Society's Pillar

[Harry D]

What this, Caz? "Chop! Chop! RJ! Respond swiftly."

Do you mean like Ike has responded swiftly to my above statement posted 7 days ago?

Seems you're still waiting, RJ.

Ike's silence is deafening... or should that be blinding?

[Yabs]

All this is frustrating to comment on as I’ve never seen the inner cover of the diary so I’m unsure what to make of the linseed oil story.

To me it rings true because I can’t think of any other reason why you would falsely claim you undertook that process and offer it up for scrutiny if there wasn’t some truth in it.
But at the same time, from everything Ive read about linseed oil I gather the odour would be an issue for a good few days if not weeks.
Also, it dries yellow and can darken over time.

Those issues could be remedied to some degree by diluting the oil but it’s all guesswork without looking at the inner cover.

[caz]

We can explain the wrong date as a garden variety error from a heavy drinker.

Only if 'we' completely ignore the fact that this same heavy drinker, just a few days later, when he wasn't trying to swear it in an affidavit, had no difficulty remembering the exact date he went to London with his timely replacement for the red diary: Monday 13th April 1992.

I'll leave you to reconcile this with the man's total inability to recall requesting the red diary in March 1992, just a month before this most memorable trip to London, thinking it was over two years earlier, and being quite precise about all the action taking place in early 1990.

Added to that, we have Mike on tape telling Alan Gray that he gets his dates wrong on purpose. Was he lying about that, or just misremembering that he got his dates wrong accidentally because of his heavy drinking?

[Dickere]

A couple of very simple questions for you, RJ, which you should be able to answer swiftly, honestly and concisely, with no padding, spin or deviation:

How much of the following do you believe Mike did? And how long do you believe this was before he allowed the diary its first 'smell' test in London?

'When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.'

Thank you.

P.S. Love Caz x

[rjpalmer]

A couple of very simple questions for you, RJ, which you should be able to answer swiftly, honestly and concisely, with no padding, spin or deviations

What this, Caz? "Chop! Chop! RJ! Respond swiftly."

Do you mean like Ike has responded swiftly to my above statement posted 7 days ago?

Wouldn't it be more appropriate on this thread for Iconoclast to reveal without spin, dishonesty, etc., why he merely regurgitated Paul Butler's ill-conceived claims? And why he wrongly suggested Baxendale was a 'diary critic' when he was actually hired by Smith? Doesn't that reveal a certain element of paranoia and a lack of discernment and fair play?

Answer swiftly, please, and without spin!

As for your question, I've already answered it, but don't mind answering it again...swiftly.

As I previously noted, I believe the diary supporters are so desperate to discredit Barrett's affidavit that they cling to a too literal interpretation of certain details, rather than approaching the affidavit from the perspective of reasoned and objective examination. For example, some people howl that Barrett gave the wrong date for the purchase of the red diary. What difference does that make? WE KNOW THE CORRECT DATE. The important thing is that the event he described actually happened. We can explain the wrong date as a garden variety error from a heavy drinker.

Similarly, if Barrett used linseed oil to remove a small sticker or stamp from inside the front cover---and I don't know that he did, but I have been told that the inside corner does indeed show damage-- I am confident that he wouldn't have soaked the entire diary in a bed pan filled with a gallon of the stuff, thus ruining the entire scrap book. Why would he do such a thing? Why would anyone do such a thing? Yes, 'the whole cover' is what it says, but I don't think that's what he meant. It's a sloppy figure of speech. Surely, you've noticed people using sloppy figures of speech, or drunks being confused about the exact details of something they did three years earlier?

As for whether the linseed oil trick would even work, I have no idea. I can run an experiment if you like, and get back to you, provided that you trust my results.

But wouldn't it be more relevant to test the diary itself? Was that section of the diary's cover ever forensically tested in an attempt to prove/disprove Barrett's claim?

The problem as I see it, is that you and Icon, etc. endlessly hunt for errors in Mike's statements, which is merely confirmation bias, but singularly fail to acknowledge that Barrett revealed things for which you still have no credible explanation.

I believe Keith has promised to explain why Barrett (or the Barretts) requested at "least twenty blank pages."

This suggests, to any reasonable person, that they intended to write something one those twenty blank pages, which, in turn, suggests a pre-existing typescript.


RP

[caz]

A couple of very simple questions for you, RJ, which you should be able to answer swiftly, honestly and concisely, with no padding, spin or deviation:

How much of the following do you believe Mike did? And how long do you believe this was before he allowed the diary its first 'smell' test in London?

'When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out.'

Thank you.

[rjpalmer]

Ike -- I submit this for your weekend pleasure.

* * *

Iconoclast has decried the lack of scholarly rebuttal to the many excellent points he has allegedly made in defense of the Maybrick Diary, so I thought I’d take a moment and respond to a single statement that he made in “Society’s Pillar."

I will, of course, try to maintain the appropriate level of dispassionate inquiry, and let me just point out that I already posted most of this on other site, but it since it went entirely unnoticed and uncommented upon, it might be worthwhile to draw Ike’s attention to it here.

First the background.

Early on, a document examiner named Dr. David Baxendale noticed some strange oblong shapes in the diary, which he believed were the outlines of photographs consistent with the scrapbook having been once used to mount photos of a size popular in the 20th Century--something that would obviously raise great doubts about the age of this document, since it purports to be Victorian.

In his scholarly manner, Ike addresses Baxendale’s conclusions by quoting a researcher named Paul Butler:

“Baxendale’s ignorance, or being deliberately misleading I’m not sure which, goes even further in his mentioning of the impressions left by presumably old photographs being of a size popular in the 1930s to the 1960s. Completely failing to mention that 3 ½” by 2 ½” was the exact size of a Victorian carte de visite popular since the 1860s, and what it seems very probable the old diary book was used for originally.”

Unfortunately, this comment is wrong in every respect, and sadly, it appears that ‘Iconoclast’ reprinted it without making the most cursory attempt at fact checking.


1. Despite Butler’s claims, the size of a Victorian carte-de-visite wasn't 3 ½ x 2 ½; it was 3 ½ x 2 ¼--a large enough difference to be noted by a forensic document examiner, which is what Baxendale was.

2. Further, and more relevantly, carte-de-visite photographs were invariably mounted on a card (hence the name) making their full size by 4 ¼ " x 2 ½" which is not at all compatible with the oblong shapes noticed in the diary. Butler & Iconoclast’s entire premise is flawed and incorrect.

3. Third, a carte-de-visite was a portrait, so when mounted, the long edge would be vertical; by contrast, the oblong impressions found in the diary are horizontal.


Unless Paul Butler and Iconoclast are suggesting the original scrapbook owner trimmed the carte-de-visite portraits down to 3 1/2" by 2 1/2 ", cutting off the bottom section (which almost always contained a signature or the name of the person), and then for some bizarre reason left one margin intact but inexplicably mounted the card on its side, their explanation cannot be correct.

It would mean this:







would have been trimmed down and mounted in his scrapbook like this:







This appears to be their explanation for the rectangles seen in the diary, and I think we can safely dismiss it.

Meanwhile, Iconoclast commtents: “As is more or less always the case with the Victorian scrapbook, it is the criticism of it which fails not the focus of that criticism.”

That didn’t age too well, did it?

What is equally strange is that, despite Iconoclast’s suggestion, as well as Paul Butler’s attack, Dr. Baxendale was not a ‘critic’ of the diary—he was an independent consultant hired by Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison in the lead-up to their publication. Why on earth would he have deliberately deceived his own clients, as implied by Butler? This seems to be nothing short of paranoia. Are paranoia and ad hoc insinuations scholarly?

Finally, the size of a "wallet photograph" (from the 20th Century) WAS 3 1/2 x 2 1/2"---just as Dr. Baxendale reported.

The above statements can be confirmed in the following chart:

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_early/...hy_-_sizes.htm

I thank you for your time.

P.S. It was pointed out to me privately that Baxendale never stated the photograph size dated between 1930-1960; Butler is evidently paraphrasing Robert Smith who does not give a source for this. A corner of what appeared to be a photograph--seeming confirmation of Baxendale's suspicions--was found in the binding of the diary but, remarkably, Dr. Nicholas Eastaugh somehow lost it before it could be analyzed. One can only imagine what Butler would have suggested had it been Dr. Baxendale.

[Iconoclast]

Apologies for the rather blatant marketing, but not everyone knows where to find my brill Soc Pill (thank you for prompting me to think of that, MD) so I am adding this little post to get it right back up the league table for visibility purposes.

Cheers,

Ike "Call me Mad Man" Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

It's time for a further update to Society's Pillar.

As previously, I have put the updates in blue text to make it easier to spot them. They are on pages 43, 50, 70, 73, 77, 89-92, and 95.

They derive from Tom Westcott's Ripper Confidential which I forgot to include in the original (very interesting, by the way); and also the recently published Time Reveals All by SC Davies (available from Amazon) which puts forward an extremely compelling case that many of the Ripper letters were written by Jack the Ripper and that the evidence for this emerges from clues he left in the various texts. Definitely worth a read, guys - you might just be blown away!

I'm awaiting the delayed update to Smith's 25 Years, now in paperback (my hardback spine gave way and all the pages fell out which was irritating) and if there are any additional gems in there, I will add them in to Society's Pillar. After that, it's the Orsam analysis!

Hope these additions prove of some interest, everyone.

Many thanks,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Thank you Phantom, your comments are greatly appreciated. Apologies for the delay in replying - I have been visioning the future, horizon-scanning, seeing the way the wind is blowing, and finally I have shot the breeze until it was pretty much dead and returned to my spiritual home. It is nice to be back.

As I say, I appreciate your comments. I also noted that post-comments, the number of views shot up so I think you did a little bit of inadvertent marketing there.

I look forward to the possibility of one day adding a rebuttal from Lord Orsam, should that come to pass. I imagine he has one or two thoughts on the pro-Maybrick points I raised.

For now, it’s back to defending Maybrick for me!

Cheers,

Ike

[phantom]

Hi Ike

I just wanted to say thank you for the time and effort you’ve put into Society’s Pillar and making it available, I enjoyed it very much!

I haven’t quite shut the door on the Maybrick Diary and if it is a hoax I agree it is quite sophisticated.

I don’t intend to dissect what I do and don’t agree with but it was good to read a pro-Maybrick essay for a change.

I enjoyed Society’s Pillar better than the 25^th Anniversary actually.

Nice work!

[Iconoclast]

Updated today (pages 95-96), additional text in blue.

[Iconoclast]

The strongest candidate we have ever had for the author of the Whitechapel crimes is Liverpool cotton merchant James Maybrick. This is because we have a Victorian scrapbook and a Victorian watch, both of which contain confessions to the crimes. These two items of solid actual evidence are two more than any other candidate has had in the one hundred and thirty years which have passed since the crimes occurred. Above and beyond the two concrete confessions, we have significant circumstantial evidence which - if James Maybrick was actually innocent of these crimes - seem doggedly determined to place him in the frame time and time again like some sort of cosmic fit-up.

The Maybrick story however has been clouded badly by the actions, theories, and claims of Michael Barrett, Paul Feldman, and Melvin Harris, and the dark clouds they collectively and individually created or appear to have created have hung over the case against Maybrick for a quarter of a century, during which time neither the scrapbook nor the watch have been proven to be fakes, despite the facile claims to the contrary; but neither either have they been widely accepted as authentic solutions to this most famous series of murders.

Any momentum which existed in the investigation of the 'Maybrick diary' has long since dissipated and any hope we may ever have of solving the Ripper murders has gone with it. In a final attempt to give the scrapbook and the watch their due place in the annals of Whitechapel history, I have pulled together a short summary of the case for (and to an extent against) James Maybrick. At over one hundred pages, it is too long to post here, so I have uploaded it to the cloud where you are welcome to download it if you wish. If you do download it and - specifically - if you comment on it here, please ensure that you have read the entire document thoroughly, not simply the bits you think you might want to challenge or clarify.

As I claim within the text, if you genuinely have an open mind on the subject, you will find it difficult to read Society's Pillar and then lean towards the notion that the Victorian scrapbook is a forgery. You might still do so, but it will be more difficult than it was before you started reading. There is a compelling case here to be made and – if digested with an open and honest mind – there is also a solution to this most famous series of crimes to be found.

I would welcome a rebuttal from David Orsam which I would be happy to add into the document if he chooses to email me one (historyvsmaybrick@gmail.com).

Society's Pillar can be viewed and downloaded from History vs Maybrick or sent as an email attachment if you prefer.

Iconoclast
March 16, 2019