One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Just ordered the diary from amazon. Another book came up as well entitled "The Last Victim: The Extraordinary Life of Florence Maybrick" by Anne E. Graham. So is this Michael Barret's wife? If so, how does this square with the idea that the Mike and his wife were incapable of writing the diary when it seems that she is in fact a published author? Add to that that her book is about the wife of James Maybrick. Thoughts??????

c.d.

Hi c.d.,

It seems to me that your question still hasn't really been addressed, so here is some background on how Anne Graham came to be a published author in 1999 - seven years after her husband brought the Victorian scrapbook to London for the first time.

It was Paul Feldman who sold Headline the idea about the book – the marketing angle being that it would be written by the great granddaughter of Florence Maybrick whose husband was JtR (Feldman never allowed the known facts to limit his imagination). Anne had become extremely interested in the story and wanted to do a book on the case based on the unpublished Home Office files at The National Archives – a large quantity of which had already been photocopied for Paul Feldman by his research team. Carol Emmas, (who was a photographer and Robbie Johnson’s girlfriend) first met Anne around 1994 and together they did a lot of research for Paul in Liverpool. When he secured a publisher, it was agreed that Carol would help Anne with the book and have co-author status, although the majority of the writing would be done by Anne. Anne apparently would have much preferred to do a straight study of the case and leave the JtR element out, but that - unsurprisingly - was part of the deal. In the end it fell to Carol to fill in the JtR detail – neither of them having much interest at all in the subject. Anne came to London for a few days and Keith Skinner worked with her at The National Archives whilst she sifted through the boxes of Home Office documents and catalogued them – a copy of which she presented to The National Archives.

It is interesting to note that the lady who stands accused (by many) as the author of the JtR scrapbook had very little interest herself in documenting his crimes in the late 1990s. Perhaps she had exhausted her interest by 1992 when her brilliant hoax had been finalised, and wanted to move on to the intriguing story of Florence Maybrick? Or perhaps she had little interest in JtR in 1999 (actually, 1998 when the main preparatory work was being completed) and little interest in JtR in 1992 (which is why she gave the scrapbook away so casually), just as she had little interest in JtR in 1968 or 1969 when she stated that she first saw the document amongst her father's possessions? If Anne Graham played a central role in the creation of the Victorian scrapbook, she was quite Machiavellian about it: first she stayed in the shadows whilst her husband Bongo Barrett brought the document to the world's attention, then she stepped-in at exactly the right moment to remove Bongo from the deeper provenance just when he was destroying the superficial version of it which the world had first been fed; then she reached her absolutely apogee of brazen cunning when she published a book on the subject thereby revealing her research and writing talents. Actually, Machiavelli would have blushed to know his name was being associated with such a calm, cool, calculating crime (as the hoaxing of the Maybrick scrapbook would therefore be).

I hope you enjoy the book you ordered from Amazon (you don't say which it is), and I hope you access Graham's book too. In truth, you have inspired me to review it myself again!

Hope this is helpful.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

although the majority of the writing would be done by Anne.

Just like old times, then.

Barrett's articles, I mean. Barrett's articles.

[Iconoclast]

Just like old times, then.

Barrett's articles, I mean. Barrett's articles.

I thought you were commiserating me on the football for a moment there, Roger.

Again, I would be happy to agree that Anne Graham was clearly no fool and that - if you wish it - she could well have been the driving force behind Mike Barrett's articles in the Sparky comic (or was it Whizzer & Chips?) in much the same way (like a practice run) for the scrapbook and thenceforth the published work of research with her name finally on it. All of this is definitely possible. Possible, possible, possible. But plausible? That's a harder square to circle because there is - to my knowledge - no back catalogue of Anne Graham's creative treachery; so the creation of a brilliant hoax which quickly evolves into a criminal offence (allowing it to be published) appears to have had no precedence and ultimately perhaps no purpose. Was it Anne Graham's way of 'paying the mortgage' (and that Mike claimed that as well as authorship of the scrapbook?). Is there any evidence that 12 Goldie Street was draining the family finances so much that the evil plot was hatched fairly soon after they moved in? For parents who genuinely appear to have doted on their only child, Caroline, it seems a truly spectacularly-risky venture to build the hoax of the decade right in front of her eyes (as must surely have happened) coupled with the knowledge of the consequences for Caroline if that illicit artefact spoke too loudly of them and thus dobbed them in with its own incompetence and banality. What would have happened to Caroline if both Anne and Mike had served time for their extremely unlikely crime?

You can make hay whilst the articles shine, Roger, but it is not an evidenced argument. Anne's contributions - at best - would have been to tidy up the inarticulate nonsense which flowed effortlessly from Mike Barrett's pen (we've all seen it, for goodness sake - it's like he made up his schooldays in his CV and spent them dreaming of a future in scrap metal dealing rather learning to spell and write) but tidying up someone's efforts at spelling and grammar are very very different from constructing a hoax which would captivate the world of Ripperology and which - if they were the authors of it - would put their beloved daughter in a relative state of peril should they go the whole way and allow it to be published.

There is nothing in the apparent psyche of Mike and Anne Barrett that should suggest to anyone that back in 1992 they would be prepared to risk so much on a single turn of pitch and toss. Nothing. The risks attached to such a gamble are not the risks such people take to resolve what would presumably be financial drivers. With the terrible loss they would endure if it all fell down around them, they would have simply moved house - that's what people facing that awful dilemma do. If they did not, we'd have an endless stream of faked diaries and other money-making schemes which - in a recession - would overwhelm the publishing world if we ever took each one seriously. And if we wouldn't take tens of thousands seriously, why were we prepared to take this one seriously?

I admire Anne Graham for salvaging what she could from her marriage with Mike Barrett and for protecting her child from the worst excesses of it. It is too great a stretch to argue that strength of character could be so easily corrupted by the same.

PS There is still time to commiserate with me over the football, by the way ...

Ike

[c.d.]

Hello Ike,

Thanks for your detailed response to my question regarding Anne.

The book I ordered is "The Diary of Jack the Ripper - The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick" by Shirley Harrison.

It might be a while before I can get to it as I am still (slowly) trying to finish "The Worst Journey in the World" about Scott's 1910 expedition to the South Pole.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

The book I ordered is "The Diary of Jack the Ripper - The Chilling Confessions of James Maybrick" by Shirley Harrison.

It might be a while before I can get to it as I am still (slowly) trying to finish "The Worst Journey in the World" about Scott's 1910 expedition to the South Pole.

...the latter must put the "chilling" confession of James Maybrick into some perspective

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike – in regards to your "ethical" objections in Post #5028.

Many years ago, long before you posted on these boards, I suggested a scenario where Barrett may have scammed his own wife into helping him create the Diary. A simple plot, really. She’s under the impression they are creating a novella—a piece of fiction, so naturally she helps him. (“I wanted Mike to write a story,” she later laments). Alas, Mike then takes the typescript,--behind her back, and probably with the cooperation of someone else—buys the scrapbook, creates the artifact, and peddles it as the “Real McCoy.” By the time Anne figures it out, she’s in too deep.

Sound farfetched?

Maybe, but Shirley Harrison tells an interesting tale in one of the editions of her book, that addresses what you refer to as “Mike’s psyche.” It seems that Barrett had placed an advertisement in LOOT magazine, calling for original artwork for a children’s book that was being prepared for publication. (This was a lie; no such book was in the works). So various strangers submitted their drawings and sketches, which were all duly rejected by Mike, only to find out later that copies of these drawings, etc., were being peddled in “art shop windows in Southport!”

Thus, Barrett was more than willing to trick people into assisting with his scams.

There are other nagging details—Mike and Anne physically fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, little Caroline tells us—that suggest that Anne might not have been a willing participant, at least not initially. Allegations of abuse complicate our musings.

Or maybe we are both wrong--we have too romantic of a view of what women are capable of, wrongly assuming they can't be "Machiavellian."

Let me also just add that Melvin Harris was not incorrect when he wrote that Barrett was "not unknown to the Liverpool police" --before 1992.

Most detectives end up drinking themselves to death, Ike, because they don’t look for the good in people…they see the potential for bad. Maybe you’re too nice a guy for this line of work. You want a happy ending, but you’re not going to find one here. None of us are.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Roger,

Hi Ike – in regards to your "ethical" objections in Post #5028.
Maybe, but Shirley Harrison tells an interesting tale in one of the editions of her book, that addresses what you refer to as “Mike’s psyche.” It seems that Barrett had placed an advertisement in LOOT magazine, calling for original artwork for a children’s book that was being prepared for publication. (This was a lie; no such book was in the works). So various strangers submitted their drawings and sketches, which were all duly rejected by Mike, only to find out later that copies of these drawings, etc., were being peddled in “art shop windows in Southport!”

I have to say I'd forgotten that particular scam of Mike's. I don't think anyone would doubt that Mike Barrett could be capable of such a simple scheme. It clearly rules him very much in as a potential con artist, though I'm not sure that he would rank highly on a sophistication score with that particular one.

There are other nagging details—Mike and Anne physically fighting over the diary on the kitchen floor, little Caroline tells us—that suggest that Anne might not have been a willing participant, at least not initially. Allegations of abuse complicate our musings.

Hmmm. The fight over the scrapbook can be explained away all too easily by either side of the debate. I don't think there's mileage in this one.

Or maybe we are both wrong--we have too romantic of a view of what women are capable of, wrongly assuming they can't be "Machiavellian."

I wouldn't doubt this for a moment. My romanticism was focused more on the lack of a back catalogue for Anne's criminal nature than on the Machiavellian nature required to create this artful dodge, but fair enough.

Let me also just add that Melvin Harris was not incorrect when he wrote that Barrett was "not unknown to the Liverpool police" --before 1992.

Obviously the 22 year old Mike had a wee brush with the law over a stolen handbag in the early 1970s. I personally can't recall any other such brushes, but - if there were any - please do tell. Not suggesting there weren't, just unaware of any myself.

Most detectives end up drinking themselves to death, Ike, because they don’t look for the good in people…they see the potential for bad. Maybe you’re too nice a guy for this line of work. You want a happy ending, but you’re not going to find one here. None of us are.

See, that's definitely my problem. Maybe I am too nice a guy for this line of work. I need to maybe toughen up a bit. Acquire a thicker skin. Move to Liverpool maybe!

Ike

[Trapperologist]

....Ralph Vaughan Williams - Composer

married Adeline Fisher, daughter of Herbert Fisher (barrister and
former secy to Prince of Wales). Proposed (June 1897) at the Stephens'
home of Virginia and Vanessa, cousin through her Aunt Julia and related to
Judge Stephens of Maybrick trial fame. Studied in Germany and France under
Maurice Ravel....

If Williams wasn't a solicitor, then there's another fellow from
Liverpool who may have been involved. He was John Herbert
Williams, a cotton broker who was a partner of T A Wooley,
close friend to Maybrick and who attended his funeral. Williams
shot himself in the head in his office at the Exchange in 1900.

Here's a solicitor named Williams. He was the solicitor for John Baillie Knight's uncle Edwin under whom he apprenticed in the Soap Business.

Monier Faithful Monier Williams Bedford, Monier Williams & Robinson, solicitors, 6 & 7 Gt. Tower st.

[Mike J. G.]

I'm reasonably confident that our shared readership are well aware of the significant difference between my contributions and yours. Indeed, I think to use the word 'contributions' in relation to the caustic unpleasantness you post is doing myself (and our readers) a gross disservice and seriously overplaying your hand on your behalf.

Literally only just seen this, mate. All I can say is One Direction have made a pretty hefty contribution to music over the last decade. Now, the fact that their contribution was one of complete and utter bollocks, doesn't lend credence to the notion that an abundance of contribution is something to be applauded and cherished.


I'm not here to score points with people I don't know from Adam, I'm here to spend the odd few minutes between doing actual, worthwhile things, entertaining a mild curiosity I have about this case. The sheer mental gymnastics I see on here in an effort to have James Maybrick become JtR is nothing short of funny, IMO, and I'm generally here to laugh about it, while adding my own opinions. Less is more, Ike. Knowledge is power!

[Mike J. G.]

The goal posts of this saga are forever being moved, it seems, but like in another thread, I'd like to offer a pretty glaringly obvious, incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the "diary." It's nothing new, it's been mentioned many a time, by myself, and many other posters.

James Maybrick didn't write the diary. Simple as that. There's literally no way James Maybrick would mention having a pint in a pub that didn't exist. James Maybrick had been dead 5 years by the time the "Poste House" came into existence under that name, yet Sir Jim apparently drank there about 6 years beforehand.

No other pub by such a name was in existence, something echoed by Shirley Harrison back in the day, who did admittedly spend a good many hours "trawling" for evidence of just such a thing.

Hoaxes like this one aren't generally collapsed by any dramatic "smoking gun" style revelation, they're basically quashed by the most mundane errors. The mistake so many people make when they enter the hilarious saga of "Maybrick's Diary" is that they're clueless about hoaxes, hence they're suckered in like a rube. You're the desired target for hucksters, and you enable them to work their charms.

All of the information regarding Maybrick drinking in the "Poste House" comes from the diary, nowhere else. Did Jim have a pint in the Muck Midden? Maybe, who knows? Did he have a pint in the Poste House? No, he was dead in 1889, 5 years before the Muck Midden became the Poste House. The pub on School lane, the Post Office Tavern, was never known locally or anywhere else as "the Poste House," literally never, unless you're desperate to keep this hoax alive, that is, and some of you are.

It really is this simple: James Maybrick did not write the "diary," which means it's not even a diary, it's a piece of fiction using factual characters and places, a bit like a Dan Brown novel, and just as silly. There is a list in that diary that reads very much like the list taken of Kate's belongings, and this is brushed aside by those desperate to keep a fantasy alive. There are many errors, but some choose not to see them, and that's how a hoax works. You take a gullible rube, and you pray on their wants and needs.

People are still discussing the handwriting, why? It ain't Jim's hand, and by suggesting he was inebriated at the time of writing and thus the hand was noticeably different, all you're doing is showing how little you actually understand a person's handwriting to begin with. Any expert could spot your handwriting whether you were drunk on Special Brew, high on glue, or stone-cold sober. You still give away your identity, because you're forming words, applying pressure and committing detail in ink that you don't even realize. James didn't write the "diary," James never saw the list of items describing Kate's belongings, James never drank in a pub that didn't exist by the name given for another 5 years after he was six feet under.

All of the evidence for a hoax is there before your eyes. The nonsense about nobody knowing or having access to certain information in the "diary" was absolutely rubbished by David Orsom, yet again this was brushed aside. The "diary" isn't old, and we already know that hoaxed diaries have been faked, and falsely aged, the Mussolini diaries, for example.

So, to those who are waiting for one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact proving this "diary" as fake, you're never going to get it, because hoaxes don't go out with a bang, they peter out with a whimper. It's this simple, if you can take all of this glaringly basic information and shun it, then you're exactly the kind of mark that is probably out bulk-buying bog-roll right now, and buying lucky heather from gypsies outside the Asda.

James quite obviously didn't write this diary, therefore it's not even a diary. You simply can't see the truth for what it is, and it's not because it isn't there, it's because you're blinded by faith. How's that workin' out for ya?

yours, faithfully,

Common Bleedin' Sense

xxx

[Iconoclast]

Literally only just seen this, mate. All I can say is One Direction have made a pretty hefty contribution to music over the last decade. Now, the fact that their contribution was one of complete and utter bollocks, doesn't lend credence to the notion that an abundance of contribution is something to be applauded and cherished.


I'm not here to score points with people I don't know from Adam, I'm here to spend the odd few minutes between doing actual, worthwhile things, entertaining a mild curiosity I have about this case. The sheer mental gymnastics I see on here in an effort to have James Maybrick become JtR is nothing short of funny, IMO, and I'm generally here to laugh about it, while adding my own opinions. Less is more, Ike. Knowledge is power!

To be clear, Mike, this is a fairly significant shift of mindset from you. In the past, scoring points with people you don't know from Adam was not simply one of the positions you took, but very much the platform from which built every argument. In the past, you and I have drawn swords not because we disagree but because of the aggressive nature of some of your earlier posts. It was to these I was referring, and I stand by my comment.

I prefer the balanced, reasonable Mike, even when he does not agree with a single point I make. It would be a very boring argument without at least two sides to it.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, go back to your posts of around summer 2018 and see if you feel they were reasonable and balanced. Personally, they read like you were typing them whilst three sheets to the wind and the version of you I was getting was not one for whom I'd have bought his final pint of the evening.

If you're here to 'laugh about it', we're definitely on the same side of that argument and I'll take it as read that - if you forget sometimes to signal your humour with the prudent use of smileys - that I can assume you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek not unnecessarily 'assertive'. Your argument loses none of its power with a little humour, however idiosyncratic it may be.

Having said all of that, I am not suggesting for a moment that I have not myself been inappropriately 'assertive' and for these I have served my time. I get passionate about my beliefs and sometimes they are not well-balanced. We are not automatons.

Your New Pal Ike (but keep your distance)

[Iconoclast]

The goal posts of this saga are forever being moved, it seems, but like in another thread, I'd like to offer a pretty glaringly obvious, incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the "diary." It's nothing new, it's been mentioned many a time, by myself, and many other posters.

James Maybrick didn't write the diary. Simple as that. There's literally no way James Maybrick would mention having a pint in a pub that didn't exist. James Maybrick had been dead 5 years by the time the "Poste House" came into existence under that name, yet Sir Jim apparently drank there about 6 years beforehand.

No other pub by such a name was in existence, something echoed by Shirley Harrison back in the day, who did admittedly spend a good many hours "trawling" for evidence of just such a thing.

Mike, now that we're best buds, you've got to stop doing this. You and I 'debated' this same point in the dark summer of 2018 and your arguments were - at best - dismissive.

If the author of the Maybrick scrapbook had used any other name for his post house (i.e., public house) than 'Poste House' (ignore the first 'e', of course, as that's his or her typo) then its non-existence in 1888 would have been a very large nail in the scrapbook's coffin. For example, the famous one whose name I can't remember but which was the location for the brilliant McCartney carpool karaoke, was opened in about 1895 (as I recall from my posts of 2018). I think I'm thinking of 'The Assembly Rooms'. Let's imagine I am. If the scrapbook made reference to 'The Assembly Rooms', it would be game over. Even better, if Maybrick was supposed to have written "Had a couple of swift ones with the lads in The Assembly Rooms before going to see Liverpool FC dismantle Uttoxeter City". It would be game over for certain. The first two didn't exist in 1888 and the latter - just for fun - has never existed.

But the author of the scrapbook didn't use the name of a specific pub! 'The Poste House' which existed in 1960s Liverpool did not exist in 1880s Liverpool (or - at least - we don't believe it to be so though it is not impossible - you claimed in 2018 that it was called 'The Muck Midden' in 1888 but this was untrue, 'The Muck Midden' was a colloquial name in the same way 'The Diggers' is a colloquial name for 'The Athletic Arms' near the Hearts ground in Edinburgh). therefore Maybrick could not have been referring to 'The Poste House' of 1960s Liverpool but he could have written the scrapbook AND he could have been referring to the generic sense of the term which means 'public building which collects post' - not the same thing as a post office, by the way.

So please stop citing this profound equivocation as evidence of a hoax. It isn't.

Your Old Pal Ike

[Iconoclast]

James quite obviously didn't write this diary, therefore it's not even a diary. You simply can't see the truth for what it is, and it's not because it isn't there, it's because you're blinded by faith. How's that workin' out for ya?

yours, faithfully,

Common Bleedin' Sense

xxx

Ah - the old Mike doesn't fall far from the tree, it would seem.

How it's working out for ma is that I've just endured the rehash of a pile of scrapbook clichés which have no basis in the truth-of-things. The that-which-is-categorically-established.

I draw your attention to my brilliant Society's Pillar. I really must get around to dealing with Lord Orsam's critique - if only I had the opportunity to be home for a reasonable period of time doing little else! - but until then my finest work reflects my genius. If you've read it, it must have shaken your tree at least a little. Doesn't sound like it, does it? And yet was it not you yourself who said I had so much to say on the subject that I should write a book myself?

You don't sound as though you even recall any of that.

Ike
Still Your Pal But Drinking Buddies Once Lockdown is Over, Probably Not

[Mike J. G.]

To be clear, Mike, this is a fairly significant shift of mindset from you. In the past, scoring points with people you don't know from Adam was not simply one of the positions you took, but very much the platform from which built every argument. In the past, you and I have drawn swords not because we disagree but because of the aggressive nature of some of your earlier posts. It was to these I was referring, and I stand by my comment.

I prefer the balanced, reasonable Mike, even when he does not agree with a single point I make. It would be a very boring argument without at least two sides to it.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, go back to your posts of around summer 2018 and see if you feel they were reasonable and balanced. Personally, they read like you were typing them whilst three sheets to the wind and the version of you I was getting was not one for whom I'd have bought his final pint of the evening.

If you're here to 'laugh about it', we're definitely on the same side of that argument and I'll take it as read that - if you forget sometimes to signal your humour with the prudent use of smileys - that I can assume you're being somewhat tongue-in-cheek not unnecessarily 'assertive'. Your argument loses none of its power with a little humour, however idiosyncratic it may be.

Having said all of that, I am not suggesting for a moment that I have not myself been inappropriately 'assertive' and for these I have served my time. I get passionate about my beliefs and sometimes they are not well-balanced. We are not automatons.

Your New Pal Ike (but keep your distance)

Ike, as someone who has read some of the posts you have typed on here in the direction of others, all I can say is, don't be one of those fellas who can dish it out, but can't take it. Don't take it so seriously, Ike, we're, after all, simply chin-wagging over a piece of hilariously bad fiction.

I've never posted while drunk, although that's a good idea, come to think of it. As someone who followed these threads for a long time before joining and posting, I just got tired of reading so much drivel, in every thread, not merely the Maybrick threads.

When I see Caz posting about how nobody in Liverpool is familiar with the Maybroick story, I just have to genuinely laugh to myself, hopefully not too loudly, for fear of the neighbours having me as an arsenic-loving dandy, like that Maybrick bloke.

I don't dislike anyone on here, I just sometimes find it hard to contain my genuine disbelief in some people's opinions... It's all perfectly natural, though. We're all human. Perfectly imperfect and prone to buffoonery.

[Mike J. G.]

Mike, now that we're best buds, you've got to stop doing this. You and I 'debated' this same point in the dark summer of 2018 and your arguments were - at best - dismissive.

If the author of the Maybrick scrapbook had used any other name for his post house (i.e., public house) than 'Poste House' (ignore the first 'e', of course, as that's his or her typo) then its non-existence in 1888 would have been a very large nail in the scrapbook's coffin. For example, the famous one whose name I can't remember but which was the location for the brilliant McCartney carpool karaoke, was opened in about 1895 (as I recall from my posts of 2018). I think I'm thinking of 'The Assembly Rooms'. Let's imagine I am. If the scrapbook made reference to 'The Assembly Rooms', it would be game over. Even better, if Maybrick was supposed to have written "Had a couple of swift ones with the lads in The Assembly Rooms before going to see Liverpool FC dismantle Uttoxeter City". It would be game over for certain. The first two didn't exist in 1888 and the latter - just for fun - has never existed.

But the author of the scrapbook didn't use the name of a specific pub! 'The Poste House' which existed in 1960s Liverpool did not exist in 1880s Liverpool (or - at least - we don't believe it to be so though it is not impossible - you claimed in 2018 that it was called 'The Muck Midden' in 1888 but this was untrue, 'The Muck Midden' was a colloquial name in the same way 'The Diggers' is a colloquial name for 'The Athletic Arms' near the Hearts ground in Edinburgh). therefore Maybrick could not have been referring to 'The Poste House' of 1960s Liverpool but he could have written the scrapbook AND he could have been referring to the generic sense of the term which means 'public building which collects post' - not the same thing as a post office, by the way.

So please stop citing this profound equivocation as evidence of a hoax. It isn't.

Your Old Pal Ike

That you can't accept the fact that "Poste House" is clearly not a typo, and that this idea is not shared by anyone other than you, isn't my issue, Ike.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information regarding the pub not being known as the Muck Midden from, but it's simply not grounded in any form of reality. The pub became known as the Poste House in 1894. There were no others by that specific name, neither I, nor Shirley Harrison, have ever found any evidence of such an establishment. Again, the fact that you cling onto a baseless assertion that it was a typo is your problem, and yours only. We can only go by what is written on the page, and what is written, very clearly, is the unique spelling of a pub that never existed by that name at the time in question.

The reason people like Vincent Burke, a student of the Maybrick poisoning case to the point that he was a speaker at the "trial" of Maybrick at the cricket club, mention that Maybrick was a frequenter of the Poste house, is literally because of the diary.

The rather desperate interpretation of what you think the author actually meant is nothing short of silly, Ike.