Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[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].

[rjpalmer]

And with regard to the solubility of the ink which Leeds then found they couldn't dissolve ("so it must have dried in the meantime" seems to be your conclusion), the casual observer would be thoroughly justified in asking how - if this were true and meaningfully so - the debate ever got a step further than the Leeds analysis of IIRC 1994?

I think that is a question best put to a psychologist.

Or, in one case, to an accountant.

[erobitha]

Do you know how the solubility might have been affected if the old book had emerged from a dark place, away from normal atmospheric conditions and unopened since the day the last entry was written - however long ago or recently that may have been - and was then tested fairly soon afterwards? Would it be so surprising to find the result was different after two years spent being opened and shut and pored over and examined in completely different conditions?

Conditions dictate how such chemical reactions take place. It is wholly conceivable if the diary was kept in cold metal tin, starved of oxygen - and then in a cool and stable environment that the ink may not have fully bonded with the paper completely. Oxidisation will rapidly accelerate that process.

[Graham]

See Caz's Post 550 above.

Graham

[Kattrup]

Well, with all the preconceived conclusions and out-and-out guesswork that pepper this thread, maybe I should have expected such a response. So, basically, you're telling me that people with zero knowledge and experience of inks and paper are far more clued up than the Chief Chemist of a long-established manufacturer of inks? God, I seriously and genuinely apologise for my own ignorance, thinking that Alec Voller really knew what he was talking about.....

Graham

Hi Graham

with all the preconceived conclusions, it is indeed a good idea to refresh what was actually said. On David Barrat’s site, https://www.orsam.co.uk/nottruefunnyseems.htm one might read up on Alec Voller’s statements, for instance:

When Nick Warren subsequently created a handwritten test letter on 26 January 1995, using the ink sent to him by Voller, it looked remarkably similar to the ink in the Diary and exhibited similar characteristics. This was confirmed by no less a person than Alec Voller himself. After seeing Warren's test letter in 2001, he wrote: 'I agree that the ink of Nick's letter has taken on an appearance similar to that of the Diary, as regards fading and bronzing...'.

The sections Ink, The Doctor Who Never Was, The Nigrosine That Never Was and The Smearing of Ghosts might be of interest.

[Graham]

Well, with all the preconceived conclusions and out-and-out guesswork that pepper this thread, maybe I should have expected such a response. So, basically, you're telling me that people with zero knowledge and experience of inks and paper are far more clued up than the Chief Chemist of a long-established manufacturer of inks? God, I seriously and genuinely apologise for my own ignorance, thinking that Alec Voller really knew what he was talking about.....

Graham

[rjpalmer]

I don't really wish to get involved in any of this just now, but I would remind RJ that in October 1995 the Diary was shown to Alec Voller, who was then Chief Chemist of Diamine Inks Ltd, Liverpool (a company with which I incidentally had business dealings). Voller - and if anyone should know it's he - stated categorically that (a) the Diary ink is not Diamine; and (b) it had been on the paper for a long time - 90 years he felt.

Graham

Thanks for the reminder, Graham, but perhaps you should have bought a subscription to Ripperana. The ink Voller supplied to Nick Warren bronzed in as little as 2 years. Which is unfortunate, because Voller didn't examine the diary until 3 years, 6 months after Barrett brought it to London.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz,

You seem to be missing the subtlety of Professor Chisholm’s argument. I would have expected better, and it’s rather disappointing.

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.”

“All eyes”? Who are these people with all these eyes? And how did their eyes come to be “in front” of Kelly? Any guesses Caz?

The statement only makes sense if the diarist is anticipating the Kelly murder scene being broadcast publicly…and the only way this could happen is through a photograph. Only then can “all eyes” see it. Further, it is only from the perspective of the famous police camera angle that these “eyes” are “in front” of Mary Jane. In the actual room in Miller’s Court there is nothing in front of Kelly but a blank wall, almost entirely consisting of windows covered with an old jacket and other rags.

Maybe Keith will appreciate the following analogy. The subtle error in the narrator’s perspective is kind of like an actor forgetting the concept of the “fourth wall,” and suddenly addressing the audience—or at least becoming aware of the audience. Or like Michael Caine, in Alfie, suddenly and disconcertingly turning to the camera in front of him. Caine shouldn’t be thinking of “all eyes” being on him, should he? Unless he already knows an audience will eventually be sitting in a movie theatre watching him?

Now do you get it? But perhaps Chisholm was being overly subtle to win the admiration of the herd. Richard Whittington-Egan seems to have appreciated his point, and so do I.

Anyway, as far the initials ‘F.M.’ go, I was merely exploring Observer’s observation. I am not particularly convinced that Barrett was referring to FM on the back wall. I think he was referring to the inverted ‘F’ on Kelly’s forearm: F for Florence. Anyone could have noticed this vague ‘F’ at anytime after the photograph was first published in 1975 in Rumbelow. Who would have seen it before that date? You aren’t suggesting that Melville Macnaghten wrote the Diary to secure the release of Florence Maybrick? By George, we have another hoaxer in the nest!!

With continued admiration, RP

P.S. If you have any complaints about the size of my diction, please forward them to Stephen Ryder, who seems to have recently changed software. I notice that Ike suffered from the same physical defect in his post, though he suddenly swelled up towards the end of his exertions. With pride, no doubt.

Smile, you're on camera!

[c.d.]

For some reason I keep thinking of the expression "he left his calling card." Now that can be take literally meaning that someone left an actual card with their name on it but it is also used to indicate that someone's M.O. (if you will) is there which points to a specific individual.

Could this be a similar case here? In other words, the author is saying I didn't literally leave my initials behind but I did leave my "calling card" or "fingerprints" behind for those who can decipher my clues.

Certainly a literal interpretation of initials should be considered first but again I don't think substituting "clues" for initials is that far fetched.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Just a quick chime in on the initial matter.
The Diary contains the line "an initial here, an initial there". Now, some have debated the meaning of this, personally, I don't see how it can mean anything other than an "initial", a single letter. One here, one there, makes two initials, perhaps an 'F' and an 'M' to pick two random letters. So, assuming the diary is Mike's creation he's struck coincidence gold because unbeknownst to the masses, and certainly not in print in any reference book used to research the diary, an eminent student of the case has discovered some initials lurking in the background of a crime scene photo. By Jove, an F and M. I mean, that's a hell of a thing because we can argue whatever about pareidolia and such but wether that diary was written in 1888, 1992 or somewhere in between it contains that very specific line. If no one ever noticed initials in the MJK picture, what would we make of that line if anything at all?
I've never been convinced of the initials, or Walter Sickert's signature or anything else in the background. I'm just curious, if the diary was written by Barrett, that's amazing fortune again. If it was genuinely written by Maybrick, well, I guess the writings on the wall but I can't see it. And if it's an A.N Other hoaxer then, well, that's a wierd coincidence eh? Especially as it's highly unlikely they'd have ever seen the MJK photo? Make what you will of that lot.

[Iconoclast]

- the one he only ordered for the purpose of writing Maybrick's memoirs from 1888 until his death in May 1889.

Or May 1890, Caz - you just never know. History may have got it all wrong and Mike Barrett got it all right.

But hey - well done on a great post. No static at all on the points you were making, crystal clear, kidda!

RJ, hope you have a great Bank Holiday weekend, mate.

Ike
Thoroughly Clever Smartarse & General Insight Entrepreneur

[caz]

Now for a few general observations from me, before I head off to enjoy the late Spring bank holiday weekend. [Just like any other days of the week now, but some things are sacred here at Brown Towers].

First off, it appears that even Observer, one of R.J's most adoring fans, isn't having any of his distracting nonsense about Simon Wood's initial 'initial' discovery presumably being known to 'at least a small circle of Ripperologists in Liverpool' pre-diary. Let me guess who was in that circle - Mike and Anne Barrett, Billy Graham and Tony Devereux?

Keith informs me that nothing was mentioned about it in the first edition of the A To Z, although ipsedixitism would have ruled out Mike finding it there in any case, as it would have taken him above the two and a half books that provided all the material for his fake diary. So unless R.J is now going to suggest that Mike, or indeed the entire nest of forgers, attended the 'relevant' talk and overheard Simon's remarks [although these short talks back in 1989 were by invitation and word of mouth and not apparently publicised] I am left with the bat-filth crazy image in my head of R.J's unsophisticated forger picking up Simon's signal, bat-like, from Whitechapel London to Whitechapel Liverpool [now that's an idea] and pausing to check the Kelly crime scene photo to establish it is the ideal FM signal of his dreams, before transmitting it to the diary fuzzily enough to cover his arse, as he has chosen the high-risk strategy of marketing his own hoax. Any more unsophisticated, and Mike might have made the fatal, ear-splitting error of turning the bloody volume up to eleven, and having FM writ large on the wall in the red stuff. But he is too clever for the fools, and keeps it all nice and vague and low key [ha ha], because he knows the potential for the signal to have come provably from a photographic effect or defect, and then the writing would be on the wall for his forgery career, if not on Kelly's wall in blood. Of course, if Simon's words were heard by someone in the room, and influenced that person, or someone who knew them, to mention an initial [singular] here and there in the diary, it would be game over and we'd have our modern hoax. But R.J would have to let the Barretts go at that point.

So in short, I suspect that R.J knows, deep down, that when Mike walked into Doreen's office in April 1992, he had never heard of Simon Wood and his amazing dancing [pair of] initials.

I also suspect that Mike didn't even know, or had temporarily forgotten, the date of James Maybrick's death, when Martin Earl contacted him between 19th and 26th March 1992 to describe in detail the Victorian diary which had been found as a result of his enquiry. Martin only ordered and paid for an item from his supplier after talking it through with his customer to establish it was what they were looking for and the price was acceptable. If the customer said yes, they would normally be expected to pay Martin for the item before he ordered it. The supplier could then send it to Martin, or directly to the customer. Occasionally, as in Mike's case, Martin took the risk and agreed to send him the tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, so he could see it for himself and decide whether to send it back unwanted or buy it. It had been an unusual request to begin with, but Martin would have been aware that the diary was later than Mike had specified, and had no literally 'blank' pages, so there was no way he wouldn't have run that past Mike before risking his own money to order it.

I'll be back next week to read R.J's lengthy response to me, although the tiny size of the writing is definitely NOT a sight for sore eyes. In fact, he could probably have fitted his post into a page of Mike's alternative Victorian diary - the one he only ordered for the purpose of writing Maybrick's memoirs from 1888 until his death in May 1889.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Chisholm continues --and check this out for 'pith':

"'Left it in front for all eyes to see' confirms that our diarist is patently informed by the main police photographer's perspective. The diarist does not claim to have left it in front of 'them' or the 'fools' but only 'in front for all eyes to see.' The wall on which these initials were supposed to have been written was at the right side of the room on entry, to the right side of Kelly. The only thing the initials could reasonably be described as 'in front of' being the police photographer's lens."

Seriously, Roger, I think you're taking the pith, mate. There is no necessity for "Left it in front for all eyes to see" to refer to Florence's initials which Maybrick had placed on Kelly's wall. As c.d. has pointed out, we cannot fathom the author's intentions - and we certainly shouldn't 'fathom' them based upon our underlying prejudices! I think Florence's initials on the wall are very clearly referenced by the famous "An intial here" line in the scrapbook, but the "Left it in front" line could - and probably did - refer to something else, something that was probably genuinely 'out in front' in a way the initials weren't. If you follow c.d.'s wisdom, you might imagine that Maybrick is referring to the huge letter 'F' he carefully carved in Kelly's left arm and coupled it creatively with her legs left bent and akimbo to form a rather inarticulate 'M'. Now, it doesn't matter whether these two things form an 'F' and an 'M' (so - Observer - please don't start) - all that matters is that Maybrick may have thought they did and thought they formed a clear clue to his wife's initials. As the killer and the author of the tale, Maybrick is entitled to be as deluded as he wishes. This does not imply that we have to be too. We can see that such a clue left 'in front for all to see' would never ordinarily have been unscrambled, but Maybrick (frenzied, furious, soaked in blood, covered in gore, sweating, panting, excited, thrilled, intoxicated) may have thought it at the time. So much so he may even have let out a strangled pantomime villain's evil larfff, "Ha ha ha ha ha ha!", et cetera, though I imagine that in reality he just looked around the room at what he'd done and wisely legged it.

If Maybrick had sensed that photographs would be taken, he might have been more explicit in his descriptions of his clues in his scrapbook for us to unravel down down the long years. Sadly, the thought evidently didn't cross his mind ...

[caz]

Hi Graham,

I heard only recently that Alec Voller is still very much of the same opinion.

But as Michael Gove would say, we've had enough of experts. You wait, Martin Earl and his bookfinding service will be up next for a good old trashing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Swiftly reading up about Jack the Ripper he notes the initials of the victims and guesses what James Maybrick’s signature would look like...[/B]

Oh how I larfffed!!!

I'm sure Roger will have a perfectly rational and simple explanation for Robbie's remarkably prescient craftwork. You know what, Roger, why don't you just adopt the pareidolia of Lord O's other acolytes here on the Casebook and simply wish the signature entirely away? Just say it ain't there, mate. You won't be able to cite random - but astonishingly articulate - blood splatters, of course, but I'm sure you could come up with something bordering on a metallurgic analogy. Give it a go. I could do with another larfff.