One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary

[rjpalmer]

Ah yes, the famous document examiner who never actually examined the document. Which apparently isn’t required in the world of document examination.

Piecing together other people’s work and forming an opinion is apparently sufficient without ever doing one scientific test of your own on it.

Sounds scientifically sound to me. His opinion is exactly that - an opinion.

If his opinion is so worthless, why did Caz introduce him to this thread as an expert whose alleged opinion about Baxendale's solubility test was noteworthy?

[caz]

Hi Scotty,

Any scenario needs to be based on documented fact. Speculation is fine unless or until elements of it can be contradicted - or seriously challenged - by the known facts.

Many of us with very different views on the diary have expressed concerns about how such a thing could have been knocking around for any length of time, gathering dust, if anyone knew of its existence - whether that would be Anne deliberately hiding it from Mike before suddenly deciding he should be the one to "do something with it", or someone at a local newspaper inexplicably sticking it on a shelf and forgetting it, until Tony Devereux 'eventually' sees it and decides to "do something with it".

We have such a simple scenario, which adheres to the known facts and circumstances, enjoys support from multiple witness accounts and needs a whole lot less speculation:

The impulsive Mike Barrett sees an old book signed Jack the Ripper on Monday 9th March 1992, while supping his usual late lunchtime pint, immediately sees the merit of trying to "do something with it" and sets about doing just that. Everything flows from that point.

No need for anything more complex than that, and the diary can naturally still be a hoax, hidden away with or without the genuine Victorian newspaper, in the former home of 'Sir Jim'. Certainly no need for a mythical trip to an auction sale, to find a book which Mike can "do something with", so his wife can then fashion it over the next few days into a literary hoax originally conceived so he could help her pay the mortgage.

That was just a tale told by an idiot - correction, an emotionally and financially drained family man born - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The added tragedy was that he swallowed half the lies he told himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If his opinion is so worthless, why did Caz introduce him to this thread as an expert whose alleged opinion about Baxendale's solubility test was noteworthy?

More to the point, does Palmer see Phil Kellingley's observations as a ringing endorsement for Baxendale's solubility test and conclusions? And would Palmer give Phil's observations the same ringing endorsement?

Maybe we read the same words differently, but would Phil have suggested new tests, using scientific advances made since the early 1990s, with the ability to produce a 'far more conclusive' result [Palmer's phrase, to spare Phil's blushes] if he could have demonstrated that Baxendale had already done more than enough back in 1992 to provide 'conclusive' proof that the diary was written when the real James Maybrick was long dead?

If the answer is that Phil could not, or did not, demonstrate this from what he learned about Baxendale's findings, then the question for Palmer becomes why not?

Palmer, who as far as I know is not a scientist, has never expressed a moment's doubt that Baxendale's 'in the past two or three years' was on the money, and that anyone with reservations was either an idiot or had a vested interest.

Would it be a reflection on Phil's expertise, or merely a sensible acknowledgement from a scientist who has not examined the material for himself but has suggested new tests, that he could only give his opinion that he'd be inclined to believe Baxendale was right?

[Scott Nelson]

My biggest flag with this theory is why is anyone hoaxing anything if Tony D had the original book?
.
.
.
Can I ask honestly Scott, do you genuinely feel your theory is more realistic than simply Eddie finding it on March 9th and the diary finding its way to Mike, who contacted London publishers the very same day?

It's fairly simple: Mike gets Tony's book, keeps it for a while until he figures out who the story is about and then notifies Crew.

The original book may have seemed too whimsical, especially after Tony viewed the Michael Caine program in 1988 and decided to rewrite it. And Mike didn't like Tony's version, so he got the maroon diary, but decided he couldn't use it.

"I’m not even getting into whether P&R were ever around in 1977, let alone whether they worked with contractors who worked at Battlecrease at that time."

I meant that the skip was probably taken to a construction contractor's yard in 1977 (not P&R) and sifted through. The theory is that one of the men working there in 1977 told a colleague about the book, who in turn told someone else. This person, or somebody else working for P&R, years later, told Eddie Lyons about it while they were working at Dodd's house on March 9th.

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Scotty,

Any scenario needs to be based on documented fact. Speculation is fine unless or until elements of it can be contradicted - or seriously challenged - by the known facts.

I know Caroline. I was an engineer for years. My scenario is really no more complicated than any of the others that have been suggested. The diary saga is extremely convoluted. I don't think anything is ever going to be proven to anyone's satisfaction. Too many explanations can be countered by alternate reasons. But you and Jay are right: simplicity is best.

[caz]

Hi Scotty,

I posted something over at the other place this morning regarding one of the more complex Druitt theories, which may also be appropriate to the modern diary story.

Occam's razor versus Oscar's truth, which is rarely pure and never simple.

Discuss.

Assuming this diary did come out of the house where Maybrick lived between February 1888 and May 1889, it would have been a very simple process to get it into Mike Barrett's hands via an electrician who was working there that morning, and who was living in Fountains Rd near the Saddle.

All the complexities and convoluted lies would have started from that point, with Mike not knowing where it had come from, nor whether someone else might soon claim ownership, while having to explain to the London literary agent when, how and why he - this former scrap metal dealer from Liverpool - would have become the rightful owner and guardian of Jack the Ripper's diary. Had the name James Maybrick come into those first conversations he had with Rupert Crew on 9th and 10th March 1992, it would have pretty much put paid to the possibility that Mike had only seen the old book for the first time on 9th.

But once again, the known facts do not stand in the way of Mike working out who JtR was meant to be at some later point, from the internal content, particularly the reference on the second page to Battlecrease: the 'evil' seeping through its walls and turning a family man into a monster. Vincent Price could have acted his comedy socks off in the role of 'Sir Jim' in this stuff of gothic horror.

If Mike had known it was meant to be Maybrick's diary, when he phoned Martin Earl with his 'unusual' request, would he still have specified a diary from 1880-90? It would depend entirely on what he expected to receive and what he wanted it for, and only Mike ever knew that. But it does seem likely that it was tied in with his general ignorance about what he had seen on 9th March and how to make it his own.

When the walls of Goldie Street began closing in on Mike, as the cries of "fake" rang out ever more shrilly, what could he do? His drinking got worse and his marriage deteriorated. When it all became too much for him, and he had nothing to show for royalties already paid, he decided to own the diary again, and everything people were saying about it, by claiming to have written it himself. It would have been his way of saying: "If they want a fake, I'll give them a fake, but I'll be the faker. I won't be the one who got fooled." That would have been the final humiliation.

Deception on the scale Mike Barrett practised, while making his various claims, doesn't work on everyone. Mike knew that the loudest cries of "fake" were coming from those who would be suggestible to whatever lies he could conjure up, and for as long as he saw a potential advantage to himself in telling them. If he could use the diary to keep himself centre stage, he would act his socks off to do it.

I wonder who would take on the role of Barrett of Goldie Street?

Forgive me for veering away from the ghost of Tony Devereux, who should be resting in peace by now. Turning 70 yesterday has made me sentimental.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

Oh, I forgot! Happy birthday Caroline. When do you think Mike discovered (or was told?) the story was about Maybrick?

[caz]

Thank you, Scotty.

There seems to be no hard date for the earliest mention of the diary being about Maybrick. Have you checked Shirley's first diary book? I believe she once claimed that this was revealed by Mike at the meeting in London on 13th April 1992.

If this is the case, it leaves us with at least two possibilities: that Mike had known this when he first contacted Doreen on 9th March 1992 but was saving the big reveal for whenever the big day might come to show off the diary itself; or that he had no clue when he first spoke to her, and only worked it out over the following days and weeks from the internal clues.

Either possibility could explain why Mike only mentioned a couple of ripper books to begin with, and then said he would contact Doreen again on his return from an alleged trip to York. This would have saved him being asked questions he wasn't yet willing to answer - or questions he couldn't answer until he'd done some basic but crucial research.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

So, how common do we think Maybrick's letter "K" was on his signature?

Is the watch the conclusive proof?

The "K" etched into the watch.







Thoughts?


RD

[Tab]

So, how common do we think Maybrick's letter "K" was on his signature?

Seems pretty common. I was taught the loop for lower case k and the loop for the ascender is just part of cursive writing. Honestly, seems pretty standard to me and not unique to Maybrick. I should point out I am from the UK. Maybe we should all go and ask family and friends to write the name Maybrick in cursive, or attempt a signature of it, and see what types of k's we get.

Tab

[erobitha]

So, how common do we think Maybrick's letter "K" was on his signature?

Is the watch the conclusive proof?

The "K" etched into the watch.







Thoughts?


RD

In my view, yes.

[Iconoclast]

Anyway, as I was saying ...

I have recently been pondering during my leisure moments upon why there is so much certainty on Jack the Ripper chat sites around the Maybrick scrapbook and watch being hoaxes. If you are of that view, you are already thinking, “Not this one again – it’s obviously a hoax! We don’t need to discuss it. We don’t need to think about it on any level. The ‘Diary’ was an obvious enough fake, why would anyone think otherwise?”.

You see, that’s the power of herd mentality. If a large enough proportion of the herd move off towards a field which one or two are convinced contains fresh grass, you can rest assured that 99% of the remaining herd will gradually follow and be equally assured that they were all right to do so whether they find fresh grass or not. There’s always another field to march off to to find that fresh grass and be proven right and age and death will eventually rob you of the realisation that you were wasting your energy following the assumptions of the ill-researched few (still on grass and cows, here, by the way). You’ll never recognise that you were probably already in the best of all possible fields for grass (thank you, Voltaire).

You are already in the best of all possible fields where Jack the Ripper is concerned because you have the good fortune to have the answers you seek right there in front of you: James Maybrick’s scrapbook and his watch are physical proofs of his authorship of the crimes, and the circumstantial evidence which has been uncovered since the physical proofs first came to light back in the early 1990s simply stack up one upon another making his guilt ever easier to see wherever you happen to be grazing in this rather large field.

You’ll need to wait a wee bit longer for my much-anticipated update to my brilliant Society’s Pillar, but – in the meantime – can I suggest that you take a warning from probability history? Marilyn vos Savant (with an IQ of 228 you’ve got to think Fate knew what it was doing when it chose her surname) was a university-dropout who just happened to have a rather sharp mind. Asked to answer an apparently simple question about probability theory, she caused a minor uproar when she gave an answer which – even today – will still stump many people. Her answer was so outlandishly off-trend that she received indignant letters of censure from college lecturers and professors who led the herd in roundly mocking her for what they saw as a very obvious moment of brain fog. As if that wasn't bad enough, even I - the great Iconoclasto, statistician to the stars - thought she was wrong. I know, seems hard to believe where statistics and probability theory are concerned, but there you have it.

For here’s the rub: she was right.

Let that sink in.

When all the opprobrium was piling her way, she didn’t yield to the temptation to fall in with the herd. She stuck to her guns because she could see very clearly why her argument was the correct one. Like Galileo and others before and after him, vos Savant stood firm in the face of the collective ‘wisdom’ of those who believed wholeheartedly that they were right seemingly without checking first whether they were actually simply churning out tired probability assumptions.

Vos Savant was right seemingly against all the odds but it turned out that she knew the odds when everyone else didn’t.

So next time you hear an established name on Casebook or Forums (or anywhere else) saying something to the effect of, “Oh, we know the Maybrick ‘Diary’ was a hoax – we don’t need to prove it, it’s been proven to be a hoax and it’s just obviously a hoax, and everyone who’s anyone knows it”, you might just want to stop a moment and think about Marilyn vos Savant and how the certainties provided by insight can so easily master the ill-researched platitudes of the chattering classes however smart they may imagine themselves to be or feel their positions in life entitle them to assume. And then tell me and I will wield my Sword of Righteousness for that is my destiny until the talk of false gods is eradicated from the fractured field of Ripperonomy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOQowCeAnRs

By the way, you're all very welcome.

Ike poss Savant

[The Rookie Detective]

In my view, yes.

The reason why I ask is because the 2 examples I have submitted aren't from the same man.


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

This "K" is Frederick Gehringers


RD

[Iconoclast]

This "K" is Frederick Gehringers

RD

The issue is definitely not that James Maybrick's 'k' was so idiosyncratic that absolutely no-one else on the planet wrote them in a similar vein, the issue is absolutely that whoever sketched James Maybrick's signature into the back of his watch did so with remarkable felicitousness given the multitude of examples of his signature we now possess.

This begs the obvious question: If it was etched there by a malicious hoaxer, how on earth - in 1993 or earlier - did they know how to replicate Maybrick's hand?

Edit: Or are we arguing that Maybrick's 'k' is so common (across the centuries, perhaps) that it was pretty much inevitable that a hoaxer would choose to etch it as they did?