One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

This is my favorite post on this entire thread.

If it was so bleedin' obvious, why didn't Shirley Harrison and Keith Skinner and Paul Feldman ever work it out and notice this 25 years ago?

Why did it take 29 1/2 years?

More interesting yet, why is Ike so suddenly eager to show that Mike and Anne only used one book to concoct their bogus notes?

And why is Ike suddenly so eager to (grudgingly) take Orsam's word for it?

Why couldn't Anne and Mike have read McDougall? And Moreland? And Christie?

What has convinced Ike that Ryan--and only Ryan-- was the one source for the Maybrick material in these bogus notes, and why is Ike now so obviously concerned there could be another answer?

Meanwhile, Caz is dancing all around the issue, evidently pretending that Ryan isn't the source, using an obviously faulty argument about Gladys.


RP

How very dreary of you RJ. If this is your favourite post on this premier thread, you've seriously been missing the point for many many years ...

Originally posted by Iconoclast View Post
In the context of Barrett's research notes (to use Yabs' phrase), the obvious source of everything for Mike would be one book, and Lord O has probably shown that that book would be Ryan. There is not a cat in Hell's chance that Barrett used MacDougall...

I was acknowledging that Mike - not being one with either a research nor a working bent - would have relied on everything Maybrick from the contents of just the one book, and then I was acknowledging that Orsam had arguably shown that to be Ryan. Orsam hadn't argued this 29.5 years ago - nor 29.5 days ago yet - so you go figure how anyone was to have known it before he did. Please bear in mind how little anyone would have actually given a **** about such a meaningless piece of analysis. Wisely, everyone stayed clear of it. Hmmm. What does that say about Orsam, I wonder?

Ike

[MrBarnett]

Lord O deserves praise for putting all the elements of the ‘Battlecrease’ issue together in an accessible form.

[Iconoclast]

Folks, this IS evidence that Barrett knew Ryan's book and used it:

No one is doubting it, RJ. Mike Barrett - it would appear - used Ryan to create his research notes after acquiring the scrapbook from Eddie Lyons on or near March 9, 1992. He threw in a few references to the Liverpool Echo for whatever reason he felt fit to. Who cares? He was creating a narrative back to Tony Devereux. I'm almost inclined to say "clever boy" but I know you'd read too much into it (and that Lord Orsam would cram his drainpipe with 443 occasions on the Casebook and in my brilliant Society's Pillar - oh if only 2025 would come faster! - where I had mentioned what a dim twat Barrett really was).

There's nothing to see here, folks.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Lord O deserves praise for putting all the elements of the ‘Battlecrease’ together in an accessible form.

In fairness, MrB, no-one (that I am aware of) has ever questioned his profound skills of research. It's what he does with that research which boggles the mind.

I think it was I who rather brilliantly (must have been, then, I guess) argued that Lord Orsam was the anti-matter to Keith Skinner's matter.

PS Aunty/anti jokes, anyone?

Ike

[MrBarnett]

In fairness, MrB, no-one (that I am aware of) has ever questioned his profound skills of research. It's what he does with that research which boggles the mind.

I think it was I who rather brilliantly (must have been, then, I guess) argued that Lord Orsam was the anti-matter to Keith Skinner's matter.

PS Aunty/anti jokes, anyone?

Ike

I have on a few occasions. He gets things wrong sometimes. Not very often, of course.

[Iconoclast]

(Further to Lord Orsam's update on his Daily Drainpipe this morning.)

So, it looks like Fletcher Rogers took over 'Battlecrease House' after Maybrick's death in 1889 and it became 7 Riversdale Road before the end of 1889 having previously been '6a' in Gore's Directory of Liverpool.

1888 - Not recorded in Gore's Directory of Liverpool (occupant unwilling to register at end of 1887 when perhaps it was one building operating as a club?)


1889 - James Maybrick listed as of the end of 1888


1890 - The relevant street page in Gore's has been torn out (British Online Archives)! (So here's the relevant name clipping from the end of 1889.)


1891 - Street occupants no longer being summarised by Gore's? (Name clipping from the end of 1890.)


Ike

[rjpalmer]

I’m off again, and I wasn’t going to respond to the following blather, but in this age of Covid, I have a particular repugnance for people posting (or in Ike’s case, reposting) blatant medical misinformation on the internet.

Having already wrongly described the nature of Korsakoff's Syndrome, Ike’s anonymous and unregistered sidekick ‘FDC’ now offers these doozies about kidney disease:

May I point out that unless one undergoes a kidney transplant, one will never get off kidney dialysis. Such a dialysis takes 4 hours per session and is progressive ….

And:

Kidney damage is irreversible and a patient on kidney dialysis can never be cured without a transplant!!

This is wrong. Dialysis can be temporary, and there are many types of kidney disease that do not require a transplant.


It appears that ‘FDC’ is attempting to promote the idea that if Barrett had kidney disease, he would necessarily need a transplant, and thus would be doomed to a lifetime on dialysis until he either died or found a donor. Ergo, Barrett must have lied as did Mr. Birchwood.

As I say, this need not have been the case, and is just more bad medicine from FDC.

There are literally tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of people who have had temporary dialysis to clean their bodies of toxins while their kidney or kidneys were treated for a specific disorder. This is well-known and the information readily available. We don't know the exact nature of Barrett's disease.

To give but one example, among dozens, temporary dialysis is discussed by THE SOUTHERN MASSACHUSETTES DIALYSIS GROUP:






Next up, the unregistered guest FDC give us this:

More from my foreign correspondent, FDC

"Mike Barrett made a lot of questionable claims about his health!

What I wanted to say is that the content of the text does not give the professional impression one would expect from a physician!

A patient's information is confidential and may not (and will not) be made public!

The fact that the kidney "maybe" should be removed is the most suspicious sentence in the text. The person in charge of housing has no business with this!

FDC’s “general knowledge” has clearly failed him, and it is hard to believe that an adult could post the above diatribe. Oh wait---he didn’t--‘Iconoclast’ posted it on his behalf.

Obviously, Doctor/Patient confidentiality is at the DESCRETION OF THE PATIENT.

Why does this obvious fact need to be pointed out?

If Barrett wanted to give copies of his medical reports to Shirley Harrison or Alan Gray, it was entirely within his right to do so. There is no law preventing it. People release medical information all the time—to employers, to schools, to the housing authority, etc. Doctor/Patient confidentiality means that they can’t be FORCED to release medical information; it doesn’t prevent them from doing so voluntarily.

It appears that ‘FDC’ is trying to imply that since Doctor/Patient confidentiality would prevent the release of such documentation (which is incorrect), that the medical data that Caz posted to this site represents fraudulent documents created by Barrett, our master forger. Is that what ‘FDC’ is suggesting?

Judging by what Caz posted (which is a mere summary), it looks as if Barrett, who had already experienced documented kidney trouble in the 1980s, had more kidney complaints in February 1996. One document even refers to “kidney failure”.

It is none of my immediate concern, but perhaps Caz can set FDC’s mind at ease by identifying the physician or the hospital or –heaven forbid—actually uploading the document? Does the document LOOK like a forgery? Is the name of the physician bogus? Does the report identify what kidney ailment Barrett suffered from, or what treatment he received?

How do we know that Barrett didn’t receive temporary dialysis to rid his system of toxins, but didn’t require a transplant? And how do any of us know WHAT treatment Mike may have received later on?

I await clarification.

[MrBarnett]

‘Woodend’?

[MrBarnett]

I’m off again, and I wasn’t going to respond to the following blather, but in this age of Covid, I have a particular repugnance for people posting (or in Ike’s case, reposting) blatant medical misinformation on the internet.

Having already wrongly described the nature of Korsakoff's Syndrome, Ike’s anonymous and unregistered sidekick ‘FDC’ now offers these doozies about kidney disease:



And:



This is wrong. Dialysis can be temporary, and there are many types of kidney disease that do not require a transplant.


It appears that ‘FDC’ is attempting to promote the idea that if Barrett had kidney disease, he would necessarily need a transplant, and thus would be doomed to a lifetime on dialysis until he either died or found a donor. Ergo, Barrett must have lied as did Mr. Birchwood.

As I say, this need not have been the case, and is just more bad medicine from FDC.

There are literally tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of people who have had temporary dialysis to clean their bodies of toxins while their kidney or kidneys were treated for a specific disorder. This is well-known and the information readily available. We don't know the exact nature of Barrett's disease.

To give but one example, among dozens, temporary dialysis is discussed by THE SOUTHERN MASSACHUSETTES DIALYSIS GROUP:






Next up, the unregistered guest FDC give us this:




FDC’s “general knowledge” has clearly failed him, and it is hard to believe that an adult could post the above diatribe. Oh wait---he didn’t--‘Iconoclast’ posted it on his behalf.

Obviously, Doctor/Patient confidentiality is at the DESCRETION OF THE PATIENT.

Why does this obvious fact need to be pointed out?

If Barrett wanted to give copies of his medical reports to Shirley Harrison or Alan Gray, it was entirely within his right to do so. There is no law preventing it. People release medical information all the time—to employers, to schools, to the housing authority, etc. Doctor/Patient confidentiality means that they can’t be FORCED to release medical information; it doesn’t prevent them from doing so voluntarily.

It appears that ‘FDC’ is trying to imply that since Doctor/Patient confidentiality would prevent the release of such documentation (which is incorrect), that the medical data that Caz posted to this site represents fraudulent documents created by Barrett, our master forger. Is that what ‘FDC’ is suggesting?

Judging by what Caz posted (which is a mere summary), it looks as if Barrett, who had already experienced documented kidney trouble in the 1980s, had more kidney complaints in February 1996. One document even refers to “kidney failure”.

It is none of my immediate concern, but perhaps Caz can set FDC’s mind at ease by identifying the physician or the hospital or –heaven forbid—actually uploading the document? Does the document LOOK like a forgery? Is the name of the physician bogus? Does the report identify what kidney ailment Barrett suffered from, or what treatment he received?

How do we know that Barrett didn’t receive temporary dialysis to rid his system of toxins, but didn’t require a transplant? And how do any of us know WHAT treatment Mike may have received later on?

I await clarification.

What is it you have against CB members passing on the opinions of ‘unregistered sidekicks’?

[Iconoclast]

And who are only unregistered because they wish to avoid the inevitable vitriol which gets spilled so routinely whenever someone dares to talk about James Maybrick ...

[Iconoclast]

‘Woodend’?

Good spot, MrB!

[MrBarnett]

Good spot, MrB!

I’ve seen a much later (1950s) reference to a Woodend Farm in connection with Riversdale Road.

[MrBarnett]

And who are only unregistered because they wish to avoid the inevitable vitriol which gets spilled so routinely whenever someone dares to talk about James Maybrick ...

I just thought it was amusing that RJ should look down his nose at the ‘unregistered’ the day after alerting us to the excellent (though belated) research of his great ‘unregistered’ pal.

Another gift for us all.

[rjpalmer]

What is it you have against CB members passing on the opinions of ‘unregistered sidekicks’?

Oh, I don’t care to make too much of it, but it does circumvent the registration process. As far as I can tell, Ike is the only member of this forum who plays mailman for a string of contacts who lack either the initiative or perhaps the backbone to become members and post for themselves.

I find it rather curious, is all. Whether it runs counter to the rules or the spirit of the forum, I’ll leave for the moderators to decide. I haven’t launched any complaint.

My issue was not with ‘FDC’ sending along picture of Battlecrease, nor Trevor posting commentary from Dr. Biggs, nor anyone sending a link to a website, as I sometimes do if I see Lord O has posted something of relevance to the discussion of the Maybrick Hoax. I am careful to follow the rules and to not quote him.

My issue was with ‘FDC’ sending along misinformation (without naming any source whatsoever) and then, when challenged, launching into a diatribe of abuse and accusation---ranting among other things, “this is no debate!!!” (of course, it is not—FDC isn’t a member and doesn’t name his sources), further complaining about the ‘nonsense’ I post about the illustrious Maybrick Hoax, etc.---all of which Ike dutifully uploads.

We all get enough abuse from registered members (and sometimes from other websites) now we need to get it from unregistered guests as well? Is this in the spirit of the forum?

Why even require people to register, if Ike can simply reach into his mailbag, as he is doing more and more frequently?

Not being particularly paranoid, I think ‘FDC’ probably exists, but Ike already has a history of posting under other usernames (including ‘Soothsayer’ and ‘Tom’).

When a person registers, at least the moderator can confirm they have a verifiable email account and an IP Address that differs from a certain charming domicile in the hyperborean climes of Scotland.

[MrBarnett]

Oh, I don’t care to make too much of it, but it does circumvent the registration process. As far as I can tell, Ike is the only member of this forum who plays mailman for a string of contacts who lack either the initiative or perhaps the backbone to become members and post for themselves.

I find it rather curious, is all. Whether it runs counter to the rules or the spirit of the forum, I’ll leave for the moderators to decide. I haven’t launched any complaint.

My issue was not with ‘FDC’ sending along picture of Battlecrease, nor Trevor posting commentary from Dr. Biggs, nor anyone sending a link to a website, as I sometimes do if I see Lord O has posted something of relevance to the discussion of the Maybrick Hoax. I am careful to follow the rules and to not quote him.

My issue was with ‘FDC’ sending along misinformation (without naming any source whatsoever) and then, when challenged, launching into a diatribe of abuse and accusation---ranting among other things, “this is no debate!!!” (of course, it is not—FDC isn’t a member and doesn’t name his sources), further complaining about the ‘nonsense’ I post about the illustrious Maybrick Hoax, etc.---all of which Ike dutifully uploads.

We all get enough abuse from registered members (and sometimes from other websites) now we need to get it from unregistered guests as well? Is this in the spirit of the forum?

Why even require people to register, if Ike can simply reach into his mailbag, as he is doing more and more frequently?

Not being particularly paranoid, I think ‘FDC’ probably exists, but Ike already has a history of posting under other usernames (including ‘Soothsayer’ and ‘Tom’).

When a person registers, at least the moderator can confirm they have a verifiable email account and an IP Address that differs from a certain charming domicile in the hyperborean climes of Scotland.

Does Ike live in Scotland by any chance?