One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[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)

No. These details were not well-established.

The main book used in Barrett’s bogus research notes (Wilson and Odell, copyright 1987) also wrongly placed the breasts on the bedside table and inaccurately states that Kelly’s nose had been cut all the way off. (pg. 79)

And I heard back from my correspondent and there has been a misunderstanding. Paul Begg's paperback didn't include Dr. Bond's postmortem notes, so all three editions repeated this misinformation as well.

Unless Ike can show otherwise, that only leaves Bond’s report available the second edition of Fido's book and in the Jack the Ripper A-Z, 1991 edition.

And, of course, new information about the Whitechapel Murders was slow to disseminate back in 1992; this website didn’t exist, of course, and neither did the Ripperologist, Ripperana, or Ripper Notes.

The claim that ‘these truths were well-established’ is wishful thinking.

And really, what difference does it make? The diarist got it wrong.

[Iconoclast]

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.

No need for Scott to ask Jay anything as I can confirm that I asked Robert Smith this very question via email earlier this year and copied Jay into it. I included a clear still of Eddie Lyons taken from some footage from 2018 and clarified that I did not expect him to necessarily remember a face from so long ago based on a more current photograph. Nevertheless, Robert replied stating that the photograph was categorically the man he had met in The Saddle all those years ago. He did not say (and I had not asked) whether they had met in the intervening years. Of course, Robert could have been both categorical and yet nevertheless categorically wrong in his recall, but if we resort to arguing this way, we potentially make a mockery of asking for first-hand testimony (Michael Barrett naturally excluded from such considerations).

Ike

[erobitha]

No need for Scott to ask Jay anything as I can confirm that I asked Robert Smith this very question via email earlier this year and copied Jay into it. I included a clear still of Eddie Lyons taken from some footage from 2018 and clarified that I did not expect him to necessarily remember a face from so long ago based on a more current photograph. Nevertheless, Robert replied stating that the photograph was categorically the man he had met in The Saddle all those years ago. He did not say (and I had not asked) whether they had met in the intervening years. Of course, Robert could have been both categorical and yet nevertheless categorically wrong in his recall, but if we resort to arguing this way, we potentially make a mockery of asking for first-hand testimony (Michael Barrett naturally excluded from such considerations).

Ike

I take it with a smattering of flattery that RJ feels obliged to ask posters to ask me questions. I'll always happily answer away. However, Ike you were quicker off the mark than me on this.

Robert Smith did indeed verify via email that Eddie was the man he met. If anyone has a copy of Chris Jones and Daniel Dolgin's book, they, too themselves, will get to see Eddie.

[Iconoclast]

No. These details were not well-established.
The main book used in Barrett’s bogus research notes (Wilson and Odell, copyright 1987) also wrongly placed the breasts on the bedside table and inaccurately states that Kelly’s nose had been cut all the way off. (pg. 79)

Barrett also cited Paul Harrison's 1991 Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved and that too repeated the - I now accept - common view that Kelly's breast were left on the bedside table.

Unless Ike can show otherwise, that only leaves Bond’s report available the second edition of Fido's book and in the Jack the Ripper A-Z, 1991 edition.

I can't show otherwise, it is true.

The claim that ‘these truths were well-established’ is wishful thinking.

Yes, it would appear that it was. I can no longer reasonably make the claim that a modern-day hoaxer would have more likely got it right than got it wrong. Fortunately, that point lost is not exactly catastrophic to the wider understanding that James Maybrick mirrored what he read in the newspapers because he was no longer high on arsenic and assumed that his memory was faulty. Fortunately, he remembered thinking about leaving Kelly's breasts at her feet and, of course, Bond finally showed that he did at least partly carry out that thought process (was our 'hoaxer' simply covering his bets - knowing about Bond's report but concerned that Bond may have got it wrong?).

And really, what difference does it make? The diarist got it wrong.

The diarist believed what he read in the newspapers once he was no longer strung-out on powerful drugs. No great surprise there, I'd suggest.

[Iconoclast]

If anyone has a copy of Chris Jones and Daniel Dolgin's book, they, too themselves, will get to see Eddie.

Thanks ero b.

On the subject of the Jones & Dolgin book, I am only on page 42 so a long, long way to go yet but - with Christmas (do the Yanks give Thanksgiving presents?) on its way - I am happy to suggest it to anyone with a larger-than-average stocking to fill. So far, it has been extremely balanced and eruditely researched so hats off to the authors for their fairness and diligence.

I am under no illusion that my views will yield somewhat by the time I have navigated most of Chris's assumptive arguments against authenticity of the scrapbook (and my radar has already fired-up at the conclusion of page 41) but that might be far too late to inspire a few Christmas-related purchases so I'm giving my wholehearted approval now while we're still in the marketing window (as publishers probably say). Come the new year, I'll be back to raging at the two of them, you watch. The season of goodwill to all persons starts early this year, ladies and gentlemen, and what have you.

Still, what do you lot care if Jones and Dolgin are hostile to the Victorian scrapbook? Other than one or two notable and noteworthy exceptions, you're all convinced that Jones is right anyway. Obviously, I like to share my disdain around so you'll all be getting a small package from me in your stockings, and it won't smell nice.

Ike

[The Baron]

>>The diarist believed what he read in the newspapers

And that is exactly what we are talking about.

Well admitted!


TB

[FISHY1118]

Its remarkable this diary hoax has gone on for so long .Surely after 9246 post this should be put to bed.

[rjpalmer]

No need for Scott to ask Jay anything as I can confirm that I asked Robert Smith this very question via email earlier this year and copied Jay into it. I included a clear still of Eddie Lyons taken from some footage from 2018 and clarified that I did not expect him to necessarily remember a face from so long ago based on a more current photograph. Nevertheless, Robert replied stating that the photograph was categorically the man he had met in The Saddle all those years ago. He did not say (and I had not asked) whether they had met in the intervening years. Of course, Robert could have been both categorical and yet nevertheless categorically wrong in his recall, but if we resort to arguing this way, we potentially make a mockery of asking for first-hand testimony (Michael Barrett naturally excluded from such considerations).

Ike

Many thanks, Ike, for taking the trouble.

It's too late now, but for future reference--that is, in the unlikely event that you will ever need to conduct a similar investigation--what you are describing is what was known as the 'confrontation' style of identification and even our friends the Late Victorians knew it was a half-arsed way of going about things. Indeed, it is deemed worthless in many legal jurisdictions around the world because of its unreliability and has been a prominent feature of many cases of wrongful conviction.

I know that sounds a bit harsh, but it would have been better to have sent Smith the pictures of 8 or 10 random men along with that of the evidently misnamed 'Fat Eddie' and then let him weave his magic. Still, it's the best we now have, and as there is no way to unpaint the barn now that it has been painted, we'll have to go with it. Personally, I don't see any fundamental reason why it couldn't have been Eddie Lyons who had denied finding anything at Battlecrease all those years ago during this brief encounter, particularly since it is my own belief that there is no credible evidence that the diary actually existed any time before 13 April 1992, let alone 9 March 1992.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

The diarist believed what he read in the newspapers once he was no longer strung-out on powerful drugs. No great surprise there, I'd suggest.

Setting aside the obvious desperation hiding behind this line of defense, do you have a source for arsenic and strychnine being mind-altering drugs, or are you simply 'winging' it? (I again apologize for being blunt)

I did read a medical paper suggesting that arsenic ingestion eventually leads to learning disorders (akin to eating lead paint on a regular basis) but it was known as a mild stimulant and 'pick me up,' rather than as a hallucinogenic. Harrison tried this same stunt 29 years ago and Mr. Harris set her right.

In the normal scheme of things, when a man walks into a police station to confess to a crime and all he is able to do is to regurgitate the same false facts that were reported in the newspapers, the police soon realize they are dealing with a crank and not a murderer. And when the handwriting is not his...

Is there a bottom? Can we establish that, at least? Is there a rock bottom?

Cheers.

[erobitha]

Setting aside the obvious desperation hiding behind this line of defense, do you have a source for arsenic and strychnine being mind-altering drugs, or are you simply 'winging' it? (I again apologize for being blunt)

I did read a medical paper suggesting that arsenic ingestion eventually leads to learning disorders (akin to eating lead paint on a regular basis) but it was known as a mild stimulant and 'pick me up,' rather than as a hallucinogenic. Harrison tried this same stunt 29 years ago and Mr. Harris set her right.

In the normal scheme of things, when a man walks into a police station to confess to a crime and all he is able to do is to regurgitate the same false facts that were reported in the newspapers, the police soon realize they are dealing with a crank and not a murderer. And when the handwriting is not his...

Is there a bottom? Can we establish that, at least? Is there a rock bottom?

Cheers.

I personally do not believe the arsenic made his 'mind alter'. I put that down to his syphilis (yet to be proven, I am aware) which does present with bouts of mania. If this can ever be proven, then the argument of 'fuzzy memories' during these episodes is entirely plausible. In such instances, he may need to rely on the newspapers to fill in gaps.

[rjpalmer]

In such instances, he may need to rely on the newspapers to fill in gaps.

Well, as always, the handwriting isn't his, Jay, but let's play along.

What contemporary newspaper "filled in the gap" about the murderer supposedly placing Kelly's remains around the room? Can you name a source?

"I have read about my latest, my God the thoughts, the very best. I left nothing of the bitch, nothing. I placed it all over the room..."

If the diarist is gleaning these details from the contemporary newspapers don't we have a problem?

Aren't you and/or Ike required to show a contemporary source for this statement?

I've read rather deeply about the Kelly murder, and I think I'm right in saying that the first encounter we have with Kelly's body being placed 'all over the room' comes from Richard Harding Davis's interview, which wasn't published until November 1889---after Maybrick's death.

It would also appear that the hoaxer's lack of familiarity with Dr. Bond's postmortem notes (and hence the inaccurate account of the Kelly crime scene) must have weighed on Keith Skinner's mind because when he quizzed Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger meeting n 1999 he specifically asked Mike whether he was familiar with the second (1989) edition of Martin Fido's book--which is where Dr. Bond's notes were published for the first time.

I'm assuming this is why Keith was asking about this specific edition.

Mike's answer is interesting:

‘I didn’t read it, I’m being honest. I read three books…I’m being serious, I read three books’.

Barrett hadn't been familiar with Fido's book, or at least the second edition. And the hoaxer hadn't been, either. Instead, he repeated all the standard errors before Bond's notes became available, and that wasn't until November 1987 and only then to a small number of people.

Barrett's knowledge of these minor details is surprisingly accurate for someone who is supposedly making it up as he went along.

[Iconoclast]

What contemporary newspaper "filled in the gap" about the murderer supposedly placing Kelly's remains around the room? Can you name a source?

I think this misses the point. It hasn't been established that Jack didn't leave parts of Kelly scattered around the room so he may well have done and - if he did - he could have written about it because he did it. He remembered thinking about leaving her breasts at her feet, so he may have remembered scattering body parts around the room. We just don't know either way with any certainty because of the many conflicting reports over the years.

"I have read about my latest, my God the thoughts, the very best. I left nothing of the bitch, nothing.

Okay, let's stop there for now as it's the end of a sentence. He is reporting about having read in the newspapers about his murder of Mary Kelly. (Technically, I should point out, he was wrong - he did not leave 'nothing' of Kelly at all - he left practically all of her but not necessarily in the same place, and he left the vast bulk of her torso on the bed, so really we should be saying that the scrapbook is a hoax because he clearly wrote incorrectly on this point.)

I placed it all over the room..."

If the diarist is gleaning these details from the contemporary newspapers don't we have a problem? Aren't you and/or Ike required to show a contemporary source for this statement?

He doesn't say that he read this in the newspapers. This is already the second sentence on from when he said he was reading them. As I suggest above, if he was Jack, he didn't need to read this in a newspaper. Just because he got some minor details wrong (where he placed her breasts, for example - and we don't know for certain he didn't place her breasts on the side table first and then remove them again later; I suspect one's memory could falter occasionally when butchering a young lady whilst high on blood lust and arsenic or whatever, but I've never tried it so I can't be absolutely certain).

I've read rather deeply about the Kelly murder, and I think I'm right in saying that the first encounter we have with Kelly's body being placed 'all over the room' comes from Richard Harding Davis's interview, which wasn't published until November 1889---after Maybrick's death.

Which suggests that it may very well have been true and that James Maybrick may well have remembered doing this if he were Jack the Ripper. It's not complicated.

It would also appear that the hoaxer's lack of familiarity with Dr. Bond's postmortem notes (and hence the inaccurate account of the Kelly crime scene) must have weighed on Keith Skinner's mind because when he quizzed Barrett at the Cloak and Dagger meeting n 1999 he specifically asked Mike whether he was familiar with the second (1989) edition of Martin Fido's book--which is where Dr. Bond's notes were published for the first time.

Keith Skinner will probably forever be haunted by the nightmare of attempting to keep Mike Barrett focused during that two-hour interview, and he did well under trying circumstances to placate Barrett 'beautifully' (his favourite word for encouraging Barrett not to fly off the handle as he was ever wont to do) whilst trying to direct him into answering certain troublesome questions. I commend him for seeing the issue regarding Fido's various editions, but your argument is designed to highlight how a haoxer could have been caught out and contributes nothing to our understanding of what James Maybrick knew or did not know about the crimes of Jack the Ripper.

I'm assuming this is why Keith was asking about this specific edition.
Mike's answer is interesting:
‘I didn’t read it, I’m being honest. I read three books…I’m being serious, I read three books’.

Why would you choose to believe Barrett was telling the truth at long last when previously he had claimed to have devoured everything he could find on both the Ripper and Maybrick? It's three books today but it's scores of books yesterday. If you believe one claim, you have to believe both. If you believe both, of course, you immediately lose the ground you're standing on because both logically don't work. What you should be doing is accepting that you cannot trust a single word Mike Barrett ever said because somewhere, not that deeply hidden, he will have contradicted himself and thereby invalidated both claims.

Barrett hadn't been familiar with Fido's book, or at least the second edition. And the hoaxer hadn't been, either. Instead, he repeated all the standard errors before Bond's notes became available, and that wasn't until November 1987 and only then to a small number of people.

This claim is entirely predicated on the premise that the Victorian scrapbook was a hoax and that Mike Barrett was the hoaxer. You are front-loading your conclusions into your premises and you don't appear to realise that you are doing so.

Barrett's knowledge of these minor details is surprisingly accurate for someone who is supposedly making it up as he went along.

By April 1999, Barrett had had seven years (at least) to become absorbed into the Ripper and Maybrick cases. I don't know which specific 'minor' details you are referring to, but his being aware of them may not be that amazing given that amount of time during which even he could not have been drunk constantly.

On the other hand, for the world's greatest forger claiming to have been on a six-year mission (I forget the number of years he claimed) to reveal the truth of the scrapbook to the world (as a hoax created by him), he singularly fails to EVER provide a single reason for us to believe him (bar, perhaps, his apparent ownership of Murder, Mayhem and Mystery along with countless other Liverpool households, and his revealing the source of 'Oh sweet intercourse of death') [sic].

A man who claimed to have hoaxed so complex a document and yet was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever of his claims, despite endless inane attempts and countless pronouncements which he confused with 'proofs' is not a man any of us should be taking seriously on any level. He was a two-bit typist with no talent whatsoever, a bully, a drunk, and an arrogant, violent buffoon.

"I'm a writer", he loved to claim, despite never having written anything better than a few celebrity interviews which he freely admitted his wife had to tidy up for him. It's a claim which rather sums the deluded moron up, I feel.

"I give my name so history do tell what love can do to a gentleman born" he also used to intone whenever he was seeking to prove he wrote the text of the Victorian scrapbook. The irony is, he never once even got that right!

To paraphrase Keith Skinner on that April evening, there is more chance of the interviewer having written all the works of Shakespeare than of the interviewee having written a single word of James Maybrick's confessional.

[rjpalmer]

I think this misses the point. It hasn't been established that Jack didn't leave parts of Kelly scattered around the room so he may well have done and - if he did - he could have written about it because he did it. He remembered thinking about leaving her breasts at her feet, so he may have remembered scattering body parts around the room. We just don't know either way with any certainty because of the many conflicting reports over the years.


Okay, let's stop there for now as it's the end of a sentence. He is reporting about having read in the newspapers about his murder of Mary Kelly. (Technically, I should point out, he was wrong - he did not leave 'nothing' of Kelly at all - he left practically all of her but not necessarily in the same place, and he left the vast bulk of her torso on the bed, so really we should be saying that the scrapbook is a hoax because he clearly wrote incorrectly on this point.)

He doesn't say that he read this in the newspapers. This is already the second sentence on from when he said he was reading them. As I suggest above, if he was Jack, he didn't need to read this in a newspaper. Just because he got some minor details wrong (where he placed her breasts, for example - and we don't know for certain he didn't place her breasts on the side table first and then remove them again later; I suspect one's memory could falter occasionally when butchering a young lady whilst high on blood lust and arsenic or whatever, but I've never tried it so I can't be absolutely certain).

Ah, I see. When "Maybrick" records a false fact it is because he has suffered memory loss from his mania and/or his ingestion of pharmaceuticals (and thus he has to rely on outside sources to "fill in the gaps") but when he gets it right it is because he is genuinely recalling a personal experience.

Kind of like Mike Barrett and Korsakoff's Syndrome!

Maybe we are getting somewhere after all.

But, as Mr. Hartley notes, we don't actually have any source for Maybrick suffering from mania or memory loss, while in contrast Shirley Harrison tells us that Barrett was diagnosed with "alcohol psychosis" and its resulting memory loss, and we further know from Mr. Birchwood that Mike also went through the debilitating process of kidney dialysis. And whereas the confessions of Maybrick cannot be shown to have been recorded by him, we do know that Barrett was responsible for his many statements, affidavits, taped conversations, etc.

I didn't realize until now that you and Mr. Hartley were so amendable to a more sophisticated explanation for the complications and contradictions we see in Mike Barrett's many confessions and retractions.

I think our work here is done.

RP

[rjpalmer]

"I'm a writer", he loved to claim, despite never having written anything better than a few celebrity interviews which he freely admitted his wife had to tidy up for him. It's a claim which rather sums the deluded moron up, I feel.

I've never understood why you and Caroline Brown (and evidently Keith?) think this is a meaningful observation that should make us stop in our tracks. Yet this observation has been made hundreds of times over the past 25+ years.

The same woman who supposedly helped Mike 'tidy up' his articles in the 1980s was still living with Mike in March and April 1992.

Yet from what y'all write, one would think that Anne was living on the far side of Mars instead of the other side of the bed and sitting room. And she literally went on to create the finder's aide for the Maybrick material at the National Archives, as well as write the lion's share of a biography of Florence Maybrick.

The mental leap you refuse to make is most curious.

Most curious, indeed.

If a supposedly incompetent artist came forward with an obviously forged painting of John Everett Millais's Ophelia, I think it would be relevant that he was living with Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or even his sister Christine.

But apparently not.

[Iconoclast]

If a supposedly incompetent artist came forward with an obviously forged painting of John Everett Millais's Ophelia, I think it would be relevant that he was living with Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or even his sister Christine.
But apparently not.

If an ex-scrap metal dealer who could have been living literally anywhere in the entire world, or at least anywhere in the United Kingdom, came forward with James Maybrick's scrapbook on the same day a guy was helping to lift up the floorboards at Maybrick's old home for the first dated occasion since his death 37,557 days earlier, I think it would be relevant that that guy turned out to take a drink or two in the same public house as our ex-scrap metal dealer, their living just twenty minutes walk apart and yet eight (EIGHT) miles away from Maybrick's old home.

But apparently not.