One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Scott Nelson]

There is zero evidence that Mike even had Maybrick in mind that early on, or had worked out if 'Jack' could be identified as a real person. Put yourself in anyone's shoes, seeing that old book for the first time. How would you know it was meant to be the writer's actual diary, as opposed to their idea for a novel based on the ripper's world famous crimes?

What if Mike had help from Devereux, who I think, at least had a hand in writing it?

[Iconoclast]

Similarly, I had to chuckle at a paragraph in Society's Pillar, where Ike gloats that the diary has TWO excellent provenances!

It's like the bank robber who boasted that he has two excellent alibis. At the time of the robbery, he was next door at the bowling alley AND visiting his grandmother across town.

Hmmm. The thing is, dear readers, that RJ and his ilk give their agenda away with cheap and inaccurate paraphrasing. Now, it's not clear which 'paragraph' RJ is referring to but my brilliant Society's Pillar does - in fact - state:

Suffice it for now to make the obvious point: the Victorian scrapbook now had two intriguing but mutually-exclusive back stories. It is up to the individual reader to decide quite how likely either are to be a true account of the origins of the scrapbook. They could both be red herrings. If not, then one of them is a red herring (it doesn’t really matter which). What is key is that the Victorian scrapbook is roundly condemned as a shabby, amateurish hoax, and yet somehow it has two potential provenances.

Once again, the reader must decide for themselves quite how likely they consider this turn of events to be. If James Maybrick were not Jack the Ripper, then we have two profound coincidences on our hands – one, that Florence Maybrick adopted Anne Graham’s surname on leaving gaol in 1904, and, two, that the floorboards in Battlecrease were raised on the very day Michael Barrett first made contact with Doreen Montgomery regarding the much-maligned ‘Ripper Diary’.

Coincidence and chance seem to be ever present in the James Maybrick story, and there may come a point at which one dispenses with both and decides, instead, that what underpins Maybrick’s candidature for the Whitechapel fiend is actually strong (if primarily circumstantial) evidence.

It's not quite the way RJ portrayed it, I'd say, so let this be a word to the wise where the naysayers are concerned: if you like what you see and hear, it may be because the guy on stage has worked out what you like to see and hear and is therefore manipulating your reactions. This principle was used to frightening effect by that soulless sociopath who was born three weeks prior to James Maybrick's death but it's also used to a lesser extent by countless politicians and comics on a daily basis. Don't be mugged off, dear readers - form your own opinions. Reading my brilliant Society's Pillar is the first step along the road to recovery.

My brilliant Society's Pillar can, of course, be viewed and downloaded from History vs Maybrick or sent as an email attachment (historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com) if you are concerned clicking on the link will immediately empty your bank account. And don't worry about the page width on your screen - it's in portrait rather than landscape, but at least that is considerably easier to read than Microsoft's latest addition, drainpipe.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hilarious RJ!




The Baron

See what I mean, dear readers, sensing what the audience wants to see and hear is guaranteed to garner you with empty-headed applause ...

[Iconoclast]

Have the contents of the book been accepted without question? I very much doubt it, don't you?

Correct, they have not, Paul.

Have flaws been identified that make the book unsafe?

No they have not, Paul. Flaws in a book do not equate with 'unsafe'.

I don't know. I expect they have.

You need to raise your expectations, Paul.

... what book doesn't have errors.

OMG, Paul, you really have to ask???

I bet if somebody went through your books with a fine-tooth comb they'd find all manner of errors too.

I can only imagine what else they'd find. Yuk ...

It probably goes with the territory. But is it safe to rely on the conclusions of others? Shouldn't you go through the book for yourself and reach your own conclusions?

Trick question this one, Paul. It needs to read: "If you genuinely have a mind to evaluate the possible and where the evidence leads us, shouldn't you go through the book for yourself and reach your own conclusions?"

Maybe Caz did duck and dive ...

You're a braver man than I, Paul.

... or maybe Lord Orsam was slightly off kilter with his assessments ...

He's spending too much time trying to fix that dreadful website of his to get anything right, Paul.

... and she corrected him?

Ah, I see you've wised-up already, Paul. Like me, you prefer to shave your own face, I suspect.

How do you know if you haven't read the book for yourself.

By the way, Paul, if you ever want my brilliant critique of Crime & Punishment, let me know. I'll need to buy a copy first obviously, so give me a day or two.

I was taught that one should try to be acquainted with as much source material as one can before drawing conclusions.

I was taught that if you disrupted class you got belted. Why couldn't I have gone to your school?

The book in question isn't just any old title, but was an attempt to give an honest account of the facts surrounding the "diary". Whether it is or not is probably something you should decide for yourself, don't you think? Just an observation.

Lofty ideals, Paul. You'd think this was some sort of place for the exchange of ideas and information.

All the best.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

What if Mike had help from Devereux, who I think, at least had a hand in writing it?

I'm getting confused now, Scotty. What was Harry Dam's part in all of that, then?

[PaulB]

Correct, they have not, Paul.



No they have not, Paul. Flaws in a book do not equate with 'unsafe'.



You need to raise your expectations, Paul.



OMG, Paul, you really have to ask???



I can only imagine what else they'd find. Yuk ...



Trick question this one, Paul. It needs to read: "If you genuinely have a mind to evaluate the possible and where the evidence leads us, shouldn't you go through the book for yourself and reach your own conclusions?"



You're a braver man than I, Paul.



He's spending too much time trying to fix that dreadful website of his to get anything right, Paul.



Ah, I see you've wised-up already, Paul. Like me, you prefer to shave your own face, I suspect.



By the way, Paul, if you ever want my brilliant critique of Crime & Punishment, let me know. I'll need to buy a copy first obviously, so give me a day or two.



I was taught that if you disrupted class you got belted. Why couldn't I have gone to your school?



Lofty ideals, Paul. You'd think this was some sort of place for the exchange of ideas and information.

All the best.

Ike

I think all that is why I gave up getting involved in "Diary" discussions, Ike.

[rjpalmer]

]
[COLOR=#2980b9]Suffice it for now to make the obvious point: the Victorian scrapbook now had two intriguing but mutually-exclusive back stories. It is up to the individual reader to decide quite how likely either are to be a true account of the origins of the scrapbook. They could both be red herrings. If not, then one of them is a red herring (it doesn’t really matter which). What is key is that the Victorian scrapbook is roundly condemned as a shabby, amateurish hoax, and yet somehow it has two potential provenances.
Ike

Sorry, Ike, but it's still funny.

If you can't see the desperation hidden in your final sentence, I really can't help you. It takes sunny optimism to an all-new level, so thanks for the laugh--seriously.

But really, in reading these posts, and particularly Caz Brown's posts, I now know how Ingrid Bergman must have felt in Gaslight.

Anne and Mike spent months--or in some cases years--gaslighting the diary researchers, and, in turn, the diary researchers now spend their time gaslighting us lowly critics. Some I suspect know they're doing it, others not so much; they are unaware that their own gaslight is just a dying reflection of the glow first emitted by the Barretts.

Thus, the only answer not permissible in this 'debate' is the correct one. And if one does suggest the correct answer--that it's a modern hoax and the Barretts were up to their elbows in it---that person is the one who is barking mad and has not studied the facts carefully and studiously enough to form the 'correct' opinion. They rushed in, dear reader, they rushed in! Such psych-ops make Charles Boyer look like an amateur.

That's what I learned from my time here: gaslight is contagious. It gets in the skin, somehow. It becomes an insidious disease. And Anne Graham was Patient Zero.

[Scott Nelson]

I'm getting confused now, Scotty. What was Harry Dam's part in all of that, then?

The theory is that a near contemporary of Maybrick's, a mischievous sort, like Harry Dam, conceived of a story linking JM to JtR, and used Michael Maybrick to hide the document in Maybrick's house. Dam was a playwright, Maybrick was a composer and both worked together. Years later, this document fell into the hands of Tony Devereux, who rewrote it with unintended modern touches, such as the importance of Abberline, after viewing the 1988 Michael Caine series on T.V.

[Iconoclast]

The theory is that a near contemporary of Maybrick's, a mischievous sort, like Harry Dam, conceived of a story linking JM to JtR, and used Michael Maybrick to hide the document in Maybrick's house. Dam was a playwright, Maybrick was a composer and both worked together. Years later, this document fell into the hands of Tony Devereux, who rewrote it with unintended modern touches, such as the importance of Abberline, after viewing the 1988 Michael Caine series on T.V.

Well, Scotty, the really encouraging thing about this theory is its inherent simplicity.

Cough, cough.

[erobitha]

What would be Michael Maybrick’s motivation to frame his brother - unless like Bruce Robinson - you believe Michael was JtR and wanted to throw history off the scent?

Otherwise it is a rather incredibly strange arrangement. Just my thoughts.

[rjpalmer]

1 - The luck of prescriptions
I believe it was he (happy to be corrected on this) discovered around 70 prescriptions for Maybrick in and around 1888, of which not one clashes with the dates of any of the canonical victims. That is some very fortunate luck. A man constantly dosing himself with pills and potions, yet not one prescription shows he could not have been in London on the dates of the canonical murders..

This claim is made every few years, so why don't we ever see these 70 prescriptions? Is it more folklore like the 100 signatures of Charles Lechmere?

Shirley Harrison, in one edition of her books, makes the exact opposite claim: that Dr. Hopper, along with Edwin and Michael Maybrick, destroyed all of Maybrick's prescriptions so they could not be traced, and she implies it was a cover-up.

I, too, am "happy to be corrected" if you'll be kind enough to produce these prescriptions. I was told by Bernard Ryan that none of Dr. Hopper's records survived.

[erobitha]

This claim is made every few years, so why don't we ever see these 70 prescriptions? Is it more folklore like the 100 signatures of Charles Lechmere?

Shirley Harrison, in one edition of her books, makes the exact opposite claim: that Dr. Hopper, along with Edwin and Michael Maybrick, destroyed all of Maybrick's prescriptions so they could not be traced, and she implies it was a cover-up.

I, too, am "happy to be corrected" if you'll be kind enough to produce these prescriptions. I was told by Bernard Ryan that none of Dr. Hopper's records survived.

Hi RJ,

I am referencing Martin Fido’s talking head piece on the documentary of the diary. He claimed he believed it was one area he believed the hoaxer had extraordinary luck.

Where those prescriptions are, or how Martin Fido (if it was him) found them I could not tell you.

regards,

Ero

[StevenOwl]

This claim is made every few years, so why don't we ever see these 70 prescriptions? Is it more folklore like the 100 signatures of Charles Lechmere?

Shirley Harrison, in one edition of her books, makes the exact opposite claim: that Dr. Hopper, along with Edwin and Michael Maybrick, destroyed all of Maybrick's prescriptions so they could not be traced, and she implies it was a cover-up.

I, too, am "happy to be corrected" if you'll be kind enough to produce these prescriptions. I was told by Bernard Ryan that none of Dr. Hopper's records survived.

In Feldman's video I think it's Martin Fido who states as fact that none of the Ripper murders coincide with any of Maybrick's many visits to his doctor. I never met Martin - was he the sort to make such a claim on record that he didn't know to be true?

[rjpalmer]

In Feldman's video I think it's Martin Fido who states as fact that none of the Ripper murders coincide with any of Maybrick's many visits to his doctor. I never met Martin - was he the sort to make such a claim on record that he didn't know to be true?

Yes, he does make that statement, (49:30 minute mark, for those following at home). And, no, in my judgment he wasn't the sort to make things up, but he does make errors like anyone else. In his book on David Cohen, he states that Cavendish & Burke were 'shot' in Phoenix Park, Dublin. They weren't. They were assassinated with knives, so his memory seems to have failed him in that particular instance. Fido was a wealth of information and had a lot of 'irons in the fire,' and one's memory can't always be perfect. So I don't think it is unfair to ask.

The dates of Maybrick's visits to the chemists, etc., mentioned at trial, predominantly dated to 1889, not 1888, so any insinuation that there were 70 visits to the chemist in 1888 or 'around' 1888 that did not clash with the dates of the murders strikes me as unproven. There would only be 8 dates in 1888 that would be relevant: the five murders that the diary attributes to Maybrick, and the postal dates for the two 'Dear Boss' letters, and the Lusk Letter. Fido actually said that the dates of Maybrick's visits to London in the diary didn't clash with known dates of his visits to Liverpool chemists, but if all the known dates of his visits to Liverpool chemists actually date to 1889, it's hardly an earth-shattering statement, since the diary mentions very little of Maybrick's visits to London in 1889.

In short, how many specific dates in 1888 have been documented? If this is really such a startling fact, why didn't Feldman and Harrison give the details? And why does Harrison write something that completely contradicts Fido's claim? Has someone's wires been crossed?

Are you content to take it on faith, without seeing the details?

[Iconoclast]

Are you content to take it on faith, without seeing the details?

Absolutely not, and I'm sure the boys would agree.

I suspect the source for this may possibly be a misreading of MacDougall (1891).

I've never been too excited about this snippet anyway. As Orsam Himself has argued, you could collect a prescription in Liverpool and still be in Whitechapel before the pubs closed.

Ike