One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Why would anyone refer to Abberline as 'a funny little man'?

Several points, Ike.

1. The photograph you highlight has not been proven to be Fred Abberline. This was a suggestion made by Donald Rumbelow (a decent one, but he didn't insist on it), but since there is no known photo of Abberline, it's only a suggestion. Two other men in the same photograph (the man to your man's left and another man behind him) also have their supporters.


2. Abberline's pension papers list him as 5' 9 1/2" which was not short by Victorian standards. I don't know if there's a legitimate height for Maybrick, but is there any evidence that Abberline was shorter than Maybrick? How would Maybrick know how tall Abberline was? What is your contemporary source for his belief?



3. If the hoaxer wanted to really ridicule someone's height, and was as sophisticated as you seem to think she was, the obvious choice would have been the local H-Division Inspector, Edmund Reid, who was literally the shortest man in the Metropolitan Police at 5' 6" (which was below the regulation minimum).

4. You won't like this last bit. Years ago, Rick Cobb gave his own suggestion about why the diary refers to Abberline as a "little man."

The Little Man was a stock phrase in the Michael Caine mini-series, based on Sir William Gull telling Abberline that the Ripper would be a little man (ie., an insignificant man).

"Convince a Little Man," Gull states, "that he is serving some great cause...and he'll do practically anything for you..." Even murder. He tells this to Abberline after looking at the photograph of Mary Kelly.

Cobb's idea was that the hoaxer remembered this from the mini-series and turned the tables on Abberline, making HIM the "(funny) little man."

Jack The Ripper : Convince A Little Man (youtube.com)

Jack The Ripper : The Little Man (youtube.com)

[rjpalmer]

One other thing, Ike.

The real Jim Maybrick had lived in the City of London police jurisdiction in the 1860s. Lime Street, west of Fenchurch. Your friend Jay Hartley even wrote an article about this location.

So the real Maybrick would have been painfully aware that the City of London had its own police force that would have headed the Eddowes murder investigation. This was broadcast far and wide after the double event.

Yet, after the murder of Kate Eddowes in Mitre Square, the diarist immediately starts yammering idiotically about Warren and Abberline, and even has Abberline holding back a clue when he's composing poetry about Eddowes' pawn tickets and cigarette case.

Nothing to demonstrate that he isn't entirely oblivious to the fact that Fraser, Smith, and McWilliam would have overseen the Eddowes investigation.

Odd behavior for a man who once lived in that jurisdiction, or a hoaxer that allegedly had more brain cells than Barrett and his missus could muster.

[Scott Nelson]

My argument, Tom, is that it took "Hollywood" to popularize Abberline's role in the hunt for the Ripper (Maybrick) in the mind of the current diary's creator, who had no idea what Abberline looked like (and we still don't). If the hoaxer thought he looked like Michael Caine or somebody else entirely, so be it. It was the idea of Abberline chasing Maybrick that was important. And yes, Abberline was mentioned in a few newspapers at the time of the murders, but not to the extent that he should be made the chief protagonist of the diary story.

BTW, the 1887 photo insert is allegedly Abberline by modern speculation and it certainly would have been unknown to the public outside of the police force in 1888-89.

[Iconoclast]

My argument, Tom, is that it took "Hollywood" to popularize Abberline's role in the hunt for the Ripper (Maybrick) in the mind of the current diary's creator, who had no idea what Abberline looked like (and we still don't). If the hoaxer thought he looked like Michael Caine or somebody else entirely, so be it. It was the idea of Abberline chasing Maybrick that was important. And yes, Abberline was mentioned in a few newspapers at the time of the murders, but not to the extent that he should be made the chief protagonist of the diary story.

BTW, the 1887 photo insert is allegedly Abberline by modern speculation and it certainly would have been unknown to the public outside of the police force in 1888-89.

Happy to accede to your point about Abberline's lack of authenticated photograph (as also mentioned by RJ, above). Keith Skinner had beaten you both to it but I was off doing other stuff and neither read his email nor your postings so did not respond quicker. I'm sure my regular correspondent will welcome the clarification.

It remains an interesting point. I didn't know about Rick Cobb's observation about the use of 'little man' in the mini-series (I'm not even sure if I ever saw the series). It's an interesting observation Rick makes. Why a 'funny little man', though?

Ike

[Iconoclast]

One other thing, Ike.
Yet, after the murder of Kate Eddowes in Mitre Square, the diarist immediately starts yammering idiotically about Warren and Abberline, and even has Abberline holding back a clue when he's composing poetry about Eddowes' pawn tickets and cigarette case.

Well, RJ, two interesting points on the trot.

I assume that Maybrick read in the newspapers that he had murdered Eddowes in the City of London police district (I very much doubt he would have known this purely from having lived in that district at some point in the past) so I don't know why he focused on Abberline for her murder.

Nor am I certain that it screams 'Fake!', mind, either.

[rjpalmer]

as is attested to by an article which appeared in The Cambridge Chronicle and Journal, on Friday, September 14, 1888.

Now, unfortunately, neither my correspondent nor I can locate his original email with a snippet of the Cambridge Chronicle article which is both hugely frustrating and most baffling

Cambridge Chronicle 14 September 1888.

[Iconoclast]

Cambridge Chronicle 14 September 1888.

Goodness, RJ, three interestings in a row. In some sports, this would entitle you to keep the trophy.

Anyway, appreciate the gesture ...

[Iconoclast]

Was it not Sue Iremonger (Martin Fido's favorite of the lot) who noted that the strokes on certain letters were artificially added---not a natural component of the writing but more like someone trying to fake copperplate writing---'mock Victorian' to use your own phrase?

I see in your next post that you correct this to Audrey Giles which is fine, but am I right in thinking that it was Sue Iremonger who reviewed both Mike and Anne's handwriting and stated that she did not believe that there was any evidence to suggest that either of them had written the contents of the scrapbook (or, I should say, she did not believe that there was any evidence to suggest that either of them had written the contents of the scrapbook into the scrapbook)?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

I see in your next post that you correct this to Audrey Giles which is fine, but am I right in thinking that it was Sue Iremonger who reviewed both Mike and Anne's handwriting and stated that she did not believe that there was any evidence to suggest that either of them had written the contents of the scrapbook (or, I should say, she did not believe that there was any evidence to suggest that either of them had written the contents of the scrapbook into the scrapbook)?

You tell me, Ike.

Can you quote what Sue Iremonger actually wrote in her report?

You see, Old Chum, my memory isn't always as bad as reported and I recall that years ago your good friend Lord Orsam already took Caz Brown to task for making a similar insinuation about Iremonger's conclusions. He did so on the 'Acquiring a Victorian Diary' thread, Post #1540, so you might want to review what he wrote.

Here's what Caz originally told us. Please read it carefully and with an eye for detail for it is quite craftily written (my emphasis in bold):

"I understood from my co-author Keith Skinner many years ago that the reputable document examiner Sue Iremonger had been provided with various handwriting samples (including Maybrick's, Mike's and Anne's) very early on, and she determined that the writing in the diary did not match the Maybrick samples. I presume she found no more of a resemblance with the Barrett samples because she did not say otherwise, and nobody has ever suggested the remotest likeness there."

Uh, okay. I suspect that you might be able to spot the rather large fly in the soup?

'She didn't say otherwise.' Or, in other words, we aren't told whether Ms. Iremonger made any assertion about it whatsoever.

Perhaps Ms. Iremonger did indeed reject the idea that the diary was in Anne or Mike's undisguised hand, but I'm hardly in a position to confirm this since Caz seems to be drawing conclusions (or presumptions, rather) based on what Ms. Iremonger didn't say.

Has there been any further development on this, or are we still spinning the same wheels that spun six years ago?

Maybe Iremonger did see similarities but failed to mention them for an entirely different reason--for instance, because of the possible legal entanglements.

I have no idea, and I suspect that you don't either, Ike.

Perhaps you'll need to run this past Keith, since I don't recall anyone ever actually posting Sue Iremonger's reports or letters on the topic.

[Scott Nelson]

I assume that Maybrick read in the newspapers that he had murdered Eddowes in the City of London police district (I very much doubt he would have known this purely from having lived in that district at some point in the past) so I don't know why he focused on Abberline for her murder.

Because in the Caine mini-series, Abberline is shown investigating the Eddowes murder. The diarist simply watched the series and incorporated Abberline into the City murder along with the others.

[caz]

Tom has deeper problems than flippantly claiming that the Mudbrick's "private hand" must have been radically different than his "public hand"---an argument that doesn't seem to have attracted much of a following. Perhaps this is Ms. Savant-Ros territory, and the herd can never hope to appreciate Ike's logic, but some of the mere mortal handwriting experts didn't believe the penman was even Victorian, let alone Maybrick, which throws something of a spanner in the Mitchell machinery.

Was it not Sue Iremonger (Martin Fido's favorite of the lot) who noted that the strokes on certain letters were artificially added---not a natural component of the writing but more like someone trying to fake copperplate writing---'mock Victorian' to use your own phrase?

I'm far more interested in the reliance placed by some theorists on Anne Graham's "diary hand", which would have to be radically different from any known examples of her handwriting.

According to Shirley, Sally and Doreen, Sue Iremonger was also asked to compare handwriting examples from Anne and Mike with the diary and in her professional opinion there was no match - which would leave anyone relying on Iremonger's expertise with someone trying their hand at Victorian copperplate who wasn't a Barrett.

Melvin Harris picked on Citizen Kane as his pen person for a reason.

None of the usual suspects, Mike, Anne and Tony Devereux - as identified in Mike's malicious and mendacious 'confessions' - had handwriting to merit Melvin's seal of approval, so he was forced to cast his net a little wider but still ended up catching a crab.

[rjpalmer]

According to Shirley, Sally and Doreen, Sue Iremonger was also asked to compare handwriting examples from Anne and Mike with the diary and in her professional opinion there was no match - which would leave anyone relying on Iremonger's expertise with someone trying their hand at Victorian copperplate who wasn't a Barrett.

Hi Caz.

I was fascinated to read that Sue Iremonger had been specifically asked to compare Anne's handwriting to the Diarist's---so much so that I consulted my book shelf, but could find no mention of this important fact in Shirley Harrison's books, in Paul Feldman's book, in Robert Smith's book, or in your own book, Inside Story. Perhaps I missed it. Could you point me in the right direction?

I then went looking in the archives and found this post from 2005 (after Inside Story was published), where you seem to be saying something quite different (my emphasis in bold):

“I believe forensic handwriting examiner, Sue Iremonger, has seen examples of Mike’s, and possibly Anne’s handwriting, although I don’t think she was commissioned to compare them with the diary. She was apparently fascinated by the diary, yet if she noticed any potential similarity with the Barretts’ writing, she never remarked on it.” (Caz, August 6, 2005 – 7 a.m.)

An expert 'never remarking' on something is quite different from them positively asserting that "there was no match," isn't it?

And again you commented on this in 2014, though this time you seem to be quite positive that Iremonger did see samples of Anne's handwriting:

“I understood from my co-author Keith Skinner many years ago that the reputable document examiner Sue Iremonger had been provided with various handwriting samples (including Maybrick's, Mike's and Anne's) very early on, and she determined that the writing in the diary did not match the Maybrick samples. I presume she found no more of a resemblance with the Barrett samples because she did not say otherwise…” Caz, March 28, 2014, 7:16 a.m.

Again, it appears that Iremonger made no comment whatsoever.

Yet now, nearly two decades after your original post, we are not only told that Iremonger DID make a direct comparison between Anne's handwriting and the diary, but positively stated her "professional opinion" that "there was no match."

I find it curious that Keith made no mention of this when he called for Anne's handwriting to be analyzed, and voiced disappointment that this had never been done, when making a post to this board on this subject back around 2001 (reposted a few weeks ago).

I hate to ask, but are you quite sure that your memory of Sue Iremonger is what it should be? I found posts by John Omlor repeatedly asking if Mike and Anne's handwriting had been analyzed and although you were commenting on the same thread, he was never given an answer.

Perhaps there is still hope we can clear this up now? What samples of Anne's handwriting could Shirley and Doreen have supplied to Iremonger, if the latter did indeed make any such comparison? Was it anything more than a single signature on the collaboration agreement? What exactly did Sue Iremonger say about this sample or these samples, if anything?


I'm looking forward to more details,

Thanks.

[caz]

Happy to accede to your point about Abberline's lack of authenticated photograph (as also mentioned by RJ, above). Keith Skinner had beaten you both to it but I was off doing other stuff and neither read his email nor your postings so did not respond quicker. I'm sure my regular correspondent will welcome the clarification.

It remains an interesting point. I didn't know about Rick Cobb's observation about the use of 'little man' in the mini-series (I'm not even sure if I ever saw the series). It's an interesting observation Rick makes. Why a 'funny little man', though?

Ike

Hi Ike,

I always took the word 'little' to mean that 'Sir Jim' was looking down on Abberline - not literally from a greater physical height, but with the disdain of a criminal towards a copper. In short [sorry!], a chap can be six foot something and still looked down on by people who are a whole lot shorter.

The theory that the diary pinched 'funny little man' from a thoroughly modern mini [sorry again!] series, is a little [oops!] like the poste house business. The theory that Mike or Anne Barrett confidently bunged the 'Poste House' in the diary, without even wondering whether there was a place of refreshment by that name back in 1888, is rendered less robust by the fact that there is a rogue e added to 'post haste' in the same document, to make it 'poste haste'.

Similarly, 'Sir Jim' doesn't just refer to a 'funny little man'. There is an early reference to playing his 'funny little games', and within just a few pages we are treated to no less than five instances of a 'funny little rhyme' before we finally get to see the one-off instance of Abberline being described as a 'funny little man', which is crossed out and changed to a 'clever little man'. The next three references return us to the preferred theme of the 'funny little rhyme'. Then we get: 'If I have my funny little way...', before a second helping of 'funny little games'.

I think that's the lot.

Even the Barretts would surely have been familiar with the phrase: 'funny little games' from the 1888 Dear Boss letter, if they created the diary, so why would any hoaxer have needed the assistance of our national treasure, Sir Michael Caine?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.

I was fascinated to read that Sue Iremonger had been specifically asked to compare Anne's handwriting to the Diarist's---so much so that I consulted my book shelf, but could find no mention of this important fact in Shirley Harrison's books, in Paul Feldman's book, in Robert Smith's book, or in your own book, Inside Story. Perhaps I missed it. Could you point me in the right direction?

Keith has given me some helpful clarification. Sue's evaluation was related to him independently by Shirley, Sally, Doreen and Feldy. They told Keith that Sue checked the diary handwriting against Mike and Anne's and confirmed that - in Keith's words - 'neither of them had written it in her professional opinion'.

I quite understand that I shall probably get shot again as the messenger, so I have my bullet proof vest on. I don't want to miss out on my hot cross buns.

I hate to ask, but are you quite sure that your memory of Sue Iremonger is what it should be?

And I hate to disappoint, but my memory of Sue Iremonger doesn't come into it. Palmer will no doubt choose to reject the combined testimonies of all those who were more closely involved than anyone else here, which is entirely up to him. But he might just want to bear in mind that Melvin Harris once posted his belief that Mike and Anne were the 'handlers and placers' of someone else's handiwork.

[rjpalmer]

And I hate to disappoint, but my memory of Sue Iremonger doesn't come into it. Palmer will no doubt choose to reject the combined testimonies of all those who were more closely involved than anyone else here, which is entirely up to him.

But Caz, what are your readers supposed to believe?

You told us twice--over a period of a decade--that Sue Iremonger made no comment about Anne's handwriting, and at one point you told us she was not "commissioned" to make any such comparison.

We are now told rather late in the day by Keith that he had heard second-hand that such a comparison had been made, which leaves me scratching my head as to why he did not mention this to Paul Begg (or to Peter Birchwood) back in June 2000, when he wrote that "God knows, this analysis (ie., of Anne's handwriting) should have been done."

Why should have been done, if it had been done?

Could the explanation for this apparent contradiction be that Sue Iremonger made no formal analysis, having not been commissioned to do so, and may have merely made an informal or off-hand remark to Shirley and Doreen based on limited (and an entirely unknown) exemplar--perhaps nothing more than Anne's signature on the contract?

Surely you don't think any of that could be convincing or conclusive?

Indeed, if this was conclusive, I find it strange that you are now reduced to summoning the opinion of Melvin Harris, who was not a professional handwriting expert, and whose opinion about Gerard Kane's handwriting you do not agree with, as having some evidentiary value about whether Mike and Anne hoaxed the diary. That's rather desperate, isn't it, if a formal report by an expert had been made?

I don't believe your theories about the diary, but if it is any consolation, I no longer believe Melvin's old theory either, and haven't for years.

So why you are trying to argue Melvin's corner is anyone's guess, but it is certainly a wonder to behold.