One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[Iconoclast]

Earl: "Hello? Mr. Williams? I am afraid that I am having trouble filling your highly unusual request. Blank Victorian diaries are hard to come by in the year 1992."

Barrett: (aside) "Bloody Hell! That Doreen woman expects me any day!"

Earl: "Hello? Are you there, Mr. Williams?"

Hmmm. It's not bad Roger, honestly, for a first go, it's not bad.

Now normally I sit here with a wee devil on one shoulder (who wants to play havoc with the Barrett tale by illustrating in mock-text how utterly implausible it would be for the Barretts to have been involved in a hoax) and an angel on the other (who just wants me to stick pretty much to the facts of the matter in order to serve a similar purpose by highlighting the chronological, logical, and factual difficulties presented by the Barrett tale). Today, it seems the angel has won the day, and has written a version of events which really should make you stop a while and ponder on whether or not your own version was particularly compliant with the known facts.

Let's see how the conversation probably went in reality …

Earl: "Hello? Mr. Williams? This is Martin Earl.”

Barrett: “You must have the wrong number. My name’s Barrett not Williams. Who are you?”

Earl : “Martin Earl. H.P.Bookfinders.”

Barrett: “Oh yes. That’s probably me then.

Earl: “I am afraid that I am having trouble filling your highly unusual request. Blank Victorian diaries are hard to come by in the year 1992."

Barrett: (aside) "Bloody Hell! That Doreen woman expects me in a fortnight.

Earl: "Hello? Are you still there, Mr. Williams? I mean Mr Barrett.”

Barrett: "Yes, yes, this is Mr. Williams. I mean Mr Barrett.”

Earl: "As I was about to say, I did locate a small 1891 De La Rue’s Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book. It’s 2.25” by 4”, dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro ‘EATON PLACE’ and on the other ‘ETON RISE’. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro ‘ 19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76’. Would that interest you?"

Barrett: (mumbles) “1891? It’s close enough I suppose...”

Earl: "Hello? Did you say something, Mr. Williams? I mean Mr Barrett.”

Barrett: No, I mean yes, I mean, I’m not Mr Williams Yes, yes, send it. I would be very much interested in seeing what 20 blank Victorian pages look like. I hear that 20 blank pages look very different from 18 blank pages or 5 blank pages. That's why I asked for at least 20 blank pages. It's a sort of Zen thing. The more blank pages, the more you realize what blank pages look like. I've always been curious about the appearance of blank pages and …"

Earl: "Well this one isn’t exactly blank, Mr Barrett. As I said, it has the dates printed on every page – 1891, on every page, three or four times on each page.”

Barrett: “1891 on every page, three or four dates to a page?

Earl: “In line with the number of days in the typical week Mr Williams, I mean Mr Barrett.”

Barrett: “And nearly all of those pages are blank?

Earl: “Or partly used as specified but mostly all blank. In fact to be entirely honest it has only three completely blank pages which I appreciate isn’t quite the “at least twenty” you were interested in seeing for your Zen analysis. If it is unsatisfactory you are under no obligation to buy it or I can post it this afternoon.

Barrett: "Right. Please hurry, I have a woman in London waiting for me. And can you address it to Mr Barrett, please.”

Earl: “You’re good for the cash, Mr Barrett, if I send it on trust?”

Barrett: “Oh yes. You can trust me and that’s the God’s Honest Truth and what have you.”

[Two days later]

Barrett (opening the package): "Small? That rotten Earl! This thing is a bleeding postage-stamp! Sugar lumps - now what will I do?”

Anne: "O you idjit! You paid 25 pounds for that? Why don't you ever think? We’ve been planning this since 1989 and you’ve had from roughly round about January, February 1990 to write the story which you said would be a best seller and couldn’t fail and find a blank Victorian diary or something for me to transfer the text into disguising my handwriting. In fact, don’t you remember, I even purchased a red leather backed diary for £25 through a firm I found in the 1986 Writers Year Book and when it arrived you decided it was too small? So now the same thing has happened again two years later!””

Barrett: “Oh sugar lumps”

Anne: ”What have you actually said to Doreen about going to London with the diary?”

Barrett: “I told her as soon as Caroline’s Easter holidays begin on Monday April 13th I’d get a train to London and be there first thing in the morning.”

Anne: “Great. So you’ll be travelling at peak time. How much is that going to cost me? We’re already £50 down on this scam and we don’t even have a diary to show! So we’ve now got about two weeks to find something – that’s fourteen days, Mike - and then I’ve got to find the time to transfer those twenty-nine pages of narrative you have on your word processor assuming you’ve even finished it, whilst disguising my handwriting and checking your spelling. I doubt whether the ink will have even dried on the pages”

Barrett: “Do you think they’ll notice that the ink is fresh? I could take some blotting paper in case. Anyway at least we’ve still got some of that small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink left that we purchased from the Bluecoat Chambers two years ago for less than a pound. It’s probably more expensive now so we’ve saved something. And we’ve got the three fountain pens we bought from the Medici art gallery in Bold Street that will hold fountain nibs. You know, those little brass nibs. In fact, just to be on the safe side, I bought 22 brass nibs and a variety of small brass nibs. That only cost us...

Anne: “You don’t have to go to London on Monday April 13th, of course. You could ‘phone up Doreen and say you’re ill and under doctor’s orders not to leave the house for at least a month. That would give us more time.”

Barrett: “I can’t do that.”

Anne: Why not?”

Barrett: “It would be lying.”

Now, this version takes into account all of the things Barrett claimed rather than simply the bits which suit your and Lord Orsam's argument. It is up to our readers to decide whether or not the Rules de Bongo permit you to ignore the awkward bits which don't work for you and focus solely on those aspects of the tale which do your ever-so-slightly-biased work for you.

By the way, the devil on my other shoulder still wants to have his say (just for jolly) and I may well unleash him but first we'll let the angel's voice be heard ...

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Yes they do, RJ. Maybe not so much in the US of A, but most certainly this side of the pond.

The April of 2020 was the first time during my married life that I was unable to go to the pub or be out for any other purpose than shopping and exercise. My health was still strong luckily. I had been left unattended by my husband when he occasionally walked to Waitrose by himself.

Thanks, Caz, but it doesn't really change the point does it? (which I now see was made by Melvin Harris twenty-five years ago, and not by 'Lord Orsam,' though perhaps DB commented on it, too). von Roques' account of Florrie being left unattended in December (evidently at a social gathering that involved dancing) hardly suggests that Maybrick went to Manchester for Christmas 1888, unless one wants to grasp at straws.

The point being, that if the Diary's text is so complex, with elements of obscure 'inside' knowledge, why don't we see any credible and indisputable examples of this? Instead we see the same weak, way-past-their-sell-by-date observations, glazed in sophistry, first made by Feldman 25 years ago.

One good, indisputable 'fact' in the Maybrick Diary that mentions something genuinely obscure would go a long way to disprove the modern hoax theory, but instead we get imaginary Mrs. Hamersmiths, murders in Manchester that no one can find, and a throwaway phrase made by a woman in the 1940s who sarcastically described Maybrick as "Sir James." It's really not very convincing, is it?

And no, the Ryan/Fuller 'thing' was not lost on me. I think my argument was lost on you.

No one is disputing that Ryan created his volume by referencing primary sources. Hardly earth-shattering. That's what historians do. Keith Skinner has been making this same argument for 20+ years and it has never convinced me: Keith seems to be saying, as you are in the above, that if Ryan created 'The Poisoned Life' by referring to contemporary and archival sources, then the hoaxer could have done the same thing in order to have created the Maybrick hoax. Ergo, we see similarities in the phrasing.

That misses the point, because then you would need to explain why, if the hoaxer had been sophisticated enough to have consulted the same dozens and dozens of sources that Ryan consulted, why does he still end up with EXACTLY the same 55 or 60 Maybrick 'facts' that Ryan did?

Even 'Ike' seems to realize the probabilities are against this strange supposition.

Put it this way. Am I supposed to believe that if two well-read Ripper researchers (pick any two, let us say Gary Barnett and Debra Arif, or Keith Skinner and David Barrat) sat down to create a 29 page diary of the Whitechapel Murders, there is going to be a perfect overlap of the 'facts' presented? That in no instance Keith is going to mention a verifiable 'fact' from all these sources that Lord Orsam doesn't also mention in his 29 page transcript? Or that Barnett will consult the same exact sources as Arif does, and never anything else?

Yet, is that not what we are seeing in the Maybrick Diary? The Diary DOES mention the same 50-60 facts as Ryan. Yet there are dozens of different ways the story of James Maybrick could have been written. It could have focused on his life at the cotton exchange. It could have mentioned the walking tour of Wales that Maybrick took sometime in early 1889 (and was alluded to in the contemporary trial transcripts). But the Diary doesn't do any of that. It just recounts the same basic tale, with the Grand National, Florie's black-eye, Bunny and Bobp and George Smith, etc.. that is told in the secondary sources, and, specifically Bernard Ryan.

And again, how could Barrett have known this, without conducting a careful analysis? You seem to be saying that Mike got lucky when he referred to Ryan.

In short, the similarity between the Diary and the modern retellings of the Maybrick case--coupled with the use of all the standard "Ripperisms"--makes me conclude that the hoaxer never consulted any primary sources, let alone obscure primary sources. He wove his tale from the most obvious books that someone would have consulted in 1991--and, specifically, Bernard Ryan's book and Donald Rumbelow's book.

Had he delved deeper, there would be evidence of it in the text.

[Iconoclast]

The obscure fact that Maybrick's father and mother were buried next to each other can be found in...Bernard Ryan's book (1977).

Hi Roger,

Here's a rather interesting aspect regarding the headstone and the Maybrick family vault. It also contained the remains of Edwin Maybrick which Ryan does not mention.

But Mike Barrett's research notes - supposedly from Autumn 1991 (I say 'supposedly' for my benefit I guess as I have shifted these days towards a Battlecrease House provenance on March 9 1992 for the scrapbook) - stated:

"‘Relevant facts connected with Maybrick’:
“Four brothers: William, Thomas, Edwin and Michael – Edwin is burried [sic] along with James and their mother and father at Anfield cemetry [sic].”

It is intriguing to wonder where Barrett collected that little gem. The obvious place was the cemetery itself - perhaps he really was a hoaxer and he meandered along there during his long research phase and discovered this fact (or he really did have the scrapbook in his possession in Autumn 1991 and meandered along for the same reasons)?

So he got everything he put into the scrapbook about the Maybricks from Ryan, but he had additional information about them which was not in Ryan. Intriguing.

Ultimately, his proximity to Anfield cemetery means that we will have to imply that that was how he uncovered that particular fact, but it is fascinating nevertheless.

Ike, Musing

[Iconoclast]

Yet, is that not what we are seeing in the Maybrick Diary? The Diary DOES mention the same 50-60 facts as Ryan. Yet there are dozens of different ways the story of James Maybrick could have been written. It could have focused on his life at the cotton exchange. It could have mentioned the walking tour of Wales that Maybrick took sometime in early 1889 (and was alluded to in the contemporary trial transcripts). But the Diary doesn't do any of that. It just recounts the same basic tale, with the Grand National, Florie's black-eye, Bunny and Bobp and George Smith, etc.. that is told in the secondary sources, and, specifically Bernard Ryan.

I'm no historian, but the scrapbook is self-evidently about the Jack the Ripper 'campaign' of James Maybrick. It doesn't mention the walking tour of Wales, it is true, and - if it had - detractors would have found a source (primary, secondary, who knows from where) to show that that was where the hoaxer got his or her facts from so whether non-Ripper activities were listed or not, if they were anywhere on the record, that is the source that will always quickly be given. If the source is obscure - but very telling - it gets immediately denuded of relevance (so the excellent find of 'Sir James' has to be belittled by you in order to pass over it quickly in case anyone is permitted sufficient time to realise how utterly implausible such an historical discovery was to the case against Maybrick). You will find in no books on Maybrick his mooted trips to Manchester (where he committed murder) but that does not mean he did not go to Manchester nor that he did not commit murder (or - at least - attempt to). In no Ripper books will you find the evidence that a cane was rammed into Annie Chapman's genitalia but that does not mean it did not happen. In no Ripper books pre-1992 would you find the suggestion that Eddowes' red leather cigarette case may have actually belonged to Jack himself, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a possibility.

You may well focus for all your worth on the facts which are easily-known about James Maybrick and say that that is the sum of the scrapbook, but you do so from a particular viewpoint - one which excludes that which is not easily-known or perhaps is now unknowable. The author of the scrapbook tells us that James Maybrick went to Manchester at Christmas 1888 to see his brother Thomas and his family (presumably). Clearly, there is nothing on the record that confirms this which leaves you relaxing in your closed-minded stupor. But a letter from the Baroness tells us that - at Christmas 1888 - Florrie was left unattended by her husband. And - boy - you can't stand this. How dare history throw something up which might in any way support the Victorian scrapbook!

So you attempt to denude it of meaning. But those without bias can simply look at that letter and say "It proves nothing about Maybrick going to Manchester, but it unexpectedly confirms that he was away from home at a time when the scrapbook claims he was away from home. That's interesting."

Your barking is unnecessarily loud, Roger. It clatters at the eardrum and leaves it sore and bruised so we find it harder and harder to hear properly what you are saying.

If you ever once gave a little ground to the other side of the argument, yours would immediately gain more credence.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Ike - Let me rephrase things. Perhaps it will be more to your liking.

I am of the firm belief that there is a glaring error in the Diary, because, in 1888, Maybrick spent Christmas alone in Chigwell, having sent his two children to Wales.

I have utterly no evidence for this, but, in support of my belief, I can cite the Baroness's letter to the Home Office, stating that Florrie had been left unattended at a dance or similar social gathering in 'The December of 1888.'

And this gives support--strong and credible support--for my belief that Maybrick was indeed in Chigwell, thus proving the Diary contains an undeniable error.

Seriously, mate, have I convinced you yet?

Probably not, but, in a nutshell, this is exactly the argument you are using. And yet you can't seem to fathom why I don’t find it convincing.

[erobitha]

Just to throw in my tuppence. Unattended to
me implies plural not singular. If it was singular then such a single event would be specified. in my view it suggests there was period of unattended time in The December (Interesting phraseology) that also implies a period of time as opposed to one specific date or event.

[Iconoclast]

Just to throw in my tuppence. Unattended to
me implies plural not singular. If it was singular then such a single event would be specified. in my view it suggests there was period of unattended time in The December (Interesting phraseology) that also implies a period of time as opposed to one specific date or event.

Hi Erobitha,

The use of 'The [month]' is not interesting. It's perfectly common in British English. Caz has mentioned this, above. The Baroness meant 'The December' not 'The [10th of] December' or whatever, so you are right, the expression allows for plurality (though does not guarantee it).

For the record, I've never been that excited by the Baroness's revelation about James' absence in the last month of the year as he - if he were Jack - must have left Florrie unattended on many a weekend prior to Christmas 1888. Maybe the Baroness was unaware of those absences because they were shorter and less significant to Florrie so she didn't mention them to her mum?

Cheers,

Tom

[erobitha]

Hi Erobitha,

The use of 'The [month]' is not interesting. It's perfectly common in British English. Caz has mentioned this, above. The Baroness meant 'The December' not 'The [10th of] December' or whatever, so you are right, the expression allows for plurality (though does not guarantee it).

For the record, I've never been that excited by the Baroness's revelation about James' absence in the last month of the year as he - if he were Jack - must have left Florrie unattended on many a weekend prior to Christmas 1888. Maybe the Baroness was unaware of those absences because they were shorter and less significant to Florrie so she didn't mention them to her mum?

Cheers,

Tom

Hi Ike,

In "Maybrick A-Z" by Chris Jones (i can only see extracts online so if anyone has a an old copy for a reaosnable price they wish to sell please DM me!) on page 48 it mentions Levy (I asusme for research of his own book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Necessity-C.../dp/1275505007) claims “Florence had no friends or acquaintances in Liverpool when she first came there, and procured but few friends afterwards. It was only during the winter before her husband’s death that she went to a number of balls and parties”. Admittedly it doesn't state whether she was without or without her husband on more than one occasion, but it wouldnt be too big a leap to assume that by by December she was in a state of mainly "unattended" as oppossed to "attended", which I can only assume means James spent long bouts away during this month, just as Florrie was starting to be become more socially active. We know on New Year's Eve there was a huge argument. It's not beyond the realms of possibility he may have met with Thomas on his own with just the children over the Christmas period if the relationship with Florrie was under such strain. The mention of the visit to Thomas doesn't mention if he brought Florrie with him. We know he had visited Thomas with the children and Nurse Yapp without Florrie before for the odd day trip, as Florence Auspaugh recalls one such trip which is referneced in "A Poisoned Life: Florence Maybrick" by Richard Jay Hutto.

So we have examples outside the scrapbook that show James had on at least one occasion travelled for a day trip (Liverpool to Manchester is not that far) to visit Thomas & his wife. He could have easily done so again over the Christmas period - note period. We have a seperate source saying Florrie went to many balls and social gatherings (not clear alone or with James) during the winter months and a third source, Edwin Maybrick relaying to Baroness of Florrie's new social activity calendar that winter which led to her becoming more friendly with Albert Brierly (so I can take a guess James might not have around for those ones). Michael himself could have easily came up from London and spent Christmas Day itself with James, Florrie and the children. All of it possible.

To me a clear break in the mariage was forming and I cant read anywhere in the scrpabook that contradicts it - but merely enforces it. The forger must have wealth of varying sources to work from to jump over the laser beams many of the detractors believes are there.

Regards,

Erobitha

[Iconoclast]

To me a clear break in the mariage was forming and I cant read anywhere in the scrpabook that contradicts it - but merely enforces it. The forger must have wealth of varying sources to work from to jump over the laser beams many of the detractors believes are there.

I agree with your analysis Erobitha (and congratulate you on its impressive formation) but I also agree with Roger that the reference in the scrapbook is not explicit. The reality is that the reference in the scrapbook is a lovely touch - either based upon truth or based upon something else - which ties-in with other evidence. I don't have a problem with that. I hope that I did not overplay its importance in Society's Pillar as it is intriguing but obviously not confirming. It is just another in the steady drip of circumstances which consistently seem to support what is in the scrapbook rather than contradict what is in the scrapbook.

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Hi Roger,

Just so we are perfectly clear about what you’re saying, could I draw from you a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ that, in spite of Mike’s January 5th 1995 affidavit, no great thought or planning went into the creation of the diary? Could you confirm that Mike’s sources were only Ryan, Don Rumbelow, and one other book?

When Keith Skinner interviewed Mike at Liverpool Library on April 14th 1994, he was sober, coherent and very co-operative (I’ve heard the tape and read the transcript, by the way, so the subtleties of human inflection, tone, and psychology were observed). He said he had never heard of Ryan’s book until Shirley Harrison told him about it and – not that this means a lot where Mike was concerned – he seemed genuine enough.

You said that Mike identified Ryan as his source in his “rambling confessions to Alan Gray”, towards the end of 1994 but Mike did not mention Ryan’s book in his affidavit a few weeks later and I think you justify its exclusion on the grounds that Alan Gray was a private investigator helping Mike to secure the evidence that he (Mike) had forged the diary, and not an historian. Therefore Gray would not have realised the significance of what Mike was telling him? Do you choose to believe what you heard on Gray’s tape and then returned to its owner? If so, it is surely as valid for others to prefer to believe what Mike told Keith on tape (which he, presumably, kept).

You lay great weight on the comparison between the information in the diary and the detail in Ryan’s book and you ask, “Am I supposed to dismiss this as another coincidence?” which I feel is rather ironic, as I shall explain.

I (and others) lay great weight on the work being carried out in Battlecrease House and specifically Maybrick’s bedroom on precisely the same day that Michael Barrett telephoned a London Literary Agent, using the name ‘Mr Williams’ to tell her he had the diary of Jack the Ripper. The unknown author of the diary is identified as being Maybrick. The work carried out at Battlecrease House is contracted out to a firm of electricians, one of whom is known to Michael Barrett and lived in the same road as the pub used by Michael Barrett and which he also used.

Are we supposed to dismiss all of this as coincidence?

To pursue my point, you believe Robbie Johnson - unknown to his brother, Albert - was responsible for putting the scratches in the back of Albert’s watch. One of the scratches is a signature of ‘J Maybrick’ and it looks unarguably similar to Maybrick’s signature (on his wedding certificate). You have yet to explain Robbie Johnson’s source for locating Maybrick’s original signature but I think that you would dismiss the idea Robbie would have gone down to London and found Maybrick’s original marriage licence?

Are we supposed to dismiss this as a lucky guess on Robbie Johnson’s part regarding what he thought Maybrick’s signature might look like which – by anyone’s definition – would be a staggering coincidence?

Coincidences abound in the Maybrick-Barrett saga. I would caution you against being too excited that yours cannot easily be countered by many which do not favour your argument.

Cheers,

Ike

[rjpalmer]

and a third source, Edwin Maybrick relaying to Baroness of Florrie's new social activity calendar that winter which led to her becoming more friendly with Albert Brierly (so I can take a guess James might not have around for those ones).

Not that it matters, but you can you explain your source?

Edwin Maybrick landed in New York City aboard the Adriatic on 18 August 1888 and spent the next several months in America, not returning to Liverpool until early Spring 1889.

On December 30/31st 1888, Edwin was in Little Rock, Arkansas. How could he have known what Florrie's social calendar in Liverpool was that winter while gallivanting around the 'Land of Cotton'? Are you sure your source has it right?

[erobitha]

Not that it matters, but you can you explain your source?

Edwin Maybrick landed in New York City aboard the Adriatic on 18 August 1888 and spent the next several months in America, not returning to Liverpool until early Spring 1889.

On December 30/31st 1888, Edwin was in Little Rock, Arkansas. How could he have known what Florrie's social calendar in Liverpool was that winter while gallivanting around the 'Land of Cotton'? Are you sure your source has it right?

Hi RJ,

I actually saw the Edwin reference in Maybrick A-Z (see screenshot). In the reference it alludes to reference 21 but I cant see what that source is online (limited extracts) and I dont have the book.

Regards,

Erobitha

[Iconoclast]

Hi RJ,

I actually saw the Edwin reference in Maybrick A-Z (see screenshot). In the reference it alludes to reference 21 but I cant see what that source is online (limited extracts) and I dont have the book.

Regards,

Erobitha

Hi Erobitha,

According to my copy of Jones, reference 21 is Christie's Etched in Arsenic page 44, but my copy of the latter, page 44, does not contain the information in Jones.

Update: Being a bit thick here ... your reference 21 is from Chapter 3 where reference 21 is given as MacDougall's The Maybrick Case, page 10. I don't have that book so I can't comment any further.

Cheers,

Ike

[erobitha]

Hi Erobitha,

According to my copy of Jones, reference 21 is Christie's Etched in Arsenic page 44, but my copy of the latter, page 44, does not contain the information in Jones.

Update: Being a bit thick here ... your reference 21 is from Chapter 3 where reference 21 is given as MacDougall's The Maybrick Case, page 10. I don't have that book so I can't comment any further.

Cheers,

Ike

Actually it would indicate Edwin apparently found a letter to Brierly by Florrie and this led to the information being passed to the Baroness on page 10 of the 1891 edition of the book "The Maybrick Case" by Alexander Macdougall. I don't have a copy and the online extract I can see is fairly limited.

[Iconoclast]

When Keith Skinner interviewed Mike at Liverpool Library on April 14th 1994, he was sober, coherent and very co-operative.

To the casual reader, I should stress that I was referring to the mental state of Mike Barrett here, not that of Keith Skinner!

Ike