Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[rjpalmer]

I have to admit that research into Maybrick has come up with some interesting fun facts, from time to time. The bit about the neighbors' dog(s) being poisoned is particularly evocative. Or 'allegedly' poisoned, I should say.

Some in the U.S. will know the name Robert Durst, the New York real-estate heir, currently on trial for murdering Susan Berman, a pulp writer that he had befriended. The Dursts were/are zillionaires in Manhattan, and the head Durst was once on the cover of a magazine with Trump and a couple other shyster real-estate moguls as the "Men Who Owned New York."

Anyway, Durst's wife went mysteriously missing back in 1982. Everyone figured he murdered her, but there was no body and no conclusive evidence. Next Bobby Durst turns up in Galveston, Texas, were he had been hiding out, disguised as a blind woman. (Yes, a blind woman). Seems Bob killed his neighbor, cut up the body, and threw it in the Bay, but zillionaires seldom go to prison, and he was found innocent on the grounds of self-defense. Next was Susan Berman, cadaver number #3, for which Durst is currently being tried in L.A., California, USA.

A story Durst's brother tells is that Robert and his missing wife once owned 6 different Alsatian purebred dogs. Durst called them 'Igor.' All six. Igor 1, Igor 2, etc. They were all Igor.

Each dog died suddenly and mysteriously. It was shortly after this long string of bad luck with the canines that his wife went missing, and theory is that Durst was practicing different methods of murder, using the six Alsatians.

As if in confirmation, an extremely angry Durst once told his brother that he was going to 'Igor' him.

Most think Florrie Maybrick was innocent, but the dead dogs next door might be circumstantial evidence that points to a different conclusion. Durst couldn't have been the first low-life to dream up the idea of practicing on the pooch. Ergo, the Diarist's suspicion that Florrie was poisoning him could be unexpectedly accurate.

[Iconoclast]

Most think Florrie Maybrick was innocent, but the dead dogs next door might be circumstantial evidence that points to a different conclusion. Durst couldn't have been the first low-life to dream up the idea of practicing on the pooch. Ergo, the Diarist's suspicion that Florrie was poisoning him could be unexpectedly accurate.

A remarkably long-winded and obscure journey to a slightly understated conclusion, rj, but bizarrely highly entertaining nevertheless.

Honestly, for long periods of that lot, I was convinced you were on drugs, and by the end of it I was convinced that I was. A thing of beauty is a thing for ever. This one will last long in the memory.

Or at least until tomorrow anyway ...

[Iconoclast]

By the way, everyone, Barrett's £25 got him the littler of the two diaries. You might be tempted to think he'd have been a little clearer about how big he needed his diary-with-at-least-20-blank-pages to be?

[Iconoclast]

You've got to wonder why Barrett actually paid for this …

[rjpalmer]

A remarkably long-winded and obscure journey to a slightly understated conclusion

It's probably not well-known, Ike, though it has been discussed on the boards before, that the Maybrick's neighbors did indeed have a fox terrier that went missing in August 1888. They evidently replaced it, for in October the same neighbors had an Irish Terrier that also went on walk-about. Does lightening strike a dog owner twice?

The empiricists will quickly point out that there is no evidence that Florrie fed the puppies Fowler's Solution in a bowl of meat juice, but I am convinced she pulled an "Igor" on them, a la Bobby Durst. You no doubt will suspect Sir Jim.

The circumstances were suspicious enough that it was alluded to at Flo's trial.

[rjpalmer]

You've got to wonder why Barrett actually paid for this.

I wonder more why Anne Graham held on to it instead of burning it in the backyard rubbish barrel.

Was a sequel being planned? 'Woked': Florence Maybrick's lost 1891 diary from Woking Prison, with the Remarkable True Confessions of a Serial Poisoner.

[rjpalmer]

For you, Ike, sometime when you want to take another acid trip. The article claims it was seven Igors, but I read only six...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-Douglas.html

[Iconoclast]

The tiny maroon diary from 1891 is in itself an enigma on so many levels, of course, but it is tangentially so also. Here's a great example.

The maroon diary first came to our attention via Bongo Barrett's confession. Prior to this, it was unknown. It's obviously got the prima facie appearance of a smoking gun so you would think that the nest of forgers - already horrified at Bongo's confession - would be seeking to do everything they possibly could to minimise the damage caused by this apparently sensational revelation. One of the key forgers in the nest, of course, was Anne Barrett, Bongo's wife. She of the typing skills and the high level of literacy, etc. - so critical to the creation of the hoax.

So Bongo is confessing all, and he (presumably) and Anne (certainly) are thinking, "Sweet Jeezums, we're all going down for a ten-stretch in chokey, and poor little Caroline is going to be left to grow up without her parents. Who will look after her? Will she be safe? Will she be socially isolated by her parents' criminal past? What on earth have we done? Why did we ever listen to Robbie Johnson when he started this whole charade?".

So - given the enormity of Bongo's confession - you might imagine that The Great Cover-Up would swing into action. At very least, whoever had the smoking gun itself has to hide it quickly or simply destroy it. Time is of the essence - they have to act immediately before Her Majesty's Constabulary swoop all over them humming 'nee-naa, nee-naa' under their breadth.

So, so far so good. A cap can still be put on this one if the maroon diary can simply be relocated to rjpalmer's back garden over which he will grow some carrots or the like, and The Great Denial can begin.

So who has the maroon diary? It turns out it's Anne. Relief all 'round! Or is it? ('Da-na-na-naaaaaa'.)

Roger the Palmer tells us that taking risks goes with the territory of perpetrating frauds. That would explain why both the original scrapbook and the maroon diary were sourced in such easy ways to research - Bongo and Anne and Robbie and the rest just didn't care! Caroline's safe upbringing never crossed their evil minds as they plotted their reckless crime spree. But the red diary is not destroyed [Ed: What????????????????????]. Anne is happy to answer questions about it – willing indeed to give it to Paul Feldman who then gave it to Keith Skinner to research into. She goes considerably out of her way to help Keith trace the person to whom the £25 cheque was sent. And that is what led him to the advertisement. Roger no doubt will be able to offer up an explanation of why Anne should assist Keith in discovering such an incriminating piece of evidence but I - for one - can not.

Unless, of course, Anne had no involvement whatsoever in the hoax - indeed, knew nothing of it. You know what - it's a possibility, isn't it?

One might even go further and argue that this may be indicative of a more general state of innocence than Bongo's confession suggests. Maybe, just maybe, Bongo's confession (which he retracted each time he sobered-up) was the hoax in Roger Palmer's hen coop?

But, hold on. That would suggest that the Victorian scrapbook wasn't a hoax after all, wouldn't it? Hmmmm ...

[Observer]

Hi Ike

The revelation with regard to the maroon diary came about as you say during one of Barret't's drunken confessions. The holder of the diary Anne Graham was up the creek without a paddle at this point. She couldn't deny it's existence there was the advert in black and white for it's purchase. I believe the reason why The Bard of Goldie Street, and his complicit wife, did not not burn the diary was due to the fact that poor people don't destroy something which considering their meager income cost them an arm and a leg. Even if it was a smoking gun.

I can't find anything in any of the books where Anne Graham attempts to explain away this smoking gun, perhaps you can help. It would be interesting to hear what she said on the matter.

[Observer]

By the way, before you say anything with regard to the advert for the purchase of the maroon diary remember Barrett would have also known where it originated from.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike

The revelation with regard to the maroon diary came about as you say during one of Barret't's drunken confessions. The holder of the diary Anne Graham was up the creek without a paddle at this point. She couldn't deny it's existence there was the advert in black and white for it's purchase. I believe the reason why The Bard of Goldie Street, and his complicit wife, did not not burn the diary was due to the fact that poor people don't destroy something which considering their meager income cost them an arm and a leg. Even if it was a smoking gun.

I can't find anything in any of the books where Anne Graham attempts to explain away this smoking gun, perhaps you can help. It would be interesting to hear what she said on the matter.

I get it - it's the old I'll-come-clean-that'll-really-throw-them-off-the-scent routine?

The maroon diary - if it had actually been evidence of a hoax - would have cost them a great deal more than £25. Which would you have destroyed, the then worthless 1891 diary or your entire future (including that of your precious daughter)?

Clearly Anne quickly decided on the latter, but you appear to be erring on the side of the former?

[Observer]

You're missing the point. Anne Barrett could not deny the existence of the maroon diary, it's existence was in the public domain after Barretts confession. It doesn't matter if it was destroyed or not. More to the point what was the excuse she used for it's existence when confronted by Keith Skinner et al?

[Observer]

Ok, before Barrett's confession there was no need to destroy the maroon diary, it cost them £25 why destroy it? They might of been considering selling it on to cut their losses. Anne Barrett then learns that Mike Barrett had revealed it's existence. What does she do? Destroy it? Whats the point, she knows that Barrett can prove it's existence. As I said, what did she say to Skinner et al to justify it's existence? That is, what was her version of events which justified the purchase of the maroon diary?

[rjpalmer]

You're missing the point. Anne Barrett could not deny the existence of the maroon diary, it's existence was in the public domain after Barretts confession. It doesn't matter if it was destroyed or not.

I agree, Ike is missing the point.

I believe Anne tried to suppress the evidence of the red diary (at Feldman's insistence?) but once Barrett confessed, she knew she had no choice but to admit to its existence, because Barrett could have chased down Martin Earl, who could have confirmed the purchase. It would have then been game, set, and match, because Skinner would have caught her in an out-and-out lie. So all Anne could do at that point was to make up a ****-and-bull story about Mike being an impulsive buyer of obscure artifacts and that he "wanted to know what a Victorian diary looked like." No real point in destroying a 25 pound diary, since Barrett had her over a barrel unless she wanted to take Mr. Earl for a long walk on a short pier.

I do disagree on one detail, however. I think the red diary was actually in Mike's possession from 1992-1994. He kept it.

Then, somehow, when the shite began to slap the fan, Anne Graham ended up with it.

From Barrett's confession:

“My wife is now in possession of this [red] Diary in fact she asked for it specifically recently when I saw her at her home address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"

-- Mike Barrett, 5 January 1995

Later in the same sworn statement:

“It was about 1st week in December 1994 that my wife Anne Barrett visited me, she asked me to keep my mouth shut and that if I did so I could receive a payment of L20,000 before the end of the month. She was all over me and we even made love, it was all very odd because just as quickley (sic) as she made love to me she threatened me and returned to her old self. She insisted Mr Feldman was a very nice Jewish man who was only trying to help her.”

The following is an ugly suggestion, but I think it is justified.

Keith Skinner admitted some months ago that Feldman had once instructed Barrett to lie to the police if they asked about the word processor. So what other strings did Feldy try to pull? Had he asked Anne Graham to retrieve the red diary from Barrett as an exercise in "damage control"?

Read between the lines. That's what Barrett seems to be suggesting.

[rjpalmer]

The criminal mind is odd. Many criminals hold on to evidence that later leads to their conviction. Maybe it's a fetish of some sort. I knew a woman who found a stash of ladies purses in her brother's room, complete with photo i.d.'s, etc. His horde of self-incriminating evidence would have made any prosecutor salivate.

So I can't wrap my mind around Ike's pretzel logic. "It is a coffin nail, a most obvious and damning coffin nail, which means it can't be a coffin nail, for if it was a coffin nail, it would have been tossed in the Mersey. Therefore it is not a coffin nail."

And yet, in almost the next breath, we are told that Barrett was an imbecile.