One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Just as a point of note, it seems rather a fallacy that Abberline was barely mentioned in the press during the Autumn of Terror. In September in particular he seems to get 168 name checks alone - and this is just those papers listed on BNA.

Thanks ero b.

Your analysis demonstrated rather succinctly what I knew in my heart would prove to be the case. The 'Inspector Abberline played a bit-part role so the scrapbook is a proven hoax' theory falls at the first hurdle. It's not unusual. So many of the less robust notions get washed away by the calmest tide where the Maybrick journal is concerned. We've all seen it so many times, and yet still the cry will go up "We'll find another one - don't you worry!". And so they find another one. And that one falls at the first hurdle. Et cetera.

And it will go on and on and on whilst Maybrick looks up from whichever very small room in Hell he occupies and smiles at each new attempt to denigrate or compromise his candidature emerges.

Scott, it was a genuine question from you and it wasn't framed as a more of a taunt than a simple point of doubt which I consider to be much to your credit, and the foregoing (and any sense of frustration) was not aimed at you.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

I'm not sure also if I ever made it clear on here about the significance of Gustav Witt's letter to the Home Office dated August 1889.

It places James Maybrick most likely being in London in September 1888 and suffering with eye issues. Some witnesses reported a suspect with weak eyes / missing eyelashes etc. I believe Witt was living in Denmark Hill, Camberwell at the time. Less than 5 miles from Whitechapel.

Extract of letter below:
"I saw Mr Maybrick at his office and dined at his house whenever I had to run down to Liverpool. Last year in June Mr and Mrs M. both came up from Liverpool and were our guests, and my wife and I at the time commented on the evidently unsatisfactory state of affairs. I remember that when again Mr. M visited us a few months later he complained of his eyes watering and giving him trouble and I chaffed him about getting old. I did not see him this year as I have been travelling for 9 months in the East and only returned a few months ago, finding my poor friend dead.”

All of the pertinent information is highlighted in red.

[Yabs]

Hello Ero and All.

I’m not sure if it’s a case that Abberline was a bit part player but more of a case of why would Abberline get sole mention in the diary over any other law official and is it because his name came to the forefront in the late 20th century, which would suggest the diary is modern.
There doesn’t seem to be anything remarkable in the press which would make the writer of the diary give Abberline a mention above anyone else and inspire him to write his first reference…
“Abberline says he was never amazed I did my work with such honour”

In the newspaper archive search for the same September Inspector Helson gets 185 hits.
Sergeant Thick gets 715.

[erobitha]

Hello Ero and All.

I’m not sure if it’s a case that Abberline was a bit part player but more of a case of why would Abberline get sole mention in the diary over any other law official and is it because his name came to the forefront in the late 20th century, which would suggest the diary is modern.
There doesn’t seem to be anything remarkable in the press which would make the writer of the diary give Abberline a mention above anyone else and inspire him to write his first reference…
“Abberline says he was never amazed I did my work with such honour”

In the newspaper archive search for the same September Inspector Helson gets 185 hits.
Sergeant Thick gets 715.

The first issue for me is establish that Abberline was mentioned in the papers at the time, as were many police officers. The reference to Sgt Thicke is irrelevant as why would he even consider a Sgt over an Inspector in any context?

Then we would have to examine all of those references to see if any papers made it clear that Abberline was from Scotland Yard, sent in to assist in the investigation. This would immediately set him apart from his colleagues. Anyone with a logical brain at the time could reasonably consider that as a sign of Scotland Yard sending in their best man. That does not require any modern context.

[Yabs]

The first issue for me is establish that Abberline was mentioned in the papers at the time, as were many police officers. The reference to Sgt Thicke is irrelevant as why would he even consider a Sgt over an Inspector in any context?

Then we would have to examine all of those references to see if any papers made it clear that Abberline was from Scotland Yard, sent in to assist in the investigation. This would immediately set him apart from his colleagues. Anyone with a logical brain at the time could reasonably consider that as a sign of Scotland Yard sending in their best man. That does not require any modern context.

If we were to Accept Sergeant Thicke not getting a mention for that reason, we still have the issue of Inspector Helson getting more hits than Abberline and not getting a mention.

Although I do agree this deserves more research to see if there is anything in the newspapers from autumn 1888 that sets Abberline aside and above the others, because if the diary is genuine, the newspaper is the only medium with which the writer would have come to that conclusion.

[Iconoclast]

... because if the diary is genuine, the newspaper is the only medium with which the writer would have come to that conclusion.

Hi Yabs,

If the scrapbook is genuine then James Maybrick must have been in Whitechapel (by definition) and could easily have heard on the ground that Inspector Abberline 'of the Yard' was now being brought in to solve the case. Indeed, what's to say that the Ripper didn't attend the formation of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee (I don't know if it was 'open house' but I imagine it would have been)? For all we know, Abberline could have been in attendance also, and/or they could have talked of his presence as 'the man from the Yard'. The Ripper must have eaten so restaurants and shops may have made merry talking about 'the Inspector from Scotland Yard' now on the scene.

Once again, I would like to remind everyone that Jack the Ripper was active in the actual Whitechapel of 1888 and we - 134 years later - should not strip away all of the context of what that would mean simply because we weren't there.

Cheers,

Ike

[Scott Nelson]

Scott, it was a genuine question from you and it wasn't framed as a more of a taunt than a simple point of doubt which I consider to be much to your credit, and the foregoing (and any sense of frustration) was not aimed at you.

I get it Ike, thanks. I gave a misimpression about Abberline. The Diary text makes him out to be the main adversary, but I think he was rarely mentioned in the papers at the time. When addressing how many "name checks" Abberline got in newspapers, it should be bore in mind that many papers copied or paraphrased from others. I don't think he held any particular importance (other than his rank) than anyone else involved in the murders investigation at the time. But four years later (after Maybrick was dead) Abberline was lionized at his retirement celebration as any retiring senior police officer would have been on their retirement.

[Scott Nelson]

Readers might consider viewing or recalling the 1988 T.V. film, "Jack the Ripper", starring Michael Caine as Inspector Abberline (a retelling of the masonic conspiracy). I think the timing of this broadcast is significant with the emergence of the scrapbook mentioning the author's obsession with Abberline.

[Iconoclast]

Readers might consider viewing or recalling the 1988 T.V. film, "Jack the Ripper", starring Michael Caine as Inspector Abberline (a retelling of the masonic conspiracy). I think the timing of this broadcast is significant with the emergence of the scrapbook mentioning the author's obsession with Abberline.

Now I don't wish to be the person who reignites the Barrett-theory in 2022 so I probably won't be following-up my own point here, but it is true that:

(a) Anne told Keith Skinner that she and Mike had both watched the 1988 film on television; and

(b) The Florence Maybrick trial was restaged in St George's Hall the following year (May 1989).

So working on the assumption Mike and Anne went to see that event and this was the trigger in Mike's mind to make James Maybrick into Jack The Ripper, what happens next in this scenario, dear readers? Remember that Mike walked into Doreen's office on April 13, 1992 with the scrapbook. Using Mike's January 5, 1995 affidavit, can anyone reconstruct what happened during those three years (other than the version the Dark Lord has cocked and loaded in his drainpipe artillery)?

As I say, I'm not interested in spending any more time on this theme (at least in 2022), but I'm more than happy to pull out the pin and walk safely away from the blast.

Ike

[Observer]

I'm not sure also if I ever made it clear on here about the significance of Gustav Witt's letter to the Home Office dated August 1889.

It places James Maybrick most likely being in London in September 1888 and suffering with eye issues. Some witnesses reported a suspect with weak eyes / missing eyelashes etc. I believe Witt was living in Denmark Hill, Camberwell at the time. Less than 5 miles from Whitechapel.

But surely Kosminski must have had weak eyes?

[erobitha]

But surely Kosminski must have had weak eyes?

Do you have any confirmation of this? I have confirmation of Maybrick.

[rjpalmer]

But surely Kosminski must have had weak eyes?

Response:

Do you have any confirmation of this? I have confirmation of Maybrick.

Hi Observer. Thanks for confirming so admirably that believers in the Maybrick Hoax seldom see the joke. Is it possible their vision is also weak?

If what Anderson and Macnaghten said was true, the poor chap Kosminski must have been nearly blind.

Of course, in the Diary, Sir Jim mentions his 'trusty cane.' Maybe he carried a white one, with a red tip?

If it is all the same to you, let me suggest we adopt the white cane as the official emblem of the Diary Defender. So apt and all that.

Hope you are well,

RP

[erobitha]

Response:




Hi Observer. Thanks for confirming so admirably that believers in the Maybrick Hoax seldom see the joke. Is it possible their vision is also weak?

If what Anderson and Macnaghten said was true, the poor chap Kosminski must have been nearly blind.

Of course, in the Diary, Sir Jim mentions his 'trusty cane.' Maybe he carried a white one, with a red tip?

If it is all the same to you, let me suggest we adopt the white cane as the official emblem of the Diary Defender. So apt and all that.

Hope you are well,

RP

Well, at least I have confirmation that some people would rather stoop to thoughts of onanism than deal with the evidence in front of them.

Perhaps as it's most likely their own specialist subject.

[MrBarnett]

I once had a budgerigar named Onan.

[rjpalmer]

Hello Ero. Is that the best you have, Old Boy, after the joke flew so obviously over your head? These 'solitary vice' jokes have been a standard gag on these boards for years.

Moving along:

I'm not sure also if I ever made it clear on here about the significance of Gustav Witt's letter to the Home Office dated August 1889.

It places James Maybrick most likely being in London in September 1888 and suffering with eye issues. Some witnesses reported a suspect with weak eyes / missing eyelashes etc. I believe Witt was living in Denmark Hill, Camberwell at the time. Less than 5 miles from Whitechapel.

Extract of letter below:
"I saw Mr Maybrick at his office and dined at his house whenever I had to run down to Liverpool. Last year in June Mr and Mrs M. both came up from Liverpool and were our guests, and my wife and I at the time commented on the evidently unsatisfactory state of affairs. I remember that when again Mr. M visited us a few months later he complained of his eyes watering and giving him trouble and I chaffed him about getting old. I did not see him this year as I have been travelling for 9 months in the East and only returned a few months ago, finding my poor friend dead.”

All of the pertinent information is highlighted in red.

So what you are saying is that Jim Maybrick took Florrie to the ‘City of Whores’ in June/September 1888 and didn't bother to mention it in his diary?

Fascinating.

And do I have this right---you see this as a mark in the diary’s favor, rather than a crippling blow?

Think it through.

If your information is correct, here is yet another example of the hoaxer being entirely clueless about Maybrick’s actual day-to-day life in 1888. As always, the hoaxer never strays beyond the standard information about Maybrick that can be readily found in Bernard Ryan’s The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick, published in 1977.

Yet, just imagine the fun the hoaxer could have had—if he had only known about this obscure information!! It would have been one of the highlights of the novella--- worthy of at least half a dozen paragraphs

"I will take the whore to the City of Whores! Ha ha ha! Two in one night—indeed what pleasure! But one will be left damaged, severally damaged. Ha ha ha! I wish I could share my WITTicism with that half-baked fool Witt!!! Ha ha ha!"

Instead: not a peep.

Our diarist doesn't take advantage of this little gem, and doesn’t mention Witt either, for the obvious reason that he is totally unaware of all of it, not even Maybrick’s significant trip to London in September 1888--just as he was also unaware that Maybrick had his portrait painted in October 1888, and went on a walking tour in Wales in early 1889, etc. etc.

Yup. Once again--and speaking of poor eyesight-- the Diarist has the same blind spots as Bernard Ryan.

Weak eyes, indeed. I wonder why that might be, and how Mike Barrett seemed to be aware of it?

Melvin Harris couldn't have told Mike--he thought the hoaxer had used Nigel Moreland. Only Mike knew.

And now we know his bogus notes were based on the same book.

Well, have fun with it; if all goes well I'll drop by in another two weeks with something new.

[Note: Witt doesn't specifically state that Mrs. M was also with Florrie in September as well as June, but, according to the dodgy diary, Maybrick was already murdering women by that Spring--the non-existent strangulation murder in Manchester. Even if he had only brought her there only in June, it would have been exploited to the hilt by Barrett]