Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[jmenges]

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...

The Maybrick Diary related tape recordings were from Robert McLaughlin’s personal collection, which he digitized and gave to me. Keith Skinner had no hand (let alone thumb) in what I chose to release.

JM

[rjpalmer]

As for the Barrett/Gray tapes, Keith tells me that he is rather surprised that you have not already released these yourself as you apparently have a set. If you do, why on earth are you asking Keith to do so?

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.

Thus, as with the Barretts' typescript of the diary, whether these important sources will become part of the 'Feldman/Skinner/Graham' archive that you have already released to the public rests entirely in your own hands. People can decide for themselves what “editorial control” may have been exerted.

To be blunt, I am at a loss to understand just what you are protecting, since we are constantly reassured that ‘we’ are only seeking the ‘truth,’ wherever it may lead ‘us.’ If such is the case, why not just release all the relevant data? You know how people get when they are told "nothing to see here, folks! Move along."

But—whatever. Life is short I can live without seeing any of it. Have a pleasant evening and a joyful week. RP

Matthew 7:7-8.

[Iconoclast]

And while I am on such a wee roll!

I wonder if Roger is aware that Mike Barrett 'explained' to Alan Gray on January 26th 1995 (it's on tape, by the way) that he was responsible for buying the watch and putting the scratches inside? Mike revealed this startling piece of information three weeks after his sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995 but there is no evidence that Alan Gray typed up another affidavit for Mike to clarify this remarkable piece of additional information. Evidently, when Gray reported in to his Controller - M (for Melvin) - he was told to drop it as it was clearly toxic, along with Mike's claims to be Russian, the first man on the moon, the love child of Groucho Marx, and a rabbit.

Okay, I made the last four up, but - be honest - I'll bet you kind of believed me because it was Bongo to whom I was referring?

Perhaps Roger could add this to his mooted reconstruction of events if he so desires? (Or get his Controller - LO - to?)

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Goodness me, I'm on fire!

I recall the name Charlie Pulford being raised in connection with Robbie Johnson. Pulford's account of Robbie's scally-like ways as told in Inside Story do not chime so very badly with a more innocuous view of Robbie's contribution to the Maybrick watch. With the permission of the authors, I have reproduced the relevant pages on my Dropbox account (they were too big to load on here).

I haven't asked their permission to publish the scratches in the watch juxtaposed with Maybrick's signature on his marriage certificate (I knew I'd seen it somewhere - and I knew my reference to the controversial Will was deeply flawed) but I've rather inferred it from their earlier permission (so - Hold the Front Page - Iconoclast could be in the clink any day now!).

To RJ and his small band of ilk: how do we understand Robbie Johnson's ability to predict so closely Maybrick's signature when he scratched it into the back of the watch?

Simple question. Deserves complex answer, please!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

By the way, Roger, Keith did have a question which was rhetorically addressed to me but which I inferred was 'meant' for you as it was underpinned by your preferred scenario painted for us recently: if the ink went on to the paper between (say) April 2nd and April 12th 1992 (factoring-in the two days Mike said it took to dry the front cover after soaking it in linseed oil), and Baxendale did his ink experiments at the end of June 1992 (or thereabouts), then how would the fact that the ink had only been on the paper for 10 weeks (say) affect the solubility test? I might have thought the ink would be extraordinarily soluble given the recency of its laying-down and that this might have been commented upon by Baxendlae himself.

Now, I'm not getting in to the ink and paper debate. As Lord Orsam himself pointed-out, my grasp of these aspects of the case are slight. My brilliant Society's Pillar was focused on illustrating a) how complex the scrapbook is in reality, and b) how astonishingly-unlikely the events were if Maybrick was not Jack the Spratt McVitie (and I think we'll all agree that I did so brilliantly), but the whole "nigrosine contains nitrogen in two parts per trillion unless it's a Sunday and we're having roast beef and some of the gravy contaminated the sample which turned the chloracetimide [I can't even be arsed to check the spelling] into bone black and Mike Barrett was colour-blind and didn't know his greys from his blue-greens", et cetera, leaves me quite frankly stone cold dead with disinterest.

Ike "No Relation to Alec Voller Whatsoever, Ever, Ever, Ever" Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

P.S. Ike. If you're in contact with Keith, maybe you can talk him into releasing the typescript of the diary manuscript produced by the Barretts? Or an audio file of the Barrett/Gray tapes? 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...

Hi Roger,

I am indeed 'in contact' with Keith (as in I have his email address) and he remains - despite his other commitments - most willing to respond. Personally, I'm loathe to give him more work to do, but I asked him your questions last night and awoke to find a response (the man never sleeps, I suspect). He told me something which I could have actually guessed and said myself - namely, that there is no point in releasing the typescript of the scrapbook manuscript produced by the Barretts because it only confirms what Mike Barrett stated in his sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995 (”I had actually written the ‘Jack The Ripper Diary’ first on my word processor which I purchased in 1985...”). So having a copy is only going to show you whether Anne was a decent typist or not (which in itself may have been influenced by how little time she had to type up the contents of the scrapbook before Mike jetted down to London with the scrapbook in April 1992). Of course, as you believe that the typed copy was actually the original version, created by Mike in the preceding years directly into digital, then I too would be fascinated to see it as it would presumably show us how implausible it was to create on a PC what eventually became the scrapbook.

As for the Barrett/Gray tapes, Keith tells me that he is rather surprised that you have not already released these yourself as you apparently have a set. If you do, why on earth are you asking Keith to do so?

Now, Roger, I have heard a small number of the Barrett/Gray tapes myself - I needed cheering-up one day and the pantomime that was their relationship was just the tonic, I can tell you - so I wouldn't like to think you have held back from releasing them because you have reservations that if people heard the wisecracking tomfoolery of the brilliant but maverick detectives who break all the rules but develop a grudging respect for one another whilst getting results (for our American cousins, whilst drinking cwarffee and eating doh-nuts), they might begin to suspect that perhaps Mike did not forge the scrapbook after all. I for one would not be publishing such nonsense if I was seeking to argue that the complex Victorian scrapbook was actually a hoax written by Starsky or Hutch. Or even Huggy Bear.

Commissioner Ike

[Iconoclast]

Paul Feldman, The Final Chapter, p. 64. [/B]My bad. Note to self: double, triple, and quadruple check anything coming from the pen of Paul Feldman.

A very advisable policy Roger and I would hope you continue to do it with the same thoroughness and suspicion you apply to Inside Story plus Shirley Harrison’s book (all editions) and Robert Smith’s book (both editions) - Lord knows, perhaps even my own very very brilliant Society's Pillar! Where you can take your foot off the throttle is when reverentially reading anything written by Melvin Harris, Nick Warren and Lord O, safe in the knowledge they would not dream of holding back data generally favourable to the scrapbook's authenticity. Double check becomes double standards, we wonder?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

P.S. Ike. If you're in contact with Keith, maybe you can talk him into releasing the typescript of the diary manuscript produced by the Barretts? Or an audio file of the Barrett/Gray tapes? 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...

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ike. I'm aware that the photograph appeared in Lacassagne, but I thought the likelihood of the forger having access to that obscure text, and then using it in such a rickety vehicle, as about as likely as the hoaxer having had access to the police inventory list of Eddowes' belongings, or being able to quote Dick Crashaw off the top of his head. After awhile the probabilities of these 'explanations' becomes so ludicrous that I simply refuse to even entertain them. I became lazy and took Feldman's word that the Kelly photograph first appeared in Rumbelow. I have Farson's book, and there it is, of course, 1972. But, from a textual examination, I suspect Rumbelow was a major source for Barrett. A number of the Diary's ridiculous errors (taking away Mary Kelly's missing key, the farthings in Hanbury Street, the breasts on the table, etc) appear in these sources, so it is not always entirely clear which error Barrett cribbed from which source. But my guess is Barrett used Colin Wilson's book (mentioned in his 'research' notes') for the killer taking away the key, because Wilson erroneously concluded that Kelly's lock was not of the 'spring' variety, and the Killer did, indeed, take it away. Abberline said otherwise.

Here's Feldy. I would have thought that Keith might have corrected Feldman's error, but perhaps Feldman didn't invite a watchful editorial hand?

"Since 1975, when Donald Rumbelow first had the photograph published in his book, The Complete Jack the Ripper, nobody had ever noticed these two initials..."

Paul Feldman, The Final Chapter, p. 64. My bad. Note to self: double, triple, and quadruple check anything coming from the pen of Paul Feldman.

Take the rest of the afternoon off, Ike. I'm climbing onto my motorbike and won't be reading your slings and arrows of outrage.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Roger,

By chance, I've just heard back from Keith regarding Don Rumbelow's book (but I can't remember from which post I was inspired to write to him - hence no quotation), and he tells me that he had never heard Mike mention Don Rumbelow’s book but he does agree with you that Mike would have seen the photograph in Paul Harrison’s book (1991) which was one of the two JtR books Mike used for the Ripper content of the scrapbook – the other being Wilson & Odell 1987. Unless, that is, Mike’s research notes are interpreted as genuine research notes and not his writer’s notes used for creating the scrapbook's narrative?

Incidentally, quite a few people would have seen the Kelly photograph before Don Rumbelow published it in 1975. Dan Farson used it in 1972 and before that, Lacassagne in [Keith thinks] 1899 [or possibly earlier] (I'm confident it was 1895 for any pedants out there - oh bollocks, I've just Googled it and Keith was right). So Keith advises that we do not take away from Mike either of these sources, always remembering that according to his sworn affidavit of January 5th 1995 “...I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter” so his research was presumably fairly exhaustive.

By chance, I'm awaiting the arrival of Farson (1972, or 1973?) to see the 'FM' on Kelly's wall as it is apparently very well-defined (I think I may have got this gem from Keith but I'm not sure). Did someone else not also publish it in 1975? The royal conspiracy bloke - oh what the hell was his name? Knight!

Anyway, if Mike researched every book on the Ripper than pretty well every detail was available to him when he created his masterpiece.

But he couldn't have put the 'F' and the 'M' on Kelly's wall. Mark me!

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Not Bowyer's eyes, mind you. Or Abberline's. Our eyes---the eyes of Ike and the rest of the readership that Barrett envisioned would be happily hunting for "clues" in the famous photo.

Now, Roger, you're being a naughty little boy here. Where in the Victorian scrapbook does James Maybrick get down and dirty about the actual people whose eyes will see? Where does he exclude Bowyer but include Iconoclast? Where does he exclude Abberline but include Palmer?

And - to augment your remarkable claim - do you need to rely on a truly excessive overdose of the literal in order to cancel out what I trust is a burning sense of cognitive dissonance right now? Come on - admit it - you know that this is one of the weakest arguments ever made in support of the hoax theory (and thankfully there have been so many else the world may not have received the wisdom of my brilliant Society's Pillar!).

[Iconoclast]

You got me there, Ike. It was indeed fortuitous that the Kelly photograph survived and was published, and that Maybrick anticipated its existence, survival, and publication, so he could quite accurately write that he left the letter F "in front" for "ALL EYES TO SEE." Not Bowyer's eyes, mind you. Or Abberline's. Our eyes---the eyes of Ike and the rest of the readership that Barrett envisioned would be happily hunting for "clues" in the famous photo. Probably one glass of stout too many that night, Poor Bongo. He slipped out of character, but then, even Homer and Feldman nod.

When you and your colleagues are arguing for the existence of imaginary enormous biscuit tins with hermetically sealed lids that magically keep ink in suspended animation for 102 years, I think it is time that I hunted down a website dedicated to the "meaningful truth" (to use your curious phrase) of the Cottingley Fairies. I could use a more credible diversion.

I can only say to you, Roger, that James Maybrick - in my opinion - could perfectly reasonably have written (some days after he did the dastardly deed), "I left it in front for all to see" without having to mean anything more profound than "I left it in front for anyone who walks into this hell-hole to see". As neither you nor I can be absolutely certain what we were expected to see (had we been there), we cannot therefore sit so smugly in our Chigwell semis 130 years later and say that this statement could only have been written by a hoaxer for only a hoaxer could have - in a moment of error - thought that some people might see a photograph. Neither you nor I could say with any certainty that Maybrick could not have written it, and yet curiously you do.

PS I am wondering about whether or not to wear my macintosh today because I have heard that it is going to rain. Someone tells me that the sky is cloudy. That is the truth (it turns out) but it doesn't help me one iota. Someone else - more attuned to my needs - then adds that those clouds are very dark indeed. That is also the truth (it turns out) but this time meaningfully so, and I wear my mac. I think my problem is that I'm just too clever, Roger, and sometimes I forget myself. Still, I'm perfectly happy to wait until you catch up.

[rjpalmer]

You got me there, Ike. It was indeed fortuitous that the Kelly photograph survived and was published, and that Maybrick anticipated its existence, survival, and publication, so he could quite accurately write that he left the letter F "in front" for "ALL EYES TO SEE." Not Bowyer's eyes, mind you. Or Abberline's. Our eyes---the eyes of Ike and the rest of the readership that Barrett envisioned would be happily hunting for "clues" in the famous photo. Probably one glass of stout too many that night, Poor Bongo. He slipped out of character, but then, even Homer and Feldman nod.

When you and your colleagues are arguing for the existence of imaginary enormous biscuit tins with hermetically sealed lids that magically keep ink in suspended animation for 102 years, I think it is time that I hunted down a website dedicated to the "meaningful truth" (to use your curious phrase) of the Cottingley Fairies. I could use a more credible diversion.

[Iconoclast]

Smile, you're on camera!

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 …

PS Could you please hang up the 'phone?

[Iconoclast]

[SIZE=16px]Hi Caz,

Those hung up on whether the Diarist is referring to the initals ‘F. M.’ or some other initials, or some other alleged ‘clue’ are missing the thrust of Chisholm’s observation.The diarist states that he left ‘X’ (whatever X might be, and we can argue until the cows come home) “in front for all eyes to see.”

Here's a scenario which played out for real this afternoon.

Ike's 'phone rings. It's Roger Palmer.

RP: Hi Ike, just checking in. Hope you're staying safe whilst solving the greatest murder mystery of all time.
II: I am indeed, Rogey. I'm working so hard I've worked up quite an appetite. Honestly, I could eat a horse.
RP: A horse! A horse? A horse, my boy??? Why, are you mad? Are you mad, my boy? Have you lost your mind? Have you gone under the charabanc of madness? A man can't eat a horse. A man can't eat a horse, my boy! It's just not possible! If I take you literally - at your very word, my boy - as I understand your intention; if I take you exactly as you speak, I am lost! I can't understand a word of which you speak for you speak of a thing which can't be done. Literally can't be done, my boy! A man can't eat a horse! You can't eat a horse, my boy! And if you can't eat a horse, my boy, all else of which you speak has no truth in it. I therefore conclude that you are not hungry at all, my boy!
II [Eating]: Crikey, calm down, Rog, you'll give yourself another hernia, mate. I've just made myself a lovely peanut butter sandwich - the doctor says I'm not to have them but to Hell with it, I'm eating it here in my kitchen for all eyes to see.
RP: All eyes to see, my boy? All eyes to see! Are all eyes in your kitchen, my boy? Are they? Are they all there, my boy, in your kitchen, right now - all eyes? All eyes in the world? All human eyes, all cows' eyes, all horses' eyes, all cats' eyes, all insect eyes? All eyes to see? I don't think so, my boy. I can only conclude that all eyes can not see this fictitious sandwich and that you are not even in your kitchen!
II: Fair enough, Rog. [Burps] Oops, apologies for that - I must have not been eating too quickly …
RP: Not been eating too quickly? Not been eating too quickly, my boy. [Ike leaves the 'phone on the kitchen table and returns to it some hours later]
RP: It's like saying you're over the Moon. Over the Moon? Over the Moon, my boy? You can't be over the Moon, my boy, for the Moon is some two hundred thousand miles away. No one person can ever be over the Moon. How did you get all of the technology to get you there, my boy? Do you see? You literally cannot be over the Moon! [Ike recalls that it was Roger who made the call so he puts the 'phone down again and goes back in to the Casebook - not literally, of course - to tell the tale].