One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[David Orsam]

Well it was your theory, based on Mike's claims, that he and Anne were working on the diary towards that deadline of April 13th,

No Caz, that is not my theory because I don't know whether the date of 13 April meeting was fixed before or after the forged diary was completed. All I've said is that Mike would have wanted to get the diary to Doreen as quickly as possible. That is common sense.

Agreed. So why did you refer to a ticking clock?

Here is what I said about the ticking clock in #2967:

"Having already spoken to Doreen, he is under time pressure in March 1992. The clock is ticking. He has to take whatever he can get, surely?"

It had nothing to do with a countdown to 13th April. It was just that he needs to get the diary to her as quickly as possible.

[David Orsam]

So why do you think he was including the 1891 diary as evidence that he forged 'the' diary, if he wasn't even consciously aware of why it was evidence, and how it could help him?

Erm, what are you talking about?

I'm saying that he was consciously aware that the 1891 diary was evidence that he forged the diary because he knew why he purchased it.

You, on the other hand, are saying that he purchased the 1891 diary for purely innocent purposes but when it came to writing his affidavit he was sufficiently cunning and clever to squeeze the purchase into a narrative in which it was evidence of preparation for the forgery, even though it did not fit into his chronology.

I'm saying that he somehow happened to state it took only 11 days to write the diary which managed to fit perfectly into a chronology that he wasn't even claiming had happened!

[David Orsam]

So he was kind of stuck with the eleven days if he wanted his 1891 diary evidence to stick.

But this doesn't make sense. No reader of his 1891 diary evidence would have had a clue when that diary was actually purchased. In fact, they would have thought it was acquired prior to January 1990. So the mention of eleven days does absolutely nothing to make his 1891 diary evidence "stick".

But reading your long answer, from which I have only quoted one sentence above, it is perfectly clear to me that you realise the problem that you have in trying to explain it all away, hence the length and complexity of your post.

[David Orsam]

Then I'm not entirely sure what you are still doing here, David. Do you honestly have nothing better to do with your time?

What am I still doing here? Responding to your daily chunk of posts, which usually include questions directed at me or misunderstandings which I need to correct. I'd prefer not to be doing it, because I do have plenty of other things to do, but I wouldn't want you or anyone else to think that I can't answer any of your questions.

[David Orsam]

And how long do you suppose you will be waiting (while still reading and posting) before an explanation that satisfies you suddenly creeps up one day and slaps you round the chops?

Why not simply save yourself the time and your typing digits the effort, and carry on assuming what you are assuming (it doesn't always fail you) unless or until the situation changes in the future?

From my point of view, there can be no satisfactory explanation for Mike's hunt (read that one carefully!) in his affidavit, because I am satisfied the diary existed and was with Mike before he called Doreen and before he placed that order. It's a balancing act. I know you don't want to hear it, but I would need a satisfactory explanation for the Battlecrease documentation which would make it compatible with Mike ordering that 1891 effort to create 'the' diary.

I realise Mike moved in many mysterious ways, his wonders to perform, but even he couldn't have created a diary that had already been created by person or persons unknown, for reasons unknown, and had emerged from Maybrick's house.

Let me you this Caz. And perhaps your answer can conclude our discussion, with honour on both sides. For those mere mortals like myself who have no knowledge of any secret evidence showing that the Diary emerged from Battlecrease, are you prepared to accept, based on the evidence of Mike's used or partly used diary hunt in March 1992, that it is both reasonable and credible to believe or suspect that Mike was involved in forging the diary?

I'm not asking you to accept that he was involved only that to a reasonable and intelligent mortal observer the idea is not an absurd one.

[Iconoclast]

I'm not asking you to accept that he was involved only that to a reasonable and intelligent mortal observer the idea is not an absurd one.

Well I for one will miss the amazing numbers you two have recently brought in on this, The Greatest Thread of All. Real box office stuff. A veritable theatre of dreams to those of us who care about these things (cough, cough, that'll just be me then).

If this is truly the end of your exchange(s), David, I am happy to concur vicariously for Caz that "to a reasonable and intelligent mortal observer the idea is not an absurd one", however (and I'm sure you know what's coming) it may not be an absurd one but being non-absurd simply does not bring it out of the depths of implausibility to which it genuinely belongs.

Ike
A Man What Knows a Thing or Two About Things

[caz]

'I was also afraid that if Anne and I get arrested for fraud what would happen to our daughter.'

Yes, it's all a bit rich, isn't it? If Mike forged the diary he apparently didn't care less in 1992 what would happen to his daughter if he and Anne found themselves arrested for fraud. But suddenly, within days of his affidavit in Jan 1995, in which he voluntarily confessed to forging it (nobody held a gun to his head), he's afraid for his daughter's future.

He should have thought of that before trying to claim it was a conspiracy involving Caroline's mother and her late grandfather.

But Mike was a total emotional wreck at the time, and this had been building and building since his wife left with their daughter the previous January. Many people never get over something like that and irrational, often self-destructive acts are hardly unheard of in similar circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Now that this thread seems to be pausing to catch breath, I wonder if I might just slip in a comment?

It so happens that I don't believe either (a) that Barrett forged the Diary or (b) that it was written in his own hand by James Maybrick. I won't go into the reasons why I take this view. However, it has always struck me as rather odd or coincidental that the Diary was found to contain in its spine traces of a material known as bone black.

For the non-technically minded, bone black is essentially the fully-carbonised residue of (these days) the bones of cows (excluding, these days) the skull, spinal column and tail, because of the possibility of contamination with BSE.
The result of the carbonisation process is a material having very high absorbent properties. It is used today in applications such as filtration, purification, and also in medicine, where it is sometimes prescribed as a 'cleansing agent' to absorb toxins from the body. Bone black is usually obtained in a finely-divided form which, on mixing with water, is taken orally. It is, in fairness, more of an 'alternative medicine' in the 21st century.

Now, back in the 19th century, bone black was used to cleanse the blood and the digestive system. In particular, it was and is very effective in absorbing residues left by heavy metal poisons such as mercury, lead, and - arsenic. It would not cure heavy-metal poisoning but it was prescribed to alleviate the side-effects...and in particular those of arsenial poisoning via addiction.

If Michael Barrett obtained the black 'guard book' from O&L, or any other auction-house, or from Woolworth's or wherever, I have always been struck by the coincidence that the book's spine contained traces (and still does) of a material which Victorian physicians and pharmacists prescribed to alleviate the symptoms of, amongst other toxins, arsenic poisoning. And we all know that dear old Jim Maybrick had a distinct taste for arsenic and would openly boost its virtues to anyone willing to listen. But as I say, this may well be coincidence, and certainly not concrete proof that the 'guard book' was owned by James Maybrick. The taking of arsenial compounds for 'medicinal' purposes in the 19th century was actually fairly widespread. Nevertheless, the coincidence remains and I believe should not be ignored.

So did the Diary come from Battlecrease? Unless someone somewhere has absolute evidence, we'll never know - but I will repeat that the coincidence between the presence of bone black in the Diary, and the addiction to arsenic of James Maybrick remains. And the missing 64-odd pages at the front of the book? Photographs? Jottings? Bits and pieces of this, that and the other that the actual hand-writer of the Diary chose to remove, for whatever reason?

I'm personally convinced that the handwriting in the Diary was not that of James Maybrick, but at the same time I can't rule out the possibility that the Diary originated in Battlecrease. We have Feldman's story of 'something' being found at Battlecrease during re-wiring and being taken to Liverpool University for examination. This is to a very large extent backed up by Shirley Harrison, who interviewed one of the electricians (a man called Vincent Dring) who had worked on the re-wiring and who told of two books being found in what had once been James Maybrick's bedroom. Dring said these books were both about 10" x 8", about the same size as the Diary. These books were tossed into a skip according to Dring. So as far as Feldman and Harrison were concerned, the possibility of a Battlecrease provenance could not be proven. And yet........too much coincidence?


Graham

[ChrisGeorge]

Now that this thread seems to be pausing to catch breath, I wonder if I might just slip in a comment?

It so happens that I don't believe either (a) that Barrett forged the Diary or (b) that it was written in his own hand by James Maybrick. I won't go into the reasons why I take this view. However, it has always struck me as rather odd or coincidental that the Diary was found to contain in its spine traces of a material known as bone black.

For the non-technically minded, bone black is essentially the fully-carbonised residue of (these days) the bones of cows (excluding, these days) the skull, spinal column and tail, because of the possibility of contamination with BSE.
The result of the carbonisation process is a material having very high absorbent properties. It is used today in applications such as filtration, purification, and also in medicine, where it is sometimes prescribed as a 'cleansing agent' to absorb toxins from the body. Bone black is usually obtained in a finely-divided form which, on mixing with water, is taken orally. It is, in fairness, more of an 'alternative medicine' in the 21st century.

Now, back in the 19th century, bone black was used to cleanse the blood and the digestive system. In particular, it was and is very effective in absorbing residues left by heavy metal poisons such as mercury, lead, and - arsenic. It would not cure heavy-metal poisoning but it was prescribed to alleviate the side-effects...and in particular those of arsenial poisoning via addiction.

If Michael Barrett obtained the black 'guard book' from O&L, or any other auction-house, or from Woolworth's or wherever, I have always been struck by the coincidence that the book's spine contained traces (and still does) of a material which Victorian physicians and pharmacists prescribed to alleviate the symptoms of, amongst other toxins, arsenic poisoning. And we all know that dear old Jim Maybrick had a distinct taste for arsenic and would openly boost its virtues to anyone willing to listen. But as I say, this may well be coincidence, and certainly not concrete proof that the 'guard book' was owned by James Maybrick. The taking of arsenial compounds for 'medicinal' purposes in the 19th century was actually fairly widespread. Nevertheless, the coincidence remains and I believe should not be ignored.

So did the Diary come from Battlecrease? Unless someone somewhere has absolute evidence, we'll never know - but I will repeat that the coincidence between the presence of bone black in the Diary, and the addiction to arsenic of James Maybrick remains. And the missing 64-odd pages at the front of the book? Photographs? Jottings? Bits and pieces of this, that and the other that the actual hand-writer of the Diary chose to remove, for whatever reason?

I'm personally convinced that the handwriting in the Diary was not that of James Maybrick, but at the same time I can't rule out the possibility that the Diary originated in Battlecrease. We have Feldman's story of 'something' being found at Battlecrease during re-wiring and being taken to Liverpool University for examination. This is to a very large extent backed up by Shirley Harrison, who interviewed one of the electricians (a man called Vincent Dring) who had worked on the re-wiring and who told of two books being found in what had once been James Maybrick's bedroom. Dring said these books were both about 10" x 8", about the same size as the Diary. These books were tossed into a skip according to Dring. So as far as Feldman and Harrison were concerned, the possibility of a Battlecrease provenance could not be proven. And yet........too much coincidence?


Graham

Hi Graham

Many thanks for your interesting post. I am originally from Liverpool and grew up on Aigburth Hall Avenue just up the road from where the Maybricks lived on Riversdale Road. When I first heard about the Diary I thought it too much of a coincidence that two such famous cases -- the Maybrick Case and the Jack the Ripper case -- could be so joined together. I also think it's ridiculous to think that James Maybrick, a Liverpool cotton merchant, had to travel 200 miles to murder prostitutes, supposedly to gain revenge on his unfaithful wife, when he could have done so right there in Liverpool, where there were plenty of prostitutes servicing sailors from the ships coming into the port. So the idea that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper is contrived -- the Diarist had to make Maybrick go to London in order to make him the Ripper.

Having been involved in Ripperology since 1993, and having also been an attendee at the Maybrick Trial where Keith Skinner revealed that based on the information he has gathered, a jury would conclude the Diary came out of Battlecrease, it seems to me that the Diary does have a link to the house where the Maybricks lived but not necessarily to James Maybrick himself. I am hopeful that the information that Keith found might be released sooner or later and we might learn what the link might be. My sense is that the link might have to do with the family of W. Fletcher Rogers, foreman of the jury at Florence Maybrick's trial, who moved into the house after the Maybricks or someone else who lived at Battlecrease who thought it might be a "lark" to make James Maybrick the Ripper. (See http://www.jamesmaybrick.org/ under "F".)

In terms of bone black being, as you say, a period cure, of course anyone who had a commonplace book or photo album, as the book that contains the Diary is, might have used such a preparation, so that doesn't necessarily tie the book to James Maybrick or his family.

Best regards

Chris



Keith Skinner at the Maybrick Trial at the Liverpool Cricket Club, May 19-20, 2007

[caz]

Just to interrupt the two of you for the moment, as I have said before, if ever there comes a day when it can be established that the James Maybrick journal came out of the James Maybrick house, that will be that. Game over.

Well Ike, it would not be the end. It would not even be the beginning of the end. But it just might, perhaps, be the end of the beginning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Chris,

I agree with everything you say re: The Ripper being James Maybrick - no way in the world. OK, so he did spend some time in London (The Minories, was it?) but that's still absolutely no proof that he went about slaughtering street-women when he had a moment to spare. However, with regard to any 'Battlecrease Provenance', I take the (possibly simplistic) view that there's rarely any smoke without fire, and am not prepared just yet to dismiss the possibility that a book or books did indeed come out of Battlecrease. Whether during the building work in the early 1990's or at some time prior to that is not possible to say, given our current information.

Graham

PS: I had no idea until I read your post that the foreman of the jury at Florence's trial actually bought Battlecrease. I should have read www.james maybrick.org a bit more carefully and perhaps more frequently.....

[caz]

Keith Skinner at the Maybrick Trial at the Liverpool Cricket Club, May 19-20, 2007

Many thanks for your post and that photo, Chris, which brought back many memories.

I know I'm biased, but isn't he lovely?

...the Diarist had to make Maybrick go to London in order to make him the Ripper.

Of course, but there was no need for a cattle prod. It has always been known that the real James was a 'frequent' visitor to the capital.

I also think it highly probable that he would have accompanied his famous brother Michael to attend the biggest musical events of this time, including those by Gilbert & Sullivan at the Savoy Theatre.

Many people were a bit sniffy and snobbish about their operettas, pretending to find them rather "common", even if secretly enjoying them as much as the next man or woman. I often wonder if Michael Maybrick was more than a little miffed at the competition and may have adopted an air of superiority along with giving an impression that he considered his own musical contribution to be a "cut above", morally and aesthetically.

How might the brothers Grossmith have felt about the "jumped up" brothers Maybrick from Liverpool in such circumstances? Known for their love of sometimes childish pranks, could the former have dreamed up a delicious way of taking the latter - particularly Michael - down a peg or three? The scandal in the wake of the trial of a faithless Florie for the murder of her adulterous, arsenic-addled husband Jim - elevating him from a nobody to a deeply flawed somebody - was arguably the last thing an upwardly mobile Michael wanted on his continued rise to fame and fortune. What could be worse? A darkly satirical diary, emerging ghost-like from the Maybrick's Liverpool home, in which the dastardly "Sir Jim" overtakes Michael by leaps and bounds by claiming to be Jack the Ripper?

Imagine if Michael had ever seen that Diary of a Nobody serialised in the pages of Punch! The Isle of Wight might have proved too close for comfort.

I wish I knew what George Grossmith's connections were with Aigburth, and how and when they began. Seems a strange place for a Londoner to choose for his honeymoon, but that's where George spent his.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But please do go though ahead and set out your detailed conclusions from your reading of the Maybrick Diary as to why you were unable to conclude (in your strange way of putting it) that the Barretts created it.

Not sure if David is still here, but I can't see anything strange about being unable to conclude, from having seen and read the diary facsimile, that the Barretts - or anyone else for that matter - created it.

How I was supposed to set out 'detailed conclusions' for such an inability is equally beyond me.

I might find it strange if anyone who hadn't even read the thing through once was able to conclude that it was indeed 'the Barretts' and nobody else who created it - presumably on the strength of Mike saying so in 1995 and citing the little red diary as his proof. But maybe that's just me.

I'm not including David as I have no idea how many times he may have battled his way through that facsimile.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As I have been continually saying, if you had only wanted to demonstrate that Mike made some factual errors in his affidavit then that would have been a pointless waste of time, especially in circumstances where I was myself saying that he must have made some factual errors.

David seems to forget here (if he ever grasped it) that my original point was merely that caution was needed in light of 'demonstrable untruths' in Mike's affidavit. I neither know nor care if David had previously made the same or a similar point, but it never hurts in my experience to see one's point repeated independently by someone else. Moving on, it was David who 'wanted' me to demonstrate 'untruths', because he had mistakenly assumed I was defining these exclusively as wilful lies - that is, deliberate deception - rather than as untrue statements, which could have been lies but equally could have been false beliefs - that is, factual errors - or a combination of both.

After spending a stupid amount of time trying to tell me I couldn't define 'untruths' as anything other than wilful lies, instead of apologising for his mistake on that score David fell back - with delicious irony - on the above 'pointless waste of time' [because it's all been said before] argument.

Bottom line remains my original point about Mike as an unreliable witness to anything diary related.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well there's a clue in Anne's own words from 13 July 1994 as to what she claims to have known isn't there? For she said:

"I took the parcel [containing the Diary] to Tony Devereux and asked him to give it to Mike and tell him to do something with it. This he faithfully did."

Just the one clue? What about the dirty great statement she made later the same month, claiming to have known an awful lot more than the above snippet?

Such 'clues' only tell us what Anne claimed to know. They tell us nothing about what she really knows because previously she had claimed only that Mike brought the diary home one day and she understood he had got it from Tony.

Love,

Caz
X