One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[The Baron]

I wonder if Observer suspects you of being a two-man team, Baron? Did one of you dictate this post and the other not catch that the word is meant to be 'taste', and also not catch whether they said the phrase 'is' or 'was' used in the same way, so they just missed the word out altogether?

Looks like it's easily done.

Love,

Caz
X

I thought you are only a Bongo Barrett defender as you claimed, you look so much just another typical Diary defender to me though.

And if you didn't notice, I am not a native english speaker, just like Maybrick!


The Baron

[Observer]

Also, it would serve you better if you could get the diary quote right before making your observation about the wording:

'Maybe I will take some part away with me to see if it does taste of like fresh fried bacon'.

Serve me better? Why? I didn't have my copy of "Diary of Jack The Ripper" to hand so was relying on memory. Didn't make any difference to the content of the observation though.

I defy anyone, whether they are writing their own diary, or someone else's, or a post on a public message board, to do so without ever making similar errors. I do it frequently myself, writing one word, changing my mind and writing another, then forgetting to delete the first one, but I generally manage to catch and correct it during the time allowed for editing posts.

Well, you would say that wouldn't you.

[Yabs]

Hi Everyone
As usual, apologies if this is old hat...
In the first three paragraphs of the Journal which we assume to be written in early 1888 the writer makes reference to Dr Hopper......


“True my head and arms pain me at times, but I am not duly worried, although I am quite certain Hopper believes to the contrary. I have him down as a bumbling buffoon”


Dr Hopper, in his testimony states that he attended to Maybrick from June of 88.
yet he’s mentioned at the beginning of the diary, before James visited Thomas in Manchester and before James arranged to stay with Michael in June.....


Q.
I want to ask you a particular question. You have spoken particularly of having been in charge and attendance upon this gentleman from June 1888, to December 1888. As early as June 1888, did not Mrs Maybrick make a communication to you as to certain habits of her husband?
A.
In June or September. I am not quite sure which.
Q.
I put it to you, was it not in June when you first began your attendance on him ?
A.
It was either at the beginning of the attendance or shortly after my return from my holidays, but I am not clear which. My impression was she was not unreasonably anxious about the matter.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Everyone
As usual, apologies if this is old hat...
In the first three paragraphs of the Journal which we assume to be written in early 1888 the writer makes reference to Dr Hopper......


“True my head and arms pain me at times, but I am not duly worried, although I am quite certain Hopper believes to the contrary. I have him down as a bumbling buffoon”


Dr Hopper, in his testimony states that he attended to Maybrick from June of 88.
yet he’s mentioned at the beginning of the diary, before James visited Thomas in Manchester and before James arranged to stay with Michael in June.....


Q.
I want to ask you a particular question. You have spoken particularly of having been in charge and attendance upon this gentleman from June 1888, to December 1888. As early as June 1888, did not Mrs Maybrick make a communication to you as to certain habits of her husband?
A.
In June or September. I am not quite sure which.
Q.
I put it to you, was it not in June when you first began your attendance on him ?
A.
It was either at the beginning of the attendance or shortly after my return from my holidays, but I am not clear which. My impression was she was not unreasonably anxious about the matter.

That's actually really helpful, Yabs, because it helps us to pinpoint more accurately the actual start date of the scrapbook.

I haven't given this any more thought than this so - if I'm missing some huge point here - I will apologise in advance.

Cheers,

ke Ike (sorry, I mistyped the first attempt but just left the original there)

[Observer]

ke Ike (sorry, I mistyped the first attempt but just left the original there)

Come on, you're normally in that straight jacket at this time of day, you dictated that and someone else was typing

[Yabs]

That's actually really helpful, Yabs, because it helps us to pinpoint more accurately the actual start date of the scrapbook.

I haven't given this any more thought than this so - if I'm missing some huge point here - I will apologise in advance.

Cheers,

ke Ike (sorry, I mistyped the first attempt but just left the original there)

Hi Icke,
Thank you.
Apologies, the point I perhaps didn’t make very well, is that Hopper didn’t attend to Maybrick until June 88.
Yet he’s mentioned in the first diary entry which was written (according to the Diary)
before June 88, and Hopper shouldn’t make an appearance that early on?
We know the first entry in the journal predates June, because of this paragraph which followed much later...


“I will visit Michael this coming June. June such a pleasant month, the flowers are in full bud the air is sweeter and life is almost certainly much rosier I look forward to its coming with pleasure. A great deal of pleasure”

[Iconoclast]

Regarding the issue of whether or not Jimmy Maybrick was involved with Sarah Robertson and - if he was - where they might have lived, you might be intrigued by a codicil in the 1866 Will of Thomas Conconi which seems to offer some interesting clues (last paragraph):



Bromley Street, Commercial Road, London is perhaps closer to the eventual killing ground than the Naysayers and the Hoax Mob might have wished? (I venture from personal experience that that is a roughly 30-minute walk to Aldgate.) 55 Bromley Street is slightly north of the big red pin, by the way.



And before anyone starts, let me pour a large bucket of pedantry all over the pavement of whatever remains of 55 Bromley Street: Yes, I know that the syntax of the codicil states only that Sarah Robertson - wife of James Maybrick - resided there in 1866. Some of us might be prepared to make the huge leap of faith, however, that they actually resided there together sufficiently so to convince easily-led Tommy Conconi that they were actually man and wife?

Imagine if you had hoaxed the DAiry of Jack the Spratt McVitie and chose for Jack a cotton merchant residing in 1888 in Liverpool and you knew nothing of his past. How amazed would you be when the Research Mob discovered this profoundly-unlikely little detail???

PS Tayyabs is a terrific restaurant!

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Come on, you're normally in that straight jacket at this time of day, you dictated that and someone else was typing

I had a machine capable of transcribing my thoughts into text. Sadly, it broke down.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Icke,
Thank you.
Apologies, the point I perhaps didn’t make very well, is that Hopper didn’t attend to Maybrick until June 88.
Yet he’s mentioned in the first diary entry which was written (according to the Diary)
before June 88, and Hopper shouldn’t make an appearance that early on?
We know the first entry in the journal predates June, because of this paragraph which followed much later...


“I will visit Michael this coming June. June such a pleasant month, the flowers are in full bud the air is sweeter and life is almost certainly much rosier I look forward to its coming with pleasure. A great deal of pleasure”

No, Yabs, you made your point quite clearly - I just couldn't work out what the specific catch would be.

It's quite a catch, in truth, and Lord Orsam may well be spinning in his cardigan right now as this may very well be his promised 'nailer'.

Hand on heart, I can't explain that.

I put it to you, was it not in June when you first began your attendance on him ?

I guess the key question is whether or not 'attending to' means what we would now call 'visiting'. Maybrick could have been calling on Hopper at his surgery, but from June 1888 Hopper may have been visiting Maybrick in his home.

I am open to the discussion ...

Cheers,

PS I love the use of 'Icke' and therefore the allusion to a totally bonkers chap called David - and I'm not referring to Lord Orsam!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Honestly, I was in a state of panick for a moment there so I went off and did some solid background reading to review the facts.

I went off to do that but I got side-tracked by the allure of my tea and - by the time I had scoffed the lot - some chums had PM'd me with some clarifying details. Typical of these were:

Ike: OMG - it's all over! Bongo's been rumbled. He totally ****ed-up there!

Pal: Hopper said at Flo's trial that he had attended JM a number of times between 1882 and June 1888 and then very frequently from June to September.

Ike: Did he?

Pal: Yes. Haven't you read anything about Maybrick?

Ike: Erm ... everything except that bit about Hopper's chat at FloMay's trial and what have you.

So there you are, Yabs, and anyone now caught awkwardly celebrating in their cars with horns a-tooting and flags flying. Don't believe the press.

Such fun!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

From the trial evidence, as probably recorded by Bongo Barrett: “I am a physician and surgeon in Rodney Street, Liverpool. I have attended Mr and Mrs Maybrick since 1881, shortly after their marriage and what have you.”

According to Ryan, Hopper delivered Gladys in Battlecrease House on June 20th 1886 which was remarkably premature of him as she wasn't born until a month later. Bongo knew Ryan was incorrect and consulting Anne Graham’s extremely detailed 63 page chronology and schedule of events from 1805 to 1941 which she had not yet prepared – or even knew she was going to prepare until 1995 – Bongo noted Gladys was actually born on July 20th 1886 at ‘Beechville’. He didn't use it in the scrapbook. Bongo knew the Maybricks did not move into Battlecrease until February 1888, whereas Ryan had them renting Battlecrease from June 1886. Just as well Bongo checked all these Ryan 'factoids' and wisely chose to simply avoid those incorrect ones in his nascent scrapbook hoax.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Regarding the issue of whether or not Jimmy Maybrick was involved with Sarah Robertson and - if he was - where they might have lived, you might be intrigued by a codicil in the 1866 Will of Thomas Conconi which seems to offer some interesting clues (last paragraph):



Bromley Street, Commercial Road, London is perhaps closer to the eventual killing ground than the Naysayers and the Hoax Mob might have wished? (I venture from personal experience that that is a roughly 30-minute walk to Aldgate.) 55 Bromley Street is slightly north of the big red pin, by the way.



And before anyone starts, let me pour a large bucket of pedantry all over the pavement of whatever remains of 55 Bromley Street: Yes, I know that the syntax of the codicil states only that Sarah Robertson - wife of James Maybrick - resided there in 1866. Some of us might be prepared to make the huge leap of faith, however, that they actually resided there together sufficiently so to convince easily-led Tommy Conconi that they were actually man and wife?

Imagine if you had hoaxed the DAiry of Jack the Spratt McVitie and chose for Jack a cotton merchant residing in 1888 in Liverpool and you knew nothing of his past. How amazed would you be when the Research Mob discovered this profoundly-unlikely little detail???

PS Tayyabs is a terrific restaurant!

Cheers,

Ike

Interesting little snippet there Ike.

Who's well enough versed on "common law" marriage of the period? Going by the name Maybrick doesn't require a registered marriage, folks did and still do live as 'married couples' without the formal ceremony. How would this affect the Will of Tommy Conconi I wonder, if it would at all?

Opens some interesting lines of speculation.

[erobitha]

Regarding the issue of whether or not Jimmy Maybrick was involved with Sarah Robertson and - if he was - where they might have lived, you might be intrigued by a codicil in the 1866 Will of Thomas Conconi which seems to offer some interesting clues (last paragraph):



Bromley Street, Commercial Road, London is perhaps closer to the eventual killing ground than the Naysayers and the Hoax Mob might have wished? (I venture from personal experience that that is a roughly 30-minute walk to Aldgate.) 55 Bromley Street is slightly north of the big red pin, by the way.



And before anyone starts, let me pour a large bucket of pedantry all over the pavement of whatever remains of 55 Bromley Street: Yes, I know that the syntax of the codicil states only that Sarah Robertson - wife of James Maybrick - resided there in 1866. Some of us might be prepared to make the huge leap of faith, however, that they actually resided there together sufficiently so to convince easily-led Tommy Conconi that they were actually man and wife?

Imagine if you had hoaxed the DAiry of Jack the Spratt McVitie and chose for Jack a cotton merchant residing in 1888 in Liverpool and you knew nothing of his past. How amazed would you be when the Research Mob discovered this profoundly-unlikely little detail???

PS Tayyabs is a terrific restaurant!

Cheers,

Ike

We have on another thread about George Hutchison walking 20 miles from Romford to Whitechapel being a stretch too far for some people, even though it was well documented poor Victorians would walk significant distances, to this thread where one poster claims James Maybrick was unlikely to ever have set foot in Whitechapel, despite his common-law-wife in effect living around Whitechapel most of her adult life. James the lazy git would not walk 10 minutes west of Bromley Street or Stepney. Lazy so and so.

[Scott Nelson]

RJ opined the other day that a hoax has lower standards than a forgery, hence the Barretts didn't have any pressing need to try and copy JM's authenticated handwriting. If one of their inner circle wrote it and was later identified as the penman or woman, tough titty, no biggy. Slap on the wrist and move on.

I tend to agree. The Diary was hoaxed with no great care because the creator(s) intent was to present a farce

[Iconoclast]

Those good fellows Skinner, Morris, and Linder wrote in Ripper Legacy (p271):

There is another subject we need to dispense with. On a visit some months previously, in March 2002, Barrett had given Keith Skinner ten handwritten pages, which he said he had transcribed from some of the missing pages from the Diary. He said he had removed the pages from the Diary when he first received it and had been holding out to write his own book on the subject. Now he tells us they were created by him at the outset, before he believed the Diary was genuine, to see if he could match what was written in the Diary. The content, in truth, bore no resemblance to that of the Diary. We do not dwell on the subject.

Now, all three - Skinner, Morris, and Linder - were clearly dogged Diary Defenders determined to throw the rest of us off the scent of Bongo Barrett's actual authorship of the DAiry. Imagine if we could see an example of those ten pages - surely it would show us once and for all time that Barrett's hand was at work here?

How awesome would it be if an example were available?

Ike