Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Abby Normal]

Hello Caz,

Generally, I am quite proud of myself for my minimal lack of involvement in this thread and I have to say that I am astonished by how much time and effort other posters put into it. The one time I attempted to make a substantive contribution to the thread I got ripped a new one by none other than Lord Orsam himself. I take it as a badge of honor.

I can't be arsed to do a substantive evaluation of the pros and cons of the diary. Love that expression by the way. One of the best things I have learned on these boards in addition to "Big Girls Blouse" which I have you to thank for.

I do have an interest in the "initials" though as I can actually see a likeness of them on the wall which makes them intriguing.

As for Barrett and a hoax I will just say that I like to watch Antiques Roadshow. Yes, yes I know but I watch it in a manly way, scratching myself and smashing beer cans into my head. The one thing that it has taught me is the critical importance of provenance. So when I look at the provenance for the diary I kind of shake my head and say well that ain't so good. So I lean towards the hoax camp but try to keep an open mind and doubt I will ever become a fanatic in my opinion one way or the other.

I am actually reading Shirley Harrison's book right now. Kind of a slow go.

c.d.

hi cd.
dont worry i LOVE antiques roadshow too!

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

Generally, I am quite proud of myself for my minimal lack of involvement in this thread and I have to say that I am astonished by how much time and effort other posters put into it. The one time I attempted to make a substantive contribution to the thread I got ripped a new one by none other than Lord Orsam himself. I take it as a badge of honor.

I can't be arsed to do a substantive evaluation of the pros and cons of the diary. Love that expression by the way. One of the best things I have learned on these boards in addition to "Big Girls Blouse" which I have you to thank for.

I do have an interest in the "initials" though as I can actually see a likeness of them on the wall which makes them intriguing.

As for Barrett and a hoax I will just say that I like to watch Antiques Roadshow. Yes, yes I know but I watch it in a manly way, scratching myself and smashing beer cans into my head. The one thing that it has taught me is the critical importance of provenance. So when I look at the provenance for the diary I kind of shake my head and say well that ain't so good. So I lean towards the hoax camp but try to keep an open mind and doubt I will ever become a fanatic in my opinion one way or the other.

I am actually reading Shirley Harrison's book right now. Kind of a slow go.

c.d.

[caz]

You have to wonder why the author of the diary would feel so clever and ballsy for leaving a clue that was so hidden and so cryptic. Even if he had written the F.M. in huge, clear letters in the middle of the wall it is not like Abberline would have entered the room, taken one look at said "hmmm...an F.M....clearly this stands for Florence Maybrick the wife of the well known cotton merchant. That's our man. Let's go, boys."

He could have taped a cotton ball to the wall and gotten the same results.

c.d.

The biggest problem in logic I see on this thread is the tireless effort to 'wonder why' the diary author would or would not have done such-and-such back in 1888.

Mike Barrett was born in 1952.

I wouldn't presume to know if you are a Barrett hoax believer yourself, c.d, but there are others who claim to be 100% convinced of it, while at the same time 'wondering why' the diary author would have done all manner of things more than 60 years before he was born.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The following photograph is a supplement to Post #588.

It is a Bryant & May tin match box, which is likely to be similar to the one found among Kate Eddowes' clothing...

Ha ha... yes, a very good clue indeed - which R.J has kindly left in front, for all eyes to see.

Clever old Bongo!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Of course, the true believer can theorize the wildly unlikely scenario that the diary was written by someone with access to official reports (yet, strangely, hones in on something as insignificant as an empty match box!) or we can be brave and honest and rational and admit that the ‘tin match box empty’ was mentioned in one of the two books Barrett used to compile his phony “research notes” sometime around 1991-92: Paul Harrison’s Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved.

Keith notes that the other two books used by Mike were Wilson & Odell [1987] for the Ripper content and the two chapters in Tales of Liverpool for the Maybrick content [no mention of Ryan]. But he is happy to give R.J his way out because [apart from Mike having read everything about Jack the Ripper, as he states in his affidavit] R.J will have noted, that Mike's phony "research notes" also referenced the Liverpool Echo and Probate Records – both of which are in Liverpool Central Library. Keith confirmed this personally [and even used them] as well as doing a thorough check on the existence, availability and accessibility of the Sphere books, which Melvin Harris said the Library had never owned. So if RJ is happy to believe Keith was correct on the first and Melvin Harris was correct on the second, that's fine by Keith.

What I said in one of my recent posts on the subject of the empty tin match box, was that Mike Barrett didn't need to be thinking of this item specifically, if he composed the relevant lines of doggerel and what have you. But it was obvious 'Sir Jim' was recalling something - a very good clue - which he had left at the scene, and which was not mentioned in any of the newspaper reports he had read. It's really that simple, and the truth isn't established by disproving any of our individual suggestions - R.J's, mine, Feldy's or Mike's - for what the diary author MAY have had in mind for that 'very good clue' to be. When reading about the match box with 'cotton' in it, I had always assumed this was cotton thread, taken from a cotton reel for mending purposes, and not a piece - or pieces - of cotton fabric, which would have had to be very small indeed to fit in a match box, and would not have served any obvious purpose. If our Sir Jim, of diary fame, is meant to have opened that box in the darkness of Mitre Square, expecting to find matches in it, the damned thing would have been empty from his point of view, whether or not a length of cotton thread was in it at the time, which would have been nigh on invisible to the naked eye. If this box belonged to Eddowes, could it still have been the clue that 'Sir Jim' left at the scene, or did the diarist make a mistake IF it was meant to be Maybrick's own match box? On the other hand, if it did belong to the killer, you'd think he'd have known when he had used his last match, and you wouldn't expect the box to have contained any mending cotton either. So we just don't know if the diary author was reading any particular significance into this item, specifically, or not. For all we know, the 'very good clue' could have been as simple as a 'BRYANT & MAY' engraving on the tin box! That would be typical Sir Jim, having a private joke about Abberline actually seeing his name, but the newspapers not mentioning it. And it wouldn't then matter whose box it was or why it contained no matches when found.

I appreciate that there is always a danger of taking words too literally, in an effort to suggest what a writer must have meant, but there is an equal danger of ignoring the fact that words don't just pop up out of nowhere, but have meaning for the writer.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

You have to wonder why the author of the diary would feel so clever and ballsy for leaving a clue that was so hidden and so cryptic. Even if he had written the F.M. in huge, clear letters in the middle of the wall it is not like Abberline would have entered the room, taken one look at said "hmmm...an F.M....clearly this stands for Florence Maybrick the wife of the well known cotton merchant. That's our man. Let's go, boys."

He could have taped a cotton ball to the wall and gotten the same results.

c.d.

[caz]

The following photograph is a supplement to Post #588.

It is a Bryant & May tin match box, which is likely to be similar to the one found among Kate Eddowes' clothing.

One can't be certain, of course, but my guess is the twelve pieces of rag described in the police inventory list were cotton strips, rolled and used for sanitary purposes, and this is the 'cotton' inside the tin match box, as described in the press release. Thus, Kate never carried around a 'tin match box empty.' Why would she? The box and its contents had become separated at the morgue; that they were 'slightly' blood-stained suggests their original purpose.

Ciao.

Considering R.J's objections to the diary being found in a biscuit tin, on grounds of size, I have sore misgivings [yes, I'll apply some Sudocrem later] that poor Kate would have been able to stuff an empty match box with a dozen pieces of cloth large enough to have pinned inside her clothing and given her some protection during rag week. If she was menopausal, her flow - although gradually diminishing - was likely to have been erratic, and unpredictably heavy at times, so thin cotton strips would have been next to useless. And how big were these match boxes typically? How many matches of a standard size could they contain?

This reminds me that before R.J took his leave once more, he didn't seem to want to address that other 'little' matter of size: the tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, which [I have it on the ideal authority] Mike went ahead and ordered from Martin Earl between 19th and 26th March, apparently imagining that it would be ideal for Anne to copy the draft of Maybrick's final year on this earth from their famous word 'prosser'.

And to think I was always told that it's not the size that matters...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Meanwhile, my rather big mouth has caused too much trouble lately, so I'm removing myself from the discussion...

Not so much your big mouth, R.J, but your ill-founded suspicions. And they have only ever really caused trouble for yourself.

They prove, beyond doubt, your capacity for mis-reading between the lines and coming to the wrong conclusion. I'm not sure which is worse - when your motivation is to try and discredit a professional researcher, or when it is to try and demonstrate that a semi-literate Scouser didn't send you on a horrendously long and fruitless fool's errand with his off and on and off again claims to have created the DAiry on his word ProSSer.

If only Bongo could see the desperate twisting and turning of your more recent posts, believing the frankly unbelievable of him, he would probably have [in his own inimitable writing style]: 'raised his eyebrows to there full capacity'. But he would also have noted that 'there was always an expectation to the rule', so there was bound to be someone, somewhere, in the 21st century, still giving 'tail-tails signs' of having swallowed his untruthful January 1995 affidavit whole. "I may add, there's also a distinct possibility he's telling us, he was quite literately born a bastard!"

'"So who's bloody initials has he left... They could be, his, his mothers, his girlfriends or even, for all I know, his milkman's." Said the Professor...

"Apart from the initials he's emulated from the diary, notice how he written the words: JACKS BACK Ignore the fact he's written them in capitol letters, that's simply to get his massage across. He's written them with the heart, using the victim's blood as an inkwell! I know more than a few professional researchers, who are convinced that's exactly what the Ripper used as a tool, to write the initials on the wall..."'

'"Is there anything else I should know John." He asked, feeling peevish. "Before my breakfast, decides to lever my stomach...'

'"There's only one thing you should beware of!" He replied, as he and Fox turned to leave the hotel room. "And that's today's date. It's the Ninth of the Eleventh! Mary Jane Kelly was killed in the early hours of the morning, on the 9th November 1888. "The killer could of deliberately pick today's date telling us, he has began his own 9/11 atrocities..." Fox shook his head in amazement at his friend's train of thought, as they left the room.'

Fox and me both!

Yes, I know, it's utter twaddle, but that was Mike for you - just a few passages from a 4,600 word chapter of the novel he was hoping to flog to Robert Smith in October 2008, based on 'my personal transcript of The Diary Of Jack The Ripper'. In his covering letter, Mike writes: 'I enclose a S.A.E. for your connivance'.

You just couldn't make up gems like these. Unless your name is Mike Barrett of course.

Love,

Caz
X

[erobitha]

The Maybrick case was certainly being talked about in 1972, but for very different reasons. In 1970, the 'Wicked Women' TV series featured a haunting version of Florence's story which I have seen but for the life of me cannot now track down. It was particular spooky to watch James Maybrick as portrayed in 1970, long before he would be 'in the dock' himself for other crimes. It was released on March 14, 1970, incidentally - just three months or so before the wonderful hot summer which followed and the greatest World Cup Final of them all.

Cheers,

Ike

If it the same episode I watched, if any hoaxer was watching it for inspiration we would have Florence being English and James working as a stock broker. Talk about inaccuracies - that is well worth a watch alone for how to twist facts for dramatic purposes.

[GUT]

Ike,

Good day! I only poke my snout in here very occasionally these days, but as Dan Farson was (a) one of my favourite blokes and (b) wrote a darn good Ripper book, I'm moved to add a wee comment or two. Farson's book was actually the first Ripper book I ever read, and I still think it's up there with the best of them. I remember shuddering at the photo's, but...I can't say that the 'FM' actually leaped out of the pages at me. And I don't think it leaped out of the pages at any reader of the book, not until Simon Wood spotted it. OK, in fairness, others may have remarked the 'FM' but Simon Wood was well into Ripperology by 1988 and brought it to the attention of the dribbling public. That's not to say that there's nothing on the wall resembling an 'FM' - there is certainly something there that doesn't look like a random marking. But back in 1972 the Maybrick Case, although obviously up and running in the discussions of the well-read and famous, hadn't quite taken off in the way it did once Bongo made his infamous visit to London. To be short, and please don't tear out your hair or take to sackcloth-and-ashes or come looking for me, I can't quite convince myself that the 'FM', if that's what it is, is naughty Jim's little way of getting his own back (or something) on Florie.

I note that RJ quotes Paul Harrison's book 'The Mystery Solved'...well, not quite, as although it wasn't a bad read, Mr H had got his hooks into the wrong Joseph Barnett. But everyone knows that already.

Out with the dogs, what? I think I may have you marked down as an Irish Wolfhound man. You know, like that famous photo of J P Donleavy with his wolfhound....I always wanted to be like him, but that's another story.

Ciao,

Graham

Irish Wolfhound is one dog I have always wanted, doubt my health is up to the task now. So will have to put up with my Mini Schnauzer, who is the light of my life.

[Iconoclast]

But back in 1972 the Maybrick Case, although obviously up and running in the discussions of the well-read and famous, hadn't quite taken off in the way it did once Bongo made his infamous visit to London.

Morning Graham - roll on June 17, eh???

Back in 1972, no-one would have had any reason to look for any letters on Kelly's wall. The reason to look only came twenty years later when Bongo produced the scrapbook and the scrapbook told us that "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother". And there they were, there all the time, there in 1992, in 1972, in 1899, and - clearly - in 1888.

The Maybrick case was certainly being talked about in 1972, but for very different reasons. In 1970, the 'Wicked Women' TV series featured a haunting version of Florence's story which I have seen but for the life of me cannot now track down. It was particular spooky to watch James Maybrick as portrayed in 1970, long before he would be 'in the dock' himself for other crimes. It was released on March 14, 1970, incidentally - just three months or so before the wonderful hot summer which followed and the greatest World Cup Final of them all.

Cheers,

Ike

[Graham]

Ike,

Good day! I only poke my snout in here very occasionally these days, but as Dan Farson was (a) one of my favourite blokes and (b) wrote a darn good Ripper book, I'm moved to add a wee comment or two. Farson's book was actually the first Ripper book I ever read, and I still think it's up there with the best of them. I remember shuddering at the photo's, but...I can't say that the 'FM' actually leaped out of the pages at me. And I don't think it leaped out of the pages at any reader of the book, not until Simon Wood spotted it. OK, in fairness, others may have remarked the 'FM' but Simon Wood was well into Ripperology by 1988 and brought it to the attention of the dribbling public. That's not to say that there's nothing on the wall resembling an 'FM' - there is certainly something there that doesn't look like a random marking. But back in 1972 the Maybrick Case, although obviously up and running in the discussions of the well-read and famous, hadn't quite taken off in the way it did once Bongo made his infamous visit to London. To be short, and please don't tear out your hair or take to sackcloth-and-ashes or come looking for me, I can't quite convince myself that the 'FM', if that's what it is, is naughty Jim's little way of getting his own back (or something) on Florie.

I note that RJ quotes Paul Harrison's book 'The Mystery Solved'...well, not quite, as although it wasn't a bad read, Mr H had got his hooks into the wrong Joseph Barnett. But everyone knows that already.

Out with the dogs, what? I think I may have you marked down as an Irish Wolfhound man. You know, like that famous photo of J P Donleavy with his wolfhound....I always wanted to be like him, but that's another story.

Ciao,

Graham

[Iconoclast]

Hi Erobitha,

You beat me to it - and more eruditely (on the medical terminology) than I would have been.

What Roger has attempted to do in his previous post is to provide people like he who read this site and think that the Victorian scrapbook must be - or needs to be - a hoax with ammunition to firmly keep believing - despite the evidence which stacks up against their position, like the inhabitants of a besieged town who just can’t accept the enemy is at the door and breaking it down.

Here are a few of Roger’s very much less than skilfull dodges.

The letters ARE there if they are seen as ‘PM’ or even - truly bizarrely - ‘PN’ but they are not allowed to be ‘FM’, ever (despite so many commentators here on the Casebook happy to agree that’s that what the shapes look like); in the latter caes they must become arterial blood spray. I’ve never heard of arterial blood spray being quite so articulate as to form a very good clue to the murderer’s identity, but RJ needs it to be in order to keep up the facade that there’s nothing to worry about if you’re a hoax theorist.

The ‘F’ that has been carved so unsubtly on Kelly’s arm - out in front “for all eyes to see”, by the way - has to be defensive wounds. The CORPSE fought back and its defensive wounds were created by the same literate Fate as the arterial blood spray and - miracles! - formed an ‘F’. Wow, that’s chance and a half right there, is it not? ‘F’s all over the place, now. But not there at all according to RJ - so nothing to worry about fellow townfolk, our walls cannot be breached!

And the strange entry about the tin match box empty which may once have held twelve rags and may then have not. I’m unclear how showing us a picture of a thing makes a thing less valuable as evidence (or even more valuable). It’s just a thing and here’s a picture of it. Weird logic. It was interesting to see such a box, but personally my knowledge of the case was not advanced a great deal in the seeing. I see you have added to your earlier post (Erobitha) with some further thoughts about sanitary towels for such ladies of the day, and your observations are really helpful. All RJ has to accept is that - by the time the list of Eddowes’ possessions was formally documented - the tin match box was empty. I’m personally pretty sure that you are right in arguing that the box would have been far too small to have carried any rags never mind twelve, but it doesn’t ultimately matter - by the time it was listed, it was empty. When Maybrick looked in it for a light, it may well have been empty. This stuff just isn’t complicated, is it?

I’m heading-out with the dogs now so will draw a line here, but please people reflect on what RJ is trying to do to your understanding of what lies outside the walls of your town. Those walls are crumbling. I’d get out while you can.

They started crumbling at least as early as 1972, but it turns out we didn’t realise it for half a century ...

Ike

[erobitha]

The following photograph is a supplement to Post #588.

It is a Bryant & May tin match box, which is likely to be similar to the one found among Kate Eddowes' clothing.

One can't be certain, of course, but my guess is the twelve pieces of rag described in the police inventory list were cotton strips, rolled and used for sanitary purposes, and this is the 'cotton' inside the tin match box, as described in the press release. Thus, Kate never carried around a 'tin match box empty.' Why would she? The box and its contents had become separated at the morgue; that they were 'slightly' blood-stained suggests their original purpose.


Ciao.

Ladies sanitary products of that era is actually difficult to to research due to the such taboo nature of menstruation at the time. Your theory cannot be ruled out, but I have some concerns with it.

1) Kate was 46 when she was murdered - in the range of menopause so why would she carry such rags if in fact her periods had stopped? We dont know if she was menopausal.
2) Women's period's can often be heavy, would the suggested rags in such a small match box really be sufficient? I'm not a woman but I'm guessing in those cases it wouldnt be. So we don't how heavy her flow was.
3) From what I can gather more substantial solutions were used. In the more affluent areas of Victorian society they would have used something called a "Doily Belt" or a "Sanitary Apron". these were quite cumbersome but discreet. Obviously Kate was destitute so she did not have such luxury, so your theory has some weight, but without knowing exactly what the cotton looked like 100% we will never know

This one is a score draw.

[erobitha]

Warning: the following post contains a disturbing photograph of a victim's injuries, so don't scroll down if you find such images upsetting. I usually don't like to post forensic images, but this one illustrates an important point.




The trouble, Ike, is that you have no idea what you're looking at. Bongo Barrett has you hunting for initials and other 'clues' in the carnage of the Mary Kelly photograph, and you oblige him by seeing what he has asked you to see.

Does the following photograph remind you of anything?

It should.

It is a defensive wound suffered by the victim of a vicious knife attack.

Note how it is on the top and back of the woman's forearm; it happened when she raised her arm to block her face and head from the assailant's knife.

This is what the vague "F" (yes, vague) really is in the famous Kelly crime photograph. At some point she raised her arm to protect herself. There is no 'F.'

Can't let this go. All victims were most likely strangled / choked before having their throats cut. In ALL C5 victims autopsy reports this one of the things that is present in all of them. Suffocation then a long cut across the throat.

From Dr Bond's report on MJK "The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis."

Echymosis is deep discolouration of bruising under the skin casued most likely by strangling or choking. The same as the rest of the C5.

So now we are saying MJK was fully conscious and able when Jack started wielding his knife around? Then after slashing and thrusting his knife all over the place he then somehow managed to subdue MJK using his usual methods?

And, those defensive wounds do not look like anything but random cuts. There is nothing random about the cut applied post-mortem on Kelly's forearm. Look at the way the cuts are connected - your example is random and is what you would expect from a defensive wound.