Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Iconoclast]

By the way Ike, what do you make of this quote from the Diary?

" I believe if chance prevails I will burn St. James’s to the ground."

Was Maybrick a Sunderland fan?

I know St Jame's wasn't in existence in the late 1880's but perhaps he was a prophet

St. James' very much was in existence in 1888 though - as the home of West End - it is most unlikely that James Maybrick would have been aware of it.

All rivalries apart, I don't think either club can particularly laud it over the other - both have underperformed profoundly relative to their huge potential. Over 46,000 attend Sunderland-Bradford but that's remarkable only for the sad fact that it's in the third-ranking division of English football (a record attendance which may never be beaten). Neither of us have anything to crow about. Even your 1973 miracle (the only game I have ever wanted Sunlan to win, by the way - though I was a naïve 11 year old at the time watching only his second FA Cup Final) was your first 'title' since 1937. Newcastle have won four 'titles' since that time, but even the 4th was a chasmous 51 years ago.

For the record, since 1973, the three north-east clubs have gone to Wembley around 20 times or more and somehow contrived to lose every single one of them. Middlesbrough's 2004 League Cup triumph over Bolton, of course, being played at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, that is a terrible indictment of the curse that sits over us in the capital. Personally, I believe that the north deserves its own 'Wembley' where internationals and cup finals can be played every other year, but I don't hold out much hope on that one.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

So it was you that hoarded all the Izal!

Hi Abe,

If only I had had the foreshite ...

Your Old Pal Ike

[Iconoclast]

Well you would say that dear boy, would you not?

By the way, what did Barrett's medical records say about his 'stroke'?

rj,

Do let us all know what Barrett's medical records said about his 'stroke'. It could be quite important to understanding all things bongobarrett.

Cheers,

Ike

[Graham]

And then of course his description of how he bought the scrapbook at Outhwaite & Litherland was rigorously denied by an executive of that auction house, who stated quite categorically that Mike's description in no way tallied with the manner in which their auctions were conducted.
But naturally, the Barratt Supporters Club may now come out with something along the lines of, "Ooooh, he didn't buy it from O & L at all, see, that was just his way of throwing people off the scent, you understand. He got it from somewhere else and isn't telling. So there!"

Graham

[Iconoclast]

And then of course his description of how he bought the scrapbook at Outhwaite & Litherland was rigorously denied by an executive of that auction house, who stated quite categorically that Mike's description in no way tallied with the manner in which their auctions were conducted.
But naturally, the Barratt Supporters Club may now come out with something along the lines of, "Ooooh, he didn't buy it from O & L at all, see, that was just his way of throwing people off the scent, you understand. He got it from somewhere else and isn't telling. So there!"

Graham

One of the more specific rebuttals from the BSC is that his 'stroke' caused damage to his mental faculties leading him to confabulate and err whilst nevertheless 'remembering' the core of the truth.

Just for jolly, I'd like to see the entry in Bongo's medical records which describe the nature of his 'stroke'. I have strong reasons for suspecting that it may have been inexplicably written in invisible ink as it doesn't appear to be there any more.

Your Old Pal Ike

[Graham]

Ikey!

My elder brother suffered what is described by his medics as a 'minor' stroke back in October. He hasn't lost a lot of motor use, but his speech has been badly affected via aphasia. However, his memory is as sharp and keen as it ever was, especially for reasons I can't explain his memory for dates going back decades. And about 18 months ago, a friend suffered a far more serious stroke which laid him out and took the use of an arm and a leg. But his speech was unaffected and neither was - amazing, really - his memory. His memory is certainly good enough to keep him busy building a case against his former employer for unfair dismissal.

TTFN,

Graham

[rjpalmer]

All well a good, Graham, but like they say, “different strokes for different folks.” One man’s condition tells us nothing about another’s. Anyway, I simply pose the question. To continue with our theological theme, I am an utter agnostic when it comes to Barrett's stoke. But I further assume that most stroke survivors don’t exacerbate their symptoms by drinking a fifth of Jamison for breakfast. The diagnosis of Korsakoff's Syndrome was made by a medical professional, as outlined by Harrison. Medical records are confidential, as Ike knows.

Ike,

I only have time for a quickie, but your question concerning the red diary and the year 1890 is beneath you, sir. It lacks your usual subtly of thought. I suggest you return to your friend Lord Orsam’s thread ‘Acquiring a Victorian Diary’ and review the details.

We don’t have direct or precise knowledge of Barrett’s actual request for a Victorian diary. We only have the subsequent advertisement that appeared in Bookdealer. As Orsam took pains to point out, this was not placed by Barrett, but by Martin Earl, so Earl is interpreting or translating his conversation with Barrett, and what Barrett was seeking. It is probable that Barrett had no idea that this advertisement even existed. I imagine the initial conversation ran something like this:

“Er, hello mate. I’m…uh…looking to buy a Victorian diary.”

“I see. We have a beautiful edition of the diaries and letters of Gerard Manley Hopkins. We also have Christina Rossetti’s…”

“Christina Who? What the hell are you playing at? I want an empty diary.”

“An unused diary? I see. That will be quite difficult…but…I think I have a notepad from 1844.”

“18 bleedin 44? I said VICTORIAN.”

“The gentleman will understand that Queen Victoria’s reign was a very long one. Over sixty years. Do you require a specific decade? The 1850s perhaps?"

“Decade? Now we’re getting somewhere. The 1880s, the later the better…it’s…uh..for a school play. A reenactment.”

“1880s. Hmmm. Would a little wriggling room be okay? And you say you want it blank?”

“We’ll let’s see…hold on a minute…er….29…uh…40…make it at least twenty pages. Thirty would be better, but at least twenty…we can write small...I mean…the reenactment…uh nevermind. Forget that last bit.”

“Well, I’ll do my best, Mr….?”

“Williams, the name is Williams…remember that…Williams.”

After hanging up, Mr. Earl places the now famous advertisement: “Unused or partially used diary dating from 1880-1890, must have at least twenty blank pages.”

Again, this is Earl’s advertisement, not Barrett’s. We don’t know if Mike said anything about the year 1890 and considering that Earl ultimately went outside the parameters of his own advertisement (a worthless 1891 appointment book), we can deduce that Barrett’s instructions were not very precise. If it was Barrett and not Mrs. Barrett, that is.

In short, Ike, I don’t think the jury will like your defense. If Mike had requested plastic explosives and the best Earl could come up with was a dud hand grenade from the Boer War, the jury would still realize that Mike was up to no good and planning to blow something up.

I have some dirt to dig. Literally. Garden dirt. My back hurts already. Cheers.

[Observer]

I think having '1890' blazed across every page would have made it much less 'fit for purpose'. There is no way that Barrett could have known what he was going to get so it was a profoundly stupid gamble to request an impossible diary for the hoax. Yes, what he got could have had '1890' on a single leading page and this, of course, he could then have attempted to remove. With that in mind, it would have widened his search significantly had he simply requested a 'Victorian period' diary whilst labouring under the assumption that it would only be dated on the one page (or perhaps a couple of pages) which could then be removed.



The rational request was to specify 'No later than 1889', but that's not what he requested.

If you can't show that his request for an 1890 diary made sense, then you definitely can't leap from there to 'I believe he wasn't happy with the scrap book, and decided to purchase a real diary'. That's clearly pure speculation. It's fine to have it, but also good to recognise it overtly so that the easily-led-to-'facts' brigade are not easily misled to falsehoods.

Ike

Where did you get the idea that Mike Barrett requested an 1890's diary?

It seems you also have a penchant to capture the easily-lead-to- facts brigade's attention. It appears from your post above that Mike Barrett requested a diary specifically from the year 1890, which is not the case.

Courtesy of David Orsam. Here is the advert for the maroon diary, which appeared in The Bookdealer a weekly publication for books wanted and for sale.

"Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890 must have at least 20 blank pages"

I know it's been discussed ad nausea but why specify 20 blank pages if the object of the exercise was to merely take note of what a Victorian diary looked like?

[Observer]

And then of course his description of how he bought the scrapbook at Outhwaite & Litherland was rigorously denied by an executive of that auction house, who stated quite categorically that Mike's description in no way tallied with the manner in which their auctions were conducted.
But naturally, the Barratt Supporters Club may now come out with something along the lines of, "Ooooh, he didn't buy it from O & L at all, see, that was just his way of throwing people off the scent, you understand. He got it from somewhere else and isn't telling. So there!"

Graham

A number of years had transpired before Barrett revealed the manner in which he bought the scrapbook. Barrett was the type who if his memory was vague as to the exact procedure of purchase involving the lot he purchased at the auction, which included the scrapbook, he'd have made something up. Hence the discrepancy between his recollections and the actual manner in which Outhwaite and Litherland conducted their auctions. He was never lost for an answer that's for sure.

By the way. At what point in time do you think the Diary was written?

[Observer]

St. James' very much was in existence in 1888 though - as the home of West End - it is most unlikely that James Maybrick would have been aware of it.

All rivalries apart, I don't think either club can particularly laud it over the other - both have underperformed profoundly relative to their huge potential. Over 46,000 attend Sunderland-Bradford but that's remarkable only for the sad fact that it's in the third-ranking division of English football (a record attendance which may never be beaten). Neither of us have anything to crow about. Even your 1973 miracle (the only game I have ever wanted Sunlan to win, by the way - though I was a naïve 11 year old at the time watching only his second FA Cup Final) was your first 'title' since 1937. Newcastle have won four 'titles' since that time, but even the 4th was a chasmous 51 years ago.

For the record, since 1973, the three north-east clubs have gone to Wembley around 20 times or more and somehow contrived to lose every single one of them. Middlesbrough's 2004 League Cup triumph over Bolton, of course, being played at Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, that is a terrible indictment of the curse that sits over us in the capital. Personally, I believe that the north deserves its own 'Wembley' where internationals and cup finals can be played every other year, but I don't hold out much hope on that one.

Ike

46,000 for a third division game? Are you sure, that's phenomenal.

[rjpalmer]

I have my boots on, and I'm out the door, but first, I found what I was looking for....

In regards to Mike's imbecility:

"Soon after returning to England, she [Anne Graham] accompanied a girlfriend to the Liverpool Irish club, where she met Michael Barrett, 'nicely dressed, articulate and intelligent,' for the first time. On 4 December 1975 they were married..." Ripper Diary, p. 208.

Nothing whatsoever about an imbecile in a tinfoil hat, just off the short bus from Merseyside.

[Graham]

46,000 for a third division game? Are you sure, that's phenomenal.

Gentlemen,

I really do hate to wee-wee all over Ike's Tyke fireworks, but I really do think that the record gate for a Third Division match is held by the Aston Villa v AFC Bournemouth game on 12 February 1972 - 48,110. Naturally, Villa won 2 - 1. I was there, half-way up the Holte End having my ribs snapped one by one. Ted McDougall scored first - as he would - but Vowden equalised then Andy Lochhead got the winner. Probably the best game I ever saw at Villa Park.

Graham

[Graham]

By the way. At what point in time do you think the Diary was written?

I don't know with any degree of accuracy. How could I? However, I would refer you to Rod McNeill's analysis which suggested that the ink went onto to the paper in or around 1921 IIRC, plus or minus a dozen years. This was rejected by Kenneth Rendell, who actually employed McNeill, because for whatever reason he, Rendell, wanted the Diary to be a new hoax. And then there was Alec Voller, Chief Chemist of Diamine Inks Ltd (I very briefly met him once upon a time) who stated that (a) the ink was not Diamine as Barrett had claimed and (b) it had not gone onto the paper in recent years. And he should know, I'd have thought. Voller thought the document was at least 90 years old. As always with statements such as those by McNeill and Voller, there was a howl of protest from those who held fast to their belief that Barrett had created it. I have never believed that, and I doubt if I ever will. So if he didn't, then someone else must have. For what it's worth - not much, I have to confess - I would put a bob or two on the possibility (I said possibility, not probability) that it was written at a time when Florence Maybrick was still in gaol.

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Where did you get the idea that Mike Barrett requested an 1890's diary?

It seems you also have a penchant to capture the easily-lead-to- facts brigade's attention. It appears from your post above that Mike Barrett requested a diary specifically from the year 1890, which is not the case.

Courtesy of David Orsam. Here is the advert for the maroon diary, which appeared in The Bookdealer a weekly publication for books wanted and for sale.

"Unused or partly used diary dating from 1880-1890 must have at least 20 blank pages"

I know it's been discussed ad nausea but why specify 20 blank pages if the object of the exercise was to merely take note of what a Victorian diary looked like?

I specified 1890, Observer, because - of the years 1880 to 1890 - that is rthe only one which makes a mockery of the argument that Barrett was planning to use it to create what ultimately became the scrapbook. You should trust me, Observer - I may be an SMB (as are you, in a different form, of course), but I am super-rational when I need to be.

I love that rjp - doffing his cap to Lord Orsam - has decided that Mike Barrett definitely didn't specify the wording of Earl's advert, and that he did not mention 1890, and that Earl thought the 1880s included 1890. Just me being super-rational again here.

I need to be quick - I sense some footy-related posts coming up and they're far more interesting!

Cheers,

Ike

[Iconoclast]

… he'd have made something up.

I can't help thinking you didn't mean to type this.