One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[The Baron]

Or the author of the diary was never in that room in Miller's Court.


TB

[Iconoclast]

One could argue that an 'old hoaxer' was working from The Star of 10 November 1888 and also from Richard Harding Davis's interview with Inspector Henry Moore in August 1889, but he sure as hell didn't also have access to an unpublished police inventory list in the City of London Police's possession, not available to the public until 1984.

You are conveniently vague when you cite The Star article (as if we all have them printed-out in handy reference) - was this a deliberate strategy so that you could link it with the Moore interview almost a year later with impunity? In doing so, you imply that one requires the other and therefore it can't have been an 'old hoaxer' because the 'old hoaxer' had to have got the scrapbook under the floorboards in time for the viper Yapp to retrieve and fence off to old Granny Formby and you imply that isn't possible because the snake had left for Landarn (and good riddance to her).

In fact, what you have done is what you always do - throw a host of yet-to-be-proven arguments into a pot, stir the contents 'round a few times, and cackle, "Ah ha, my potion proves my case! Ha ha!".

You assume that the only alternative to a 'modern hoaxer' is an 'old hoaxer'. Clearly, it could have just been James Maybrick, writing what he wrote because he believed it to be true (poor light and a great deal of blood can presumably affect the acuity of the eyes?), perhaps influenced by The Star article (or some equivalent article of those days) but clearly not the Moore interview (as Maybrick was long dead by then). If it was indeed Maybrick then that would rather conveniently explain how he had information which would not otherwise become public knowledge until '1984' (I could have sworn it was 1987).

Perhaps - for the benefit of those without a handy folder of press reports and police interviews - you might remind us of what Moore said in said interview in November 1889 and clarify why that would supplement whatever was said in The Star article of November 1888?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

We'll have to wait and see, Baron, but I suppose we might learn that room in Miller's Court was so dark that not only did Bond fail to see the obvious 'FM' written large on the backwall, he also wasn't able to see that the nose was entirely removed, nor the breasts on the side table which he accidently identified as flaps from the abdomen, etc.

Ironically, one might expect a hoaxer to get the nose and breasts details correct (because they'd be well-established truths by the time the 'modern hoax' was created) but that the fiend himself might well get it wrong. Unless they were keeping a detailed inventory of the gore they were buried in, they could easily be influenced by whatever they read in the next few days as they devoured the newspapers. So, in truth, we should see the apparent errors and see in them grains of potential authenticity.

Fortunately, the author of the Victoria scrapbook had the inadvertent foresight to correct their error regarding the breasts by stating that they had thought to leave them by Kelly's feet (he, of course, left one at her feet). This 'correction' would be no more than a fleeting memory which the newspapers had convinced him was itself an error when - in truth - it was a half-truth (one breast lay at her feet, the other on her pillow, as I recall). I have pointed-out in one of my brilliant Society's Pillars that these claims regarding the breasts do not need to be mutually exclusive - he could have laid them on the empty table but then moved them again when he soon needed room for the 'heavy' stuff. Just more subtle detail pointing towards authenticity. Context - not the linear steps of a rational mind but the excited hysteria of a pumped-up and imbalanced mind.

And on the subject of context, which critics of the scrapbook have zero sense of, the reason why those pesky initials of Florence Maybrick were so clear on the photograph is that the photographer used a flash to illuminate the scene for a split second. I very much doubt anyone else did.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Or the author of the diary was never in that room in Miller's Court.


TB

And yet knew that Florence Maybrick's initials were to be found in that very room?

This is the Rosetta Stone (along with the signature in the watch) which cracks the code and allows us to see clearly that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper. Lucky us, eh?

[The Baron]

As Harry once noticed, the errors in the diary are always prooves of its authenticity in the eye of the diary defenders.




TB

[rjpalmer]

You are conveniently vague when you cite The Star article (as if we all have them printed-out in handy reference) - was this a deliberate strategy so that you could link it with the Moore interview almost a year later with impunity?

O Dear. Why are all your posts filled with such paranoid accusations? It's little wonder that nearly no one cares to discuss the Maybrick Hoax.

If you are familiar with David Barrat's "Deep Dive" (and I said my post was just a footnote to it) you'd know that he traced the 'nose cut off' error repeated by Odell, Underwood, and Fido to The Star of 10 November, 1888, which is readily available in the press section of this very site if you could bother yourself to look.


"The ears and nose had been cut clean off; the breasts had also been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed. The stomach and abdomen had been ripped open, while the face was slashed about, so that the features of the poor creature were beyond all recognition."


That issue of The Star does not mention anything being scattered about the room--that claim surfaced a year later.

Rather than hiding anything, that's why I mentioned The Star. It was to acknowledge that it could be argued that an 'old hoaxer' from 1888 or later might have taken the nose the mistake from The Star, but it certainly couldn't explain the other mistake (or apparent mistake) about scattering 'it' all over the room from a source other than R. Harding Davis's interview of November 1889, also repeated by Odell and Underwood. Or do you have an alternative source for this highly dubious suggestion? Odell and Underwood specifically refer to the same claims made by Inspector Moore in November 1889---ie. flesh hanging from picture nails. Strangely unmentioned by Dr. Bond.

Moore's interview in the Pall Mall Gazette can be found in the press section; not being your handmaiden I'll let you click on it yourself. I am not sure whether I am allowed to link you to Mr. Barrat's essay or not, so you're on your own for that one, too.

Enjoy your weekend.

RP

[rjpalmer]

Ironically, one might expect a hoaxer to get the nose and breasts details correct (because they'd be well-established truths by the time the 'modern hoax' was created)

Not true, really. Caz used to constantly remind us that Dr. Bond's report did not make it into print until 1987, and other more popular books were still regurgitating the table error, including even Martin Fido's book:

"'The breasts had been cleanly cut off and placed on a table which was by the side of the bed...The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body and placed on the table by the side of the breasts." (pg. 92)

No one has ever argued that Barrett was a top notch, cutting-edge Ripperologist up on all the recent discoveries.

If it was indeed Maybrick then that would rather conveniently explain how he had information which would not otherwise become public knowledge until '1984' (I could have sworn it was 1987).

Yes, the 'tin match box empty' was in print by 1987. Strangely enough, one can find it in one of the three books Barrett's used to concoct his bogus research notes, Paul Harrison's Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved. Funny old coincidence.

But research David O'Flaherty went to the trouble of contacting the London Municipal Archives, and the archivist was able to confirm that the document was first made available for public access in 1984.

Yes, you're quite right that by some bizarre chance Maybrick could have noticed that Eddowe's tin match box was empty and created a poem about it in the same tortured grammar of a police inventory list, but I'm not interested in investigating Maybrick as the author, since it wasn't written in his hand and makes errors that he wouldn't have made.

This observation was for the benefit of Keith Skinner and other 'old hoax' advocates that as far as I can see haven't made a credible explanation how this old hoaxer could have gained access to this list before 1984, nor had they had gained access, why they had remained blissfully unaware that McWilliam was in charge of the Eddowes murder and not Abberline.

It need not trouble your sleep, Ike, but it sure as heck should trouble theirs.

Have a good weekend. I'll drop back in in 2 weeks and see how you're doing.

[rjpalmer]

By the way, I wonder if Caz is right about Dr. Bond's report being in print in 1987. Maybe she should recheck.

It's in Martin Fido's edition of 1989, and again in 1993 (Barnes & Nobel) but having now had access to it, Martin seems to have removed his earlier 1987 error about the breasts on the bedside table, which makes me think Bond's report wasn't in the 1987 edition.

Personally, I don't think Barrett used Fido's book (which was a suggestion made by Melvin Harris, I believe) but it does leave open the possibility that Barrett could have seen the earlier edition and not the later edition, that is, if my suspicions are correct, which would explain the error. But this error was also made in Underwood and elsewhere, so it's hard to say.

The only other book I know that featured Bond's report around this time was John Wilding's Jack the Ripper Revealed, but that wasn't published until 1993, so that's off the table, as it were.

So, it seems that despite Ike's statement, this 'wide knowledge' was available only in one edition of Fido's book by March 1992---thus easily missed by an amateur or even a not-so-amateurish Ripperologist.

Unless someone knows otherwise.

[rjpalmer]

Ike -- Update.

Someone who owns Martinn Fido's 1987 edition was kind enough to contact with me with the following information.

"I can confirm Fido's 1987 edition doesn't include Dr Bond's report. As Fido explains in the 1989 edition, it "came to light among papers anonymously posted to Scotland Yard in November 1987".


Bond's report is also feature in Paul Begg's "The Uncensored Facts" but only in the 1989 paperback edition. The two hard backed editions (1988 and 1989) repeated the error of the breast on the bedside table, page 158:




1991 edition of the Jack the Ripper A to Z also has it.

Thus, it looks like only 3 books had it when Barrett came forward, and only then if one had the correct editions. For what it is worth, Michael Barrett told Paul Begg he was not familiar with his book or books. I don't recall if he said the same thing about Martin Fido.

I'm off.

RP

[Iconoclast]

I really shouldn't post this early in the morning as my brain never works until about 11am. For those of you who suffered the confusion of the post I've just retracted, my humble apologies.

And that's factual.

Ike

[c.d.]

And on the subject of context, which critics of the scrapbook have zero sense of, the reason why those pesky initials of Florence Maybrick were so clear on the photograph is that the photographer used a flash to illuminate the scene for a split second. I very much doubt anyone else did.

And yet, according to Patricia Cornwell, computer enhancement shows what looks like a caricature of Sickert on the wall. Go figure.

Does computer enhancement trump a photographic flash?

See item no. 3 -- https://www.amazon.com/article/ripper.html

c.d.

[The Baron]

>>And yet knew that Florence Maybrick's initials were to be found in that very room?


I wonder where this is coming from, the newly revised and updated edition of the diary maybe?!

If anything is clear in the old reference, is that the author of it doesn't know what he is talking about.



TB

[Iconoclast]

>>And yet knew that Florence Maybrick's initials were to be found in that very room?


I wonder where this is coming from, the newly revised and updated edition of the diary maybe?!

If anything is clear in the old reference, is that the author of it doesn't know what he is talking about.



TB

Come again?

In what sense does the author not know what he is talking about?

What on earth are you talking about?

[Scott Nelson]

I thought they stood for: "For Mother"

[rjpalmer]

Hi Scott. I couldn't help notice that Jay Hartley told you:

"We know there are two confirmed incidents involving Mike and Eddie being present. Mike's visit to Eddie's home and Mike and Eddie both meeting with Robert Smith in The Saddle."

Confirmed? Mike Barrett is dead and Eddie Lyons has denied that he was present at this second meeting. That leaves Robert Smith. You might ask Hartley how Smith was able to 'confirm' that the man he had briefly met over two decades ago in The Saddle was Eddie Lyons. Has he been shown Lyon's photograph, or what? Has he ever met him since? It sounds like a classic case of he said/she said, or in this case, he said/he said.

In my opinion, the Battlecrease provenance is just a tale suitable to be told around a campfire on a spooky autumn night, but for the record, how did the early diary researchers know that Barrett was still a daily fixture at The Saddle in March 1992? His drinking buddy Tony Devereux had now been dead for months and it is not unheard of for people to slow down their visits to a pub when that happens. The experience is no longer the same.

Further, Jones tells us that at least one of the electricians didn't even own a car and had to use public transport. What did Lyons own? He denied knowing Barrett, and since Barrett was part of the lunchtime crowd and Lyons was employed, this is not hard to believe. They would have kept different pub hours. Was Lyons supposed to have dropped everything in mid-shift to race off to a pub in hopes that Barrett would have been there on that particular day? All of this is wild speculation based on the not very jaw-dropping fact that Dodd was having some work done on his house on a day when Mike Barrett called a literary agent. We don't even know if it was the first literary agent he called. It's the one we know of, but does that make it the first? I think Hemmingway had something like 32 rejections before he found a publisher for his first novel. That's not unusual and Barrett's story of a sympathetic or kindly publishing house finally telling him to find an agent has the ring of truth.