Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

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

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    One other thing, Caz. You wrote above that you aren’t bothered by the fact that Maybrick didn’t visit Thomas in Manchester at Christmas. It’s a hoax, so suddenly you don’t care if it’s not accurate or if the hoaxer took risks.

    But I'm thinking that maybe you should be worried.


    In those 1995 tapes you mention, Barrett said he simply made up the festivities in Manchester:

    "That other book, The 'poisoned Life' one, says he was in thick with Thomas.. He only lived 20 miles away in Manchester.. See the connection?... It's all about plotting... It's just a big circle...The first was in Manchester so the last has to be in Manchester. It's put down like that in the diary. Fugg it, he was only 20 miles away...You don't need a fugging excuse to hop over and see your brother... Everyone visits everyone else at Christmas time...”

    Paraphrase: Christmas in Manchester never happened. The murders in Manchester never happened. Mike made it all up.

    Yet, using basically the same argument you used above, how could Mike have known this would stand up to scrutiny?

    Feldman was doing deep research into Maybrick’s past. So was Harrison. So was Skinner, on Feldman’s behalf. If Barrett was completely ignorant of the Diary’s origins—as you argue--how could he have known that the Manchester meeting WAS made up? Or the murders? At any moment, Skinner or Feldman or Harrison could have found documentation proving Maybrick HAD traveled to Manchester at Christmas 1888. They could have found a strangulation murder in Manchester. The game would have been up. Barrett’s confession could be shown to be bollocks.


    Instead, we have the two quotes reproduced by Yabs, which strongly suggest that the Manchester Christmas episode WAS a fabrication. Score another goal for Barrett.

    But it doesn’t bother you, Caz. Of course not. You’ve already convinced yourself.

    And of course, the bit about Maybrick being 'thick' with Thomas was something Mike gleaned from Ryan. Is it accurate? Was Maybrick 'thick' with Thomas?
    'It's put down like that in the diary.'

    It's all in the wording.

    And that's the only clue you shall have from me, RJ.

    No wait. Here's another. Mike was reading the diary from the point of view of its author and trying to put himself in their position.

    We've all done it.

    If it had been found - at some point after 1995 - that JM had gone to Manchester over the Christmas period, or there had been a strangulation there, Mike would simply have changed the record again, like he did about virtually everything else connected with his forgery claims, and said "Ha, that fooled you all, didn't it? You thought I made it up, because you'll believe anything I say, but this proves I didn't." And it would now be argued that the same Michael Barrett must have got the information from wherever Shirley or Keith had found it.

    Bongo 'made up' all sorts of stuff, which should have shown you his confessions were all bollocks. Sugar in the diary ink. A tiny 1891 diary ordered with the Barretts' hoax in mind. I could go on... So I don't know why you'd have made an exception in this case and flushed his forgery claims down the lavatory if it had turned out he hadn't 'made up' Manchester after all. Where's the logic?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
      Hi all.
      More of Fuller’s quote, if it helps...

      He had lost some sensation and felt numb. The examination lasted over an hour. I found there was nothing the matter with him, I told him there was very little the matter with him, but that he was suffering from indigestion, and that I was perfectly certain there was no fear of p^ralyns The symptoms were those which might be attributed to indigestion. When I told him this he was more cheerful. I did prescribe for him These two prescriptions (produced] are the ones. 1 prescribed on the 14th for him. This one is an Aperient, and the other a tonic with liver pills.
      On the following Sunday, the 21st deceased came to my house and told me he felt much better
      Cheers, Yabs.

      My H.B. Irving has the wording slightly different:

      "He had lost some sensation, and felt numb. The examination lasted over an hour. I found there was nothing the matter with him. I told him there was very little the matter with him, but that he was suffering from indigestion, and that I was perfectly certain there was no fear of paralysis. The symptoms were those which might be attributed to indigestion. When I told him this he seemed more cheerful. I did prescribe for him. Those two prescriptions (produced] are the ones I prescribed on the 14th for him. The one is an aperient and the other a tonic, with liver pills. On the following Saturday, the 20th, deceased came to my house and told me that he felt much better."

      This is Ryan's version:

      The doctor learned that Maybrick was apprehensive of being paralysed, and spent over an hour on a thorough examination. At last he told his patient that he could find very little the matter with him, but that all the symptoms might be attributed to indigestion. Certainly there was no fear of paralysis. Maybrick seemed cheered by Dr Fuller's reassuring diagnosis, and accepted two prescriptions, one an aperient and the other a tonic, with liver pills known as Plummer's pills. The doctor told Maybrick to see him again in a week.

      Love,

      Caz
      X

      Last edited by caz; 07-09-2020, 01:51 PM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Hi Caz.

        I got that quote from Macdougall‘s the Maybrick case.....
        it is curious that there is a slight variation.

        Comment


        • Regarding the Manchester murder, has anyone mentioned the murder of Jane Hodgson aged 42 of Horwich in April 1888? A lodger was prosecuted for her death, but there seems to be drunkeness, pubs and a middle-aged woman walking around town very drunk. The evidence that convicted her murderer seems very circumstantial. Her body was not found until Sunday morning and her breasts were exposed.

          Horwich was a significant cotton milling town.

          Click image for larger version  Name:	Screenshot 2020-07-09 at 16.03.50.png Views:	0 Size:	49.0 KB ID:	737199
          Last edited by erobitha; 07-09-2020, 03:07 PM.
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
            Regarding the Manchester murder, has anyone mentioned the murder of Jane Hodgson aged 42 of Horwich in April 1888? A lodger was prosecuted for her death, but there seems to be drunkeness, pubs and a middle-aged woman walking around town very drunk. The evidence that convicted her murderer seems very circumstantial. Her body was not found until Sunday morning and her breasts were exposed.

            Horwich was a significant cotton milling town.

            Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2020-07-09 at 16.03.50.png Views:	0 Size:	49.0 KB ID:	737199
            Don't know if it's significant, Erobitha, but it's a damn good spot, mate!

            Cheers,

            Ike
            Iconoclast

            Comment


            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
              Regarding the Manchester murder, has anyone mentioned the murder of Jane Hodgson aged 42 of Horwich in April 1888? A lodger was prosecuted for her death, but there seems to be drunkeness, pubs and a middle-aged woman walking around town very drunk. The evidence that convicted her murderer seems very circumstantial. Her body was not found until Sunday morning and her breasts were exposed.

              Horwich was a significant cotton milling town.

              Click image for larger version Name:	Screenshot 2020-07-09 at 16.03.50.png Views:	0 Size:	49.0 KB ID:	737199
              Hi Erobitha
              It would appear her death was due to drowning after a fall over a wall 30 foot into the river, she was apparently too drunk to climb out of the river and any wounds she had were due to the fall.
              the arrested man was her drinking partner that evening.
              it was a case of, did she fall or was she pushed

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Yabs View Post

                Hi Erobitha
                It would appear her death was due to drowning after a fall over a wall 30 foot into the river, she was apparently too drunk to climb out of the river and any wounds she had were due to the fall.
                the arrested man was her drinking partner that evening.
                it was a case of, did she fall or was she pushed
                I would agree the report certainly suggests that. But they found bruising on her arm and she had died of suffocation which they assumed was through drowing. Without a proper look at the post mortem report it is hard to know whether this could be the potential 'Manchester Murder'. There is another report in the Manchester Courier as well.
                Last edited by erobitha; 07-09-2020, 07:26 PM.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                  I would agree the report certainly suggests that. But they found bruising on her arm and she had died of suffocation which they assumed was through drowing. Without a proper look at the post mortem report it is hard to know whether this could be the potential 'Manchester Murder'. There is another report in the Manchester Courier as well.
                  It does say “medical evidence showed that the woman had been drowned”
                  I guess that can only mean that her lungs were filled with fluid.
                  We can keep searching though to see if we confirm or refute that.
                  Last edited by Yabs; 07-09-2020, 07:37 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Here’s the article I read. Click image for larger version

Name:	479C6142-697D-4666-A204-332841BE9189.jpeg
Views:	103
Size:	197.6 KB
ID:	737216

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                      Here’s the article I read. Click image for larger version

Name:	479C6142-697D-4666-A204-332841BE9189.jpeg
Views:	103
Size:	197.6 KB
ID:	737216
                      There is a much longer piece from the later trial I have found in the Manchester Courier which suggests more mystery than the initial report. Note the wording on the shawl and how there are questions over how it was folded and positioned as it was. She may have been strangled with it but as there was water in her lungs it would be logical to think suffocation was caused by drowing. It's very odd that if Walker did kill Hodgson he would return back to the house and end up staying the night there. He claims they seperated during the eveining and he didn't see her again. It's mysterious enough.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	horwich.jpg
Views:	115
Size:	236.7 KB
ID:	737218
                      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                        Hi Caz.

                        I got that quote from Macdougall‘s the Maybrick case.....
                        it is curious that there is a slight variation.
                        Indeed, Yabs.

                        I'm not suggesting the diary author got it right on every occasion, but I for one would have found it a very daunting task to sift through the various available sources - even the early ones like Macdougall and then Irving - and decide, for instance, if JM visited Dr Fuller again on the Saturday, 20th April 1889, or Sunday 21st.

                        The obvious solution in this case would be not to refer to specific days or dates, which our diary author sensibly seems to have observed throughout, but if something as basic as a day/date can differ from one source to another, what else might a source be wrong about, and how would I know which source to trust?

                        This is partly why I don't think our anonymous author's motivation was to write something that had to adhere strictly to the historical record, any more than it was to write something that would resemble JM's handwriting, as it appears on that same historical record.

                        The curious thing about the watch is that JM's signature, scratched inside the back cover, is very like the real thing, as it appears on JM's marriage licence. A signature is an important identifying feature for good reason - it is unique to the individual concerned, and that's why banks have procedures to check that a signature is genuine. It's hard enough to pull off a decent copy of a signature, if it's right in front of you and you are using ink on paper. I wouldn't like to calculate the chances of an amateur doing it on a metal surface with an engraving tool, without knowing what JM's authenticated signature might look like, and getting that close to the reality.

                        The watch has often been described as too 'convenient', because of the timing [ha ha] of its emergence. But everything else about it is 'inconvenient', which is why it doesn't get as much oxygen as the dodgy diary. I do wonder if the author knew about the watch and created the diary as a funny little companion piece.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          The watch has often been described as too 'convenient', because of the timing [ha ha] of its emergence. But everything else about it is 'inconvenient', which is why it doesn't get as much oxygen as the dodgy diary. I do wonder if the author knew about the watch and created the diary as a funny little companion piece.
                          Hi Caz,

                          This is exactly why I took the unusual step of starting my brilliant Society's Pillar with a focus on the watch rather than the scrapbook. The watch is a 'noisy neighbour' which will just not go away but which gets conveniently ignored in favour of the scrapbook because the scrapbook feels like the inspiration for the watch, when it fact the watch may very well have inspired the scrapbook (if the scrapbook is a hoax) or else been another aspect of Maybrick's confession (were the scrapbook authentic).

                          I think we both know that there is a question no scrapbook-detractor dare address, and you have posed it (above): How on earth did the scratcher of James Maybrick's name in the back of the watch make such a felicitous job of it when the source to compare it with was his marriage certificate?

                          Is the only reasonable answer (if you are convinced that JM was not Jack the Spratt McVitie) that the 'scratcher' researched Maybrick's wedding certificate before doing the scratches in the watch?

                          How many of us would feel that that was a reasonable argument to make?

                          Cheers,

                          Ike
                          Iconoclast

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            There is a much longer piece from the later trial I have found in the Manchester Courier which suggests more mystery than the initial report. Note the wording on the shawl and how there are questions over how it was folded and positioned as it was. She may have been strangled with it but as there was water in her lungs it would be logical to think suffocation was caused by drowing. It's very odd that if Walker did kill Hodgson he would return back to the house and end up staying the night there. He claims they seperated during the eveining and he didn't see her again. It's mysterious enough.
                            Hi Erobitha and Yabs,

                            This is brilliant research - almost as good as that for my brilliant Society's Pillar (available at all good DropBox sites right this very moment!), but there is an obvious obstacle over which all great research has to clamber and I call it the Lord Orsam 100 Metre Hurdles:

                            If you need the Barretts to be sophisticated, determined forgers, then that’s the type of people they are. If you need them to be amateur forgers just chancing their arm and not giving a great deal of thought to their creation, then that’s the type of people they are. There is no real need at all to understand them or the reality of their world. They simply exist to be moulded into whatever type of people you wish them to be in order to support a theory or conclusion.

                            So how do we ever find strong evidence linking the Victorian scrapbook with James Maybrick (or, more generally, 'the truth') if the hurdles we will face are as recurring as "Well clearly that's where the hoaxers got their information from too"?

                            Cheers,

                            Ike
                            Iconoclast

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                              There is a much longer piece from the later trial I have found in the Manchester Courier which suggests more mystery than the initial report. Note the wording on the shawl and how there are questions over how it was folded and positioned as it was. She may have been strangled with it but as there was water in her lungs it would be logical to think suffocation was caused by drowing. It's very odd that if Walker did kill Hodgson he would return back to the house and end up staying the night there. He claims they seperated during the eveining and he didn't see her again. It's mysterious enough.
                              Hi erobitha,

                              Thanks for posting the longer piece from the Manchester Courier. It's certainly an intriguing case, not cut and dried, due to the mystery of the shawl and the double struggle, and the fact the couple had been on friendly terms over a long day of drinking. Of course, he could easily have turned nasty through drink and left her dead or dying, but alternatively he could have walked off after too much booze. My ex used to do that a fair bit after nights out with me or with our friends. He never raised a hand to me, but would just take himself off into the night, leaving me to get home under my own steam, or with one of the others in our company. He would sleep it off, then claim to remember nothing about it the next morning. Another man could have taken advantage of the victim if she was now alone, very drunk and vulnerable - shades of other attacks I have come across, including possibly the murder of Liz Stride. And the victim profile is all too familiar, isn't it?

                              Strangulation apparently takes some doing, even when a strong man picks on a weak woman. That was probably why the ripper finished off his victims quickly by cutting their throat so they couldn't struggle or scream. If there had been an attempt to strangle Jane Hodgson, which appeared to work because she was almost insensible from booze, might her killer - her drinking companion or A.N. Other - have pushed her down the slope into the water and left her to drown, assuming he had suffocated her to death with her shawl?

                              This is what Bongo Barrett stands accused of writing:

                              'Tomorrow I travel to Manchester... I believe I have the strength... The whore is now with her maker... There was no pleasure as I squeezed, I felt nothing... Manchester was cold and damp very much like this hell hole. Next time I will throw acid over them...'

                              I note that Jane Hodgson died on a Saturday evening, 14th April 1888, and was found on the Sunday morning.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post

                                Hi Caz,

                                This is exactly why I took the unusual step of starting my brilliant Society's Pillar with a focus on the watch rather than the scrapbook. The watch is a 'noisy neighbour' which will just not go away but which gets conveniently ignored in favour of the scrapbook because the scrapbook feels like the inspiration for the watch, when it fact the watch may very well have inspired the scrapbook (if the scrapbook is a hoax) or else been another aspect of Maybrick's confession (were the scrapbook authentic).

                                I think we both know that there is a question no scrapbook-detractor dare address, and you have posed it (above): How on earth did the scratcher of James Maybrick's name in the back of the watch make such a felicitous job of it when the source to compare it with was his marriage certificate?

                                Is the only reasonable answer (if you are convinced that JM was not Jack the Spratt McVitie) that the 'scratcher' researched Maybrick's wedding certificate before doing the scratches in the watch?

                                How many of us would feel that that was a reasonable argument to make?

                                Cheers,

                                Ike
                                Hi Ike,

                                You're the resident statistician, so perhaps you could estimate the chances of any of these events happening by pure coincidence?

                                The floorboards are lifted in Aigburth first thing on the morning of 9th March 1992. In the afternoon, Bongo has his usual pint in the Saddle - a stone's throw from where Eddie Lyons is living - and then calls Doreen about the diary before close of business.

                                Bongo stupidly copies Bernard Ryan's paraphrasing into his DAiry. Bongo ends up with a direct quote from Dr Fuller.

                                Robbie Johnson decides to scratch JM's signature inside his brother's gold watch, after reading about a diary - yet to be authenticated - but supposedly written by JM, claiming to be JtR. Robbie has no idea what the diary handwriting looks like, or if it is signed anywhere by JM, and doesn't know about any surviving official documents bearing his signature. By guesswork alone, Robbie ends up with a very good, one might say professional likeness between his handiwork and the signature on JM's marriage licence.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Last edited by caz; 07-10-2020, 12:14 PM.
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X