Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[rjpalmer]

Thank you erobitha. This is exactly what I wondered about...

So this first 'rock' of R.J's may in fact have been of the Edinburgh variety - soft and crumbly, and all too easy to swallow?

Very probably, Caz. I guess I hadn't really thought it through.

In the 1970s, some adherents of the “New Age” religion kept their razor blades in tiny carboard pyramids because this mystical and holy Egyptian shape is said to have the power to prevent the blades from going dull (or seeds from degrading, or wine from spoiling, etc.) See Colin Wilson’s The Occult, or The Power of the Pyramid, for more details.

Similarly, the humble biscuit tin may also have mystical qualities, not yet fully understood by science. Somehow the tin keeps the ink in a state of suspended animation for years or even decades, baffling any effort to determine its age. I wonder if Rod McNeil considered this during his ‘ion’ migration experiments?

Yes, the scenario of suspended oxidation is conceivable--even probable.

No wonder those cookies from Christmas 2018 taste the same today as when the tin was first opened! I withdraw my assumption.

I do wonder, however, if the first page of the Diary, penned in the spring of 1888, could have been kept in optimal conditions until it was buried under the floorboards of Battlecrease in the Spring of 1889? Wouldn’t it have had at least one year of exposure to oxidation, as Maybrick lugged it back and forth to London?

Yet, here again, one of the document examiners suggested that multiple entries of the diary had been penned in the same sitting, so perhaps this isn’t much of an objection either. The diary could have been tossed together in as little as 11 days, which would tend to make all the ink of a broadly similar ‘age,’ exposed to the same general level of oxidation. Hmmmm.

I do wonder, however, about your use of the word ‘airless’ to describe the space underneath Dodd’s floorboards.

I was assured by the Diary savants who frequent Howard’s site that the floorboards in these old house are so loose and gaping that dead cats, detritus, old newspapers, books, burglars, etc. are frequently found underneath—meaning that Dodd simply failed to notice the oversized biscuit tin when he ‘gutted’ the house sometime around 1990.

But these matters are mysterious, cryptic. Unfathomable, really. Best to leave it alone.

[rjpalmer]

Ike - a minor point of housekeeping. Please refer to page 41 of "Society's Pillock." Who the heck is Catherine Morris? I can see getting one name wrong, but both?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz - (Or should I call you Catherine?)

Here is why I stopped in this morning: to reply to Post #539 about the infamous “tin match box empty.” Warning: longish post, but, to the rational, it destroys the theory of an old hoax. Not that that hasn’t been done before.

You write:

how would Mike Barrett have figured out that one of the items on this list, and only one, had not previously appeared on the list published in any newspaper report, going right back to October 1888?

This strange and misguided argument keeps cropping up. Feldman uses it to ‘prove’ the diary is either genuine or a modern fake. Supposedly the ‘one’ item left off the list is the matchbox.

Unfortunately, the statement is simply wrong. Let’s kill this canard once and for all, shall we? Even though we’ve gone over it before?

Reproduced below is the description of Eddowes’ belongings as published in various newspapers during the first week of October 1888. This excerpt comes from The Globe of October 1^st, but it can be found in many other papers, including The Times, The Oxford Times, etc. No other report has ever been located, even in the age of digitization.

If we compare this press release to the ‘official’ inventory list of Eddowes belongings compiled at the mortuary (see Evans & Skinner, p. 203-204 for a copy), we see that, rather than “one and only one” item being left out, many of Eddowes’ belongings were not mentioned in the press report, including:

twelve pieces of white rag, some slightly blood-stained
one pair of brown ribbed stockings
two small blue bed ticking bags
a second white handkerchief
the spoon
a piece of red flannel containing pins & needles

It is also worth noting that the press release turns Kate’s two tin boxes of tea & sugar into one tin box of tea and sugar. So, one of these is left off, too. That’s seven items so far.

Interestingly enough, there are also two items in the news release that are NOT mentioned in the “official list”:

the red mitten
the handbill naming “Frank Cater, of 405 Bethnal Green Road”

In addition, if we look at City Police Inspector Edward Collard’s deposition given at the Eddowes inquest, he reveals that there were other items scattered next to Eddowes’ body in Mite Square. These were picked up by Police Sergeant Thomas, and thus did not make it to the mortuary and are also not mentioned in the ‘official’ tally:

3 small black buttons ‘generally used for women’s boots.’
A small metal button.
A common metal thimble.
A small mustard tin containing two pawn tickets.

The pawn tickets and the handbill mentioning ‘Frank Cater,’ were probably set aside by Collard, since their origins would need to be traced and investigated.

As for the myth of the “tin match box” not being mentioned by the press…thus “held back” by Abberline…it IS mentioned by the press. This is actually a major blow to the Diary’s supposed antiquity. There is only one match box mentioned in the combined sources. As you can see, the press claimed the box contained cotton, but by the time it was described at the mortuary it is listed as “empty.” Maybe the cotton was lost or thrown away, or the report was simply inaccurate? Or a policeman, inspecting the box, tossed the cotton to one side and it became separated from the match box? It is entirely possible that the ‘cotton’ mentioned by the press are some of the various cloth bits mentioned in the police inventory. For instance, the ‘twelve pieces of rag’ (which Trevor Marriott takes to mean sanitary napkins).

Anyway, it is now painfully obvious that “one and only one” item was not “held back.” Feldman is pulling our leg. It’s false information. It’s bogus. And if something WAS held back, it wasn’t the match box.

Nor was it Abberline doing the holding. A sophisticated hoaxer would have known that the Eddowes investigation was conducted by the City Police. Anything ‘held back’ would have been ‘held back’ by Inspectors Collard or Inspector McWilliam. Barrett got it wrong.

If this is the quality of the arguments you use to “prove” the diary’s sophistication, then why even bother?

As I say, what this really demonstrates is that the Diary is a modern hoax. If an “old hoaxer” from say 1910 had used contemporary press reports to create his text, he would have assumed that the match box contained cotton. Instead, he repeats the ‘official’ list, showing the box empty, and this was not made public until the 1980s. Dave O’Flaherty researched this thoroughly years ago.

Of course, the true believer can theorize the wildly unlikely scenario that the diary was written by someone with access to official reports (yet, strangely, hones in on something as insignificant as an empty match box!) or we can be brave and honest and rational and admit that the ‘tin match box empty’ was mentioned in one of the two books Barrett used to compile his phony “research notes” sometime around 1991-92: Paul Harrison’s Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved.

The first scenario, evidently believed by ‘old hoax’ theorists, is not even remotely plausible and requires a suspension of disbelief at a level unheard of even in a field known for romantics and dreamers.

Carry on.

[rjpalmer]

Sorry. I forgot the attachment. Here is the list as it appeared in October 1888:

[caz]

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.

Cheer up, R.J. You still have at least one 'rock', before your Barrett hoax solution is doomed to failure, even if you and Baxendale have both been battling with unknowns, without knowing it.

At least I know what I don't know, and don't pretend that I do know, don't ya know?

Here's your second 'rock' again:

...and Martin Earl’s advertisement, showing that one or more of the occupants of Goldie Street were behind it. Any ‘solution’ that disregards this “debilitating” data, to use the term Howells and Skinner used in another context, is doomed to failure.

I expect you mean that it must have been young Caroline who picked up the phone, bless her little cotton school socks, when Martin Earl called to ask if a tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, and no pages that were literally blank, would be any good to her Dad, even though he had asked for one dating from 1880 to 1890 with at least twenty blank pages. Did her Dad want Martin to order it for him? The price was £25. And Caroline must have said: "Yes, that sounds just the ticket, please do go ahead and order it and send my Dad the bill", having no idea why it would be as much use as a chocolate fireguard. She couldn't call her Mum or Dad to the phone because one was at work and the other was busy dreaming of the greenhouse he would soon be able to buy, thanks to Martin Earl's alternative Victorian diary, which he planned to turn into Maybrick's murderous memoirs.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Ho ho, this was in response to R.J's funny little pop at Keith:

'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...'

Ho ho ho. I have met Robert McLaughlin and he is a smashing guy, but the thought that he would deliberately have handed over data that was 'generally favorable to the diary's authenticity' is just too funny, on at least two levels.

Level one: Robert has broadly similar beliefs to R.J regarding the diary's origins.

Level two: I'm confident that Robert has more than enough integrity not to hand over data because it accords with his own beliefs, but it's hilarious that R.J sees what was released as being 'generally favorable to the diary's authenticity'.

Own goal or what?

Love,

Caz
X

[Iconoclast]

Ike - a minor point of housekeeping. Please refer to page 41 of "Society's Pillock." Who the heck is Catherine Morris? I can see getting one name wrong, but both?

For goodness sake, Rog, you could have PM'd me!!!!!!!!! I'm probably going to wake up tomorrow (if I'm lucky) to find my hamster's head in bed with me!

Anyway, I have made the correction. Can I ask that you make a correction to your own post above, please - it's my brilliant Society's Pillock, thank you.

PS In what sense did I get both of Caz's names wrong (as she published under 'Morris', it seemed reasonable to cite 'Morris' rather than 'Brown'). In retrospect, however, I perhaps should have referred to her in my bSP as 'Caz' as that - I think - is the naming format I used elsewhere whilst being very brilliant?

Ike (Yes, honestly - I'm behind this big rock)

[Iconoclast]

Sorry. I forgot the attachment. Here is the list as it appeared in October 1888:

Far be it for me to ever get into any form of an argument, but once again your argument hinges heavy upon the thought process of the killer after the event, does it not? Maybrick wrote to the effect of "I left them a very good clue" and we are left to decipher it, unfortunately. I think Shirley Harrison suggested that the very good clue may have been the piece of cotton in what may have then become the tin match box, empty (I hope it were she for I say so in my bSP). Maybrick could have left such a clue, and just not read the article that you posted or read it and completely missed it. He was human, Rog. It's an artform but it can be learned with practice.

And he homed-in on Abberline rather than the City Police? Honestly - did he really need to care a toss to say it to himself in his private scrapbook?

Ike (now behind that oak tree on the left)

[rjpalmer]

Ho ho, this was in response to R.J's funny little pop at Keith:

'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...'

Ho ho ho. I have met Robert McLaughlin and he is a smashing guy, but the thought that he would deliberately have handed over data that was 'generally favorable to the diary's authenticity' is just too funny, on at least two levels.

Level one: Robert has broadly similar beliefs to R.J regarding the diary's origins.

Level two: I'm confident that Robert has more than enough integrity not to hand over data because it accords with his own beliefs, but it's hilarious that R.J sees what was released as being 'generally favorable to the diary's authenticity'.

Own goal or what?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz. Although I would just as soon let the matter drop, since I apologized, let me reproduce the quote by Keith, made on the Maybrick ‘podcast’ thread, that led me to assume that he had been involved in the release of the tapes. Maybe you can help explain it to me, if it matters that much to you:

Keith Skinner: 11-16-2019, 12:49 PM

“What I do know however is that the point of Jonathan’s series of Diary podcasts is to let people, who may be interested in the 27 year old controversy, hear the voices of key figures involved, at precise moments in time which have been caught on tape. These recordings have not been doctored. There is no hidden agenda to present anything but the facts. What reason would we have for giving a bias Roger? What would we – or anybody - gain from this? How does being deceitful and manipulative get us any closer to the truth? In short, I resent the inference as, I suspect, does Jonathan.” (emphasis added)

Keith made the bizarre comment that I was implying that the podcasts were ‘doctored’ (I never made any such claim) and said that he ‘resented the inference.’

I’m at a loss. Why would KEITH have “resented” my supposed comment if he hadn’t been involved in the release of the tapes?

It was a very strange comment--one that I still do not understand--and this is what left me believing that Keith had been somehow instrumental in the release of the tapes. He certainly seems to be acting as a spokesman for their “purpose” and even uses the word “we.” Given this comment, do you really blame me for kicking the football in the wrong direction? To what was Keith referring? I haven’t the foggiest. Why use 'we' if he was not involved? Is it some standard British football trick deliberately designed to make the opposition head off in the wrong direction?? Maybe you, Keith, or JM can explain it to me so I won't fall into the error again,

The whole thread can be found here. See Post #74.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-media/audio-visual/rippercast/714049-rippercast-audio-archives-the-maybrick-diary/page5

Robert M. is obviously a smart man. He must have concluded, undoubtedly correctly, that the interviews with Feldman, Graham, and Harrison are like poisons that contain their own antidote; arguments so weak, that rather than being suggestive of an old or genuine document, actually argue against such ideas. I shouldn’t have worried!

[Iconoclast]

It was a very strange comment--one that I still do not understand--and this is what left me believing that Keith had been somehow instrumental in the release of the tapes. He certainly seems to be acting as a spokesman for their “purpose” and even uses the word “we.” Given this comment, do you really blame me for kicking the football in the wrong direction? To what was Keith referring? I haven’t the foggiest. Why use 'we' if he was not involved? Is it some standard British football trick deliberately designed to make the opposition head off in the wrong direction?? Maybe you, Keith, or JM can explain it to me so I won't fall into the error again,

It is fascinating to see how you interpret the world the rest of us occupy, Roger, it really is.

When I read Keith's comment in your post above (#594), I inferred that he was in some way connected to the creation and collation of the recordings (which would have given him the opportunity - untaken, of course - to manipulate them had he had a specific agenda in mind). He was the interviewer in many so he must have been involved at that level. And then I infer (it's pretty explicitly stated, in fairness) that Jonathan Menges then released them onto the Casebook. So Keith was right to infer a potential slight even though it was Jonathan who released the material because the inference could have been backward engineered to the time of their creation and collation as well as their release.

I honestly don't think many people would have failed to work that out unless - surely not? - any given reader had had a specific agenda in mind themselves?

Ike

[rjpalmer]

The interviewer in the Radio Merseyside broadcasts was not Keith, Ike. Have you actually listened to any of the podcasts?

I don't particularly care that much, but since I've been raked over the coals by Caz and JM, I'd be interested in hearing their explanation, not yours. I think a reasonable person would interpret Keith's comment as those of a person acting as spokesperson for the podcasts, with his use of 'we' and the 'purpose' and 'resentment', etc.

But whatever. Let's call it a misunderstanding. My bad.

[rjpalmer]

It is fascinating to see how you interpret the world the rest of us occupy, Roger, it really is.

No offense, Ike, but I really really really do not want to 'occupy' the same mental space as someone who could convinced themselves that Barrett's novella is the actual words of Jack the Ripper.

I'm fine being outside the asylum. Have a good day. I'm off for my daily motorcycle spin. Wind therapy, they call it.

[jmenges]

Hi RJ,

In 2007 Coral Kelly sent Robert McLaughlin 11 cassette tapes which included all of the Maybrick Diary tapes I have released. Robert digitized them for me in October 2018 and at that point I contacted Keith to ask his permission to release the Maybrick Cloak and Dagger Club recordings, as he was the host at those events and I seek permission for intellectual/performance copyright when at all possible. I did not ask for his permission to release the radio interviews since, as you rightly point out, his voice isn't on them.
He suggested that I organize the release of all of the tapes as a series with narration bridging each recording. This became a lengthy writing and editing process with Keith's input, but I eventually decided to scrap the idea. You might recall reading what was to be the recorded introduction as I posted it on the boards.
I shared all of the Maybrick Diary recordings I received from Robert McLaughlin with Keith weeks prior to releasing them and he compared them with the tape recordings he already had to see if mine were of better or worse quality. When his recording was of better quality he graciously allowed me to substitute mine with his. I emailed with him frequently while the series was being released and he provided a lot of background info on what was said on any particular tape. I also spoke to Paul Begg, Adam Wood, and others at the same time.
It is perhaps this close contact he had with me - which would have been completely unknown to you or practically everyone else- that led him to interpret your comments in such a way and take them personally, and respond using the pronoun "we". Nevertheless, he had absolutely no editorial control over what I released, nor did he ever attempt to exert control over the project. On the contrary, he was very helpful in providing first hand recollections and supplementary material.
I hope this clears it up a bit. I'm willing to answer any questions, and I have accepted your apology and moved on.

All the best,

JM

[Iconoclast]

It should also be remembered that Alan Gray was not a student of the Ripper murders, nor the Maybrick case. He was a private detective.

Alan Gray did not have to be a student of the Ripper case or the Maybrick case. All Alan Gray required from Mike Barrett in 1994-1995 was one hard piece of evidence linking him to obtaining the original Victorian guard book which was used for Anne Barrett to write in disguised handwriting the 63 pages of narrative which Mike had claimed he had created on his word processor. The Outhwaite and Litherland auction ticket which Mike had kept would have been perfect. It’s strange that he let Alan Gray make so many fruitless requests to Outhwaite and Litherland for evidential support that Mike had bought the book from them when he had the proof in his pocket. I suppose he didn’t give it to Alan Gray because he feared he would be arrested (after all, Gray was a private detective with the full powers of citizen's arrest of a local shopkeeper). The same reason he didn’t give it to Keith Skinner, 5 years later at the Cloak & Dagger Club, because Keith mentioned to Mike that Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans were in the audience. As somebody who had read every book about JtR, Mike would have immediately recognised these published authors as being two of the biggest names in the JtR world. He would have known they were long retired police officers (with the full powers of citizen's arrest of a private detective). A shame because Mike would probably have just loved to have been arrested and seen his name in the newspapers again – if anybody was interested in the very old news he represented by then. I personally cannot think of any other reason why Mike Barrett would not have given the ticket to Alan Gray in 1994 or Keith Skinner in April 1999 – or even shown it to Andy Aliffe in private after Keith's interview as Mike had promised to do.

I struggle to understand how so many years of debate could have been ended so abruptly had Mike just shown us a single piece of evidence of the truly brilliant crime he had carried out and yet he did nothing other than string us all along in order to retain something akin (in his eyes) to being centre stage. Oh - hold on ...

[caz]

For goodness sake, Rog, you could have PM'd me!!!!!!!!! I'm probably going to wake up tomorrow (if I'm lucky) to find my hamster's head in bed with me!

Anyway, I have made the correction. Can I ask that you make a correction to your own post above, please - it's my brilliant Society's Pillock, thank you.

PS In what sense did I get both of Caz's names wrong (as she published under 'Morris', it seemed reasonable to cite 'Morris' rather than 'Brown'). In retrospect, however, I perhaps should have referred to her in my bSP as 'Caz' as that - I think - is the naming format I used elsewhere whilst being very brilliant?

Ike (Yes, honestly - I'm behind this big rock)

Afternoon Ike. I'm not sure why it's any of R.J's business what name or names you use when referring to me. In fact, you hereby have my full permission to call me "that meddlesome old ratbag" if you so wish. It's almost certainly kinder than the names I can imagne R.J calling me - in private under his breath.

Love,

That Meddlesome Old Ratbag
X