One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I would like to warn future readers of this thread, if ever there are any, to double-check and perhaps triple check every claim made by Iconoclast (Thomas Mitchell) especially when he is accusing others of trickery and dishonesty, for it is often in these moments that he is particularly untrustworthy.

Oh, and you've done that 'shifting facts for convenience' trick again. You claimed that "Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman". It was Anne who begged Bonesy to say they were insurance men. I don't ever recall a version where Barrett gave a Christmas fig who was in his house or how Billy Graham would react to them.

And, of course, without the least effort made to fact check the accuracy of Thomas's claim, Caroline throws in her immediate support:

I'm sure you're right that it was Anne who wanted her father to think the men from the Yard were from the insurance. I'm not sure Mike would have been considering his father-in-law's feelings at that point. After all, it was Anne who described it as the worst day of her life.

And thus one mind deceives the other, and in turn deceives the forum.


I have now had the opportunity to check my notes, and here is the only account I know of, taken from The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison (Blake edition, p 259).


"Anne has since described that day as the worst in her life. She prepared refreshments while Detective Sergeant Thomas grilled Michael who kept asking for beer. In the middle of it all Anne's father Billy Graham turned up and Michael asked DS Thomas to pretend he was the insurance man rather than admit his true identity. Among other things Michael denied that he had a word processor. He was terrified that Scotland Yard would know of a confrontation with the police over 20 years before and that he would be condemned before they arrived. He was right. When asked to sign a statement Michael refused unless a solicitor was present."

Q.E.D.

[rjpalmer]

Since it is the current flavor of the month, I suppose it will be argued that it is 'only my belief' that Mike told this to DS Thomas, based on hearsay evidence from Shirley Harrison, and so we go down the slippery slope into sophistry, where the 'beliefs' of Thomas Mitchell and Caroline Brown are to be given more weight, even though their beliefs don't appear to be based on anything at all.

I was recently scolded for believing Paul Feldman's account of Albert Johnson having lied to him--apparently, I should instead accept Caroline Brown's belief that Albert didn't lie to Feldman, but that this only was a figment of Feldman's imagination.

I see utterly no reason to change my mind.

Feldman--hardly a diary critic--had nothing to gain from admitting that the Johnsons were liars--it was an admission damaging to his theory.

Based on my reading of Feldman's book, what I believe happened is that the Johnsons were caught out in a number of small lies (including their supposed ignorance of certain scratches on the watch despite having supplied Feldman with a diagram) and Feldman tried to explain-away these "fibs" with the barmy theory that they were lying in order to hide their Maybrickian ancestry.

But if we admit that the Johnson-Maybrick ancestry was nothing more than a genealogical fantasy, then what is the true reasons for these dishonesties? That is my interpretation, or, if you will, belief.

But I am hardly the one claiming the Johnsons were liars. It was the diary's chief supporter who reported this. Why should I ignore his warning?

[Iconoclast]

But I am hardly the one claiming the Johnsons were liars. It was the diary's chief supporter who reported this. Why should I ignore his warning?

(My emphasis.)

Two things:

1) If you're referring to me, I have no idea what you're on about (not unusual in itself, mind); and
2) From this post onwards, dear readers, if I do not respond to one of Roger Palmer's posts, please do not infer that this is because I do not have a more than competent retort to yet another of his outlandish links, twists, and shifts. As you know, I always do (it's never difficult, in truth), but I don't always feel inclined to allow him his childish games.

And - apropos the second of my two things - three things:

3) Being incorrect about a claim is not the same as 'shifting facts for convenience' which is your well-established forte. So, to be clear, I was incorrect when I stated that it was Anne who had asked Bonesy to pretend to be an insurance man. It's not as though I was without company in doing so as Caz also thought this, just as you thought it was Keith Skinner who had stated that Anne had run out of the room and locked herself in the bathroom. These are just minor errors of recall where there was some kernel of truth either known or claimed by someone else.

Here's where you give yourself away. First, the way it was portrayed by Shirley Harrison:

In the middle of it all Anne's father Billy Graham turned up and Michael asked DS Thomas to pretend he was the insurance man rather than admit his true identity.

Secondly, the way it was portrayed by RJ Palmer:

Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman.

(My emphasis.)

Spot the difference, anyone?

Iconoclast

[rjpalmer]

It's no good to backtrack now, Old Bean. You claimed I was 'shifting the facts' because it was not Barrett who pleaded with Bonsey, but Anne. Having been proven wrong, you now shift your disgust to my colorful way of paraphrasing--a kettle calling the pot black moment if there ever was one, especially to those of us who are intimately familiar with your colorful and highly imaginative characterizations of Martin Fido, Mike Barrett, the 'evil' Melvin Harris, the location of Maybrick's study, the diary's alleged reference to 'FM' in its text, etc. etc.

You don't think I'm giving a straight scoop, and I certainly don't think you are, so it's probably for the best that we bid each other a fond farewell.

1) If you're referring to me, I have no idea what you're on about (not unusual in itself, mind);

I thought it would have been abundantly clear from the context that 'one of the diary's chief supporters' was Paul Feldman, since he was the person under discussion, and he was the one who had alluded to Robbie and Albert Johnson telling lies. Don't be so sensitive. Not only does Lord Orsam live rent free in your head, you live rent free in your own head.

Anyway, I guess it will be a quiet 2023, now that you and Hartley are no longer replying to me. Sounds great.

Caz wonders why I am bringing up an account from Martin Fido, dating to the 1990s.

An odd complaint, I would think, considering that we do little else but go over the same tired ground for the hundredth time--with no hope of convincing one another of our differing 'beliefs.'

As for the watch, has there been a single new development since Shirley's 2003 book? And even that was describing events from 1999.

Maybe 2023 would be a good year to suspend this conversation. I'll go first. Watch this space.

[FISHY1118]

We can only hope .

[Iconoclast]

Having been proven wrong, you now shift your disgust to my colorful way of paraphrasing ... it's probably for the best that we bid each other a fond farewell.

To quote the wonderful The Traitors, here is a parting gift from he who banishes himself. Dear readers, be warned, the unparalleled exaggeration employed in his skulduggery should have been all the warning you ever needed that a traitor was in your camp.

As for the watch, has there been a single new development since Shirley's 2003 book? And even that was describing events from 1999.

Which, clearly, reflects the fact that there is nothing to discuss. The watch is faithful, and only the insinuations of traitors has left some in some doubt.

Maybe 2023 would be a good year to suspend this conversation. I'll go first. Watch this space.

A promise made by a traitor will inevitably quickly be broken ...

I am a Faithful.

Ike

[caz]

Housekeeping:

Page 68, Inside Story:

'Towards the end of the interview Anne's father, Billy Graham, arrived in a taxi but at Anne's request he was not told who the detectives were in case it upset him.'

The source here would be Keith Skinner, having spoken with both Anne and Bonesy on numerous occasions.

So you pays yer money and takes yer choice. What difference this could possibly make in the great scheme of things I don't have the wit to fathom, but it's been another stupid waste of everyone's time.

It's funny, but when I met Feldman, and challenged him over something he was saying about the diary - I forget what - he reacted as if I was either mad or simple for not seeing what he could see.

I'm regularly at the receiving end of the same reaction from RJ Palmer, and yet his and Feldman's beliefs and theories about the diary's origins could not be more different.

What they have in common is this overweening belief in their own abilities to see what's what.

Well they can't both be right, but they could certainly both be wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It’s the first time I’ve heard it suggested that diving accidents can leave one illiterate, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

It's not for the first time, however, that RJ has put his own spin on what was actually written.

All I suggested was that spending three years in hospital with a broken back from the age of 8 to 11 was unlikely to have had a positive impact on whatever writing skills Robbie Johnson already possessed when the accident happened. Not too difficult a concept to grasp if one is not already grasping at every straw in the room while your head is half way up your bottom.

But in RJ's world, Robbie's experience could only have made him better suited to the task of engraving signatures in gold watches when the first opportunity presented itself. I expect Robbie was propped up in his hospital bed, translating Catullus from the original Latin, using a stylus on a sheet of metal.

Simple. Any fool could do it, but no fool is prepared to try.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Housekeeping:
Page 68, Inside Story:
'Towards the end of the interview Anne's father, Billy Graham, arrived in a taxi but at Anne's request he was not told who the detectives were in case it upset him.'
The source here would be Keith Skinner, having spoken with both Anne and Bonesy on numerous occasions.
So you pays yer money and takes yer choice. What difference this could possibly make in the great scheme of things I don't have the wit to fathom, but it's been another stupid waste of everyone's time.

All it has done, Caz, is to give everyone even more ammunition to identify the traitors in our mist. I knew I'd read somewhere that Anne had been the one to request the gentle subterfuge from Bonesy. I guess you had a bit of an advantage over the rest of us there, eh?

The issue, though, of course, is less the inaccuracy of occasional claims and more the exaggeration of facts bent to a particular narrative which the ill-read on this website potentially lap up as Godsend thereby slowly infecting the collective view of James Maybrick's Victorian scrapbook.

'Colourful'' language is one thing, but repeated misdirection is the mark of a traitor!

Keep the Faithful.

Ike

[caz]

Housekeeping:

Page 68, Inside Story:

'Towards the end of the interview Anne's father, Billy Graham, arrived in a taxi but at Anne's request he was not told who the detectives were in case it upset him.'

The source here would be Keith Skinner, having spoken with both Anne and Bonesy on numerous occasions.

So you pays yer money and takes yer choice. What difference this could possibly make in the great scheme of things I don't have the wit to fathom, but it's been another stupid waste of everyone's time.

It's funny, but when I met Feldman, and challenged him over something he was saying about the diary - I forget what - he reacted as if I was either mad or simple for not seeing what he could see.

I'm regularly at the receiving end of the same reaction from RJ Palmer, and yet his and Feldman's beliefs and theories about the diary's origins could not be more different.

What they have in common is this overweening belief in their own abilities to see what's what.

Well they can't both be right, but they could certainly both be wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

Could the simple truth not be that, at Anne's request, Mike asked Bonesy to pretend he was the insurance man?

Would that not explain the apparent contradiction between the two accounts, without leaping to accusations of lies, faulty memories or inaccurate reporting by the parties involved?

Left to RJ, he could be asked to: "send reinforcements, we're going to advance", and he would hear: "send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I would like to warn future readers of this thread, if ever there are any, to double-check and perhaps triple check every claim made by...

...RJ Palmer.

He checks his notes, finds the only account he knows of, and goes in for the kill.

And thus one suspicious mind deceives itself, and in turn deceives the forum.

The forum deserves better.

Nuff said.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

He checks his notes, finds the only account he knows of, and goes in for the kill.

You've always been a terrible revisionist, Caz. What happened is that Ike didn't check his notes and then went in for the kill--saying that it had been Anne. Prior to this, I had merely recounted a story that I had been led to believe by Shirley Harrison was true and accurate. It still could be. So why did Ike feel the need to take a cheap shot?

The truth is still unclear because--with all thing diary---we are so often given conflicting accounts by the early diary researchers. What is less unclear is that Ike likes to make hasty cheap-shots and you are always quick to join him.

That's how I see it from my end, but as you say---it's a great waste of everyone's time.

Have a great 2023. I'll make one final post on the Maybrick saga over at the other place.

[Iconoclast]

What happened is that Ike didn't check his notes and then went in for the kill--saying that it had been Anne. Prior to this, I had merely recounted a story that I had been led to believe by Shirley Harrison was true and accurate. It still could be. So why did Ike feel the need to take a cheap shot?

The truth is still unclear because--with all thing diary---we are so often given conflicting accounts by the early diary researchers. What is less unclear is that Ike likes to make hasty cheap-shots and you are always quick to join him.

(My emphasis.)

Fascinating.

It turns out that we were both right (you from Harrison and my recollection from Skinner et alia) - I just hadn't recalled where I'd been right to recollect it. I most certainly didn't take a cheap shot. I was right (according to Skinner et alia). I just didn't realise that you were not wrong.

I think you're just doing what you just keep doing: playing at Muddy the Mud Boy and not liking it when your mud gets called out for what it is.

Here's where you give yourself away. First, the way it was portrayed by Shirley Harrison:

In the middle of it all Anne's father Billy Graham turned up and Michael asked DS Thomas to pretend he was the insurance man rather than admit his true identity.

Secondly, the way it was portrayed by RJ Palmer:

Barrett himself was so overwhelmed with panic by this unwanted appearance of Johnny Upright that he begged DS Thomas to tell Billy Graham that this was just a friendly visit from an insurance salesman.

(My emphasis.)

Spot the difference, anyone?

Ike
Faithful

[caz]

Evening All,

Yes, I think even a small child with a reading age of six could have spotted the differences between Shirley's account and RJ's retelling of it. And I don't just mean the red letters and purple prose.

But I'm the one RJ accused of being 'a terrible revisionist', without a trace of irony or self-awareness. According to RJ, he had 'merely recounted' a story he had been 'led to believe by Shirley Harrison' was true and accurate.

Well I guess there's a first time for anything - like RJ recounting a story he had been led to believe by Paul Feldman [you could not make it up] was true and accurate, that Albert Johnson had told him 'fibs'. No doubt it was Albert's bemused denial that the watch had come down through his family, which convinced Feldy that he was fibbing.

It's just a pity RJ failed to reproduce a true and accurate version of what Shirley actually wrote. He must be busy repairing his glass house after throwing all those stones at everyone else.

The truth is still unclear because--with all thing diary---we are so often given conflicting accounts by the early diary researchers.

And it seems RJ is keen to continue and develop the trend into 2023, with his own account, which seriously conflicted with Shirley's - and not a lying Barrett in sight to blame these days for shifting stories.

Love,

Caz
X