Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[c.d.]

Hi c.d.

I tend to disagree, if the author of the Diary had intended to intimate that he had left a clue, I believe he would have used the word clue. Furthermore, I can't think of any other clue left behind at the scene. Can you?

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.

[Iconoclast]

Hi c.d.

I tend to disagree, if the author of the Diary had intended to intimate that he had left a clue, I believe he would have used the word clue. Furthermore, I can't think of any other clue left behind at the scene. Can you?

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

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike

Just been reading that masterpiece of English literature, the infamous Diary, yes that's the one, so complex you know. Reminds me of that great English Crime thriller "The Man On The Murdered Bed". Yes it's really is up there with the greats, a real tour de force.

But tell me, I need your input on a certain section of the masterpiece in question. Might you help? Right, after the Kelly murder Maybrick writes

"An initial here and an initial there
Will tell of the whoring mother

I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me."

Now then, considering your undoubted expertise on all things Diary, I'm thinking of your brilliant "Society's Pillar" here, would you say that Sir Jim, taking into account the above snippet from the Diary, is in actual fact referring to the Letters F M smeared in blood on Mary Kelly's wall?

I really would be most grateful if you could put me straight here. That is, after you put yourself straight, I refer to the contortions you are obviously experiencing, due to your introduction into the gentle art of Yoga.

Of course he was (and possibly other Fs and Ms he also left 'out in front for all to see' some we may detect and some we may not and some we may never know (because we don't have photographs of the entire room). Erudite, witty, and occasionally pithy indeed (thank you c.d.) but also suspicious: you knew the answer to your own question(s) before you asked it(them) so I sense something coming here ...

[Observer]

Hello Observer,

Setting aside the whole pareidolia issue, that diary snippet could certainly pertain to the FM initials found on Kelly's wall. But I see no reason to take the phrasing literally since substituting the word clue for initial works just as well. Meaning that he left clues to his identity for the police to find. They would not necessarily have to have been initials.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I tend to disagree, if the author of the Diary had intended to intimate that he had left a clue, I believe he would have used the word clue. Furthermore, I can't think of any other clue left behind at the scene. Can you?

[c.d.]

Hello Observer,

Since Ike is still engaged in walking his Downward Dog I will chime in here although my response won't be nearly as erudite, witty or plain downright pithy as we have come to expect from Ike.

Setting aside the whole pareidolia issue, that diary snippet could certainly pertain to the FM initials found on Kelly's wall. But I see no reason to take the phrasing literally since substituting the word clue for initial works just as well. Meaning that he left clues to his identity for the police to find. They would not necessarily have to have been initials.

c.d.

[Observer]

Hi Ike

Just been reading that masterpiece of English literature, the infamous Diary, yes that's the one, so complex you know. Reminds me of that great English Crime thriller "The Man On The Murdered Bed". Yes it's really is up there with the greats, a real tour de force.

But tell me, I need your input on a certain section of the masterpiece in question. Might you help? Right, after the Kelly murder Maybrick writes

"An initial here and an initial there
Will tell of the whoring mother

I left it there for the fools but they will never find it. I was too clever. Left it in front for all to see. Shall I write and tell them? That amuses me."

Now then, considering your undoubted expertise on all things Diary, I'm thinking of your brilliant "Society's Pillar" here, would you say that Sir Jim, taking into account the above snippet from the Diary, is in actual fact referring to the Letters F M smeared in blood on Mary Kelly's wall?

I really would be most grateful if you could put me straight here. That is, after you put yourself straight, I refer to the contortions you are obviously experiencing, due to your introduction into the gentle art of Yoga.

[Iconoclast]

Well, I for one think that Caz has destroyed that RJ fellow with a solid few rights to the jawline. Anyone agree? By the way, that boy has had more goodbyes than I've had online yoga classes, he really has. And - honestly - I've had a few (including the very next one in 25 minutes). It's Mrs Iconoclast's birthday tomorrow and she still looks great in a leotard so it's worth pretending I actually want to do online yoga (or indeed any form of yoga). Personally, I'd rather I didn't also have to wear one - but when in Whottlington on the Whottle, do as the Whottlington on the Whottlers, what?

By the way, who agrees with me that Caz should have a word with those fine fellows Mr. Skinner and Mr. Linder and get them to re-release Inside Story with her wonderful new chronology in?

Might help me keep up, at very least (I'm easily confused, you know) …

Ike "Namaste's My Favourite Ever Word 'cos It Means It's Over" Iconoclast

[Iconoclast]

It was a very good approximation of Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence, Ike.

More fun and games tomorrow, if I finally get round to responding in full to #441 on this thread.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah, yes, indeed, Caz! In my heart of hearts I knew the Will wasn't the right document but I foolishly thought my reference to it might go unchallenged as I was confident that some document somewhere served the purpose I needed it to serve.

All I did was trigger the Wrath of Orsam in the guise of Roger 'Vicarious Wrather' Palmer.

Tee hee.

[rjpalmer]

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.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz -

Perhaps 'sensitive' wasn't the mot juste, but it was in the ballpark. Asking 'Mr. Williams' aka Barrett to hunt for the unknown quote would be like asking Peter Kurten to help search for the missing girl. If he found her, everyone would assume he knew where to look. Adieu.

[caz]

Hello Caz –

I’ll look over your latest, using all my appreciative charm. In the meantime, RE: Shirley sending Mike to the library…there are some interesting quotes from Harrison on page 134-135 of your book that seemingly date to around 8 August 1994. She complains that Paul Feldman’s investigative techniques are “utterly amateur.” On some level, she must be starting to realize the absurdity of Feldman welcoming Anne Graham, Carol Emmas, and Robbie Johnson into his fold, and even allowing them to carry on “research.” Harrison even uses the words “taint” and “contamination.” Given such an attitude, it seems strange that Shirley herself would assign a sensitive research project to Barrett--and AFTER he had already confessed to forgery. The world “taint” would seem highly appropriate. Yet, that is precisely what you are suggesting she did and perhaps you’re right. People like Barrett have a way of wearing down one’s immunity. But I do think we are wasting time with this. It’s a sidetrack. Whether or not Shirley asked Barrett to search at the CLL is not very material. It can’t tell us anything conclusive; it doesn’t even tell us if he actually hoofed it down there. Far more relevant is whether Barrett owned Sphere Vol. 2 prior to September 1994. That is the important point, but I notice you have no comment on Melvin’s claim that this had been confirmed by Barrett’s sister. I assume you think MH is lying or confused? Maybe, but he didn't strike me as a liar. Cheers, RP.

Perhaps the most fitting Little Richard song might be “You Better Stop.” Keith, David B., Caz, RJP: we are all immoveable objects, whether we admit it or not. Is there a point in continuing?

I hope you will not only 'look over' my latest, R.J, but thoroughly digest the chronology, because it's so important to know who knew what and when, before you point another accusatory finger at investigators for not being psychic!

I'm amused that you describe looking for a source of the 'o costly...' quote as 'a sensitive research project'. Everyone had been looking for it in vain, and Mike had been contracted to help Shirley with the diary research since the early days in 1992, before anyone knew he would become such a liability. I have no doubt that Shirley didn't - and doesn't - believe for one second that Mike had what it took to create the diary, with over two years of hands-on experience of his capabilities, from April 1992 to June 1994, even if he had been drunk more than sober for the last 6 months since Anne left him.

I agree entirely that the important point is whether Mike had a Sphere Volume 2 before September 1994. But you did seem rather fixated on doubting Shirley ever suggested he look for the quote, so I figured that was just as important for you, although I wasn't quite sure why. It wouldn't prove he didn't have the right volume up his sleeve all along, waiting for the right moment to use it to his advantage. Time for you to let this aspect go, perhaps? I will return to it, however, as I am already preparing another post on the subject of Mike's number 2s - if you'll pardon the expression. Seems quite apt to me.

I've been a busy girl, R.J, so I've not had time yet to read the post you mention, referring to that particular claim of Melvin's. I'll get there in the end, but I do have other things to do as well as to try and keep up with every post that has appeared since my last visit. Patience, my old friend. There is every point in continuing, as I am passionate about getting everything in its proper order. But it's up to you whether you want to keep coming back for more, or decide to disappear for good next time.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hello Caz –

I’ll look over your latest, using all my appreciative charm. In the meantime, RE: Shirley sending Mike to the library…there are some interesting quotes from Harrison on page 134-135 of your book that seemingly date to around 8 August 1994. She complains that Paul Feldman’s investigative techniques are “utterly amateur.” On some level, she must be starting to realize the absurdity of Feldman welcoming Anne Graham, Carol Emmas, and Robbie Johnson into his fold, and even allowing them to carry on “research.” Harrison even uses the words “taint” and “contamination.” Given such an attitude, it seems strange that Shirley herself would assign a sensitive research project to Barrett--and AFTER he had already confessed to forgery. The world “taint” would seem highly appropriate. Yet, that is precisely what you are suggesting she did and perhaps you’re right. People like Barrett have a way of wearing down one’s immunity. But I do think we are wasting time with this. It’s a sidetrack. Whether or not Shirley asked Barrett to search at the CLL is not very material. It can’t tell us anything conclusive; it doesn’t even tell us if he actually hoofed it down there. Far more relevant is whether Barrett owned Sphere Vol. 2 prior to September 1994. That is the important point, but I notice you have no comment on Melvin’s claim that this had been confirmed by Barrett’s sister. I assume you think MH is lying or confused? Maybe, but he didn't strike me as a liar. Cheers, RP.

Perhaps the most fitting Little Richard song might be “You Better Stop.” Keith, David B., Caz, RJP: we are all immoveable objects, whether we admit it or not. Is there a point in continuing?

[caz]

One other thing, Caz. I’ll study what you’ve written—and thanks, for it must have taken quite a lot of effort to compile these notes--but, to be honest, I’m disinclined to contribute any further to this conversation. A couple of recent posts have disheartened me to the point of tossing in my chap book. They’ve shown the utter futility of my evangelical efforts...

Well now, R.J, I sincerely hope you will study that hypothesis I lovingly prepared just for you. See #437. Yes, it did take a lot of effort as well as time – which I’d prefer to have spent with someone more appreciative, frankly. But instead of studying it and coming back to me to say whether it works for you and, if not, what you would change to make it work, you changed the subject – a habit that is more revealing than you may realise - and had a pop at me for leaving you with the relatively simple task of challenging a couple of observations that erobitha and Ike made, which I missed while giving you my undivided attention.

What about the utter futility of my own efforts, R.J, to try and reconcile for you Mike’s various claims with the entrenched beliefs you and David B. hold? In Mike’s affidavit he felt ‘sure’ the O&L auction was at the end of January 1990, but because that didn’t work with those entrenched beliefs, it had to be substituted for a completely new, and very specific claim – an auction date of March 31^st 1992 - which Mike himself never even hinted at, and this somehow became the new and improved truth. It demonstrates that you and David see no need to examine and question your own reasoning, when you can simply change an inconvenient date or detail that challenges it. How desperately do you both need Mike to have known all the right notes, even though he made an art form out of getting them in totally the wrong order?

I am not in contact with David B., but I trust he won’t mind me reprinting a statement from his article “A Man in A Pub” [see Orsam Books website] which is highly relevant, and should put the question of Barrett’s missing auction slip to bed once and for all:

“In a statement made by Kevin Whay to Shirley Harrison on 16 January 1995, which was, for some unexplained reason, omitted from inclusion in 'Inside Story', and is thus not very well known, Whay said that, 'Between 1990-1991 they [O&L] held about 300 or more auctions and items such as an old photo album would have been in a job lot marked "miscellaneous items".' Consequently, even a search of the records in the correct year would not have revealed the sale of the photo album (or ledger or scrapbook). Those records would, according to Whay, only have recorded it as a 'miscellaneous' item.”

Thus, even if Barrett had produced the auction slip, and Whay had been asked to check the logical dates, it is very unlikely that any record of the purchase would have been recognizable in O & L's records. What would an entry reading “miscellaneous” tell Keith that cannot already be discerned in Martin Earl’s advertisement? In short, I think it's time to forget Barrett's auction slip. It's irrelevant.

Finally, a minor point. Keith quotes Whay’s statement of having checked on ‘either side of the date’ given by Barrett. [See 38:09 in the tape of the Cloak and Dagger meeting]. In Harrison’s 1998 book she writes that Whay checked on ‘either side of the dates’ (plural) given by Barrett. Which was it? Date or dates? )(I am assuming Harrison is mistaken, but I am not suggesting it was deliberate).

You seem to have forgotten that Shirley didn’t know about Mike’s affidavit of 5^th January 1995 until two years later, on 22^nd January 1997, when he finally sent a copy to her. On the same day, Shirley faxed Kevin Whay the actual page dealing with Outhwaite and Litherland, and asked him to check what Mike himself had claimed against his records.

Mike had originally told Harold Brough of the Liverpool Daily Post on Sunday 26^th June 1994 that he had bought the photo album at O&L. If he gave Brough any other details they were not reported. There was nothing reported at the time about any ‘miscellaneous items’, nor would Shirley have been able to tell Whay, in January 1995, that the album had allegedly contained over a hundred highly collectible WWI photographs and was sold with a brass compass, nor that Mike felt sure the auction was held at the end of January 1990. All she could tell Whay AT THAT TIME was that Mike had allegedly bid for ‘an old photo album’. In her 1994 paperback she had described it as ‘an unremarkable empty album’, which ‘the auctioneers’ had said would not have been sold ‘singly’. Sure enough, that is what Whay confirmed on 16^th January, that it would have been in a job lot marked ‘miscellaneous items’. They didn’t know any different then, because Mike’s affidavit was not yet known about. But Melvin Harris, or at least Alan Gray, who had typed it up, could have given O&L in confidence – or Shirley for that matter - the full monty on the photographs and compass, but it appears they didn’t do so. On the very day before Mike swore his affidavit, Melvin wrote to Shirley, ending his letter with: ‘I, and my colleagues on the committee, are prepared to cooperate fully and freely, without prejudice, in order to make known the real facts in this case.’ How quickly that was forgotten – unless Melvin knew perfectly well that Mike’s affidavit and ‘the real facts’ had very little in common. Shirley was also prevented from seeing the Sphere volume then in Gray’s hands, and it became pretty obvious why, when Keith finally obtained it. According to Melvin, in a post to the message boards in 2000, Shirley had tried to get access to Mike’s volume 2 on 19^th January 1995, but Gray ‘refused to play ball’. On the same day, Shirley received a typed note from Gray: ‘I am sorry I cannot meet you today, but I am advised there is a conflict of interest here’. I don’t know who advised him not to play ball, but I’ll give you three guesses.

Fast forward 2 years to 27^th January 1997, when Shirley wrote to Kevin Whay, asking him to email Doreen with his reactions to Mike’s auction experience, as described in his affidavit, which she had only seen for the first time five days earlier. This is my timeline entry for Whay’s response:

Thursday 30^th January 1997
Letter to Doreen Montgomery from Kevin Whay (of Outhwaite & Litherland):
Confirms that no description or lot number corresponding with details in MB’s affidavit exists, and that sales have never been conducted in the manner MB describes. (Refers to a search made on either side of the alleged sale dates for the photo album MB claimed to have bought for the diary forgery.)
Source: copy of letter (CAM/KS/1997)

You will note that it was Whay who referred to sale dates [plural], and he was working directly from Mike’s affidavit this time round. Shirley had originally asked Whay to check ‘between 1990-1991’, but it’s not clear what the extent of the renewed search was, or what he meant by ‘either side’ of the alleged sale ‘dates’.

What is clear, though, is that whoever did the searching this time would have been looking for two distinctive items [Mike didn’t mention any others, did he?], which were unlikely to have been in a lot marked ‘miscellaneous items’. I have recently been reliably informed that while an album and compass, such as Mike described, could have been sold together as a lot, they would have been itemised and described individually in the ‘relevant’ catalogue – that word again. I’m told this is because the alleged album of WWI photos alone would have been worth in excess of £100 back then. It was nobody’s fault but Mike’s, that nothing of the kind was found, whether this was because the items and lot number never existed or because, when it mattered most, it completely slipped his mind that the auction was held just 13 days before he took his precious album to London on 13^th April 1992, stripped of its valuable photos, but now boasting the freshly faked diary of Jack the Ripper. In other situations, he was able to rattle off that date as if it was deeply embedded in his soul.

But all this will be of no concern to you now, because the smoking gun that was Mike’s auction ticket suddenly became ‘irrelevant’, and you think it’s time to forget it. But just before we leave it there, do you know when David B. wrote his “Man in A Pub” article? I ask because Keith noticed that for some unexplained reason, neither of you have mentioned that in post #540 [which you replied to in #541] of the Acquiring A Victorian Diary thread, Keith posted the record of Shirley’s conversation with Kevin Whay, in response to David’s specific request. In the spirit of co-operation and wanting to be helpful, he reproduced in full the primary source fax, which Shirley had sent him, and highlighted in red the additional information, which had not been included either in Shirley’s book or Ripper Diary. Keith said he couldn’t remember why it was not reproduced in full in our book, but that it was not deliberately excluded. I will add here that if we had tried to include every single piece of information that had come our way by 2003, we’d still be writing it.

You reckoned it was game, set and match the other day, R.J. But no, it’s just new balls. I noted your change of focus – yet again – from O&L to Martin Earl, and what was ‘discerned’ in the advert he placed on Mike’s behalf. You must be getting dizzy, Miss Lizzy, with all these changes in direction, so I do hope you will indulge Martin Earl for a while before you decide he is also ‘irrelevant’ and it’s time to forget him too. It would be sad to watch you go down with Michael Gove, as someone who has had enough of experts. I mean, Alec Voller doesn’t know his Diamine from his Doo Dah. Drs Wild and Turgoose don’t know crude scratches made in gold in 1993 from Ye Hole in Ye Wall. So I fully expect Messrs Litherland and Earl to suffer a similar fate, with the former being accused of not knowing Outhwaite & Litherland’s antiques business from a Spitalfields flea market, and the latter not knowing his own bookfinding service from a bookbinding one. But we’ll have to see, won’t we?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Priceless, Ike. The allegedly forged will is used to prove the authenticity of the non-forged watch. Only in Ripperology can such pretzels of consciousness exist and flourish and reproduce.

See my latest post, R.J.

I don't dispute that the will was signed by Maybrick, incidentally, or that the diary is not in his handwriting. Just saying...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To those who so casually dismiss the Maybrick watch with the thoroughly cavalier and wholly unjustified notion that Robbie Johnson did the aged-particle embedding in Albert's back bedroom with a handily-placed aged implement, etc., am I not right in thinking that the 'J. Maybrick' signature - unlike the handwriting of the scrapbook - was a very good approximation of Maybrick's known signature (i.e., on his Will)?

If this were so, I can't help but wonder at the remarkable depths of Robbie's research before doing his clever metallurgy magic.

It was a very good approximation of Maybrick's signature on his marriage licence, Ike.

More fun and games tomorrow, if I finally get round to responding in full to #441 on this thread.

Love,

Caz
X