One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[caz]

In reference to my previous post, let me state without reservation that I don't think there is anything wrong with someone later changing their mind or modifying their beliefs. It's even commendable.

Perhaps Keith overstated his position at the Liverpool Conference in 2007 and then merely tried to modify his statement later. Totally acceptable.

But that's not my point. What I don't get is this: a statement made by Keith fully 11 years later on this forum, that seems to totally undermine his previous statement:


“It is true that I do presently favour the line of investigation which suggests the diary may have come out of Battlecrease House on March 9th 1992. There is direct evidence to show that, on that day, some sort of floorboard activity was presumably going on in Paul Dodd’s living room, as part of the work involved in the preparation to have storage heaters installed later in the summer. Comparison with the 1889 plan of Battlecrease House and the room where this work was being undertaken, shows it to be the same room where James Maybrick died in May 1889. ( I don’t know if this fact was known by Paul Dodd or any of the electricians who worked at the house). There is direct evidence to show that Mike Barrett, using the surname of “Williams”, telephoned Doreen Montgomery on March 9th 1992 to inform her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. There is circumstantial evidence showing an association, via the Saddle Pub, between two of the electricians employed by Colin Rhodes and Mike Barrett – plus Tony Devereux. As I’ve previously maintained, this could all reduce down to a strange coincidence and I’d accept that – but not without testing to destruction my own belief that these events are all related. If this line of enquiry does eventually turn out to be a non starter – as it may yet do – then I would revert back to the position I held in 2004 of favouring Anne Graham’s provenance, (however admittedly unsatisfactory and strange to contemplate) – accepting the dynamics of her marriage to Mike made her act in, (to an outsider), an irrational manner – but which, to Anne, seemed rational given the circumstances of her relationship with Mike. I haven’t abandoned Anne’s story – and I am always prepared to give consideration to the modern hoax theories.”

He now merely 'favors' the theory that Eddie Lyons pinched the diary from Dodd and sold it to Barrett. This is a long way away from 'proof' either in a court of law or in the 'court of history.' It is merely a 'line of investigation' and he hasn't even 'abandoned' Anne's story.

Again...totally acceptable. A person can modify and tone-down one's beliefs.

But what is strange (to me at least) is that this modification seems to signal that the evidence for the alleged Lyons/Barrett event, rather than having grown stronger, had actually grown weaker over those 11 years. Why else would someone undercut their own bold claims?

Yet Caroline Brown (not Keith, of course) loses no opportunity to assure us there is secret evidence behind the scenes that makes it an all but airtight reality that her accusation against Eddie Lyons and Mike Barrett are true. She tells us she is 100% certain.

And we've now been hearing about this secret evidence for upwards of 15 years. John Omlor was even questioning the reality of it and he hasn't posted since 2008

It's a strange business, and I fully admit that I am highly skeptical about all of it.

But I suppose that it is entirely possible that Caroline has merely gone rogue and is not assessing the evidence that she claims she has at her disposal with the same judiciousness and moderation of those who are presumably gathering it.

All this is fine, but if RJ wants to make something of it, that's fine too. Keith and I are not joined at the hip and no two people are going to interpret the same evidence - and there is a lot of it - in an identical fashion. But I do love RJ's inept attempt to divide and conquer with the suggestion that I have 'gone rogue'.

Keith was there a long time before me, and had a lot more contact with Mike and Anne than I did. He has always been rightly, if frustratingly cautious about reaching any conclusions at all, but until late 2003, when we had reason to revisit the Battlecrease rumours, Anne's 'in the family' provenance seemed to him to be the only game in town. At that time, Keith's question to self was: if the Barretts didn't create the diary, where did it come from? Now, his question to self is: if the diary came out of Battlecrease House on 9th March 1992, where was it on 8th March?

We are now five years on from the statement Keith made, which RJ reproduces above. Information continues to be gathered and assessed by those closely involved in the ongoing enquiries, and RJ doesn't know what Keith's current position is, but he can rest assured that every piece of new information is being assessed fairly and objectively alongside the old, and Keith will decide for himself if what he said back in 2007 holds true for him in 2023. He will still be 'testing to destruction' his belief as of 2018 [5 years ago], that the events of 9th March are related, unless or until he finally gets that one piece of evidence which proves to him that it had to be a 'strange coincidence' after all.

In 2023 I'm personally satisfied that this piece of evidence isn't going to materialise. But I understand why the meticulous researcher in Keith won't let him sit back if there is even the slightest chance of something turning up that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the diary was known about before floorboards day.

[caz]

This is why everyone eventually stops debating with you Caz--that is, everyone with a lick of sense.

Correcting your daily misinformation and illogical ranting and disingenuousness becomes a full-time job.

Just yesterday's posts alone would require a good two or three hours to correct.

I appear to have touched a nerve. Will you be putting me on the naughty step, RJ?

As you know, I never once accused Murphy of lying.

But you have. And you've accused Eddie Lyons of far worse. It's only because of your hypocrisy that I needed to point this out.

You accuse both Murphys of lying by implication. This is not rocket science. If you need the watch to be a 1993 hoax, you need the Murphys to have invented a scene in early 1992 where they used jeweller's rouge to minimise the appearance of scratch marks before selling it to Albert. This is a very specific claim to have made, and you need it to have been made up out of whole cloth.

You seem to have a huge problem with me or others for even suggesting that certain individuals involved with the diary and watch may have been economical with the truth, for reasons which would be perfectly understandable in the circumstances. You can accuse whoever you like of lying. That's your own lookout. But you accuse people of lying about the oddest things, when there would have been no discernible advantage in doing so. Mike Barrett was the only one to my knowledge who told ludicrous lies that did nobody a bit of good, including himself.

Why on earth would the Murphys have used jeweller's rouge on scratches that were not there? What possible reason would they have had for lying about using the rouge if they had no need of it? You tell me. Why would those associates of Eddie's have lied and pointed the finger at him over the "old book", if they all knew that nothing had been found or taken from the house? What did any of them have to gain from associating themselves with a theft that never was? We know Eddie spoke to Robert Smith in the Saddle in June 1993 and admitted to finding something in the house, but claimed he had thrown it into a non-existent skip. That's one lie Eddie told right there. Another was when he later denied this meeting ever took place. Robert confirmed it was Eddie from a photograph. Perhaps you would prefer to accuse Robert of inventing this scene with Mike and Saint Eddie. Someone lied about it.

Your silly theories wouldn't be so bad if you didn't also feel the need to rant about Mike's "vile" affidavit and the terrible accusations against the "still living."

So you don't think it's a vile thing to do, to make an unsupported statement accusing your ex wife, daughter, recently deceased father-in-law and dead friend of involvement in faking the diary of a serial killer? Interesting values you've got there, old sport.

The silliest theory around here is the one featuring Mike at an auction on 31st March 1992, bidding for the scrapbook, before bullying Anne into using it to pen the diary, much against her will.

[rjpalmer]

You accuse both Murphys of lying by implication.

Tell me, Caz, when did you lose any sense of shame?

I've never accused Murphy of lying, as you well know, but after twenty years you seem to be confessing that you did.

How else do you explain the following?



Hmm. Interesting.

You were fully aware of Murphy's testimonies. You even allude to them. Yet you admitted that 'we' (including yourself) "failed to come to anything like a reasonable conclusion" whether the etchings were already on the watch or not.

That must mean that you were accusing Murphy of lying. I mean, there's no other way to interpret it, right?

At the time, I didn't realize this. I assumed it was just a matter of two ordinary tradesmen and honest witnesses having differing recollections, and that --perhaps assured by Shirley Harrison that the scratches had to have been on the watch--Murphy reconsidered and became confused and started wondering if he had been mistaken. I am 'almost certain' they had been there, he said.

Back in 2002, I had no reason to believe that any reasonable person would consider being cautious or even skeptical about something like this to be the equivalent to an accusation of lying, nor do I do so now, but based on your current bizarre standards, you seem to be insisting otherwise.

Which obviously means that you were accusing Ron and Suzanne Murphy of lying back in 2002 and are still doing so now--except that this time they're lying about having inherited the watch from Suzanne's father. You have implied many times that they lied about this.

Maybe I'll have to make time to reach out to Ron and Suzanne and see if they have any comment about your accusations. I'll let you know if I do.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Iconoclast;n809474]

I think that we can all see your empty claims for what they are, Fishy. Here you have one of the foremost critics of the scrapbook acknowledging that Florence Maybrick's initials are on the wall of Kelly's room (indeed, he was the first to identify them, using just his own eyes - long before Feldman had the photograph professionally analysed which I always thought was a bit excessive given how obvious they are) but it would appear that you know better! You say you can't see any initials (plus you say unsupported stuff like "There is no dilemma at all Ike, there are no shapes that mean anything, no figures that point to the killer, no letters, that spell out someone's wife name. its your own perception which you want them to be to suit your theory" and "A theory that lacks any proof that any markings in Kelly's room or on kellys body were clues left by the killer") and yet I have illustrated my claims over and over again with the clear and undeniable evidence, some of which was first identified by Martin Fido himself. Up against those odds, you still spout forth that there is nothing in any of this so I am overwhelmingly concerned that I've been wasting my time on the clickbait of a wind-up merchant.[/QUOTE



Thats your your problem right the there Ike , "we can all see"

Stop seeing things that aren't there .

You've wasted far too much time and effort on this Maybrick malarkey. You've been had my friend.

Its become as boring a theory a Trevor's organ harvesting bandit..

Time to move on .

[Yabs]

If I could change the subject from the topic of Maybrick advertising his radio station 18.88 FM on Mary’s wall..

Regarding Florries debts, I found this on the archives, and apologies if this is previously covered ground.



It does report in the diary that James did pay Florries debts shortly before his death, from what I gather this is something that can be found in books about Maybrick so could be lifted by a forger.

But I’m a bit confused by a diary entry written after the Chapman murder and before the double event… so this would be some time in Sept 1888.
“The whore is in debt very well i shall honour the bitches notes”

Which doesn’t fit in with reports that the very first time James discovered his wife’s debts was seven months later, April 1889.
If James did pay his wife’s debts in sept 1888 surely this would have been brought to light for such a high profile trial.
At least by those she was indebted to.

I may have missed something that makes this an irrelevance, please let me know if I have.

[erobitha]

If I could change the subject from the topic of Maybrick advertising his radio station 18.88 FM on Mary’s wall..

Regarding Florries debts, I found this on the archives, and apologies if this is previously covered ground.



It does report in the diary that James did pay Florries debts shortly before his death, from what I gather this is something that can be found in books about Maybrick so could be lifted by a forger.

But I’m a bit confused by a diary entry written after the Chapman murder and before the double event… so this would be some time in Sept 1888.
“The whore is in debt very well i shall honour the bitches notes”

Which doesn’t fit in with reports that the very first time James discovered his wife’s debts was seven months later, April 1889.
If James did pay his wife’s debts in sept 1888 surely this would have been brought to light for such a high profile trial.
At least by those she was indebted to.

I may have missed something that makes this an irrelevance, please let me know if I have.

Any chance you could tell us a little more about the article? Publication? Date of print?

I am certain there was a debt issue known by Maybrick concerning dresses I believe, long before April 1889. I’ll have to look it up.

[Iconoclast]

If I could change the subject from the topic of Maybrick advertising his radio station 18.88 FM on Mary’s wall..

Regarding Florries debts, I found this on the archives, and apologies if this is previously covered ground.



It does report in the diary that James did pay Florries debts shortly before his death, from what I gather this is something that can be found in books about Maybrick so could be lifted by a forger.

But I’m a bit confused by a diary entry written after the Chapman murder and before the double event… so this would be some time in Sept 1888.
“The whore is in debt very well i shall honour the bitches notes”

Which doesn’t fit in with reports that the very first time James discovered his wife’s debts was seven months later, April 1889.
If James did pay his wife’s debts in sept 1888 surely this would have been brought to light for such a high profile trial.
At least by those she was indebted to.

I may have missed something that makes this an irrelevance, please let me know if I have.

If there is anything in this point - and it's a good one, by the way - we would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889 and - for this - we could not rely on the claims of a newspaper article as we know that newspaper articles then (and now) frequently contain significant errors due to a number of factors (principal amongst which would be utter indolence on the part of the writer failing to check their 'facts' before printing them).

[rjpalmer]

Which doesn’t fit in with reports that the very first time James discovered his wife’s debts was seven months later, April 1889.
If James did pay his wife’s debts in sept 1888 surely this would have been brought to light for such a high profile trial.
At least by those she was indebted to.

I may have missed something that makes this an irrelevance, please let me know if I have.

Well spotted, Yabs. You haven't missed anything.

I believe Lord Orsam made the same point in his Diary 'Deep Dive.' There is no historical source for Maybrick knowing about his wife's debts in September 1888.

Of course, this does not worry Ike in the least.

To him, it is no more troubling than a gentle rain dripping off the back of an unconcerned duck.

"We would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889"

See how it works?

It's not for Ike to prove that Maybrick did know of this wife's debts; it's up to you to prove that he didn't.

And since you can't prove a negative, there's no way to do it. 'He secretly knew about them but didn't pay them for months, etc. etc.'

Problem solved.

It's all about passing the buck.

[Iconoclast]

Well spotted, Yabs. You haven't missed anything.
I believe Lord Orsam made the same point in his Diary 'Deep Dive.' There is no historical source for Maybrick knowing about his wife's debts in September 1888.
Of course, this does not worry Ike in the least.
To him, it is no more troubling than a gentle rain dripping off the back of an unconcerned duck.
"We would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889"
See how it works?
It's not for Ike to prove that Maybrick did know of this wife's debts; it's up to you to prove that he didn't.
And since you can't prove a negative, there's no way to do it. 'He secretly knew about them but didn't pay them for months, etc. etc.'
Problem solved.
It's all about passing the buck.

Be warned, dear readers. This is a great example of Muddy the Mud Boy creating mud literally ex nihilo. I don't think anyone could argue that I was not simply pointing out the blindingly obvious - namely, that for Yabs' excellent spot to mean anything, we would need to know that Maybrick did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889 which (as Muddy leapt in to point out as though he had uncovered a frothing well of evil in my post) it is not possible to prove a negative. It is, however, possible to prove a positive which was not done either, but Muddy cares not for the chivalric code - Yabs' post proves nothing whatsoever but in my pointing this out, Muddy has swung a contemptuous sword over anyone's right to simply note this.

See how it works?

Muddy creates mud from nowhere and from that mud the creatures of his most terrible nightmares spring forth.

I would love someone to quote the part of my post where I said it wasn't my responsibility to prove that Maybrick did know of this wife's debts in September 1888 and - indeed - the part where I said that it was up to Yabs to prove that he didn't. As I recall, I simply observed that the testimony of a newspaper reporter's claim was an inadequate proof to rely upon.

None of this matters to Muddy. In truth, it's all about passing the duck. And I think we know which duck is the more quackers, don't we?

[FISHY1118]

Well spotted, Yabs. You haven't missed anything.

I believe Lord Orsam made the same point in his Diary 'Deep Dive.' There is no historical source for Maybrick knowing about his wife's debts in September 1888.

Of course, this does not worry Ike in the least.

To him, it is no more troubling than a gentle rain dripping off the back of an unconcerned duck.

"We would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889"

See how it works?

It's not for Ike to prove that Maybrick did know of this wife's debts; it's up to you to prove that he didn't.

And since you can't prove a negative, there's no way to do it. 'He secretly knew about them but didn't pay them for months, etc. etc.'

Problem solved.

It's all about passing the buck.

And dont trevor and ike do it so well with their respective theories

Its all a play on words and how thery use them in such ways as '' oh its not up to us to prove this or that its up to you to prove otherwise . Malarkley ,horseshit, been going on for too long.

[erobitha]

This is not the reference I remember, still useful none the less.

According to Chris Jones Maybrick A to Z (2008) on page 89 and 90:

“As well as buying expensive clothes, Florence also spent a great deal of time and money in Bold Street buying luxurious furniture and furnishings for Beechville and later, Battlecrease. Her lavish spending on such items was often a cause of friction between her and James, especially when there was a down-turn in the cotton market.”

Chris Jones at least seems to think Florence’s issues with spending and James’s frustration with such matters, go back as far as Beechville House.

Like Chris it would seem, I struggle to believe James was unaware of Florence’s debts just two weeks prior to his death.

[rjpalmer]

I would love someone to quote the part of my post where I said it wasn't my responsibility to prove that Maybrick did know of this wife's debts in September 1888 and - indeed - the part where I said that it was up to Yabs to prove that he didn't. As I recall, I simply observed that the testimony of a newspaper reporter's claim was an inadequate proof to rely upon.

It's right there in black and white, Ike; the trouble is that you're so accustomed to immediately passing the onus that you're not even aware that you're doing it. It is as instinctive to you as it is for a pill bug to roll itself into a tiny ball as soon as it senses danger.

In order to prove the diary is not historically accurate, you inform us, "We would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889."

Those are your own words. You're demanding that your readers prove the diary is not historically accurate. AKA 'passing the onus.'

You could just as easy have written:

"For me to prove that the diary is historically accurate, I would need to show that Maybrick was aware of his wife's debts in September 1888."

Can you do it? Can you show that Maybrick was aware of his wife's debts in September 1888?

And unfortunately, Ike, the historical record does not come down to a single newspaper article.

Florrie's debts were discussed at trial.

Here, for instance, is Dr. Hopper's testimony, which can be found in Irving, page 33. Hopper is describing events of March 1889:






In other words, Florrie has confided in Hopper that she is in the hands of the money lenders. She fears it will prevent any reconciliation with James if she informs him of these debts in March 1889. Hopper advises that she "make a clean breast of it," which would hardly be necessarily if James was already aware of those debts. The implication is obvious.

And lo, we also learn from Michael Maybrick's testimony at trial that James did indeed subsequently travel to London in April 1889 to pay off those debts, since at least one of them concerned a money lender in London.

This is not a newspaper report, it is the sworn testimony of Dr. Hopper and Michael Maybrick.

Based on this, it would certainly appear that the hoaxer has jumped the gun by having James aware of these debts in September 1888.

What say you?

Of course, I readily admit that if the handwriting, the dodgy provenance and photo album, the 'one off instance' and 'bumbling buffoon', etc. etc. don't bother you, this will hardly register as a blip on your radar.

[erobitha]

It's right there in black and white, Ike; the trouble is that you're so accustomed to immediately passing the onus that you're not even aware that you're doing it. It is as instinctive to you as it is for a pill bug to roll itself into a tiny ball as soon as it senses danger.

In order to prove the diary is not historically accurate, you inform us, "We would have to be certain that Maybrick definitely did not know of his wife's debts prior to April 1889."

Those are your own words. You're demanding that your readers prove the diary is not historically accurate. AKA 'passing the onus.'

You could just as easy have written:

"For me to prove that the diary is historically accurate, I would need to show that Maybrick was aware of his wife's debts in September 1888."

Can you do it? Can you show that Maybrick was aware of his wife's debts in September 1888?

And unfortunately, Ike, the historical record does not come down to a single newspaper article.

Florrie's debts were discussed at trial.

Here, for instance, is Dr. Hopper's testimony, which can be found in Irving, page 33. Hopper is describing events of March 1889:






In other words, Florrie has confided in Hopper that she is in the hands of the money lenders. She fears it will prevent any reconciliation with James if she informs him of these debts in March 1889. Hopper advises that she "make a clean breast of it," which would hardly be necessarily if James was already aware of those debts. The implication is obvious.

And lo, we also learn from Michael Maybrick's testimony at trial that James did indeed subsequently travel to London in April 1889 to pay off those debts, since at least one of them concerned a money lender in London.

This is not a newspaper report, it is the sworn testimony of Dr. Hopper and Michael Maybrick.

Based on this, it would certainly appear that the hoaxer has jumped the gun by having James aware of these debts in September 1888.

What say you?

Of course, I readily admit that if the handwriting, the dodgy provenance and photo album, the 'one off instance' and 'bumbling buffoon', etc. etc. don't bother you, this will hardly register as a blip on your radar.

All you have Roger, is a date that Maybrick paid his wife's debts. That is not the same as knowing about them for the first time. This is an assumption you and the journalist made in the un-cited article Yabs shared. It's hardly a smoking gun.

Chris Jones himself made this clear in the Maybrick A to Z that her spending was often a cause of friction between the two since their days at Beechville. She had been accumulating debts along the way for a considerable time.

Do you honestly believe April 1889 is the first he got wind of such problems?

Maybe look at the letters Florence wrote to her mother about James trying to control her spending. Perhaps even read what the Baroness thought of such activities.

How long do you think creditors would have kept credit lines open exactly?

[rjpalmer]

All you have Roger, is a date that Maybrick paid his wife's debts. That is not the same as knowing about them for the first time.

Hopper advised Florence to "make a clean breast of it" in March 1889.

What do you think the phrase "make a clean breast of it" means or implies?

Would she be advised to "make a clean breast" of something that Maybrick had already known about for six months?

Chris Jones himself made this clear in the Maybrick A to Z that her spending was often a cause of friction between the two since their days at Beechville. She had been accumulating debts along the way for a considerable time.

That Florrie was an extravagant spender is not the same thing as her going in debt behind Maybrick's back. Any husband can complain of his wife's spending habits without knowing she has been running to the loan sharks. For all we know, James gave her money to spend on the household expenses or to furnish the nursery, etc., and she instead blew it on fancy drapes for herself, and they argued about it. It's not the same thing.

Still, I agree this is only a minor blip compared to the handwriting, the bogus provenance, "one off instance," Barretts search for a blank diary, etc.

I'm just a little surprised that you and Ike never seem to tire at having to scramble to douse whatever new skip-fire comes rolling down the street. It must get a little fatiguing at times.

[erobitha]

Hopper advised Florence to "make a clean breast of it" in March 1889.

What do you think the phrase "make a clean breast of it" means or implies?

Would she be advised to "make a clean breast" of something that Maybrick had already known about for six months?




That Florrie was an extravagant spender is not the same thing as her going in debt behind Maybrick's back. Any husband can complain of his wife's spending habits without knowing she has been running to the loan sharks. For all we know, James gave her money to spend on the household expenses or to furnish the nursery, etc., and she instead blew it on fancy drapes for herself, and they argued about it. It's not the same thing.

Still, I agree this is only a minor blip compared to the handwriting, the bogus provenance, "one off instance," Barretts search for a blank diary, etc.

I'm just a little surprised that you and Ike never seem to tire at having to scramble to douse whatever new skip-fire comes rolling down the street. It must get a little fatiguing at times.

You're right. Racking up debt and excessive spending cannot in any way be connected. They are two completely distinct things. Honestly RJ. Talk about clutching.

It must be completely and utterly unfeasible that Maybrick knew about her debt generation before April 1889?

Maybe James did not want the world and its doctor to know about his wife's financial indiscretions. Perhaps he was embarrassed and opted to handle the issues privately.

Perhaps the sudden realisation of finding out about his wife's debts ultimately killed him. It must have been such a shock. He probably had zero idea.