Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

And never were you better caught more candidly, Rog, than in your not-so-subtle reference to the rather explicit 'F' carved on Kelly's arm as being 'vague'. Ever one to question what to others might seem fairly straightforward and beyond contention!

Oh how I larfffed … ]

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.'

The 'P. M.' (was Lord Salisbury the Ripper?) or P. N. (Polly Nichols?) on the rear wall is arterial spray from Kelly's neck wound.

Barrett has you running around like a headless chicken, my son. These are simply the elements of a deeply vile and disturbing murder; there are no initials on the wall or anywhere else.

Meanwhile, my rather big mouth has caused too much trouble lately, so I'm removing myself from the discussion. I think the prosecution can afford to rest its case.

The floor is entirely yours.

One final post to follow...another image.

[Iconoclast]

Afternoon Ike. I'm not sure why it's any of R.J's business what name or names you use when referring to me. In fact, you hereby have my full permission to call me "that meddlesome old ratbag" if you so wish. It's almost certainly kinder than the names I can imagne R.J calling me - in private under his breath.

Love,

That Meddlesome Old Ratbag
X

Dear Most Honourable Caz,

I think you must be confusing me with someone with remarkably large testicles if you imagine I am ever going to risk calling you … I can't even bring myself to say it!

I'm keeping out of this. As Lord O (Olivier or Orsam) probably once said, "Keep yer 'ead down my son - this is big boy ****". Or was that David Brent?

Obviously, he meant big boy and GIRL ****, by the way!!!!!!!!!!!

Your Ever So 'umble Servant,

Ike

PS I wonder how many other naughty words the editor automatically switches out with a bunch of asterisks? Let's see: **** **** ******* **** ***** Hmmm, quite a few, it seems ...

[Iconoclast]

Or maybe that was the object, because you don't really believe those tapes contain anything truly incriminating, otherwise you'd have been sent them in the first place with the others.

See, this is why I'm still hiding behind the old bomb shelter in me ganny's [sic] garden. Roger, I've put a box of bandages in the post, mate (I sent them to "RJP, Chigwell Semi" and am certain they will reach you). Until the bloodshed ends, I'm keeping my head down.

Ish.

[caz]

Robert M. is obviously a smart man. He must have concluded, undoubtedly correctly, that the interviews with Feldman, Graham, and Harrison are like poisons that contain their own antidote; arguments so weak, that rather than being suggestive of an old or genuine document, actually argue against such ideas. I shouldn’t have worried!

So why did you? You more or less accused Keith of releasing material because it was favourable to the diary's authenticity, but because you have now been told it was Robert M who provided it, the same material has now become unfavourable to the diary's authenticity.

You are wasted here, R.J. Go into politics, where it's not what is said that forms people's opinions, but who says it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Keith. Two reasons. First, I no longer own a cassette player and don’t currently have the technical capability to upload any such file to the internet—if I did, I would. More to the point: I no longer own the tapes. I thought I did, but I don't. I do have a few notes. If you want more details you can always contact me off-board. Further, I never owned an entire set....

Hi R.J,

When you say you no longer 'own' the tapes, do you mean someone else owns them now, or you just can't find them? You wouldn't have dumped them, surely, if they have now taken on so much importance for you?

Also, how do you know that you never owned 'an entire set'? Was this made plain to you when you received some of the tapes? Or did you only realise it because you saw some conversations referred to, or quoted from here, which you didn't have in your personal collection? I'm just trying to work out why you wouldn't have had the full Barrett & Gray comedy box set, but just a selection of episodes. Seems such a shame if you missed out on the funniest ones. Comedy gold gone to waste.

Of course, I am not for one moment suggesting that you were deprived of recorded conversations that were the least favourable to the Barrett hoax believers. For all I know, the missing tapes could be the most favourable, which I presumed was why you wanted Keith to release them. But you really have queered your pitch, if I may say so, because Keith is now damned if he doesn't [because then you can suggest it's because they point clearly to Mike as the diary's creator] and damned if he does [because when everyone gets to hear Bongo in full flow, you can then accuse Keith of only releasing material that points against Mike as the silly faker].

Or maybe that was the object, because you don't really believe those tapes contain anything truly incriminating, otherwise you'd have been sent them in the first place with the others.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Far be it for me to ever get into any form of an argument, but once again your argument hinges heavy upon the thought process of the killer after the event, does it not? Maybrick wrote to the effect of "I left them a very good clue" and we are left to decipher it, unfortunately. I think Shirley Harrison suggested that the very good clue may have been the piece of cotton in what may have then become the tin match box, empty (I hope it were she for I say so in my bSP). Maybrick could have left such a clue, and just not read the article that you posted or read it and completely missed it. He was human, Rog. It's an artform but it can be learned with practice.

And he homed-in on Abberline rather than the City Police? Honestly - did he really need to care a toss to say it to himself in his private scrapbook?

Ike (now behind that oak tree on the left)

Hi again,

If I can be arsed, I may get around to reading yet more distracting posts on Mike's supposed use of Paul Harrison's book [which I haven't got and haven't read] to come up with his funny little empty tin box lines - sometime in the middle of next week I shouldn't wonder.

In the meantime, I wonder what R.J makes of this:

'Popkov's crimes were motivated by suspicions that his wife had committed adultery.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Popkov

It appears that between 1992 and 2010, Mikhail Popkov had himself a prolific run of serial murders. Now, my own choice of wording would have been that he only claimed his crimes were motivated by those suspicions about his wife, because it's the old deluded nonsense rearing its head again, that says: "I'm not really a murdering bastard, you see. Look to that horrible woman who is making me do all these bad things". Yes, and my name's Catherine Morris.

You and I were quite wrong to think there was no beginning to Bongo's talents. It seems there was no end to them. Mikhail was quite obviously under the 'fluence of Michael and his 'DAiry', and had it in mind when he got buckled, so he could say he only did what Jack the Ripper had done before him, and killed all those naughty women because his missus couldn't keep her own knickers on.

Clever old Bongo.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For goodness sake, Rog, you could have PM'd me!!!!!!!!! I'm probably going to wake up tomorrow (if I'm lucky) to find my hamster's head in bed with me!

Anyway, I have made the correction. Can I ask that you make a correction to your own post above, please - it's my brilliant Society's Pillock, thank you.

PS In what sense did I get both of Caz's names wrong (as she published under 'Morris', it seemed reasonable to cite 'Morris' rather than 'Brown'). In retrospect, however, I perhaps should have referred to her in my bSP as 'Caz' as that - I think - is the naming format I used elsewhere whilst being very brilliant?

Ike (Yes, honestly - I'm behind this big rock)

Afternoon Ike. I'm not sure why it's any of R.J's business what name or names you use when referring to me. In fact, you hereby have my full permission to call me "that meddlesome old ratbag" if you so wish. It's almost certainly kinder than the names I can imagne R.J calling me - in private under his breath.

Love,

That Meddlesome Old Ratbag
X

[Iconoclast]

It should also be remembered that Alan Gray was not a student of the Ripper murders, nor the Maybrick case. He was a private detective.

Alan Gray did not have to be a student of the Ripper case or the Maybrick case. All Alan Gray required from Mike Barrett in 1994-1995 was one hard piece of evidence linking him to obtaining the original Victorian guard book which was used for Anne Barrett to write in disguised handwriting the 63 pages of narrative which Mike had claimed he had created on his word processor. The Outhwaite and Litherland auction ticket which Mike had kept would have been perfect. It’s strange that he let Alan Gray make so many fruitless requests to Outhwaite and Litherland for evidential support that Mike had bought the book from them when he had the proof in his pocket. I suppose he didn’t give it to Alan Gray because he feared he would be arrested (after all, Gray was a private detective with the full powers of citizen's arrest of a local shopkeeper). The same reason he didn’t give it to Keith Skinner, 5 years later at the Cloak & Dagger Club, because Keith mentioned to Mike that Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans were in the audience. As somebody who had read every book about JtR, Mike would have immediately recognised these published authors as being two of the biggest names in the JtR world. He would have known they were long retired police officers (with the full powers of citizen's arrest of a private detective). A shame because Mike would probably have just loved to have been arrested and seen his name in the newspapers again – if anybody was interested in the very old news he represented by then. I personally cannot think of any other reason why Mike Barrett would not have given the ticket to Alan Gray in 1994 or Keith Skinner in April 1999 – or even shown it to Andy Aliffe in private after Keith's interview as Mike had promised to do.

I struggle to understand how so many years of debate could have been ended so abruptly had Mike just shown us a single piece of evidence of the truly brilliant crime he had carried out and yet he did nothing other than string us all along in order to retain something akin (in his eyes) to being centre stage. Oh - hold on ...

[jmenges]

Hi RJ,

In 2007 Coral Kelly sent Robert McLaughlin 11 cassette tapes which included all of the Maybrick Diary tapes I have released. Robert digitized them for me in October 2018 and at that point I contacted Keith to ask his permission to release the Maybrick Cloak and Dagger Club recordings, as he was the host at those events and I seek permission for intellectual/performance copyright when at all possible. I did not ask for his permission to release the radio interviews since, as you rightly point out, his voice isn't on them.
He suggested that I organize the release of all of the tapes as a series with narration bridging each recording. This became a lengthy writing and editing process with Keith's input, but I eventually decided to scrap the idea. You might recall reading what was to be the recorded introduction as I posted it on the boards.
I shared all of the Maybrick Diary recordings I received from Robert McLaughlin with Keith weeks prior to releasing them and he compared them with the tape recordings he already had to see if mine were of better or worse quality. When his recording was of better quality he graciously allowed me to substitute mine with his. I emailed with him frequently while the series was being released and he provided a lot of background info on what was said on any particular tape. I also spoke to Paul Begg, Adam Wood, and others at the same time.
It is perhaps this close contact he had with me - which would have been completely unknown to you or practically everyone else- that led him to interpret your comments in such a way and take them personally, and respond using the pronoun "we". Nevertheless, he had absolutely no editorial control over what I released, nor did he ever attempt to exert control over the project. On the contrary, he was very helpful in providing first hand recollections and supplementary material.
I hope this clears it up a bit. I'm willing to answer any questions, and I have accepted your apology and moved on.

All the best,

JM

[rjpalmer]

It is fascinating to see how you interpret the world the rest of us occupy, Roger, it really is.

No offense, Ike, but I really really really do not want to 'occupy' the same mental space as someone who could convinced themselves that Barrett's novella is the actual words of Jack the Ripper.

I'm fine being outside the asylum. Have a good day. I'm off for my daily motorcycle spin. Wind therapy, they call it.

[rjpalmer]

The interviewer in the Radio Merseyside broadcasts was not Keith, Ike. Have you actually listened to any of the podcasts?

I don't particularly care that much, but since I've been raked over the coals by Caz and JM, I'd be interested in hearing their explanation, not yours. I think a reasonable person would interpret Keith's comment as those of a person acting as spokesperson for the podcasts, with his use of 'we' and the 'purpose' and 'resentment', etc.

But whatever. Let's call it a misunderstanding. My bad.

[Iconoclast]

It was a very strange comment--one that I still do not understand--and this is what left me believing that Keith had been somehow instrumental in the release of the tapes. He certainly seems to be acting as a spokesman for their “purpose” and even uses the word “we.” Given this comment, do you really blame me for kicking the football in the wrong direction? To what was Keith referring? I haven’t the foggiest. Why use 'we' if he was not involved? Is it some standard British football trick deliberately designed to make the opposition head off in the wrong direction?? Maybe you, Keith, or JM can explain it to me so I won't fall into the error again,

It is fascinating to see how you interpret the world the rest of us occupy, Roger, it really is.

When I read Keith's comment in your post above (#594), I inferred that he was in some way connected to the creation and collation of the recordings (which would have given him the opportunity - untaken, of course - to manipulate them had he had a specific agenda in mind). He was the interviewer in many so he must have been involved at that level. And then I infer (it's pretty explicitly stated, in fairness) that Jonathan Menges then released them onto the Casebook. So Keith was right to infer a potential slight even though it was Jonathan who released the material because the inference could have been backward engineered to the time of their creation and collation as well as their release.

I honestly don't think many people would have failed to work that out unless - surely not? - any given reader had had a specific agenda in mind themselves?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Ho ho, this was in response to R.J's funny little pop at Keith:

'Keith made quite an information dump over the past 12 months or so--but it is hard not to notice that all those podcasts featured Feldman, Graham, Harrison, etc. One wouldn't want to be left with the impression that an unseen editorial hand had placed his thumb firmly on the scale, only releasing data generally favorable to the diary's authenticity...'

Ho ho ho. I have met Robert McLaughlin and he is a smashing guy, but the thought that he would deliberately have handed over data that was 'generally favorable to the diary's authenticity' is just too funny, on at least two levels.

Level one: Robert has broadly similar beliefs to R.J regarding the diary's origins.

Level two: I'm confident that Robert has more than enough integrity not to hand over data because it accords with his own beliefs, but it's hilarious that R.J sees what was released as being 'generally favorable to the diary's authenticity'.

Own goal or what?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz. Although I would just as soon let the matter drop, since I apologized, let me reproduce the quote by Keith, made on the Maybrick ‘podcast’ thread, that led me to assume that he had been involved in the release of the tapes. Maybe you can help explain it to me, if it matters that much to you:

Keith Skinner: 11-16-2019, 12:49 PM

“What I do know however is that the point of Jonathan’s series of Diary podcasts is to let people, who may be interested in the 27 year old controversy, hear the voices of key figures involved, at precise moments in time which have been caught on tape. These recordings have not been doctored. There is no hidden agenda to present anything but the facts. What reason would we have for giving a bias Roger? What would we – or anybody - gain from this? How does being deceitful and manipulative get us any closer to the truth? In short, I resent the inference as, I suspect, does Jonathan.” (emphasis added)

Keith made the bizarre comment that I was implying that the podcasts were ‘doctored’ (I never made any such claim) and said that he ‘resented the inference.’

I’m at a loss. Why would KEITH have “resented” my supposed comment if he hadn’t been involved in the release of the tapes?

It was a very strange comment--one that I still do not understand--and this is what left me believing that Keith had been somehow instrumental in the release of the tapes. He certainly seems to be acting as a spokesman for their “purpose” and even uses the word “we.” Given this comment, do you really blame me for kicking the football in the wrong direction? To what was Keith referring? I haven’t the foggiest. Why use 'we' if he was not involved? Is it some standard British football trick deliberately designed to make the opposition head off in the wrong direction?? Maybe you, Keith, or JM can explain it to me so I won't fall into the error again,

The whole thread can be found here. See Post #74.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-media/audio-visual/rippercast/714049-rippercast-audio-archives-the-maybrick-diary/page5

Robert M. is obviously a smart man. He must have concluded, undoubtedly correctly, that the interviews with Feldman, Graham, and Harrison are like poisons that contain their own antidote; arguments so weak, that rather than being suggestive of an old or genuine document, actually argue against such ideas. I shouldn’t have worried!