One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

I find it interesting, to say the least, that I am being chastised for not condemning Orsam (when I simply supplied a link to his strictly objective analysis of Barrett's research notes) by the very group of people who are busy calling me a fool, a liar, and an "uncritical cheerleader."

Irony intended?

I take a hardline on the Maybrick Hoax because it is a fraud. Any other field of historic inquiry would have drummed this fraud out years ago with one united voice, but there is a certain type of Ripperologist who holds these frauds closely to his or her bosom. Strange.

Fraud implies making money out of something known to be a fake - in this case a fake created in the early 1990s.

I wonder who RJ would include here as fraudsters, since he has failed to demonstrate that Mike or Anne had the first idea how or when the diary began life, and his 'Diary Faithful' don't believe for a second that it's a modern fake.

The only people I can readily think of, who have made anything out of the diary after claiming to know it's a modern fake, would be ripper authors who included chapters on 'the Maybrick Hoax' in their own, highly subjective suspect-based books. It's just a pity that none of them had the proof to go with their claimed knowledge, or we wouldn't still be here, arguing the toss over who, if anyone, can be said to have committed fraud. It's a serious charge, but with no individual to attach it to, it can only ever flap about impotently in the breeze.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Damn - my All-Seeing Eye was doing so well too!

As I could easily burn the ice cream, I am restricted to marigold duties in Iconoclast Manor. We do have a dishwasher, thankfully, too, but - tell me - does the upper half (cups and glasses) always fill up quicker than the lower half (plates and bowls), or am I just drinking too much tea?

Cheers,

Ike

Yes, the upper half always fills up faster here in Brown Towers, Ike, but one mug each sees us right through the day for tea [Mrs B] and coffee [Mr B].

So it must be all the cups of cocoa and Ovaltine in the evenings that make the difference.

Love,

Caz
X

[barnflatwyngarde]

Okay Barney, fair feedback (we'll take it on board here at Iconoclast Inc.), but please answer this simple product survey as honestly as you can (remember, Santa reads the Casebook too).

Does your feedback:

A) Prove categorically that the Maybrick scrapbook is an unequivocal hoax, or
B) Prove categorically that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic , or
C) Suggest that the Maybrick scrapbook is not constructed the way you personally might have expected such a document to be constructed

If you answered C), please bang your head against a brick wall for five minutes, stating "I am an idiot" over and over again or accept a Sunderland AFC season ticket free of charge (there will be in-crapp purchases).

Please click on this link RobMeRotten if you wish to opt out of future surveys

Best,

Ike

Hi Ike, I try not to get too involved in the Maybrick debate, I have looked at all the evidence that you have looked at, and I have come to my own conclusion that the diary is a hoax.

To my mind the debate is compromised by the clear evidence of "confirmation bias" by many of the diary supporters. This is not a criticism, it is just my view that "confirmation bias" exists in spades in this particular debate. As it does in the "Lechmere theory", the "MJK did not die in Millers Court theory", ad infinatum.

We all see the murders through a particular prism, my own particular prism is that Mary Kelly did not leave 13 Millers Court after she entered it with Blotchy.

I accept that confirmation bias exists in my particular view of the case because for my theory to be correct, we have to ignore the edvidence of George Hutchinson and Mrs Maxwell. So I am certainly not criticising your theory re the Maybrick Diary, it is just that I don't believe it.

In response to your 3 points raised in your post, here goes.

A) No I cannot "prove categorically that the Maybrick scrapbook is an unequivocal hoax", it's just that I've looked at the evidence, and in my opinion there is enough there to convince me that the scrapbook is a hoax, but I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.

B) No I cannot "prove categorically that the Maybrick scrapbook is authentic", but then again, I'm unaware of anyone who can prove its authenticity.

C) No, I have no idea how a psychopathic, misogynistic serial killer would construct a confessional scrapbook in which he laid bare his justification for the murders.
What I can say, is that in my opinion, the scrapbook displays exactly what a clumsy forger might construct, with just enough teasers, half formed, vague and tenuous connections to the case to reel in some people. However, as I've said above, I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.

All the best, and good luck for your team to make the play offs.

[Iconoclast]

So it must be all the cups of cocoa and Ovaltine in the evenings that make the difference.

Now who's got an All-Seeing Eye!

[barnflatwyngarde]

And yet Bruce Robinson (that's Academy Award nominated screen writer Bruce Robinson) states on record that if it were a hoax, and if he'd written it, he'd consider it the summit of his literary achievement. A very different opinion to yours - you pays yer money...

Absolutely Steve, you pay your money, and you take your choiuce.

I yield to no man or woman in my admiration for Bruce Robinson. Withnail is an absolute masterpiece, and is my go to movie when things get too much in this crazy, and getting crazier by the hour, world.

I also really enjoyed his book "Busting Jack", in spite of its many flaws.

Yes, Bruce Robinson's opinion is vastly different from my own, however I have never placed much store in the "argument from authority" position.

Robinson's view is that the diary is probably genuine. I look at the same diary and see a clumsy pastiche.

[Iconoclast]

C) No, I have no idea how a psychopathic, misogynistic serial killer would construct a confessional scrapbook in which he laid bare his justification for the murders.
What I can say, is that in my opinion, the scrapbook displays exactly what a clumsy forger might construct, with just enough teasers, half formed, vague and tenuous connections to the case to reel in some people. However, as I've said above, I could be wrong, I've been wrong before.

Okay, Barney, I should stress that I was just funning you when I said about the "I'm an idiot" bit. No offence intended.

What I would say in response to your balanced post is that if someone has "no idea how a psychopathic, misogynistic serial killer would construct a confessional scrapbook in which he laid bare his justification for the murders" then that someone probably should justify why they feel they do know what "a clumsy forger might construct, with just enough teasers, half formed, vague and tenuous connections to the case to reel in some people". I have no history with hoaxers and forgers so the scrapbook reads perfectly fine to me - it reads like a man with a better-than-average education (not saying much for the age, of course) and a gruesome tale to tell but lacking the truly creative literary instinct (and the grammatical grasp) to do so effectively and correctly making it rather laboured, simplistic, uninspiring, and littered with spelling and grammatical errors (and therefore all the more believable to me), but for him this was probably more than adequate as it was only intended for his own eyes as the scrapbook appears to have been written for his own delectation rather than anyone else's.

Although we all do it, none of us should attempt to have it both ways. When I do it, I expect it to be picked-up and challenged, and - in return - I feel the need to dish out a wee bit of what I occasionally get.

PS I'm a Newcastle fan (though I accept my post was thoroughly ambiguous on this point). If Sunlan get into the play-offs I will actually cry.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Robinson's view is that the diary is probably genuine. I look at the same diary and see a clumsy pastiche.

We get the point, I'm sure, but for the avoidance of confusion, Robinson moved away from James and towards Michael Maybrick in his astonishing - if wayward - They All Love, Jack.

Ike

[barnflatwyngarde]

Okay, Barney, I should stress that I was just funning you when I said about the "I'm an idiot" bit. No offence intended.

What I would say in response to your balanced post is that if someone has "no idea how a psychopathic, misogynistic serial killer would construct a confessional scrapbook in which he laid bare his justification for the murders" then that someone probably should justify why they feel they do know what "a clumsy forger might construct, with just enough teasers, half formed, vague and tenuous connections to the case to reel in some people". I have no history with hoaxers and forgers so the scrapbook reads perfectly fine to me - it reads like a man with a better-than-average education (not saying much for the age, of course) and a gruesome tale to tell but lacking the truly creative literary instinct (and the grammatical grasp) to do so effectively and correctly making it rather laboured, simplistic, uninspiring, and littered with spelling and grammatical errors (and therefore all the more believable to me), but for him this was probably more than adequate as it was only intended for his own eyes as the scrapbook appears to have been written for his own delectation rather than anyone else's.

Although we all do it, none of us should attempt to have it both ways. When I do it, I expect it to be picked-up and challenged, and - in return - I feel the need to dish out a wee bit of what I occasionally get.

PS I'm a Newcastle fan (though I accept my post was thoroughly ambiguous on this point). If Sunlan get into the play-offs I will actually cry.

Cheers,

Ike

Ike, apologies for getting your allegiance wrong, it's probably the worst insult you could throw to a Newcastle supporter, sorry!

It's an interesting point you make about a killer using the scrapbook to "justify why they feel they do".

I remember an interview with Ed Kemper, where the person talking to him asked him about a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship he had with a young woman. Kemper was asked if he ever thought that the relationship had a chance of being permanent. Kemper replied that he often considered just settling down to a normal life with the girl.

At other times he just pictured her head on a stick.

Another fascinating insight into a serial killers mind was the journal written by Carl Panzram while on death row.
Panzram's journal made no justication for his many murders.

All his murders were carried out as an expression of extreme rage, a silent scream, if you will.

Nothing definitive here, just aspects of my own view that there are no great psychological insights present in the scrapbook, albeit that some psychologists have stated the opposite. As I've said in another post, I tend not to place too high an opinion on some theories simply because they come from a position of authority.

[caz]

To my mind the debate is compromised by the clear evidence of "confirmation bias" by many of the diary supporters. This is not a criticism, it is just my view that "confirmation bias" exists in spades in this particular debate. As it does in the "Lechmere theory", the "MJK did not die in Millers Court theory", ad infinatum.

Hello barnflat,

How many diary supporters do you consider to be 'many' in this regard?

I think there are only two regular posters to this thread, and one or maybe two occasional contributors, who actively support the diary as the genuine, or at least potentially genuine work of James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper.

The vast majority here don't, but I do see confirmation bias in action in every post arguing that the Barretts were involved in some capacity in the diary's creation.

Nobody is immune from confirmation bias, but few Barrett Hoax believers will admit to it, even when it shines out of their posts like a beacon.

All the evidence for a particular theory has to be taken into account, seen in context and explained, and none should be ignored, or replaced by baseless speculation or invention, just to make the theory work. Constant testing and reassessment of one's own thinking is essential if the evidence doesn't all fit naturally together without forcing. That applies regardless of the theory and who has proposed or promoted it.

Love,

Caz
X

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hello barnflat,

How many diary supporters do you consider to be 'many' in this regard?

I think there are only two regular posters to this thread, and one or maybe two occasional contributors, who actively support the diary as the genuine, or at least potentially genuine work of James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper.

The vast majority here don't, but I do see confirmation bias in action in every post arguing that the Barretts were involved in some capacity in the diary's creation.

Nobody is immune from confirmation bias, but few Barrett Hoax believers will admit to it, even when it shines out of their posts like a beacon.

All the evidence for a particular theory has to be taken into account, seen in context and explained, and none should be ignored, or replaced by baseless speculation or invention, just to make the theory work. Constant testing and reassessment of one's own thinking is essential if the evidence doesn't all fit naturally together without forcing. That applies regardless of the theory and who has proposed or promoted it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
. There's really nothing in your post that I disagree with.

When I used the term "many" in my post, I was trying to be fair to supporters of the diary by not making a sweeping statement about them.

Yes, confirmation bias is to be seen everywhere on these boards, although I have always admired the way that your posts tend to stick to the argument, and not launch into personal insults.

I also agree that only by constantly testing and challenging theories, especially our own, can we advance this fascinating case.

Cheers.

[caz]

Ike, apologies for getting your allegiance wrong, it's probably the worst insult you could throw to a Newcastle supporter, sorry!

It's an interesting point you make about a killer using the scrapbook to "justify why they feel they do".

I remember an interview with Ed Kemper, where the person talking to him asked him about a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship he had with a young woman. Kemper was asked if he ever thought that the relationship had a chance of being permanent. Kemper replied that he often considered just settling down to a normal life with the girl.

At other times he just pictured her head on a stick.

Another fascinating insight into a serial killers mind was the journal written by Carl Panzram while on death row.
Panzram's journal made no justication for his many murders.

All his murders were carried out as an expression of extreme rage, a silent scream, if you will.

Nothing definitive here, just aspects of my own view that there are no great psychological insights present in the scrapbook, albeit that some psychologists have stated the opposite. As I've said in another post, I tend not to place too high an opinion on some theories simply because they come from a position of authority.

We don't have too many examples of genuine serial killer diaries, but as every killer is a unique human being I see no reason why their thought processes would necessarily be similar in structure or content if written down, any more than my thoughts are similar to yours or Ike's or Orsam's.

I don't think there's anything to guide a hoaxer, or a real killer, to make their written work look authentic to a reader, and of course only a hoaxer might actually care.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

Excellent post Ike, but I do wish you'd drop the stuff about the GSG containing obscure references to Maybrick's close family - it reads like raving lunacy and weakens the rest of your otherwise strong arguments. 30 years on and I'm personally still on the fence, but I think I'm now 99% certain that the watch is genuine and was the inspiration for the scrapbook. Of course that still doesn't prove that Jim was Jack.

This is exactly where I stand and have stood for the past few years, other than I believe James was Jack.

Although Ike and I may not agree on the cryptic origins of the GSG, I would not describe his belief as raving lunacy. After all, we have no proof to the contrary. He is entitled to that conclusion.

[Iconoclast]

This is exactly where I stand and have stood for the past few years, other than I believe James was Jack.

Although Ike and I may not agree on the cryptic origins of the GSG, I would not describe his belief as raving lunacy. After all, we have no proof to the contrary. He is entitled to that conclusion.

Hi ero b,

Many thanks for the support. I don't even include myself in the pantheon of those who believe I am right, by the way (!) and am more than willing to concede that James played with his own name and no-one else's in the GSG, but there are some interesting points within it which do intrigue me:

• Why is it as long as it is? It doesn't make any sense, it seems to be fatally cluttered with a double- - even triple- - negative; so was its awkward verbosity simply a vehicle to create room for James to have even more fun?
• Why is the so-called 'B' in 'Blamed' so misshapen? It's almost as though it needed to be that way.
• When I first noticed the 'bigger picture', I was marvelling at the 'Juwes' morphing into 'James', and then 'The men' caught my eye and it occurred to me that if James had embedded 'James' into the GSG he might have intended 'The men' to morph into 'Thomas' (it's not entirely different to the morphing of 'Juwes' into 'James', I'd say). It then - immediately - occurred to me that I might find more 'morphing' so I looked for 'William' and there he was, hiding in plain sight, and then there was 'Ed' (I thought of the 'win' much later as I recall), so I looked for Michael and found 'MM' when you turn the 'W' in 'Will' around, so I looked for the last of the significant adults in Jame's life, his wife Florrie, and that's when I noticed the misshapen 'B' and it struck me that the first part was exactly the same as the 'f' in 'for' in the final line, and if you remove that element, you are left with an 'm' turned on its side.
• Then I wondered why there was such an unnatural space between the so-called 'B' in 'Blamed' and the 'lamed' which followed it and it immediately struck me that James had started the word too early on the wall and - for 'lam' to appear as 'iam' directly below the 'Will' above it - James had to leave a subtle space which (I assume) whoever copied the GSG down did so faithfully.
• Then I noticed that 'Juwes', 'The', and 'Will' were all unnecessarily capitalised. Whatever for?
• And all this happened in about two minutes - so no long convoluted, desperate straining to make James into Jack.
• 'Ed' became 'Edwin' when it occurred to me that 'for nothing' could also read '4-0' which would be a 'win' in the world's first-ever football league format (started three weeks before the GSG appeared) - Maybrick's local team Everton even lost by that score line not long before the GSG appeared.

Now, does this mean that any of this is actually what James Maybrick intended? Well, right now it seems to the majority that the answer is a resounding 'No!!!' because it sounds far-fetched, non-mainstream, not what we think the GSG is - but how much more credence would the theory gain if it were ever accepted that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper? I venture it would be the interpretation of choice, the mainstream, middle-of-the-road, canonical truth.

Those who hold views which are not part of the mainstream inevitably will attract accusations of lunacy, and those who hold them even against stiff and hostile opposition will attract accusations of raving lunacy, but I content myself with the knowledge that others before me have - and others after me will - hold non-mainstream views and some will inevitably be proven right over time. If my non-mainstream meanderings are wrong, I'll cope with the opprobrium, but - until then - I'll keep a candle burning for the notion as you just never know what you don't currently know ...

Ike

[rjpalmer]

And how the effing hell do you imagine Shirley could have known that? Was she psychic?

What a strange and evasive comment.

You are now suggesting that Shirley Harrison had to be psychic in order to know whether or not she had collaborated with Mike on the creation of his research notes?

Let us remind your readers what you claimed. You claimed that before Mike turned over his notes to Shirley (by contractual agreement) she asked him about Bernard Ryan's book.

There is no evidence for this, and when pressed to give your source, you cited two interviews--one from 1994 and the other from 1995--which were TWO YEARS after Barrett turned over his notes in July/August 1992. The chronology is obviously wrong.

Further, your depiction flies directly in the face of the description and the spirit of what Harrison wrote in her own books--that these notes where Barrett's own solo attempts to research and understand the diary. If they weren't, her descriptions and conclusions would have made no sense.

I'm giving Shirley the benefit of the doubt that she simply pointed Mike in Ryan's direction when she had more pressing things to occupy her mind, and would not have instantly recognised the author's work when going through Mike's notes and queried when exactly he had made them.

You're giving Shirley Harrison the benefit of the doubt by putting words in her mouth? Again, what is your evidence that Shirley asked Barrett about this back in 1992?

I went back to the Casebook CD-Rom to see what I had written in 2001 after hearing the January 18, 1995 interrogation of Mike Barrett by Keith, Sally, Shirley, and the ex-CID detective Kevin Forshaw. I noticed something interesting:


Author: R.J.P.

Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:17 pm

[Excerpt]:

Why did Mike evidently try to 'set up' Anne Graham by giving her the description to the inside of Tony Devereux's house? Does this imply anything about what Mike knows or doesn't know? In the tape Mike also protests (too much, methinks) that he had never heard of the Bernard Ryan book. I am curious why Shirley asked about this particular book. When asked about the Blue Coat Art shop & Harold Brough, Mike became particularly digressive. We are given a long ramble about Liverpool geography and one-way streets. When the Crashaw quote comes up we are suddenly (abruptly, I thought) given a long ramble about scotch. I find no fault in the interviewers, they tried their damnedest to keep Mike on-track. But, at the end of the day, to use a familiar phrase, I felt MB was utterly down-playing his earlier confessions. It would be most instructive, I think, to compare this tape to some of the tapes of Mike's conversations with Gray. Perhaps Mike didn't give too much useful information there, either. Some, quite understandably, might come to the conclusion that Mike knows nothing. Others might even come to the conclusion that MB, through some quirk in his personality, is unable to be candid. Others might suggest that he knows, but has never given a completely true account. My hunch is that it is a combination of the last two suggestions.

Based on this excerpt, it sounds to me as if it was Shirely Harrison herself who was asking Mike if he had heard of or had read Bernard Ryan's book. This was in January 1995.

Why in the blazes would she have asked Mike about Ryan if she had already pointed the book out to him nearly 3 years earlier?

Feel free to prove me wrong, but I am increasingly convinced that you have no source for Harrison asking Mike about this book back in 1992 and are merely misremembering Shirley's query during this 1995 interview and then teleporting it back to 1992 to suit your immediate purpose. I'd be interested in rehearing the entire context and Shirley's verbatim question.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ, this seems quite humorous in view of my theory where there were two diaries, an old (unseen) one and a modern one written after 1988, based on the older one.

Yes, the 'two of everything' is quite humorous, but especially so regarding Caz Brown's theory that Mike Barrett had two copies of RWE's Tales of Liverpool. Caz makes sport of other people allegedly being "Barrett Believers" but her own belief is based solely on a bogus account given by Mike Barrett --even though it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Barrett was lying about it.

My commentary below was written in 2001 after hearing the tape of Mike's 18 January 1995 interrogation.

Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 05:34 pm

The main feeling I was left with was that Mike Barrett was not being candid. So, all in all, the tape didn't strike me as a very believable recantation of his earlier confession. At several points Mike seemed to be evasive. At other times, he seemed to be making things up as he went along --- and this particularly seemed to get him into trouble; his story changed almost in mid-sentence at times. As much as Keith & Shirley tried to keep him on track, Mike drifted from point to point to point [Mike digressed so much that he made Lawrence Sterne's Tristram Shandy seem like a blunt & direct narrator] and he made such a strange confused web of tales that I started to suspect that it was all part of some 'act'. A case in point was Mike's discussion of Tony D's relationship to the diary.

In theory, if we were to believe AG's story, she merely handed Tony the diary wrapped up in brown paper while on his doorstep. Tony then gave the diary to Mike, still wrapped up. So, in other words, Tony was an ignorant middle-man. But as Mike now tells it on this tape, things suddenly get a little strange. Now we have Tony D. [or so Mike claims] owning his own private copy of RWE's Liverpool Tales and refusing to lend it out. This makes Mike so curious that he goes out and buys his own copy, wherein he finds out the diary's author is Maybrick. [This was news to me!] This seems riddled with problems. First, this is in direct conflict with Mike's earlier story. Second, it tends to conflict with Anne's claim that TD was nothing but a clueless handler of the diary [if Tony wasn't aware of the diary's content why would he refuse to lend Mike the book? Why would he anyway? Weren't we told TD 'wasn't a reader'?] Third, it goes against the supposed physical evidence--viz: Paul Feldman has stated TD's copy of RWE's book had Mike's signature in it. So here, at least, it seems that Mike is caught in a blatant dishonesty, which would, to my mind, suggests that his claims on this tape should be looked at with suspicion. I would suggest that Mike may have had an agenda of his own for these statements, and might even hazard a few guesses as to what that agenda was... but not in public.


We now know that two trustworthy witnesses--Tony Devereux's own daughters--confirmed that this was Mike Barrett's person copy of Tales of Liverpool. So Barrett's claim that this was Tony's copy and that he wouldn't share it is totally false. And the account that Barrett was thus forced to go and buy a new copy at Smith's bookstore must also be false.

Yet we are told by Caz Brown that this account is believable.

The only reason anyone would accept this ludicrous and unconfirmed claim by Barret is to 'explain away' that Barrett and Devereux were already discussing the Maybrick case (RWE's book has two chapters on Maybrick) prior to August 1991---long before Dodd had his floorboards lifted.

The diary did not come from Battlecrease, and in order to argue that it did, they've already kicked the wheels off Anne Graham's "in the family" story.

I see no road back. The golden goose has been strangled--by the Diary's own faithful.