Society's Pillar

[Kattrup]

Mike wanted to see for himself how easy it would be to obtain something that could be used for a hoax. Not because he wanted to hoax anything but because he wanted to see how easy could it be to get such a document that could be used int he first place.

Sorry, that not's actually what I asked about, since Caz's, well, idea is different.

Personally, I also do not see how your argument explains buying the red diary, there would have been no need to buy it once it was located, if the purpose was merely to see how difficult it was to obtain.

And I am of course interested in the truth, that's why I'm occassionally drawn to these discussions where untruths, manipulation and lack of reason pollute the clear waters of Ripperology.

[erobitha]

Sorry, that not's actually what I asked about, since Caz's, well, idea is different.

Personally, I also do not see how your argument explains buying the red diary, there would have been no need to buy it once it was located, if the purpose was merely to see how difficult it was to obtain.

And I am of course interested in the truth, that's why I'm occassionally drawn to these discussions where untruths, manipulation and lack of reason pollute the clear waters of Ripperology.

He didn't buy it - Anne did, but in your world that's the same thing. Except it isn't.

I didn't realise ripperology was such a sacrosanct study of a victorian serial killer that needed such protectors?

You may not like the fact this book entered your world but it did. You may not like the fact that some well-regarded researchers are not willing to condemn it to the scrapheap where you feel it belongs. So it remains. You may not like the fact people like Ike and I clog up the message boards by continuously arguing and challenging the assumed beliefs that it is nothing more than a shabby modern hoax. Yet, here we are.

Mike only had to produce one receipt that corroborated his story and he never did. So we are left to rake over the ashes of the fire he started to see if we can piece together who did actually write it. Only at that point can the the document be dismissed and you can go back to defending the honour of ripperology (whatever that means).

Who actually wrote it?

[caz]

Sorry, that not's actually what I asked about, since Caz's, well, idea is different.

Personally, I also do not see how your argument explains buying the red diary, there would have been no need to buy it once it was located, if the purpose was merely to see how difficult it was to obtain.

And I am of course interested in the truth, that's why I'm occassionally drawn to these discussions where untruths, manipulation and lack of reason pollute the clear waters of Ripperology.

Okay, Kattrup. So if you were Mike Barrett, and had just seen an old book with what looked like diary entries, signed JtR, in May 1889 [the name Maybrick does not feature anywhere] and, naturally suspecting someone was having a laugh, you wanted to know how difficult it would have been for anyone in 1992 to obtain a similar book, for turning into Jack's diary, what would you have requested in order to find out, and what name would you have used for your enquiry? Your real name or a false one?

On the other hand, imagine you are Mike Barrett, and are trying to obtain something suitable, as late as March 1992, for faking James Maybrick's diary yourself. Should be easy, as you believe this is what actually happened. Would you order the item located, knowing it was just for the year 1891, and ask for it to be sent to you with an invoice, requiring you to pay for it within a certain time, or return it as unwanted, to avoid the supplier chasing it up? What name will you use for your enquiry, knowing the transaction will leave its traces, whether or not you can use the diary to commit fraud? A false name or your real name?

In the second scenario, why do you decide to expose your own fraud two years later, in June 1994? An attack of conscience, perhaps?

If you are serious about it, and have the auction ticket which supplied you with the book you used, do you hand over the ticket with your first confession, saving you all the trouble of swearing an affidavit, containing details of how it was done, and dates you are having trouble remembering? Or will you still be making excuses for not showing it to anyone, five years later, while claiming it has been in your possession all along?

If you'd rather not examine the second scenario too closely, I would really love to see your own ideas to explain why Mike was unable or unwilling to produce that ticket. I'll give you a few suggestions to make it easier:

1) He had mislaid it by June 1994 and never found it again.

2) It didn't have enough detail - including the auction date - for Mike to use it, or to act as a reminder.

3) It could have dated the auction to 31st March 1992, but Mike wanted to put everything back to 1990 so he could include Tony Devereux in the conspiracy.

4) Mike [or Anne, or Mike's sister] destroyed it before he decided to confess.

5) He obtained the scrapbook as described, but had no paperwork to go with it.

Any other ideas? Preferably one that doesn't involve Mike lying about that ticket?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

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.

Well, as I think I said at the time and as RJ confirms by quoting me:

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.”

To which RJ rather wonderfully adds:

That didn’t age too well, did it?

And yet it seems the scrapbook prevails yet again!

An early Christmas gift from my correspondent FDC:



And just in case someone is going to say that this was in portrait mode, here's another in landscape:



So we can skip the discussion about the size of carte-de-visite photographs and whether or not they have card backings, and we can just refer to these instead. Yet another criticism of the Maybrick scrapbook bites the dust. There's a surprise. Oh, and my brilliant Society's Pillar prevails once again too!

As RJ himself says, I thank you for your time.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Fresh from nailing RJ's ill-founded advice to you all regarding whether or not 3.5" x 2.5" photographs existed in the Victorian period, another of my correspondents has sent me a series of absolutely delightful photographs of her grandma's Victorian photo album and - although we can't measure the absolute size of the photographs themselves, it is clear enough (without my going back and asking for a photograph of just a photograph) that 3.5" x 2.5" was easily achievable either from an original photograph or from a small degree of trimming.

I assume that RJ and Orsam will not be arguing that scissors weren't around in Victorian times?

In order to depict them in their appropriate orientation, I appear to have to post each one in Large format, so I will do so in separate posts for manageability ...

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Okay, that's not working so I'll have to post them in the orientation Casebook insists on, sadly ...

[Iconoclast]

[Iconoclast]

Sadly, one of the best photographs exceeds the Casebook limit of 2mb (by a fraction) so I will try to sort that out after lunch!

[Iconoclast]

And here is that final photograph depicting a filled 'slip' and a free one. Wonderful stuff, I'm sure you'll all agree ...

[rjpalmer]

Humorous, Ike.

Are you suggesting that Maybrick mounted the photographs sideways in his murder journal, in a sort of passive-aggressive attempt to make the people look dead?

I fear your readers might get a kink in their necks trying to grasp your argument.




Recall the orientation of these rectangle shapes in the journal, Ike. As for the rest of your points, I'll get back to you by-and-by.

I'm by no means changing the subject--I welcome it--but, while you wait, here's another one you might wish to puzzle over.

On page 50 of Society's Pillar, you state that the 'shared grave' of Maybrick's parents was an obscure fact, buried 'deep' in one solitary source: the trial transcript.




Alas, this is incorrect.

Page 94 of Bernard Ryan's 1977 book, 'The Poisoned Life of Mrs. Maybrick,” discusses the exhumation of Maybrick’s body:

'The workmen pulled up the heavy flagstones and revealed a whitewashed brick vault which contained the remains of Maybrick and his mother and father'.

So, rather than this being an obscure fact in 1992, knowledge of this “shared grave” could be found in most popular and recent book on the Maybrick case.

Further, Ryan’s book is the very book that Mike Barrett identified as a source for his hoax during a series of private conversations with Alan Gray. There is no 'complexity' underpinning the hoax.

It might also be noted that Barrett failed to mention this obvious source when compiling his “research notes”—which is mighty strange since he appears to have been fully aware of the book!

The Central Liverpool Library where Barrett was doing his 'research' (as mentioned in the 1992 notes he presented to Harrison/Montgomery) owns a copy of Ryan's book. You may wish to confirm with KS if they owned a copy in 1991.

With all good wishes,

RP

[Iconoclast]

Humorous, Ike.

Are you suggesting that Maybrick mounted the photographs sideways in his murder journal, in a sort of passive-aggressive attempt to make the people look dead?

I fear your readers might get a kink in their necks trying to grasp your argument.

Recall the orientation of these rectangle shapes in the journal, Ike. As for the rest of your points, I'll get back to you by-and-by.

Yes, RJ, these are all portrait and the imprints in the Maybrick scrapbook are landscape. I wasn't suggesting for a moment that these were the actual photographs removed from the diary, by the way, and I'm guessing that neither were you?

I guess you're going to come back with an argument that landscape photographs were either impossible or illegal or something?

I'll wait ...

I'm by no means changing the subject--I welcome it--but, while you wait, here's another one you might wish to puzzle over.

On page 50 of Society's Pillar, you state that the 'shared grave' of Maybrick's parents was an obscure fact, buried 'deep' in one solitary source: the trial transcript.



Alas, this is incorrect.

Not a problem, and no need for anyone to puzzle over anything. I think I was referring to Feldman on that point and so what you have done is to highlight that Feldman was wrong so that's not a problem, I will remove this part from my brilliant 2025 edition of my brilliant Society's Pillar, although of course this does not imply in any way that the reference in the diary was from Ryan and written by a hoaxer.

I welcome all such corrections and qualifications, dear readers. I have made no bones about the fact that the first versions of SocPill contained no private research of my own, despite Lord Orsam in his trendy drainpipes (he's a bit too old though, don't you think? Perhaps someone should tell him?) attempting to imply that this meant anything. As I say in my introductory piece:

It is solely based upon the published works (and material posted online) and is therefore intended to summarise the many arguments and the circumstantial evidence which either points towards or away from James Maybrick as Jack the Ripper to save the reader from having to address them all repeatedly through numerous sources. It does not profess to contain new or revised evidence, and for that reason it is published without charge online. For a fuller understanding of James Maybrick’s life and his possible crimes, the reader must turn to the seminal works on both James and Jack. To do less and still contend that James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper would make the claimant’s position quite untenable.

Cheers all,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

PS

You've reminded me to add an asterisk to Ryan in my Barrett's research list which I started recently:

1) Ryan, The Poisoned Life of Mrs Maybrick, 1977*
2) Fido, The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper, 1987 [For Punch photograph]
3) Whittington-Egan, Tales of Liverpool: Murder, Mayhem & Mystery, 1985*
4) Wilson & Odell, Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict, 1987*
5) Harrison, Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved, 1991*

*Claimed by Mike Barrett himself

Queried:

MacDougall, The Maybrick Case, 1891

[rjpalmer]

Carte-de-visit photographs are the same as those signified as 'albumen' --it was the type of photographic paper used.

If the edge of the photograph found in the diary's binding had been albumen (or sepia), it should have been abundantly obvious, even using nothing more than a strong magnifying glass, because the paper contained telltale fibers (and sepia paper would have been obvious to a forensic examiner).

If this edge found in the binding was part of a Victorian photograph, why didn't Baxendale or Eastaugh describe 19th Century photographic paper? Why just 'the edge of a photograph'? Is there a more specific description of this that we haven't heard about?

Further, albumen paper was very thin and easy to damage, which is why carte-de-visit photographs were pasted onto card stock, which, in turn, made their dimensions larger.

But if the piece found by Baxendale was the edge of a carte-de-visit, then the rectangular squares in the diary would have been bigger than the dimensions given, so FDC's suggestion doesn't hold water.

I sent a letter to Eastaugh, asking for clarification, but he never responded. I imagine the diary detectives aren't eager to relive this episode, because they apparently lost the paper that was found in the binding--which would have been one of the most important pieces of forensic evidence. The only reason we ever heard about this is that Keith Skinner mentioned it in passing while interviewing Barrett at the 1999 Cloak and Dagger meeting (as first noticed by Lord Orsam).

And without a proper forensic analysis of the paper ever having been conducted, the diary faithful can now announce that Barrett's description of World War One era photographs in the guard book was nothing more than fantasy.

What a lovely set of circumstances.