One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[MrBarnett]

Well, I guess I'll cut to the chase.

The claim that Barrett received dialysis has been met with universal scorn and skepticism.

Ike all but said that it was imaginary bollocks and 'FDC' even suggested that Barrett hoaxed documentation.

Caz informs us that Mike's benefit claims of 1996 were attributable to a very old traffic accident when Mike was 14 and made no reference to kidney treatment, even though she admits that the form refers to "renal failure."

But unless I am very much mistaken directly below the reference to "renal failure," it seems to state "on dialysis."

The copy is difficult to read, I admit, but 'dialysis' is quite unmistakeable' and the word next to it seems to be 'on.'



As far as I am concerned, Birchwood's statement stands unrebutted.

‘Diagnosis of your disorder’ ? Was the form filled out by the patient?

Can you show us more of it, RJ?

[rjpalmer]

‘Diagnosis of your disorder’ ? Was the form filled out by the patient?

No, it was not filled out by the patient.

It was filled out by the physician for the benefit of the patient ('Mr. Mike Barrett') so he could claim benefits, hence the form's wording the 'diagnosis of your disorder.'

The doctor's signature and address, etc. are given on the form.

I can certainly upload the whole thing, but perhaps Caz's copy is more legible?

[MrBarnett]

No, it was not filled out by the patient.

It was filled out by the physician for the benefit of the patient ('Mr. Mike Barrett') so he could claim benefits, hence the form's wording the 'diagnosis of your disorder.'

The doctor's signature and address, etc. are given on the form.

I can certainly upload the whole thing, but perhaps Caz's copy is more legible?

Surely, if the form was completed by a doctor and intended for a third party, it would have said, ‘diagnosis of patient’s disorder’.

[rjpalmer]

Surely, if the form was completed by a doctor and intended for a third party, it would have said, ‘diagnosis of patient’s disorder’.

No; it is abundantly clear that this section is filled out by the physician. It states that it is.

I'm not an expert on the legal technicalities of benefit forms, but the slightly odd format might reflect doctor/client confidentiality. The doctor's statement is written 'in confidence' to the patient (the form states this), but at the same time the patient is required to submit the forms to his employer to receive the benefits.

A sort of Catch-22.

Yes, the wording is a little stupid, but I suppose it ensures that the patient is the one who is choosing to release his 'confidential' medical information to a third party, whereas the doctor cannot do it directly without permission.

[caz]

No, you're right, Caz. I don't have the foggiest idea what you're going on about, because your argument doesn't make the least bit of sense. It's madness.

Now you are suggesting that those five words matched Fuller's words by "pure chance?" Or, in other words, it is such a mind-blowing coincidence that it means the hoaxer couldn't have been using Ryan even though he uses the exact same wording?

What?!??

The reason that Ryan has Fuller telling Maybrick that there was "very the little matter with him" is for the obvious reason that that is EXACTLY what Fuller deposed at the inquest:



There is no 'pure chance' involved. It's not a coincidence. It isn't even close to a shadow of a coincidence.

Ryan, like every other historian of the Maybrick case, was working from the trial transcripts.

He's quoting Fuller albeit without quotation marks. (Or to be technical, he is actually paraphrasing Fuller, based on the trial transcript's paraphrase). Historians do it all the time, so as not to disturb the flow of their writing, yet to remain historically accurate.

So, this is your suggestion? Just because Ryan doesn't use quotation marks--even though he uses EXACTLY the same phrase that is in the Maybrick Hoax--this means Barrett and Graham couldn't have been pinching this wording from him?

What a waste of time.

I can't believe you are this thick, RJ, so I will have to put it down to you being in denial.

How many words of Dr Fuller's did Ryan pinch for his narrative? Five. Just five. He was working from the trial testimony, yes, but he only copied five words from it into his narrative and used no quote marks throughout to give your modern hoaxer a clue.

How many words did Ryan use to describe Fuller's consultation with Maybrick? Have you counted them?

How many words did Fuller himself use in 1889 to describe his consultation with Maybrick? Have you counted them?

There are only five words common to both sources. Just five - out of how many? Have you counted the combinations of words your modern hoaxer could have copied from Ryan's narrative and put in the diary, which would have had nothing in common with anything Fuller himself said and would have instantly cooked his golden goose?

Mike Barrett is meant to have guessed that Ryan would have used some of Fuller's own words to Maybrick - which Ryan need not have done, as it was a one-off - and Mike then guessed at the only instance in the narrative where Ryan does so, and finally he guessed at that exact five word phrase and copied it into the diary.

It was so easy for you to see what you wanted to see here. You saw the phrase in Ryan - no quotes anywhere - and you concluded that your hoaxer simply copied five of his words into the diary, having not the faintest clue that Fuller's testimony would confirm that his consultation with Maybrick had included the same phrase.

This is what I call a convoluted argument, and it proves absolutely nothing, because the diary correctly reflects the actual words used by Fuller in 1889. There is therefore no way to prove that Fuller wasn't the diary author's source, and it would seem far more logical than to argue for a hoaxer using nothing more than Ryan's narrative and guesswork.

[Iconoclast]

There is therefore no way to prove that Fuller wasn't the diary author's source, and it would seem far more logical than to argue for a hoaxer using nothing more than Ryan's narrative and guesswork.

We're back to Statistics 101, dear readers.

Which is the more likely event - that the five words which actually came out of Fuller's mouth were reported felicitously by the person who actually heard them back in 1889, or that they (and only they) were copied down verbatim by Bernard Ryan with absolutely no indication whatsoever that it was indeed only those five words which had been copied down verbatim by him and Mike Barrett came along and repeated the act from Bernard Ryan?

So the choice is:

1) Maybrick heard Fuller say those five words and repeated them in his scrapbook; or
2) A hoaxer (not necessarily Mike Barrett) took those exact five words from Ryan which themselves had been the very five words Ryan had taken from - almost certainly - McDougall?

If I were a betting man ...

Ike

[caz]

To be clear, I'm referring to the benefit claims from February 1996 that you mentioned in your post of 1-28-2022 3:46 pm:




If the doctor who actually signed the sick pay refers to 'renal failure' (kidney failure) how does this have anything to do with a traffic accident when he was 14? Are you suggesting he had kidney problems for all those years?

And, to be clear, you're stating this sick pay form made "no references to any treatment for kidney problems'? Even though it refers to "renal failure"?

My apologies for the simple-minded, repetitive questions, but yes, I do have a reason for asking, because the information I've seen suggests otherwise.

By the way, I am not insisting that Barrett's kidney problems had any relevance to his strange behavior; I am just seeking the truth of what treatment he may or may not have received in 1994-1996, since a trustworthy commentator said they had seen a medical report referring to Barrett receiving dialysis, and further informed me that dialysis can affect one's mental state and memory--as of course, can Korsikoff's Syndrome and "alcoholic psychosis.

As far as I am concerned, this is somewhat of a side issue because, properly considered, Barrett demonstrated inside knowledge of the hoax's creation and there is abundant evidence that it was a recent fake.

I'm not even insisting that Barrett played much of a role in writing it. In fact, I doubt very much that he did. Personally, I don't think the author was the type who put on trousers in the morning, but I suspect you and Ike know that, and just use Barrett as a convenient hobby horse.

RP

I simply gave you the relevant medical information I had, RJ. I wasn't 'suggesting' anything concerning Mike's road traffic accident. The doctor did that, by putting all Mike's claimed 'disabilities' as at February 1996 down to that accident at age 14, and the more recent one where he lacerated his wrist.

The one-page sick pay form I have seen from early March 1996 makes no mention of any treatment for kidney problems, which was the question I thought you asked me. I can't conjure up documentation or evidence I don't have. I don't know why or how the sick pay doc diagnosed renal failure, when the disability living allowance doctor had found no evidence of it just a week before, but you can see I made no attempt to conceal the fact. If you have more information than I have on this, good for you. May it cheer you up while we wait to see what Putin does next.

Some evidence that Mike was on dialysis prior to January 5th 1995, potentially affecting his mental state and memory when preparing and making his affidavit of that date, might help you reconcile the hopeless "early 1990" date he gave for Anne's purchase of the red 1891 diary, which arrived in late March 1992. In case your memory is letting you down, this arrived just a few days before Mike took the Maybrick diary to London - a date he had no trouble recalling on 18th January 1995.

You may also like to ascertain how quickly someone coming off dialysis might revert to a normal mental state and start remembering their own recent history again. There are 13 days between 5th and 18th January 1995, so that would be how long Mike had to recover from the effects. What a pity he wasn't allowed to leave it a couple more weeks before making that affidavit. He'd have been able to date the auction to the end of March 1992 with no trouble at all - and remembered where he put the sodding ticket!

Before I go for the weekend, I have a couple of questions for you regarding Mike's research notes:

1) How many of the unattributed notes did you or Orsam establish could only have come from Ryan's book?

2) Are any of the notes which could only have come from Ryan attributed incorrectly to some other source?

You must understand the need to demonstrate a deliberate attempt to conceal the use of Ryan and only Ryan, when compiling those notes.

[caz]

No, it was not filled out by the patient.

It was filled out by the physician for the benefit of the patient ('Mr. Mike Barrett') so he could claim benefits, hence the form's wording the 'diagnosis of your disorder.'

The doctor's signature and address, etc. are given on the form.

I can certainly upload the whole thing, but perhaps Caz's copy is more legible?

I was talking about a different sick pay form, dated 4th March 1996, advising Mike to refrain from work for twelve months.

Diagnosis is stated as:

Renal failure and
dilation of bladder

What date is yours for?

[caz]

We're back to Statistics 101, dear readers.

Which is the more likely event - that the five words which actually came out of Fuller's mouth were reported felicitously by the person who actually heard them back in 1889, or that they (and only they) were copied down verbatim by Bernard Ryan with absolutely no indication whatsoever that it was indeed only those five words which had been copied down verbatim by him and Mike Barrett came along and repeated the act from Bernard Ryan?

So the choice is:

1) Maybrick heard Fuller say those five words and repeated them in his scrapbook; or
2) A hoaxer (not necessarily Mike Barrett) took those exact five words from Ryan which themselves had been the very five words Ryan had taken from - almost certainly - McDougall?

If I were a betting man ...

Ike

Or:

3) Someone took the words straight from the trial testimony of 1889?

Why does Ryan have to be the middle man at all?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Or:

3) Someone took the words straight from the trial testimony of 1889?

Why does Ryan have to be the middle man at all?

Love,

Caz
X

I think Ryan has to be the middle man if the scrapbook is a hoax, Cazermo, as the alternative would be that both Ryan and the hoaxer independent of one another plagiarised the very same five words from the trial transcript/McDougall, and that - to a man of statistics such as I - is simply too much to cope with.

Ikermo

[rjpalmer]

May it cheer you up while we wait to see what Putin does next.

It's an interesting comment, Caz, and I share your apprehensions.

It reminds me of a long and impassioned comment made many years ago by a certain Liverpool Lady when she finally lifted her head above the trenches.

She not-so-gently admonished the assembled Ripperologists, chastising them for running around trying to find out who wrote the Maybrick Diary or who Jack the Ripper might have been.

Why didn't they care about something more important like nuclear annihilation or the depleted ozone layer or the 'scourge of AIDS'?

In time, her words became slightly hypocritical, after she published her own book about the 'last victim' of Jack the Ripper, but when I first read this plea, I was fascinated by the psychology behind it.

I was certain then who wrote the diary and how and why it came to be written.

I still am.

[caz]

I think Ryan has to be the middle man if the scrapbook is a hoax, Cazermo, as the alternative would be that both Ryan and the hoaxer independent of one another plagiarised the very same five words from the trial transcript/McDougall, and that - to a man of statistics such as I - is simply too much to cope with.

Ikermo

But that would also be the case, dear Ike, if the diary came first, because Ryan would then have independently chosen to use the same five words that 'Sir Jim' chose to put in his diary, from everything Fuller might have said to JM on that occasion, from "Good morning you old devil", to "there is very little the matter with you", and "pull your socks up", through to "yes please, old sport, milk and two sugars".

The fact remains that the diary uses a phrase that Fuller himself used in 1889, and could have done so with no interference from that famous Merseybeat combo, Bernard Ryan and the Barrettones.

RJ seems to be moving away from his previous argument, that an unsophisticated hoaxer like Mike would neither know nor care if he might be making Fuller speak words that only Ryan uses in his book. He is now giving himself the green light to accuse Anne, who is still alive, of being the brains behind the diary, which is fairly insulting if she is now meant to have put Ryan's words into the text, not knowing if Fuller ever used them himself.

How would the Barretts have known how closely Ryan adhered to his primary source material without checking that material for themselves? This is why my argument has been that IF a modern hoaxer used Ryan, they must have checked to see what Fuller actually said, before putting his words into the text.

The argument seems to be that because five of Fuller's actual words are right there in the diary, this somehow confirms that it was a Barrett who put them there, using Ryan alone, and no safety net.

It would be like arguing that Mike Barrett was the kind of idiot who would try to impersonate Rafa Nadal, to collect any prize money he might win in the Australian Open, and the fact that Nadal went on to win the tournament somehow confirms that Mike did this and succeeded.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It's an interesting comment, Caz, and I share your apprehensions.

It reminds me of a long and impassioned comment made many years ago by a certain Liverpool Lady when she finally lifted her head above the trenches.

She not-so-gently admonished the assembled Ripperologists, chastising them for running around trying to find out who wrote the Maybrick Diary or who Jack the Ripper might have been.

Why didn't they care about something more important like nuclear annihilation or the depleted ozone layer or the 'scourge of AIDS'?

In time, her words became slightly hypocritical, after she published her own book about the 'last victim' of Jack the Ripper, but when I first read this plea, I was fascinated by the psychology behind it.

I was certain then who wrote the diary and how and why it came to be written.

I still am.

Any news on the date of your sick pay form for Mike?

I remain puzzled by the diagnosis of renal failure on mine, just 5 days after the doctor who completed the questionnaire for Mike's disability living allowance claim could find no evidence for it.

Might one doctor's definition be different from the next? Can one non-functioning kidney be described as renal failure? The doctor who examined Mike on 28th February 1996 clearly thought not.

Any progress on the questions I asked you about the use of Ryan's book in Mike's research notes? Or do you need to consult Orsam, or what he has written to date, for the answers? I'm sure you will agree that it's quite important to establish what exactly the argument is, and to demonstrate that it actually proves something connecting the Barretts to the creation of the diary, or what was the point of all his hard work, and all your efforts on his behalf?

You and Orsam are like Nick Warren was to Melvin Harris. I expect you both have access to much of the same material they had back in the day, so it's odd that all the recycling has still not given you what you need.

[rjpalmer]

I think Ryan has to be the middle man if the scrapbook is a hoax, Cazermo

Thanks, Ike. At least one person here has the sense to smell the coffee.

Alas, I don't think Caz’s nose will ever get there; she's lost in a drafty air castle of her own making, unable to pick up the scent.

Imagine the staggering odds that a historian would accurately refer to the same wording of the source materials he was using! The odds must be all of 80/20 that he would do so, or perhaps even as unlikely as 70/30! The mind boggles!

Meanwhile, as you also admitted in Post #8335 in reference to the bogus research notes (“the obvious source of everything for Mike would be one book, and Lord O has probably shown that that book would be Ryan”) we are faced with a "double event." The Barretts used the same book as the modern hoaxer to conjure up their bogus research notes. Quite a coincidence. What are the odds of that one?

Now ask yourself the next obvious question.

How did Mike Barrett come to name Bernard Ryan’s book as his primary ‘Maybrick’ source during the Cloak and Dagger interview on 10 April 1999? No one seems to have thought much of it at the time—they just ignored it as another tall tale from Mike. Yet, as your friend Orsam notes, on one occasion Barrett even admitted that it was the only ‘Maybrick’ book he had ever read, and Mike also cited this book during his rambling confessions to Gray.

Tipsy Mike Barrett came up with this. Amazing, no? Mike couldn’t have gotten the idea from Melvin Harris—Harris had suggested Moreland’s This Friendless Lady as the hoaxer’s source.

You see, the thing is, Barrett revealed his source before anyone suggested it. As far as I know, the first person other than Barrett to actually name Bernard Ryan as the hoaxer’s source was a bloke named RJPalmer on these very message boards back around 2003 or 2004, when he posted his study.

Independently, Lord Orsam did a far more elaborate analysis than mine, and came up with the same answer. And Orsam, to his credit, thought of something that hadn’t occurred to me: he also compiled a list of important Maybrick ‘facts’ from 1888-1889 that AREN’T in the diary. Important events, like Maybrick having his portrait painted, and Maybrick going on a walking tour in Wales, etc. All things a person would normally allude to in their diary. But—nada! Zilch. Not only does the Diary use the exact same material as Ryan, but the diary also shares the same ‘blind spots’ as Ryan (with one solitary exception). The correlation is nearly perfect.

Next came Chris Jones—once again, he determined that Bernard Ryan’s book filled the bill.

So, Ike, tell me this, because it’s the $1,000,000 question that Caz is so puzzled about.

How did Barrett know that three researchers sometime in the future would do their own independent comparison studies and discover that Barrett’s ‘Bernard Ryan’ comment would stand up to scrutiny? As far as I know, Keith Skinner, Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman, Caz Morris, Seth Linder, Professor Rubenstein, and Carol Emmas never bothered to check. So how did Barrett just happen to settle on this one book—the same book that he and Anne (as you grudgingly admit) also used for the bogus research notes?

Sheer luck? Blind, drunken chance?

Or do you envision Mike stumbling down to the Central Liverpool Library, perhaps in another one his famous week-long efforts, to run an elaborate cross-comparison analysis of Macdougall, Moreland, Densmore, Irving, Levy, Christie, etc. before settling on Ryan?

Do you really see Mike doing that—and to such little purpose--or was his knowledge of a more first-hand, “organic” nature? Seeing the book, for instance, on his own living room table?

And consider this, as well. Since we already know that Mike didn’t really hobble down to the Central Library to create his bogus research notes using the microfilm readers, how did Mike happen to have a copy of Ryan’s book sitting in his lap when compiling these bogus notes, since Caz assures us, he had told Shirley Harrison that he had never heard of it?

Mike was already alluding to two of the books that he refers in his notes on March 10th, 1992, during his first conversation with his literary agent. How did Mike do that if he had only gotten the diary from Eddie Lyons hours earlier?

Face it, Old Bean. The gig is up for anyone that wants to use their noggin.

RP

[rjpalmer]

He is now giving himself the green light to accuse Anne, who is still alive, of being the brains behind the diary

Yup, she's still alive. So is Eddie Lyons.