One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Kattrup]

I give up!

Yes, let’s give up, it’s a beautiful day outside.

I try to keep out of these senseless diary discussions since all they do is prolong the scam.

But I failed this time at staying away, I’ll try and maintain more social distancing

[Iconoclast]

Let's go again.

Let's say the price of a 'National' Lottery ticket goes up to £100,000, but the number of people who can participate in tonight's lottery is restricted to only those people who live in your street. Say, 100 people. Say there'll be a guaranteed winner of £10million (the ticket closest to the numbers that come out).

Do you immediately remortgage your house in order to generate a spare £100,000 (or £200,000 if you want two tickets!) on the assumption that the winner is certain to be you?

I very much doubt it.

I doubt you'd buy a ticket if it was just the people two houses either side of you. The odds on you winning would go up massively but the danger of losing makes you realise how risky the bet is. And that's maybe where your chances of winning are as good as 1 in, say, 15 (depending upon how many people live either side of you).

In my case, if it was just between me and my immediate neighbours, my odds of winning would be just 1 in 4 (me, my elderly widowed neighbour on the left, and Mr and Mrs Hitler on the right). Would I buy a ticket? Of course I wouldn't!

If the odds were 1 in 2, I still wouldn't buy a ticket because the consequences of being wrong are so high!

If the ticket costs £2 or £10 or £100 or maybe even £1,000, of course I'd buy one!

So we dismiss the implausible event of Lyons and Barrett drinking in The Saddle as being meaningful because the consequences of our doing so are utterly inconsequential (a howler from me on the Casebook, and that's it). But if our precious child's life depended upon it, we'd run a mile from the risk of being wrong because the consequences are so terrible for us. Under those circumstances, our eyes could not be clearer and our brains more calculating: "So Eddie Lyons and Mike Barrett have to frequent The Saddle or else my child dies and all I know about Lyons is that he may have worked at Battlecrease House some eight and a half miles south of The Saddle. Am I happy not to act - not to pick up my child and run far away? Of course I'm not - those odds are terrible."

Your perspective would change, I promise you. Realising how dangerous it was for your child's safety for you to continue to trivialise the likelihood of Lyons and Barrett drinking in the same pub, you would stop trivialising it instantly!

I promise you, you would.

And that tells you everything you need to know about that event actually happening - it was so miraculous it was not simply coincidence.

[rjpalmer]

Hello Ike.

Don't get excited. I don't plan on rejoining the fray. I'd just like to humbly offer the following two posts, side by side, for your consideration.

Caz : ‘Acquiring a Victorian Diary’ thread, Post #11: 3-21-2017

“Anyway, my point is that I'm surprised an auctioneer would bother to sell an item of such small value and even more surprised that Mike would have had to bid anything like £50 in order to win his. It's a pity no losing bidder ever came forward to say they remembered the item fetching more than expected and going to the man who went on to claim it contained Jack the Ripper's diary.”

Summary: No way Barrett bought this black ledger! 50 pounds? That’s way too high a price for an item of such small value!

Fast forward to yesterday.

Caz: “One Incontrovertible Fact’ Post #5179: 6-5-2020:

“Mike is supposed to have made a beeline for the next auction at Outhwaite & Litherland, scheduled for 31st March, where, as luck would have it, he found something he could actually use and put in the winning bid of £50. O&L were feeling generous that day on the owner's behalf, and the album containing 125 pages of highly collectible WWI photos, worth in excess of £100 according to Mr Litherland, went to Mike for a song.”

Summary: No way Barrett bought this black ledger! £50! That’s way too low a price. The photos alone were worth £100!

So, there it is. We’ve now heard it both ways--from Caz. Barrett couldn’t have bought a black ledger—the purchase price was too high. Barret couldn’t have bought a black ledger-- the purchase price was too low. Whatever the price was—it was too high, too low, or too in-between!

Or as they say in nautical terms, “any port in a storm.”

Any conceivable argument, no matter how hobbled—even diametrically opposed arguments---just as long as they discredit Barrett’s very real and very obvious involvement in this hoax.

Carry on!

[Iconoclast]

Hello Ike.

Don't get excited. I don't plan on rejoining the fray. I'd just like to humbly offer the following two posts, side by side, for your consideration.

Any conceivable argument, no matter how hobbled—even diametrically opposed arguments---just as long as they discredit Barrett’s very real and very obvious involvement in this hoax.

Carry on!

Hello Roger [shouting to be heard over the sound of 2 metres of Chigwell traffic at this time of day]!

I am excited. I thought you were gone, but I am delighted to note that you remain (at least technically) in the game. Always welcome to re-join the happy few, though obviously you'll have points docked for skipping your go. Them's the breaks, me old fruit.

The danger with concatenating two such disparate posts (in terms of time) is that time may have moved on. I have no way of knowing, but is it not possible that Caz's interpretation of the value of the scrapbook in 2020 was based upon her sense of worth of the scrapbook coupled with her knowledge of how valuable WWI photographs would be had they been residing (as Barrett claimed) in the scrapbook? With the VE day celebrations recently, I read something to that effect (that WWI photos were relatively rare and therefore reasonably valuable) which was news to me so it may be that her latter sense of value of the 'package' was much enhanced by the likely value of the photographs whilst her sense of value of the scrapbook had remained more or less the same as her previous view in 2017.

If this was the case then 2017's £50 could indeed have been seen as extravagant whereas 2020's £50 could have been seen as a 'bargain at twice the price' (not 'half the price' as urban myth prefers it - including in the best song in 'Oliver'!!!).

Hey - just throwing it out there, Roger. You'll probably know better than I on these things!

Your old mucker,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Just to pursue my earlier rant …

Just in case anyone is thinking that electricians would not travel very far to their work (you may not be thinking this, but I'm putting it out there), here is where the key electricians lived in March 1992:


There were only six of them in a county of 1.4million people, but one of them just managed to live right next to The Saddle. If that does not strike you as significant, there is truly no hope left in the world ...

[rjpalmer]

Ike - The strangest part of Caz’s second post is that Mr. Whay is able to give a very precise estimate of the worth of photographs in 1992 even though we are told he had never seen them, the ledger didn’t exist, the photos didn’t exist, the object was never sold by O & L, and no way did Barrett ever buy them! If I were a tad more suspicious, I’d almost want to theorize that Whay had seen these photographs after all.

Anyways, a bid is a bid. That’s why people go to auctions: to find a bargain. Sometimes they pay too much, sometimes they get a heck of a deal. That’s the appeal of auctions. Most of the world was coming out of a recession in early 1992. Prices were lower, and Barrett’s description of the photos is vague, so this whole line of reasoning is pointless. The only photo Mike described in any detail had nothing to do with World War One. It was of a donkey by a grave. This was evidently a genuine ‘thing’ to see at a certain pet cemetery in Liverpool during the 1920s or 30s, so—gullible me!--I find Mike’s account credible and the price believable.

Well, have fun with it, but I'm a tad surprised to see you leaping onto the Eddie L. express bus to Nowhereville. Be careful. You might want to stick with Anne Graham. Having too many provenances is like having too many wives---it is frowned upon in most jurisdictions.

[Iconoclast]

Ike - The strangest part of Caz’s second post is that Mr. Whay is able to give a very precise estimate of the worth of photographs in 1992 even though we are told he had never seen them, the ledger didn’t exist, the photos didn’t exist, the object was never sold by O & L, and no way did Barrett ever buy them! If I were a tad more suspicious, I’d almost want to theorize that Whay had seen these photographs after all.

I think Caz mentioned Mr Litherland, by the way, Roger (not Mr Whay). As a published author on the subject, she has probably had encounters with both and may have personal knowledge from both or either which never made its way into print - so Mr Litherland might have said that WWI photographs fetch a decent price. She might have forgotten this when she posted in 2017, and remembered again when she posted in 2020. Who knows?

Anyways, a bid is a bid. That’s why people go to auctions: to find a bargain. Sometimes they pay too much, sometimes they get a heck of a deal. That’s the appeal of auctions. Most of the world was coming out of a recession in early 1992. Prices were lower, and Barrett’s description of the photos is vague, so this whole line of reasoning is pointless. The only photo Mike described in any detail had nothing to do with World War One. It was of a donkey by a grave. This was evidently a genuine ‘thing’ to see at a certain pet cemetery in Liverpool during the 1920s or 30s, so—gullible me!--I find Mike’s account credible and the price believable.

There is a lot of detail to absorb in Mike’s sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995 and one can be forgiven for forgetting that Mike’s description of the photos was actually far from vague: “I found a photograph Album which contained approximately 125 pages of photographs. They were old photographs and they were all to do with the
1914/1918 1st World War.”

Well, have fun with it, but I'm a tad surprised to see you leaping onto the Eddie L. express bus to Nowhereville. Be careful. You might want to stick with Anne Graham. Having too many provenances is like having too many wives---it is frowned upon in most jurisdictions.

I have become something of a convert. I don't recall exactly what it was that caused me to shift my allegiance, but there was definitely a moment when I felt that - of the two provenances (one of which had to be incorrect) - one coincidence (the Eddie Lyons one) was just too significant to ignore. As one cannot believe both to be true simultaneously, I have had to shift away from Anne's tale which I now feel was timed all-too well to wipe-out Mike's confession. You shouldn't have too big a problem with that shift as you yourself clearly believe that Mike tod the truth when he confessed, and therefore Anne and her father Billy lied as a consequence. As the two provenances cannot be true, one or both must be a coincidence, and the chances of Eddie's tale being a coincidence is just too unlikely to be so and so (reluctantly) I have to see Anne's provenance as a white lie of convenience (she knows Mike didn't fake the scrapbook as she lived with him so she knew his confession was a fantasy designed to get back at the world and she knew of the damage it was causing the project - including to Feldman's chances of gaining a video deal - so she span her own little fantasy which very cleverly kept the story intact but removed Mike entirely from it).



Goodness, Google can produce an image of pretty much anything, it would appear. Or was that a personal photograph taken on Lord Orsam's estate? I see his staff have been furloughed, by the way. I hope you weren't on the payroll? I applied for a role at Orsam Manor some time ago (as a researcher, not a mere servant) and was utterly stumped by one of the competency-based interview questions, "Give me an example of how many years you'd bang on about a journal of Jack the Ripper being a hoax based upon the blurred confession of a bitter and twisted alcoholic who had been coached into what to say, and who had simply signed what had been put in front of him by a half-cocked private detective working on behalf of someone who feared he was wrong and was absolutely determined to do whatever he could to hide that fact".

Well, I was struggling, I can tell you. Eventually, I gave the example of how I went bird-watching in the summer because I find it relaxed me. Didn't seem to hit the mark with the great man himself and I was unceremoniously escorted along the ten-thousand-metre corridor before being shown down forty-six flights of stairs (thank goodness the interview wasn't on the top floor!), and removed from the building through a small door at the back.

Hey - I didn't want the job anyway!

Ike

[jmenges]

Lord Orsam is banned from contributing to the Casebook message boards and that ban also forbids other posters from copying and pasting his comments in any discussion thread. Whether you’re actually being a proxy poster for his Lordship, or have good and honest intentions, pasting his commentary here will not be allowed.

Thanks,

JM

[MrBarnett]

Lord Orsam is banned from contributing to the Casebook message boards and that ban also forbids other posters from copying and pasting his comments in any discussion thread. Whether you’re actually being a proxy poster for his Lordship, or have good and honest intentions, pasting his commentary here will not be allowed.

Thanks,

JM

I’ve heard that his ‘real’ name is Denis O’Brien. Keep your eyes open for multiple aliases to match his multiple personalities.

[Graham]

Whatever his name may or may not be, I think his style would be easily recognised.

Graham

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Lord Orsam is banned from contributing to the Casebook message boards and that ban also forbids other posters from copying and pasting his comments in any discussion thread. Whether you’re actually being a proxy poster for his Lordship, or have good and honest intentions, pasting his commentary here will not be allowed.

Thanks,

JM

Really? Ban Orsam, fair enough. But ban anyone else from quoting him, even if it's a fair, relevant, correct comment, in context or whatever? Can we decide for ourselves if Orsam needs ignoring? What's the criteria for such a blanket ban? I'm not sticking up for Orsam per se, but debate has to be open, and, more importantly, has to include the opinion of people you disagree with. I'd be shocked to hear anyone, anyone at all was enforced with such a blanket ban. I'm referring to his contribution to the case, his articles in Ripperologist etc. His personal criticisms of others, yes, that can be left to his own personal site and no one really needs to be repeating it. Of course, no one needs to read it at all. But I can't say I'm totally at home with the idea of making it against the rules to quote him in any way, shape or form. Not doing much for the stereotype of us lot being cliquey elitists that blackball anyone with a different point of view.

Well, that's my tuppence on the matter.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I will add though, I whole heartedly advocate a ban on any mention of Orsams book about Spandau 'effin Ballet. Mainly because I hate Spandau Ballet.

[Iconoclast]

I’ve heard that his ‘real’ name is Denis O’Brien. Keep your eyes open for multiple aliases to match his multiple personalities.

I believe that - when he is in the House - he is referred to as David, Lord Orsam of Chigwell (Semi). He and Alan, Lord Sugar, sit together and share beef paste sandwiches, apparently.

Which is nice.

[jmenges]

Orsam tends to respond in writing to specific posts made on Casebook. If those responses can just be copied and pasted here, well...it doesn’t make for much of a ban, does it?

JM

[rjpalmer]

Mr. Bundy -- Perhaps you are starting to hone-in on why this ‘debate’ (is it a debate?) should be avoided like the plague. First off, these conversations are filled with a disturbing amount of misinformation stated as ‘fact’—for instance, that the electrical employee Eddie Lyons was at Battlecrease (Dodd’s house) on 9 March 1992, when the timesheets show that he wasn’t, and the employee who was actually there (Arthur Rigby) confirmed that he wasn’t. Yet, in this little corner of alternative universe, we are told in no uncertain terms by codding cods like Ike that Lyons WAS there, and people evidently accept this, and the conversation proceeds on this most ethereal foundation.

Next up, we have the tedious and annoying situation where the two main combatants—Barrat and Skinner—are here in spirit, but not in body. So, it’s like attending some convoluted séance, where silent yet guttural whispers are heard overhead—or, in some cases, you only THINK they are heard overhead. Barrat is banned, and although Skinner apparently watches these boards eagerly, and is in contact with people who ARE posting, he seldom posts himself, and when he does, it is almost always through an intermediary. Barrat, meanwhile, responds to comments on these boards, but only after a delay of several days or weeks and at an entirely different website, ie., his own.

Then we have the entire ‘political’ subtext, where ‘old hoax’ theorists never raise a finger to question the crazy statements of the ‘Maybrick dunnit’ crowd, no matter how flawed, not because they can’t see through their bad arguments, but because they share the same common enemy: those who are convinced it is a modern fake by Barrett & Co. There is a sort of “United Front” that must be understood and gingerly navigated.

It's a bit like following a violent debate in the Irish Parliament, except that it’s carried out using messages strapped to the legs of slow flying homing pigeons, and the political alignments and sub-texts are so complicated that one needs a four year degree in political science and/or Irish history to even begin to comprehend all their subtleties and bitter past histories, yet, in the end, all that is really happening, with rare exceptions, is a symbolic and somewhat disturbing recitation of all the same basic arguments that have been tossed back and forth for twenty-five years or more. Mein Gott! Even the ridiculous 'Diego Laurenz' has made a recent cameo! Run. Far. Away.