One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

Hi Al.

I don't think that that is Caz's argument anymore, but, out of curiosity, how is it credible?

Diaries have no inherent, stable worth, do they? They can be worth half pound or they can be priceless relics worth thousands or millions.

And how would asking for "at least twenty blank pages" help someone reference the worth of the Diary of Jack the Ripper?

It doesn't seem to be the least bit credible.

No one has ever answered why 'twenty blank' pages were needed by Barrett.

Caz uses the figure '63 pages' for the diary, but the typescript found on the Barrett's word processor was 29 pages.

And this is ex-post facto reasoning. The Diary Barrett eventually produced was indeed 63 pages, but it text has been elongated. We don't know how long the diary would have been, if Barrett had found a different ledger.

Eddie's tatty, damaged "old book" had 17 unused pages after the last page of writing. Mike didn't have oodles of cash to splash, but he wanted Eddie's tatty, damaged "old book", and he wanted it bad. Had Martin Earl found a more valuable Victorian diary, priced at, say, £250, I very much doubt we'd be talking about it today. Mike could not have paid for it up front if he'd wanted it, and Martin would not have sent it to him on approval. But £25 was perfect if Mike wanted to show Eddie what a genuine Victorian diary was worth in March 1992. Did Mike think the number of unused pages could make it more affordable? The fact that Eddie's "old book" was signed Jack the Ripper wouldn't have made all the difference at the time, since Eddie couldn't possibly have offered Mike any assurances that it might be genuine. In fact, Mike said that when he first saw those words, he wanted to know what the hell "Tony" [Eddie] was "playing at", just like anyone would in such circumstances.

And without knowing anything about the 1891 diary, or the fact that it was priced at £25, one of the electricians claimed, in December 1992, that Jack the Ripper's diary had been sold in an Anfield pub for the same amount of money.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Howdy Ike - In regards to Barrett's use of Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick to create his hoax, let me put up one of your ‘brilliant’ arguments from Society's Pillar:




As I said before (which you have completely ignored) you are wrong on this point.

The obscure fact that Maybrick's father and mother were buried next to each other can be found in...Bernard Ryan's book (1977).

The very book that Barrett claims he used. How did Barrett know that this would stand up to scrutiny?

Here is an example that even you--who have a long bibliography of Maybrick sources in your 'Pillar'--was unaware of.

Yet...once again...Barrett's 'Ryan' suggestion survives with flying colours. Funny that Mike seems to have known this, and you didn’t.

Are you suggesting that Barrett just got lucky—yet again--or are you suggesting that his mastery of the Maybrick material was so substantial that it even exceeds your own?

I don't think anyone can seriously entertain the idea that Mike made any in-depth comparison between various Maybrick texts to find out what would and would not hold up to scrutiny when he made his rambling confessions to Alan Gray.

No; he named Ryan, because Ryan it was. And, despite Caz's guffaws, the claim holds up to scrutiny: other than the Grand National time, it had everything Mike needed, at least as far as the “Maybrick” material goes.

Am I suppose to dismiss this as another coincidence?

[Iconoclast]

[SIZE=16px][FONT=Calibri]
The obscure fact that Maybrick's father and mother were buried next to each other can be found in...Bernard Ryan's book (1977).

I hate to be in your debt, Roger, but - as you obviously realise that I hadn't spotted that reference when I read Ryan cover-to-cover before writing my brilliant (what's with the apostrophes, by the way?) Society's Pillar, I clearly don't know where to look for it right now as it sits teasingly afore me.

Do spill the beans, mate, because I have a great number of both better and worse things to be doing than reading through the whole of Ryan again right now.

PS By the way again, and to be quite transparent, Barrett lived a hop, skip, and a jump from Anfield Cemetery, so I suppose he could have uncovered this titbit on one of his long, lonely walks through the gravestones?

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Don't bother. Page 94.

[Iconoclast]

It's not as literal as it looked in the photograph(s) of the actual gravestone where Maybrick's name was added to that of his parents. It speaks about a family vault, but - no arguments - it's there if you pay sufficient attention, and I clearly did not.

**** **** **** **** ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Actually, I think Ryan mentions it twice, Ike, but I'd have to go back and re-check.

So which is it? Did Barrett just get lucky during his rambling confessions, or did he use Ryan?

[Iconoclast]

No; he named Ryan, because Ryan it was. And, despite Caz's guffaws, the claim holds up to scrutiny: other than the Grand National time, it had everything Mike needed, at least as far as the “Maybrick” material goes.

Am I suppose to dismiss this as another coincidence?[/FONT][/SIZE]

Well it clearly wouldn't be a coincidence, Roger. You don't get to invoke statistics when dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy, mate. A book about Florence Maybrick detailing sufficient information about the Maybricks for Bongo to hoax a Maybrick scrapbook out of is hardly a coincidence.

But is it truly self-fulfilling? Is every detail regarding the Maybricks to be found in Ryan alone? I ask because - off the top of my head - I don't know. And I would like to know without having to read the thing from cover-to-cover again.

[caz]

That pesky red diary...

The only credible non hoax theory for it is, as Caz says, as a reference for the value of a diary. But that could, and was, achieved without ever having to part with cash. Also, if Barrett intended to use it to entice Eddy, he never mentioned it to Eddy, so again, why actually pay for and obtain it?

Hi Al,

How would we know if Mike did or did not mention his own genuine Victorian diary to Eddie? He could have intended to show it to him, along with the bill. Without the diary or the bill, it would only have been Mike's word for the fact that Martin Earl had sourced one for £25. And again, Mike never did part with cash for this one. Anne had to pay for it by cheque from her own account two months later.

Then, both Anne and Mike keep well schtum about it, because? Presumably, it would kind of look a bit dodgy, buying a blank, Victorian diary while trying to convince a publisher you have Jack/Jim's real one.

Well yes, obviously, if the Barretts faked the diary and Mike ordered the 1891 diary for that purpose. But if it was just Mike's idea of a potential bargaining tool, Anne need never have known this, or thought any more about it after coughing up for the little diary, a month after the "old book" had been seen in London.

So, if the Barrett's hoaxed the whole thing, buying the diary was a stupid thing to do.

I quite agree. Beyond stupid in fact, because it left a perfect paper trail back to Michael Barrett in Goldie Street, and that advert - which is only incriminating if, as you say, they 'hoaxed the whole thing'.

If Mike received Jim's book from Eddy Lyons, buying the diary was a stupid thing to do.

But again, it was Anne who ended up 'buying' it. The enquiry was made by Mike very early on, when he would only just have got his sights fixed on Eddie's "old book".

The same impulsive Mike, who called Pan Books about the diary on the same day he could have first clapped eyes on it.

Oh Bongo indeed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Actually, I think Ryan mentions it twice, Ike, but I'd have to go back and re-check.

So which is it? Did Barrett just get lucky during his rambling confessions, or did he use Ryan?

Well, if Mike Barrett wrote the Victorian scrapbook, then he either took a picnic a short walk from Goldie Street or else he got that little gem from Ryan. And - if he didn't write the Victorian scrapbook, then he clearly either got lucky in his rambling confession or else he had actually read Ryan and had a surprisingly good memory for an utter lush.

[rjpalmer]

Is every detail regarding the Maybricks to be found in Ryan alone? I ask because - off the top of my head - I don't know. And I would like to know without having to read the thing from cover-to-cover again.

It's all in Ryan, except for one single fact: the fast time for the Grand National. Mike evidently did a careful cross-analysis before selling this pork pie to Alan Gray.

I don't mean to bombard you, Ike, but I should correct something I wrote earlier.

It has not been shown, of course, that Florence Maybrick was "away at Christmas" in 1888, and I seriously doubt she would have been...she had two small children.

The home office letter found by Feldman, Skinner & Co, states that "The December of 1888 was the first time during her married life that she had been able to dance or had been out in society; and her health was then stronger. She had been left unattended by her husband..."

In the 'brilliant' Pillar, you suggested this was "tantalizing" evidence that Maybrick may have visited Manchester, leaving his wife unattended, but I think it was Lord Orsam who pointed out the startling and little-known fact that there are 31 days in December.

The wording is curious. No one refers to "The December." Did the Home Office leave out a specific date? "The 3rd"? "The 19th?" Some other date?

This is why I am slightly amused that you are now singing the "Twelve Days of Christmas" to side-step the account of Mike Maybrick visiting his brother in Liverpool at Christmas. 1 in 31 days was good enough to be "tantalizing," but now an account of Mike Maybrick visiting James at Christmas, might be a reference to the day that Twelve Lords were a-leaping? Was Lord Orsam one of them?

Along with the account of Thomas having very little contact with his brother in recent years, it does appear that Barrett simply made up this Manchester gathering, and Florrie being unattended one day in December is hardly an adequate rebuttal.

I suggest a re-write.

As for Caz's point, about people not keeping appointments, the Diary states:

Thomas was in fine health. The children enjoyed Christmas.

Are we suppose to believe the diary isn't implying that Maybrick met Thomas at Christmas? Why would the diarist write that Thomas was in fine health, if he hadn't seen him? And link it with the children's Christmas?

But I realize the Diary's accuracy is an article of faith with some. I think someone once told Thomas Huxley that the Devil put fossils in the earth to fool agnostics, so maybe something along those lines is at play. We are being fooled by devilish fossils.

That ought to hold you for now. Enjoy your weekend.

[Iconoclast]

I don't mean to bombard you, Ike, but I should correct something I wrote earlier.

It has not been shown, of course, that Florence Maybrick was "away at Christmas" in 1888, and I seriously doubt she would have been...she had two small children.

I haven't claimed that Florence was away at Christmas (or at all) in December 1888. I have suggested that Flo's mum's letter implied strongly that James had been and therefore the letter was a tantalising indication that the author of the scrapbook had certain knowledge that surely even Ryan did not tap into? (I don't know.)

There was more than enough time at 'Christmas' in 1888 for James to visit Thomas (they were not estranged - that was William), to be back for Christmas Day, and for sad, lonely, boring, pompous Mike to put in an appearance with his rubbish batchelor presents and his "Listen to this great song what I wrote" (it was Christmas after all, even if Ernest Wiseman had some time still to go before he even put in an appearance on the planet).

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I have suggested that Flo's mum's letter implied strongly that James had been...

Does it, Ike? The description by von Roques sounds like Florrie was at a fancy ball. It seems doubtful that she would have thrown a ball at Battlecrease with her husband out of town. So she is just as likely to have been the absent one as he.

More likely she was the one who attended this dance without Maybrick (who could have stayed home, parked on the loveseat), or Maybrick did attend, and for some reason left her unattended (went home early? went upstairs to smoke and play poker with the boys?) Who knows; we aren't supplied with any more details, but it doesn't really suggest anything about Maybrick being in Manchester, let alone at Christmas. Feldy made this same argument 25 years ago, and it certainly hasn't aged well, like a fine wine.

As for Thomas's estrangement, and not William's, you may wish to re-read Post #5390.

"Thomas Maybrick lives in Manchester, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, had not visited his brother James for some years, and really had very little communication with him."

Except when he invited him and the kids over for Christmas, eh?

But we beat our heads against walls in these parts, waiting for the Big Indian with the sink. If you can look past the handwriting, the shenanigans by the Barretts, 'with the key I did flee,' etc. etc. something as insignificant as Thomas not visiting his brother in years isn't going to dampen your enthusiasm, is it? James could still have visited him. Hope springs eternal.

I doubt that you celebrate the 4th of July in your neck of the planet, but enjoy tomorrow anyhow. I'm saving my fireworks for November 3rd. Cheers.

[Iconoclast]

I doubt that you celebrate the 4th of July in your neck of the planet, but enjoy tomorrow anyhow. I'm saving my fireworks for November 3rd. Cheers.

They celebrate Independence Day in Chigwell?

[caz]

Howdy Ike - In regards to Barrett's use of Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick to create his hoax, let me put up one of your ‘brilliant’ arguments from Society's Pillar:




As I said before (which you have completely ignored) you are wrong on this point.

The obscure fact that Maybrick's father and mother were buried next to each other can be found in...Bernard Ryan's book (1977).

The very book that Barrett claims he used. How did Barrett know that this would stand up to scrutiny?

Here is an example that even you--who have a long bibliography of Maybrick sources in your 'Pillar'--was unaware of.

Yet...once again...Barrett's 'Ryan' suggestion survives with flying colours. Funny that Mike seems to have known this, and you didn’t.

Are you suggesting that Barrett just got lucky—yet again--or are you suggesting that his mastery of the Maybrick material was so substantial that it even exceeds your own?

I don't think anyone can seriously entertain the idea that Mike made any in-depth comparison between various Maybrick texts to find out what would and would not hold up to scrutiny when he made his rambling confessions to Alan Gray.

No; he named Ryan, because Ryan it was. And, despite Caz's guffaws, the claim holds up to scrutiny: other than the Grand National time, it had everything Mike needed, at least as far as the “Maybrick” material goes.

Am I suppose to dismiss this as another coincidence?

This is misleading unless Mike actually claimed that he got the grave information for his fake DAiry from reading Ryan's book - as opposed to simply reading the names on the gravestone when he finally located it, shortly after discovering the diary author's supposed identity.

But even if he did claim he got it from Ryan, he could have 'just made it up' after getting it from the gravestone and later reading Ryan's book on Shirley's advice.

Either way, as 'coincidences' go, RJ, you don't 'alf pick 'em.

Guffaw guffaw

I can only conclude from your post that, like Observer, the Ryan/Fuller thing was lost on you.

See you on Monday.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The home office letter found by Feldman, Skinner & Co, states that "The December of 1888 was the first time during her married life that she had been able to dance or had been out in society; and her health was then stronger. She had been left unattended by her husband..."

...The wording is curious. No one refers to "The December." Did the Home Office leave out a specific date? "The 3rd"? "The 19th?" Some other date?

Yes they do, RJ. Maybe not so much in the US of A, but most certainly this side of the pond.

The April of 2020 was the first time during my married life that I was unable to go to the pub or be out for any other purpose than shopping and exercise. My health was still strong luckily. I had been left unattended by my husband when he occasionally walked to Waitrose by himself.

Love,

Caz
X