Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[Iconoclast]

Say it aint so, Ike!

Seeing that Society’s Pillar is basically one long love letter to Paul Feldman and his discredited theories, I find this a very sad retreat. Prof. Chisholm has stormed the castle, and you beat a hasty path to the safety of the dungeon and its dim-lit vagaries. “Well, it could be...” Poor Feldy! He is left to fight the infidels on his own.

“After breaking down the photograph into two-inch squares, we would systematically blow each of the squares up. Three-quarters of the way down, to the right of the centre, were marks that stunned us. There was no doubt, the initials “F M” were clear and precise. The initials of Florence Maybrick, the adulterous wife of James.”
Paul Feldman, p. 64.

Or, as Chisholm would say, the diarists has envisioned Feldman and Co. hunting for this clue from the “perspective of the police camera’s lens”: a “lens,” Feldy states, that was virtually unknown until the appearance of Donald Rumbelow’s 1975 book. Yet he looks for it in the photograph nonetheless...and finds it. Score: Chisholm 1, Feldman nil.

Honestly Roger, you are tying yourself in knots to find a forensic position which makes the non-forensic ramblings of a killer null and void. The initials could have been anywhere. There could have been just the one example (e.g., clear as day on the wall) or else there could have been two or more to which Maybrick was alluding. The initials doggerel works perfectly well for the wall so let's stop trying to change the truth to fit your excited new view of the untruth. In terms of allusions to 'clues' or 'initials' and what he left 'in front for all to see' is - as c.d. most eruditely points out - the author's perfectly right to be possibly 'wrong': c.d. doesn't think it was Maybrick, but for the sake of argument let's just give the author a name - say, James Maybrick - and let's reflect on whether he is entitled to have possibly overstated his case. Does he have that right? He's writing in his private journal: does he have the right to say it exactly as he feels it to be - or, indeed, to say it as he just wants to believe it to be?

We do not know what else Maybrick left in that room in his opinion 'in front for all to see'. We only have the one meaningful photograph so we only see a small section of the room, and that one gives us lots of confidence that - if that were it (and it may not have been) - there were pointers to what he was referring to. Now you might say - in your cosy, sanitised view 130 years later - "he wasn't clear enough about what he meant and what he said doesn't relate precisely to my forensic interpretation of his non-forensic thought process" and - if you do - you'll never yield because you're looking for something solid to link his comments to the photograph and it may simply be that he was right but got it wrong in not being forensic enough for your palate as he scribed his version of events. He probably didn't think he would have to answer to you, Roger.

It has suddenly occurred to me why you and Lord Orsam are such bosom-buddies: you occupy the other half of his famous, rambling Chigwell semi, don't you? I'll bet the two of you natter over the privet hedge (socially distancing these days, obviously), drinking Earl Grey and muttering about 'the yoof of today' in between finding impossible versions of a story that is - to the rest of us - perfectly simple to grasp.

Just watch the gin, lads. It's a slippery slope.

PS Observer writes earlier as if he had been in Kelly's room on the night of her death and is quite adamant that there were no other clues left there so I'd have a chat with him if I were you. Who knows what clues he witnessed that he just hasn't worked out yet? He might solve the case yet without even knowing it.

[rjpalmer]

cd makes an excellent point: we simply do not know what Maybrick was alluding to in that room

Say it aint so, Ike!

Seeing that Society’s Pillar is basically one long love letter to Paul Feldman and his discredited theories, I find this a very sad retreat. Prof. Chisholm has stormed the castle, and you beat a hasty path to the safety of the dungeon and its dim-lit vagaries. “Well, it could be...” Poor Feldy! He is left to fight the infidels on his own.

“After breaking down the photograph into two-inch squares, we would systematically blow each of the squares up. Three-quarters of the way down, to the right of the centre, were marks that stunned us. There was no doubt, the initials “F M” were clear and precise. The initials of Florence Maybrick, the adulterous wife of James.”
Paul Feldman, p. 64.

Or, as Chisholm would say, the diarists has envisioned Feldman and Co. hunting for this clue from the “perspective of the police camera’s lens”: a “lens,” Feldy states, that was virtually unknown until the appearance of Donald Rumbelow’s 1975 book. Yet he looks for it in the photograph nonetheless...and finds it. Score: Chisholm 1, Feldman nil.

[Iconoclast]

Observer -- P.S. I think it was once suggested that 'FM' was a reference to Freemasonry, but I don't recall if this was in the public domain. Maybe Fairclough? I don't recall. I try to empty my mind of such trivia, and in this case, I succeeded.

To all these facile comments about the letters 'FM', they are there, and the flash of the camera picked them out with clarity where the human eye would easily have missed them (I'd have missed them because my eyes would probably have been more drawn to the scene of utter human devastation in that bloody room, I think).

cd makes an excellent point: we simply do not know what Maybrick was alluding to in that room (he was not obliged to be clearer), though the initials on the wall are handily referenced in the 'initials' doggerel. Handy.

And Barrett, naturally, was the 6th person in the world to know about those initials. He rose to 5th when Simon Wood miraculously couldn't see them again after the diary surfaced and he realised what an own-goal he'd just gone and scored.

RJ, your faith in Barrett as forger has surpassed itself this time. You are hardcore, mate.

Hey - but keep it up. Keeps the business alive, I suppose, until I can be arsed to update my brilliant Society's Pillar.

[Iconoclast]

I don't agree, Ike. If R.J has Mike's number, and has not been thoroughly hoodwinked by the little varmint, a more complete and detailed chronology of the events, as they happened, can only do him a favour, by reinforcing his own beliefs in Mike as the diary forger. This should not be a case of 'less is more' [Mike admitted it so he did it], but one of 'the more the merrier', if R.J is right on the money. If he has complete faith in his own judgement, it would be in his best interests to stick around, and go over the fine details with an even finer-toothed comb, until he knows them inside out. That would be the surest way to know that his suspicions about Mike were 100% justified. Everything should point naturally to the conclusion R.J has already reached.

On the downside, it could also be the surest way for R.J to learn if his suspicions were all wrong. He isn't obliged to take in any of it, if he is worried that the more he learns, the less confident he might become that Mike did it so he confessed to it. And if R.J doesn't want to learn any more, I certainly don't expect anyone else to.

We'll have to wait and see if R.J can put it all together in his mind, without his beliefs falling apart in the process.

By the way, happy birthday to Mrs Ike!

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you Caz. She says she's had a fine old day (but the sample size of my providing good birthdays for the poor lass is disappointingly small I fear).

[rjpalmer]

PPS. Observer. On page 64 Paul Feldman states that Simon's discovery of initials in the Kelly photo was mentioned in Begg, Fido, and Skinner's The Jack the Ripper A-Z, page 487. (Presumably under 'Wood'?) Feldy is citing the 3rd edition (1994). I don't know if this was also mentioned in the 1st edition (1991).

[rjpalmer]

Observer -- P.S. I think it was once suggested that 'FM' was a reference to Freemasonry, but I don't recall if this was in the public domain. Maybe Fairclough? I don't recall. I try to empty my mind of such trivia, and in this case, I succeeded.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Observer.

I pondered the same point. According to an old poster named John Hacker, Simon had told Paul Begg of this discovery in 1988, so it was presumably known to at least a small circle of Ripperologists in Liverpool and London. I don't know, or don't recall, whether it had found its way into print by 1988-1992, but it is worth checking.

Another aspect of the 'initial here, an initial there' claptrap --and an extremely damning one--was pointed out by the historian Alex Chisholm in 1997.

Chisholm writes:

"This is further borne out in reference to the bloody initials supposedly left as a clue. 'I left it there for the fools but they will never find it.' Again confidence that the fools will never find it is easily arrived at with the benefit of hindsight."

In other words, Barrett stupidly has 'Maybrick' already knowing that the initials/clue will not be noticed by 'the fools.' Once again, Maybrick owns a crystal ball--almost as if he is already fully aware that Simon Wood's "discovery" won't take place until 1988...

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."

Maybe Ike should meditate on that the next time he is in a yoga pose: The Police Photographer's Lens.

Barrett, relying on Ripper books written in the 1980s and 90s, in which the 'Kelly' photograph was prominently displayed, has Maybrick stupidly alluding to the perspective of the famous photograph, which had been taken by removing the back window of No. 9 McCarthy's Rents, thus creating a new and different perspective than anyone entering the room by the front door. The initials are only in 'front' of those who are holding the Kelly photograph in 'front' of them while reading, say, Donald Rumbelow's book.

Chisholm's insight is deeply damning to the 'old hoax' theory, but one assumes the 'old forgery' camp will simply theorize that the hoaxer somehow gained access to the Kelly photographs in Melville Macnaghten's bottom desk drawer, just as the hoaxer somehow had gained access to the police inventory list of Eddowes belongings, etc. prior to its publication in 1987. Hope springs eternal.

Yoga comes in handy for the budding Maybricknick. Much like Feldman's arguments, the practitioner trains himself to be pliable, twisted, and yet strangely inert and isometric.

Cheers.

P.S. One of two books that contained the inventory of Eddowes' belongings was Paul Harrison's "Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved" (1991). It can be found on page. 67. Remarkably, this is the SAME BOOK that Barrett alludes to in his research notes (!). I think it is another sign that Barrett was rather unsophisticated as a hoaxer. He didn't know enough to realize that alluding to this item would point to a modern forgery, nor did he evidently realize that it could only be found in two books...one of which he foolishly admits to owning while "researching" (cough, cough--damn covid) the diary.

[Observer]

Hello Observer,

I think we are pretty much in agreement. I don't think the killer left any clues for the police to follow either. And I do think the "FM" is just stains and seeing initials on the wall is simply pareidolia. But I do think that a reasonable argument can be made that the initials referenced in the diary do not have to be taken literally and that substituting clue works as well.

c.d.

Upon reflection, due to the fact that it's unlikely Barrett could have known about Simon Wood's "discovery", I'll admit, that could be an alternative

[c.d.]

Hello Observer,

I think we are pretty much in agreement. I don't think the killer left any clues for the police to follow either. And I do think the "FM" is just stains and seeing initials on the wall is simply pareidolia. But I do think that a reasonable argument can be made that the initials referenced in the diary do not have to be taken literally and that substituting clue works as well.

c.d.

[Observer]

Well the problem is that what might be a clue to the the Whitechapel Murderer might not be seen as a clue to us. Take the GSG for example. I don't think that the killer wrote it but let's assume for the sake of argument that he did. In his mind it could be absolutely dripping with clues so much so that even the most ignorant child would have been able to see them. So I would be very hesitant to say that no clues were left behind. It could be that there were but lacking the killer's mindset we simply don't perceive them. On the other hand, you may be right and no clues of any kind were left behind.

You pays yer money and you takes your chances.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Joking aside, no I don't believe the killer purposely left any clues behind for the police to follow up. The "FM" on Kelly's wall is nothing more than stains to the wall. My motive for bringing up the "FM" was an exercise which could, and it's a very slim chance, determine the origins of the Maybrick Diary. I believe the first mention of the FM was suggested by Simon Wood, back in 1988. Now the thing is those letters did not exist, as I said they are merely stains, and so in effect if the author of the Diary was indeed suggesting that "an initial here, an initial there" was a reference to the FM, then the Diary could have been written after 1988. The big bug bear here of course, is that Simon Woods "discovery" would have been known to very few people, and I'd say certainly not Mike Barrett, although you never know. So, with regard to the FM, that's all it was, a thought, nothing more

[Observer]

OMG - you were there???????????????????

Hi Ike

How do you mean? Considering you seem to be delving into the arts of the mystic East, are you referring to some sort of re-incarnation? You know, past lives that are retained by the memory? You might be onto something. I visit the East-End regularly, and you know that horse trough in Commercial Street, the one just outside the gates into Itchy Park? Well every time I pass there I get a strange feeling, it's funny I find myself leaning over the top of it. Do you think in a previous life, in the LVP, I might of been a milkman's horse ?

But to answer your question, no I have no recollection of being in Mary Kelly's room on the night she was murdered.

[caz]

To Keith S.

I found the following email from your old friend Melvin Harris, dated Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 2:54 PM

Dear RJP:
Please note that the Sphere book was in the Barett's house 2 years before the Diary emerged. This is confirmed by his sister and not disputed at any time by Anne Barrett.

Melvin Harris.

I don't know Melvin's precise source, though obviously he was implying that either he or Gray had questioned Barrett's sister. I leave it up to you to decide whether or not she (not Jenny Morrison) was able to confirm Barrett's account.

You addressed this to Keith, R.J, so I'm not sure why you expected a comment from me, but I'll certainly pass along the gist of what Keith has told me by email and include my own observations as a bonus.

Keith said he has no idea of Melvin's precise source(s), or which one of Mike's sisters confirmed that the Sphere book was in the Barretts' house 2 years before the Diary emerged, or to whom she confirmed this.

According to Keith, Melvin pointedly refused to meet with Anne, but in any case I am at a loss to know how he - or Gray, or anyone else - could have known that she hadn't disputed this 'at any time'. In fact, my post #469 shows that Keith made a note on 12th October 1994, of a message Shirley left on his phone, which included: 'Anne apparently denies all knowledge of these books and the auction.' [Cue the line from Mandy Rice-J Palmer]

Keith said it was a pity that you didn't ask Melvin for his source(s) at the time, following his email, but perhaps you felt there was no need, as by your own admission, you had already more or less gone over to Melvin's 'camp' three months earlier. Melvin had previously stated on the message boards [on July 6th 2000]:

‘But to R.J.Palmer I have this to say. It was claimed in Harrison’s book that Mike Barrett had badgered the librarians who had given him the name of the Sphere History of English Literature. I checked and double checked with the Liverpool Central Library and their records show they do not hold a copy of this book and never have.’

First off, the book's actual title is Sphere History of Literature in the English Language. Secondly, as you now know, the library faxed through to Shirley page 184 from the volume containing the Crashaw lines on 6th October 1994 at ten past ten in the morning. Keith has a photocopy of the original fax. Keith also went in person twice to the Library, on 8th and 27th February 2002, and still has his notes from both visits. He located and photographed the Sphere books which were on the shelf, checked their catalogues and spoke with various members of staff. Finally, he took a photograph of the date stamp at the beginning of the relevant volume which had been purchased by the library on 15th July 1976 for £12.95 and catalogued at 820.9. There were only 4 stamped dates, the earliest of which was 2nd January 1997. Keith didn't want to jump to conclusions, and considered the possibility that the 'DATE DUE FOR RETURN' page may have been replaced, and the book may have been out on loan in the 21 years between 1976 and 1997. Keith can't explain why the results of his investigation at the Library should have conflicted so dramatically with Melvin's own investigation, so he leaves it up to you to decide which account you choose to believe.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Well, I for one think that Caz has destroyed that RJ fellow with a solid few rights to the jawline. Anyone agree?

I don't agree, Ike. If R.J has Mike's number, and has not been thoroughly hoodwinked by the little varmint, a more complete and detailed chronology of the events, as they happened, can only do him a favour, by reinforcing his own beliefs in Mike as the diary forger. This should not be a case of 'less is more' [Mike admitted it so he did it], but one of 'the more the merrier', if R.J is right on the money. If he has complete faith in his own judgement, it would be in his best interests to stick around, and go over the fine details with an even finer-toothed comb, until he knows them inside out. That would be the surest way to know that his suspicions about Mike were 100% justified. Everything should point naturally to the conclusion R.J has already reached.

On the downside, it could also be the surest way for R.J to learn if his suspicions were all wrong. He isn't obliged to take in any of it, if he is worried that the more he learns, the less confident he might become that Mike did it so he confessed to it. And if R.J doesn't want to learn any more, I certainly don't expect anyone else to.

We'll have to wait and see if R.J can put it all together in his mind, without his beliefs falling apart in the process.

By the way, happy birthday to Mrs Ike!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh, one other thing. My impression is that Barrett wasn't sophisticated enough to realize how damning his 'discovery' of the Crashaw quote was going to be until Shirley Harrison showed her amazement. To Barrett, it was just poetry and he had no inkling of its obscurity. Then it slowly started to sink in how difficult it would be to find an unidentified snippet through 'normal' research, so he 'weaponized' his ownership of the Sphere Vol. 2. I say this, because of the other pointless revelations Mike makes in his Jan 5 affidavit, which show that he didn't always 'get it.' For instance:

"Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN."

This is beyond stupid and proves nothing. I doubt even Gray knew enough to realize the full implications of the Crashaw discovery.

Reading this again, R.J, I'm frankly amazed that you think this same chap was ever capable of researching and creating for James Maybrick a first-person account of how he became Jack the Ripper.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Oh, one other thing. My impression is that Barrett wasn't sophisticated enough to realize how damning his 'discovery' of the Crashaw quote was going to be until Shirley Harrison showed her amazement. To Barrett, it was just poetry and he had no inkling of its obscurity. Then it slowly started to sink in how difficult it would be to find an unidentified snippet through 'normal' research, so he 'weaponized' his ownership of the Sphere Vol. 2. I say this, because of the other pointless revelations Mike makes in his Jan 5 affidavit, which show that he didn't always 'get it.' For instance:

"Page 226 of the Book, page 20, centre page inverted commas, quote "TURN ROUND THREE TIMES, AND CATCH WHOM YOU MAY". This was from Punch Magazine, 3rd week in September 1888. The journalist was P.W. WENN."

This is beyond stupid and proves nothing. I doubt even Gray knew enough to realize the full implications of the Crashaw discovery.

Mike’s Number Twos, just for you, R.J:

On 18^th January 1995, during a lengthy interview, Mike said that he came across the ‘oh costly’ reference in the library while reading Shirley’s book. [See #470]

In September 1995, Keith added this note to a memo from Shirley:
MB told SH and Sally on 22^nd June 1994 that he was going to say he forged diary – then, after Brough article and prior to paperback coming out, MB calmed down and SH told him to do something constructive – ie. Source ‘O costly...’ quote. [See #472]

That’s a fairly specific timeframe, isn’t it? And it fits pretty well with the known facts, including the relevant pages towards the end of Shirley and Mike’s 1994 paperback. They shared the copyright. Mike was sent his contractual copies on 15^th September, and had soon read Shirley’s devastating words about him, on pages 232-3 of the book he had helped her to write:

‘Then, as the alcoholism firmly took its grip on Mike, he devised a wild and desperate plan to, as he later explained to me, ‘get back at Anne’... A reporter went to his now run-down house, where he found him lying on the floor with three empty bottles of Scotch and a bottle of wine.’

‘I remembered how, in his happier days, I had sometimes asked him to do simple research in Liverpool, so that he could feel involved. He was always desperate to play his part, and yet I knew how confused and agitated he became when he could not understand the fairly simple tasks I set him.’

‘Of course, under examination his confession did not hold up. This was no case of in vino veritas... The auctioneers said that no unremarkable empty album such as ours would have been sold singly. Yet Mike said that he had not bid for a job lot. Later, during a period of drying-out, he explained to Robert Smith that he had made up the story about these specific auctioneers, because he had passed their premises every time he went by bus into Liverpool city centre.’

‘Michael Barrett is now in the Windsor Unit of Fazakerley Hospital, where he is receiving treatment... The hospital, too, explained that his drinking had led to a condition they described as “confabulation”... The individual fills in gaps in the memory with fictitious stories when prompted by questions.’

Between 3^rd and 11^th October, Shirley had ascertained from Mike that he had been very upset by her remarks in the paperback about him being an alcoholic, and had spent the week beginning 26^th September trying to find a source for O Costly Intercourse. [See #503]

On page 231, Mike would also have read Shirley’s opinion that Melvin Harris’s forger must have had, among other things, ‘the creative and historical skills enabling him to... produce such literary phrases as “oh, costly intercourse of death”, while haphazardly making grammatical and spelling mistakes...’

My interpretation of the above is that Mike saw the phrase on page 231 and was reminded that nobody had been able to source it, and Shirley had suggested back in the summer that he give it a go. Your interpretation would be that seeing the phrase reminded him of how he had put those words in the diary himself, from one of the Sphere volumes which he had lent to Jenny’s son back in the summer.

On 13^th October, Mike told his solicitor’s assistant that he had found the phrase, “O sweet [sic] intercourse of death” in the library. It was in Volume 2, page 184. [See #469]

My question to you, R.J, would then be why Mike thought the quote had come from Volume 6 [The Victorians], when he first told Shirley he had found it. He must have been going from memory at that point because he didn’t get the title right either. But more crucially, what made him realise this was the wrong volume? How did he work out, by 6^th October, that it was in fact on page 184 of the Sphere History of Literature in the English Language Volume 2 – English Poetry and Prose 1540-1674, in order for Shirley to give the correct details to the library, and for the library to fax the page with the Crashaw lines through to her at ten past ten that same morning? Keith has a photocopy of this fax.

Fast forward to December 1996, when Shirley was told that Jenny still had the Sphere volumes ‘minus the relevant one’. [See #473]

If we assume Mike only retrieved one volume from Jenny, which was it? Volume 6 or 2? And that question again: what made Mike realise, between 3^rd and 6^th October 1994, that the quote wasn’t to be found in Volume 6, but came from Volume 2, if he didn’t have both volumes to hand at the time?

Did he pop round to Jenny’s in the interval to check his facts, where he established which of the volumes contained the quote, and took just that one away with him? Did he then ascertain from the library that they had a copy on the shelves, before calling Shirley again, so she could make the identical enquiry herself? Is this what you believe must have happened?

Yet Melvin Harris posted that Mike ‘never claimed that Volume 2 had been lent to Jenny or was even seen by her. He simply stated that Jenny and other people could testify that he owned a NUMBER of the Sphere volumes’. [See #473]

Not the entire set then, but just a number of them? Leaving aside how Melvin could possibly have known what Mike never claimed, my question would be what point was Melvin trying to make here? That Jenny didn’t have Volume 2, because Mike had held it back to lodge with his solicitor as evidence? Does that make sense to you now, considering Mike’s mix-up between Volumes 2 and 6? If he always had access to Volume 2, he’d have been able to give chapter and verse to Shirley first time round, and wouldn’t have asked his solicitor’s assistant to make a written note of it ten days later. Remember, they had no record of the book being lodged with them or withdrawn at any time. So where was it from the end of September? And why did Mike need to hunt down that used copy he gave Gray in early December?

Is this now going to become ‘irrelevant’, because the original, missing-in-action number 2 could have been lost or destroyed? But when might this have happened? Before or after Mike revealed the correct volume and page number? I’ll leave you to figure that one out. My brain hurts. Or as Mike might have put it: My BriAn Herts.

Personally, I doubt Jenny ever did see a number 2 of Mike’s, and he mistakenly thought he’d found the quote in number 6 when he first spoke to Shirley. Remembering it was in one of the Sphere books on the library shelf, he went back there at Shirley’s request to obtain the details, which is when he realised he’d found it in Volume 2. Not having a copy of his own, he was obliged to track one down if he was going to use it to support his forgery claim.

Love,

Caz
X