One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

I've clearly missed something about Caz's line of argument ...

I dare say you have.

In a nutshell, she's arguing that it is ludicrous for me to think that Barrett would have gone to the trouble of seeking 'at least twenty blank pages' of Victorian paper (or settle for what might well be Edwardian paper three weeks later) to create a hoax when he and Anne didn't not bother to imitate Maybrick's handwriting.

After all, any fool can see that the handwriting isn't Maybrick's. Why bother with period paper, when the handwriting is such an obvious giveaway that any fool would have turned their noise up just as quickly had the diary been written in a spiral notebook with green ballpoint pen.

What makes it such an embarrassing argument, old boy, (and I would think an insulting argument from your perspective) is that you, Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison, and others weren't bothered in the least that the handwriting was quickly rejected by the best handwriting experts on either side of the Atlantic.

But, I get it. You've admitted many times that you are 'scared' of Caz, so I can see why you would pretend that her line of argument doesn't represent a rather vicious, obvious, and embarrassing kick to the groin of your own credulity.

[rjpalmer]

I'd like to make a request of Paul Begg - assuming he's still reading the Casebook (or probably more likely just The Greatest Thread of All as so many others do): Could he confirm or deny that Melvin Harris ever shared with him the source of his (Harris') three mythical predictions regarding the bones of the Maybrick scrapbook (i.e., the claim that Harris predicted that it would be pretty much as it was)?

Nothing like a loaded question, eh? 'Mythical predictions.'

Stewart P. Evans, who was a good friend of Harris's, has vouched many times for his honesty. That's good enough for me.

Below is a post by Martin Fido, who was not a friend of Harris's. As one can see from the context, Martin accepted that Melvin Harris had made these predictions. But why believe Martin, when you can believe the sniping of an anonymous poster named 'Iconoclast'?


If you blokes want to call Melvin a liar, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Either way, the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting, so the hoaxer obviously didn't care. Nor did Robert Smith care. Nor does Tom Mitchell care even now.

[Iconoclast]

But, I get it. You've admitted many times that you are 'scared' of Caz, so I can see why you would pretend that her line of argument doesn't represent a rather vicious, obvious, and embarrassing kick to the groin of your own credulity.

Correct. I've taken to wearing a codpiece every time I post here, believe me.

But I see her point. Why would anyone have sought period paper (when it turns out that there is no clear-cut borderline between one era and the next) and then go off scribbling away with the provenancial equivalent of a green pen in a reporter's spiral notebook from the 1960s?

What would be the point?

Well, you already answered that, didn't you, RJ? Apparently, Mike ran out of patience and dropped his standards when the April 13 deadline (which hadn't actually yet been confirmed) was looming, coupled with his innate knowledge of what those gullible Londoners would be taken in by, and also that they would be!

When you put it like that, it's surprising Mike didn't just write it himself using one of his old reporter's notebooks from the late 1980s. He could have ripped out the three pages that he actually used, ripped out a few more for good measure, and then got to work on his magnum opus using one of Caroline's old crayons from school.

In all seriousness, though, RJ, why do you think Mike made no attempt to check what Maybrick's handwriting actually looked like?

[Iconoclast]

Nothing like a loaded question, eh? 'Mythical predictions.'

Oh the irony! Muddy the Mud Boy, King of the Loaded Statement, takes a swipe with the very weapon he has so carefully crafted ...

Stewart P. Evans, who was a good friend of Harris's, has vouched many times for his honesty.

You have to be ******* joking, right???

That's good enough for me.

And isn't that the biggest problem we have here? Two people who absolutely hated the Maybrick scrapbook get together and confirm each other's views - nothing like a little bit of groupthink - and one of them pronounces the other to be 'honest' is hardly a detailed critique of where and when and in whose presence 'Integrity' Harris made his three key claims! And that's good enough for you! Even my old mate down Chigwell way, Drainpipe Orsam, must be pissing himself at that line.

Below is a post by Martin Fido, who was not a friend of Harris's. As one can see from the context, Martin accepted that Melvin Harris had made these predictions. But why believe Martin, when you can believe the sniping of an anonymous poster named 'Iconoclast'?

OMG, so someone else who famously doubted the Maybrick scrapbook believed Harris when he said what he said (whenever that was, no-one seems to know).

When you get agenda, and when you get failed syllogisms, and when you get groupthink, you get misdirection and you get self-congratulatory reinforcement of the unproven; and when you get that you get the bandwagonners jumping on board 'cos they think they're not on a dark ride. This is the very history of all objections (or is it objectives, RJ?) to the Maybrick scrapbook. "We have reputations to protect". "We have books to sell". "We don't want anything that might plausibly be the real deal". Seriously, the Catholic Church of Galileo's day is alive and well ...

If you blokes want to call Melvin a liar, it doesn't surprise me in the least.

And if you blokes want to believe what you desperately want to believe, it doesn't surprise me in the least. Misguided and rather desperate, I can't say what Ol' Integrity Harris might have descended to. I can't know because we don't know - it seems - when he made these remarkably prescient claims. Which means they are worthless in the canon of the evidence and should not be cited until they are demonstrated as having been made before he saw the scrapbook or was told anything about the scrapbook. That's how science works. It doesn't work by lauding the certainties of groupthink.

Either way, the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting, so the hoaxer obviously didn't care.

"The hoaxer didn't care", and you type that with such a cavalier confidence as though somehow such incompetence is a badge of honour and proof of something. The fact that your hoaxer didn't care tells you that they had no idea what they were doing. And yet here we are thirty years later still debating what - it seems - should have been discarded a long, long time ago. It's an incredulous truth you offer us all, RJ - implausible, ill-supported, and deeply desperate.



Hardly a ringing confirmation of what Ol' Integrity claimed, though, is it, RJ?

It would be like me asking the Dark Lord for a reference for you. Such platitudes as would roll from the quill! Now that's one prediction no-one will question ...

[rjpalmer]

In all seriousness, though, RJ, why do you think Mike made no attempt to check what Maybrick's handwriting actually looked like?

Why in the blazes do you think that Mike Barrett, writing in 1992, would assume that there would be still be existing writing from a cotton merchant who had been dead for over 100 years?

The longer a man's been dead, the less chance there is that the detritus of his obscure life would remain. That there was no effort to imitate Maybrick's handwriting is not an argument against it begin a modern fake---it's an argument against it being an old one, when there were still people living who would have recognized Maybrick's penmanship.

And how do you know that Mike didn't check in some clumsy way?

I've posted the following by Melvin Harris half-a-dozen times:

"When first shown this document, I was assured by Paul Feldman that no significant examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed. There was just one signature on his marriage lines, but nothing else:--"We have checked."

If Feldman and his team of professional researchers failed to find any 'significant examples' why on earth do you think Mike would have?

What I do know is that it was Andy Aliffe--who I believe was working for Harris--who chased down Maybrick's holographic will, thus ultimately proving Feldman wrong.

In my view, Barrett aka 'Mr. Williams' gambled that no 'significant examples' of Maybrick's handwriting would still be kicking around after 100 years and thus the diary would get past his literary agent.

And lo and behold, Smith published the diary, so Mike's assumption worked.

Nothing to see here, Ike. You're seeing a mystery where there is none. All hoaxers rely on the gullibility of their audience and are willing to take risks.

[rjpalmer]

The fact that your hoaxer didn't care tells you that they had no idea what they were doing. And yet here we are thirty years later still debating what - it seems - should have been discarded a long, long time ago.

We aren't here to debate. We are here to ridicule your beliefs.

The diary was discarded thirty years ago by three independent document examiners or teams of document examiners.

That Smith chose to publish it anyway and that you were bamboozled by it is not evidence of its competence.

Sorry, Old Bean. You've Been Duped. You might consider picking up a copy and adding it to your collection.

[rjpalmer]

I do feel some pity for you, Ike, but I also operate on the principle 'cruel to be kind.'

While your friends (Caz and Ero) have no problem with blowing smoke up your backside, I respect the original intent of this thread. As Tom Mitchell, you asked people to help you 'shake' your irrational belief in the diary by coming up with just 'one incontrovertible, etc.' reason for disbelieving in the diary.

They don't do this. They argue that this is an old, complex document, which is hardly helpful. Only I and the late Lord Orsam care enough about you to help you in your now 15+ year quest towards enlightenment.

We haven't given up on you, yet, Old Bean. Don't think that we have!

[rjpalmer]

Ike - I must soon join Caz in seeking refreshment (of a non-alcoholic kind, in my case), but returning to the original intent of this thread, let me offer the following.

Since the photo album and the handwriting doesn't bother you, I suspect this won't either, but I'd like to give it the ol' college try,

The diary contains the following dubious passage:



Mudbrick is claiming that he stood 'less than a few feet away' from his Royal Highness at what was obviously the Grand National.

In reality, it is known that the historic James Maybrick rented an omnibus and watched the Grand National from this vehicle, accompanied by the Janion family.

From contemporary drawings and maps, it appears to me that this omnibus would have been parked to the right of the grandstand, behind a crowd of spectators so as not to obscure their view, no less than 100-200 yards from the Royal Box.

It was Florie, not James, who walked away with her friend Brierley to enter the grandstands to gawk at his Royal Highness. It was when she returned from this mission 'some time' later that James, still at the omnibus, scolded her.

It is bollocks to say that Maybrick was ever 'less than a few feet away' from HRH. It is the invention of the hoaxer who wanted the dramatic effect of this imaginary scene.

What do you make of it? More delusion by a man whose brain was so rattled by arsenic use---a drug not know to be either hallucinatory or psychotropic?

Enjoy your weekend.

[Iconoclast]

In reality, it is known that the historic James Maybrick rented an omnibus and watched the Grand National from this vehicle, accompanied by the Janion family.

I'm just checking with you that this isn't pure mud of the muddiest variety, Muddy the Mud Boy. You are claiming that it is an established fact, on the record, backed-up by witnesses, that James Maybrick spent his entire Aintree afternoon on that omnibus, yes? He never left it once? He never went to the grandstands to place a bet or watch a race or meet any of his friends, acquaintances, and work contacts? This is a known certainty, yes? Not just bits of mud splattered around to change the narrative in your favour, yes? James Maybrick sat on that omnibus with the people he saw most days and did not attend in person a single race that day? I don't know how many races ran at Aintree on March 29, 1889, but it wouldn't have been one. There's usually around seven races run on grand national day, with the national itself not even being the last, as one might imagine (like playing the third-place playoff after the final has been won). So that omnibus must have sat there for many hours. Did it have its own toilet? Did none of the occupants leave it for even one race? Maybrick doesn't say at what point of the day he was within a few feet of His Royal Highness. It could have been early doors or late doors or middle-of-the-afternoon doors. How can any of us know from this distance and with so little information at hand. But - soft! - you have proof positive that James Maybrick did not leave that omnibus once so that excludes the Maybrick scrapbook as a James Maybrick Production, yes? You haven't just slung a bit of spare mud my way and hoped it would stick?

Thing is, I've never seen that certain proof and I'm guessing my dear readers haven't seen it either so do post it in the next day or so so that we can all pack up our picnic hampers, re-cork the champers, and bugger off home for the football on the telly.

From contemporary drawings and maps, it appears to me that this omnibus would have been parked to the right of the grandstand, behind a crowd of spectators so as not to obscure their view, no less than 100-200 yards from the Royal Box.

And a police guard stopped any of the prisoners getting off it, yes?

It was Florie, not James, who walked away with her friend Brierley to enter the grandstands to gawk at his Royal Highness. It was when she returned from this mission 'some time' later that James, still at the omnibus, scolded her.

Proof, please, claimant: "James, still at the omnibus, scolded her". Not proof that he scolded her, not even proof that he scolded her at the omnibus, but - rather - unequivocal proof that he scolded her whilst still at the omnibus. So no extra work, in truth, RJ. If you produce the first proof (of your wider claim) that will suffice for the second proof (of this related claim).

It is bollocks to say that Maybrick was ever 'less than a few feet away' from HRH. It is the invention of the hoaxer who wanted the dramatic effect of this imaginary scene.

Well, provide the incontrovertible proof, RJ, and we will all be on our way.

What do you make of it? More delusion by a man whose brain was so rattled by arsenic use---a drug not know to be either hallucinatory or psychotropic?

I make of it that I seriously doubt a player like Maybrick would have sat on his arse for many hours when there was so much going on in the grandstands and around the track over the course of many races.

I was at Ascot in 2017 at a slap-up meal of cow pie and bangers and mash, top hat and tails and all the works. Even had a name badge. The view from the restricted section above the common rich people was spectacular. I could have spent the entire afternoon up there, getting pissed and hobnobbing with the people I worked with every day. But - soft! - we all, periodically, broke away and went downstairs and out to the concourse and the grandstands and around the track, just for jolly, wouldn't you, on such an auspicious day. At one point, I was within a few hundred feet of Her Majesty the Queen. Maybe, if I checked back in my serial killer scrapbook (not my private diary, obviously), I might find that - for a spot of dramatic effect - I had exaggerated how close I was to her: "within a few feet of her maj this safter - bet she'd have squealed to know that she was so close to the name all England (Casebook members) was talking about". I adopted a spot of Liverpudlian licence with the English language there, by the way, to keep it consistent with the original.

Enjoy your weekend.

Well I hope to, RJ, but there's no horse racing for me today, only the trepidation of playing away to the best club team pretty much in the world right now - the winners of four trophies already in 2023 - so I'm not as optimistic of enjoying the omnibus to the sofa and the Picnic bars (my favourite) and the champers of a McEwan's Champion Ale, the closest I'll get to a champion this season, I imagine. I won't be a few feet away from that, mind!

[Iconoclast]

Why in the blazes do you think that Mike Barrett, writing in 1992, would assume that there would be still be existing writing from a cotton merchant who had been dead for over 100 years?

Well in the blazes at least William Henry Ireland had the good sense to have a father who could tell him that examples of Shakespeare's hand were extremely rare. Who did Barrett have to offer him such useful advice? Bob behind the bar in The Saddle?

And why would Barrett imagine that the passing years had reduced the examples of handwriting of a man who was the supposed victim of the 'Crime of the Century' back in Victoria's days? Would he not imagine that many examples of his hand had been preserved as part of evidence in the infamous trial?

The longer a man's been dead, the less chance there is that the detritus of his obscure life would remain.

That might be true of you and me, RJ, but James Maybrick, celebrity victim of so famous a 'poisoning' case? I personally wouldn't be making the sort of sweeping assumptions you are clearly happy to make. Mind, it's not as though you don't have an agenda to make them, is it?

That there was no effort to imitate Maybrick's handwriting is not an argument against it begin a modern fake---it's an argument against it being an old one, when there were still people living who would have recognized Maybrick's penmanship.

Given who Maybrick was, making no effort to imitate his public hand was a stupid mistake at any time since his death.

And how do you know that Mike didn't check in some clumsy way?

I don't know that Mike did not check in some detailed or clumsy way. And neither do you.

I've posted the following by Melvin Harris half-a-dozen times:
"When first shown this document, I was assured by Paul Feldman that no significant examples of Maybrick's handwriting existed. There was just one signature on his marriage lines, but nothing else:--"We have checked."
If Feldman and his team of professional researchers failed to find any 'significant examples' why on earth do you think Mike would have?

And Mike Barrett knew all of this in advance so didn't bother to research Maybrick's handwriting? Mike Barrett knew 1-2 years before Paul Feldman ever appeared on the scene that his team of researchers would find nothing of significance so - with Harris' prescience - he made no attempt to check the very thing that would instantly make his hoax redundant?

What I do know is that it was Andy Aliffe--who I believe was working for Harris--who chased down Maybrick's holographic will, thus ultimately proving Feldman wrong.

And Mike Barrett knew this two years before Aliffe did it?

In my view, Barrett aka 'Mr. Williams' gambled that no 'significant examples' of Maybrick's handwriting would still be kicking around after 100 years and thus the diary would get past his literary agent.

And your view isn't even remotely tainted with bias, is it, RJ? We should all trust your view because you - by necessity - must be correct?

And lo and behold, Smith published the diary, so Mike's assumption worked.

Or Mike didn't research anything because he acquired the scrapbook from Eddie Lyons on March 9, 1992, and the most he had to fear was that his dreams of wealth and stardom might be dashed in finding that the scrapbook was actually a hoax or else perhaps a prison term for handling stolen goods. See how 'your view' always has an anti-'your view'?

Nothing to see here, Ike. You're seeing a mystery where there is none. All hoaxers rely on the gullibility of their audience and are willing to take risks.

And yet not all mysteries end in the unravelling of hoaxes ...

[Iconoclast]

Is it just me or is it significant that after 15+ years, we are still awaiting that one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the diary?

I guess that probably means something ...

[rjpalmer]

Is it just me ...

Yes, it's just you, Ike. Everyone else came to their senses two decades ago.

The woman's name was Gertrude Janion. Someone had to stay back and keep an eye on the omnibus and this was Jim Maybrick and Gertrude Janion. The scene in the diary is an invention.

[rjpalmer]

Mike didn't research anything...

Bollocks, Old Man.

Barrett did do research--he told Keith Skinner in 1999 that he had read one book on the Maybrick case---Bernard Ryan's The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick.

Of course, one might conclude that Mike was lying because he was a pathological liar, after all, but if he was lying, perhaps Keith can explain how Barrett was able to know that Ryan, did in fact, write the one book on the Mayrick case that does contain all the 'Maybrick' information that would allow the hoaxer to create the diary.

Was Barrett a scholar of the Maybrick case, or are we to believe that this was just another lucky guess by Mike?

Just like it was a lucky guess that the art shop that he pointed out to Harold Brough did, in fact, sell an iron gall manuscript ink with trace amounts of chloracetamide?

In either instance, Barrett could have fallen flat on his face. He didn't. And you have no explanation for it.

If you could just give me one incontrovertible fact that would allow me to abandon my belief in a modern hoax out of Goldie Street I would be happy to do so, but in 15+ years you still haven't presented one...

... because he acquired the scrapbook from Eddie Lyons on March 9, 1992...

No one with a lick of sense believes that, Ike.

If was the case, why didn't Anne Graham tell this to Paul Feldman, Keith Skinner, or Carol Emmas?

We've been told Anne was 'free and clear' of Mike and had been for months. She was refusing her royalty checks, we are told. Her story all along was that Mike got the diary from a man he knew from the pub--it would have been a minor admission to say that she wasn't sure if this man was Tony Devereux or someone else.

Instead, she sends everyone on a wild goose chase for years.

You have no explanation for her behavior, Ike, which is why you so obviously dance all around it and never take the bull by the horns.

[rjpalmer]

It is interesting to see how Diarythink has evolved over the years.

Back in the day, Feldman, Smith, Harrison, Mitchell, etc. argued that the diary contains intimate and obscure details about Maybrick's life that would have taken either personal experience or great scholarship by a hoaxer. The shared gravesite of the parents, Bobo, the friend George, etc...

Now that we know this isn't true--it's all in Bernard Ryan--the argument is that the diary DOESN'T contain any obscure or intimate knowledge of Maybrick's life (serving on a grand jury in December 1888/the bicycle/the walking tour of Wales/the funeral of John Piggot/etc.) because it is only Maybrick's murder journal.

I've never seen a goal post so thoroughly jump from one end of the field to the other since that tornado hit the stadium in Kansas.

[Iconoclast]

Yes, it's just you, Ike. Everyone else came to their senses two decades ago.
The woman's name was Gertrude Janion. Someone had to stay back and keep an eye on the omnibus and this was Jim Maybrick and Gertrude Janion. The scene in the diary is an invention.

Honestly, RJ, the source would have been sufficient. This claim is as verifiable as little green men on Uranus ...