pause, unless you only subscribe to far-out theories over more mundane truths, with isn't consistent with police work, in my humble opinion.

    As for the "facts" concerning details not being available, did everyone forget Orsam's research, or did they just totally ignore it?

    To borrow from Orsam's work:

    Gladys Unwell Again

    Robert Smith notes a number of features of the Diary which he thinks that a modern forger could not have known which, according to him, shows the Diary is a genuine document. I won't deal with all of them but will select the most important examples for comment.

    Probably the most important is the entry in the Diary that says:
    'My dearest Gladys is unwell yet again.'

    Smith refers us to Shirley Harrison who tells us that the only source for Gladys being unwell 'again' is a letter from Margaret Baillie to Florence Maybrick dated 13 April 1889 which contains the sentence 'I'm sorry that your little girl has been unwell again'. Thus, Harrison says confidently in her 2010 book, 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper - The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick':
    'There is no other source for the information that Gladys was repeatedly sick.'

    The Margaret Baillie letter is in a file in the National Archives and, it is claimed, was never made public or published prior to March 1992 apart from by J.H. Levy who, we are told (by Harrison), 'transcribed' the sentence incorrectly so that it reads 'I am sorry about your little girl'.

    In point of fact, Levy transcribed nothing because that Margaret Baillie letter of 13 April 1889 was read out in its entirety by counsel for the prosecution at Florence's trial on 31 July 1889, and the exact same line, i.e. 'I'm sorry about your little girl', was published in both the Liverpool Echo of 31 July 1889 and the Liverpool Daily Post of 1 August 1889 when reporting the opening speech. As we shall see, the error was not made by the prosecution counsel but by the reporter for the Liverpool Echo and Daily Post (who appears to have been the same person). Levy was simply repeating this error when he published a transcript of the trial, as did H.B. Irving in his own reproduction of the trial transcript in 1912 within the Notable Trials series.

    ...

    You can read the rest of this information here: https://www.orsam.co.uk/maybrickthefalsefacts.htm It covers the "Sir Jim" issue and many others, but like I said, maybe some would prefer to simply ignore it.

    How anyone can ignore the fact that the diary contains factual errors, both literary and historical, is beyond me, but I guess I'm not a policeman, so what would I know? I'm just a bloke applying critical thinking, something I thought they did in the police, Occam's Razor, and all that. There's an abundance of evidence pointing towards hoax, and virtually none pointing to "genuine," but hey-ho, whatever floats your boat, innit.
    Last edited by Mike J. G.; 09-16-2019, 01:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    The internet is a wonderful breeding ground for tribalism. You are either in one camp or the other - there apparently is no in between.

    For what it is worth, and being from a line of actual police detectives - I can assure you nothing is impossible. Everything is possible.

    Park your feelings and conjecture and examine the facts and you must like me can only be open minded to the possibility of the Maybrick document being genuine.

    - it has not been scientifically disproven or proven either way via numerous paper and ink testing
    - it contains at least two references which simply could not have been known by a forger pre 1987
    - Intimate knowledge of the household such Evelynís illness and Sir Jim could only be found via documentation that was locked away in American archives which were never accessed only until recently by researchers

    These are not opinions - these are facts so the improbable remains probable. Either it is indeed a modern forgery by someone who had access to intimate household knowledge not previously known by the public or it is genuine.

    Then the watch throws up something different altogether. Even the much missed Martin Fido admitted that the science on the watch troubled him. The results of which stated in no doubt that the engravings are many decades old.

    The evidence therefore weighs just in favor of the diary and watch being genuine as one supports the other and cannot be independently dismissed by science.

    The diary continues to ask more questions as time passes than it answers and therefore we have to be open to the improbable - either way.

    Leave a comment:


  • jmenges
    replied
    Please everyone try to keep the personal attacks out of the debate. Calling each other trolls, empty noggins and maroons serves only one purpose, to get you an infraction. Itís against the rules.

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike J. G.
    replied
    I believe Mike Barrett published for Celebrity Magazine, and did a few interviews along the way, one being with Bonnie Langford. Orsam notes that Mike's first credited interview was published in 1986. - https://www.orsam.co.uk/maybrickthefalsefacts.htm

    So yeah, that pretty much puts to bed any notion that Mike was a simpleton Scouser, unable to string a coherent sentence together, versus the sheer literally brilliance that is "the diary," lol. The diary wasn't exactly written by a budding Mark Twain.

    So, Mike Barrett, a writer, seeks a Victorian-era diary with missing pages, then out of the blue, he comes across the never-before-seen diary of a never-before-considered Ripper suspect, in which the writer strongly implies himself to be the murderer that nobody could ever find. What a truly fantastic coincidence! Almost as fantastic a coincidence as Maybrick being able to write in two absolutely different hands, as well as predicting such things as how a list of items would be published in a book many, many years later! Wow, I mean, just...wow. The first man to ever use the phrase "one-off" instance, and oddly even predicted the future name of the "Muck Midden" pub!

    So many coincidences, eh?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X