Maybrick--a Problem in Logic

[caz]

The following photograph is a supplement to Post #588.

It is a Bryant & May tin match box, which is likely to be similar to the one found among Kate Eddowes' clothing.

One can't be certain, of course, but my guess is the twelve pieces of rag described in the police inventory list were cotton strips, rolled and used for sanitary purposes, and this is the 'cotton' inside the tin match box, as described in the press release. Thus, Kate never carried around a 'tin match box empty.' Why would she? The box and its contents had become separated at the morgue; that they were 'slightly' blood-stained suggests their original purpose.

Ciao.

Considering R.J's objections to the diary being found in a biscuit tin, on grounds of size, I have sore misgivings [yes, I'll apply some Sudocrem later] that poor Kate would have been able to stuff an empty match box with a dozen pieces of cloth large enough to have pinned inside her clothing and given her some protection during rag week. If she was menopausal, her flow - although gradually diminishing - was likely to have been erratic, and unpredictably heavy at times, so thin cotton strips would have been next to useless. And how big were these match boxes typically? How many matches of a standard size could they contain?

This reminds me that before R.J took his leave once more, he didn't seem to want to address that other 'little' matter of size: the tiny 1891 diary, with printed dates three to a page, which [I have it on the ideal authority] Mike went ahead and ordered from Martin Earl between 19th and 26th March, apparently imagining that it would be ideal for Anne to copy the draft of Maybrick's final year on this earth from their famous word 'prosser'.

And to think I was always told that it's not the size that matters...

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

You have to wonder why the author of the diary would feel so clever and ballsy for leaving a clue that was so hidden and so cryptic. Even if he had written the F.M. in huge, clear letters in the middle of the wall it is not like Abberline would have entered the room, taken one look at said "hmmm...an F.M....clearly this stands for Florence Maybrick the wife of the well known cotton merchant. That's our man. Let's go, boys."

He could have taped a cotton ball to the wall and gotten the same results.

c.d.

[caz]

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.

Keith notes that the other two books used by Mike were Wilson & Odell [1987] for the Ripper content and the two chapters in Tales of Liverpool for the Maybrick content [no mention of Ryan]. But he is happy to give R.J his way out because [apart from Mike having read everything about Jack the Ripper, as he states in his affidavit] R.J will have noted, that Mike's phony "research notes" also referenced the Liverpool Echo and Probate Records – both of which are in Liverpool Central Library. Keith confirmed this personally [and even used them] as well as doing a thorough check on the existence, availability and accessibility of the Sphere books, which Melvin Harris said the Library had never owned. So if RJ is happy to believe Keith was correct on the first and Melvin Harris was correct on the second, that's fine by Keith.

What I said in one of my recent posts on the subject of the empty tin match box, was that Mike Barrett didn't need to be thinking of this item specifically, if he composed the relevant lines of doggerel and what have you. But it was obvious 'Sir Jim' was recalling something - a very good clue - which he had left at the scene, and which was not mentioned in any of the newspaper reports he had read. It's really that simple, and the truth isn't established by disproving any of our individual suggestions - R.J's, mine, Feldy's or Mike's - for what the diary author MAY have had in mind for that 'very good clue' to be. When reading about the match box with 'cotton' in it, I had always assumed this was cotton thread, taken from a cotton reel for mending purposes, and not a piece - or pieces - of cotton fabric, which would have had to be very small indeed to fit in a match box, and would not have served any obvious purpose. If our Sir Jim, of diary fame, is meant to have opened that box in the darkness of Mitre Square, expecting to find matches in it, the damned thing would have been empty from his point of view, whether or not a length of cotton thread was in it at the time, which would have been nigh on invisible to the naked eye. If this box belonged to Eddowes, could it still have been the clue that 'Sir Jim' left at the scene, or did the diarist make a mistake IF it was meant to be Maybrick's own match box? On the other hand, if it did belong to the killer, you'd think he'd have known when he had used his last match, and you wouldn't expect the box to have contained any mending cotton either. So we just don't know if the diary author was reading any particular significance into this item, specifically, or not. For all we know, the 'very good clue' could have been as simple as a 'BRYANT & MAY' engraving on the tin box! That would be typical Sir Jim, having a private joke about Abberline actually seeing his name, but the newspapers not mentioning it. And it wouldn't then matter whose box it was or why it contained no matches when found.

I appreciate that there is always a danger of taking words too literally, in an effort to suggest what a writer must have meant, but there is an equal danger of ignoring the fact that words don't just pop up out of nowhere, but have meaning for the writer.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The following photograph is a supplement to Post #588.

It is a Bryant & May tin match box, which is likely to be similar to the one found among Kate Eddowes' clothing...

Ha ha... yes, a very good clue indeed - which R.J has kindly left in front, for all eyes to see.

Clever old Bongo!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You have to wonder why the author of the diary would feel so clever and ballsy for leaving a clue that was so hidden and so cryptic. Even if he had written the F.M. in huge, clear letters in the middle of the wall it is not like Abberline would have entered the room, taken one look at said "hmmm...an F.M....clearly this stands for Florence Maybrick the wife of the well known cotton merchant. That's our man. Let's go, boys."

He could have taped a cotton ball to the wall and gotten the same results.

c.d.

The biggest problem in logic I see on this thread is the tireless effort to 'wonder why' the diary author would or would not have done such-and-such back in 1888.

Mike Barrett was born in 1952.

I wouldn't presume to know if you are a Barrett hoax believer yourself, c.d, but there are others who claim to be 100% convinced of it, while at the same time 'wondering why' the diary author would have done all manner of things more than 60 years before he was born.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hello Caz,

Generally, I am quite proud of myself for my minimal lack of involvement in this thread and I have to say that I am astonished by how much time and effort other posters put into it. The one time I attempted to make a substantive contribution to the thread I got ripped a new one by none other than Lord Orsam himself. I take it as a badge of honor.

I can't be arsed to do a substantive evaluation of the pros and cons of the diary. Love that expression by the way. One of the best things I have learned on these boards in addition to "Big Girls Blouse" which I have you to thank for.

I do have an interest in the "initials" though as I can actually see a likeness of them on the wall which makes them intriguing.

As for Barrett and a hoax I will just say that I like to watch Antiques Roadshow. Yes, yes I know but I watch it in a manly way, scratching myself and smashing beer cans into my head. The one thing that it has taught me is the critical importance of provenance. So when I look at the provenance for the diary I kind of shake my head and say well that ain't so good. So I lean towards the hoax camp but try to keep an open mind and doubt I will ever become a fanatic in my opinion one way or the other.

I am actually reading Shirley Harrison's book right now. Kind of a slow go.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Caz,

Generally, I am quite proud of myself for my minimal lack of involvement in this thread and I have to say that I am astonished by how much time and effort other posters put into it. The one time I attempted to make a substantive contribution to the thread I got ripped a new one by none other than Lord Orsam himself. I take it as a badge of honor.

I can't be arsed to do a substantive evaluation of the pros and cons of the diary. Love that expression by the way. One of the best things I have learned on these boards in addition to "Big Girls Blouse" which I have you to thank for.

I do have an interest in the "initials" though as I can actually see a likeness of them on the wall which makes them intriguing.

As for Barrett and a hoax I will just say that I like to watch Antiques Roadshow. Yes, yes I know but I watch it in a manly way, scratching myself and smashing beer cans into my head. The one thing that it has taught me is the critical importance of provenance. So when I look at the provenance for the diary I kind of shake my head and say well that ain't so good. So I lean towards the hoax camp but try to keep an open mind and doubt I will ever become a fanatic in my opinion one way or the other.

I am actually reading Shirley Harrison's book right now. Kind of a slow go.

c.d.

hi cd.
dont worry i LOVE antiques roadshow too!

[c.d.]

hi cd.
dont worry i LOVE antiques roadshow too!

Hello Abby,

I am not quite sure how I feel about that. Do you watch in a manly way?

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

I have no desire to engage further with “Caz” Brown or any other Diary supporter, but let me state a couple of objective facts, without involving myself in any additional debate, because my time here is wasted.

19^th Century tin matchboxes were of different sizes and some were quite large. There is no reason to believe Eddowes' was the tiny matchbox theorized above.

At the bottom of this post is a Bryant and May matchbox that is 6 ¼” long. The one next to it (also Bryant & May) is roughly 3” x 2” and quite deep. I have seen others of UK origin that are in the 3 ½” x 2 ¾” range, and another that is 4” x 6”.

It might also be noted that there was a common type of tin matchbox that was very large because it originally held 10 or 12 smaller pasteboard matchboxes inside of it. The tin kept the smaller boxes free from moisture and safe from fire in case of accidental ignition. They are still described as "matchboxes." We don’t know which type Eddowes was carrying or the name of the manufacturer.

Below is a link to an American matchbox from roughly 1860-1880 that measures a whopping 8½ ” x 4½” x 3.”

https://www.ebay.com/i/303549704540?chn=ps

Concerning the suggestion that the cotton strips were originally in Kate Eddowes’ matchbox--I am not insisting this. Read my original post. The cotton could have been cotton balls, or the press could have simply got it wrong. I am merely theorizing why the original press report claimed the tin match box contained ‘cotton,’ while, at the mortuary, the box was listed it as empty.

I have talked to a number of ‘street’ people over the years, and it is not uncommon for them to carry mini first-aid kits, and often these are tins. I used to carry one in my own backpack made from an old Band-Aid tin. Cotton strips—or cotton balls—would be useful for cuts, blisters, etc., that one suffers while tramping around. The cotton rags in Eddowes’ possession need not have been for feminine hygiene; they could have been small, thin bandages, for wrapping around blistered toes, etc. Their size was not listed by the police.

It is instructive to look at how the matchbox is described in two different editions of Donald Rumbelow’s classic study of the Whitechapel Murders.

In the 1975 edition, “The Complete Jack the Ripper,” Rumbelow describes it as a “tin match box containing cotton.” (pg. 44)

In the 1988 edition, “Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook,” he now describes it as an “empty tin match box.” (pg. 64)

What happened between 1975 and 1988 to make Rumbelow change the description?

Answer: Eddowes’ inventory list was made available for the first time. Before that, Don Rumbelow had to rely on the 1888 news article.

Just as a hoaxer would.

This should tell any reasonable person that the diary dates to after the late 1980s, and lo and behold, Barrett owned a book that lists the “one tin match box, empty”—Paul Harrison’s book, page 67.

How do I know Barrett was familiar with this passage? Because Barrett mentions page 67 of Harrison’s book in his research notes—and more than once. (see page 14 of Barrett’s notes, which can be found both here and on Howard Brown’s site). This will also tell you what Mike was thinking about when he wrote about “Abberline” (sic) holding an item back.

It was the mustard tin containing pawn tickets--also mentioned on page 67. Barrett suggests "Abberline" (sic: McWilliam) held a ticket back. Of interest is that Paul Harrison is the only source that lists Eddowes' mustard tin as part of the complete inventory of her items. He also lists it directly next to "one tin match box, empty."

Now that I have produced three Victorian tin matchboxes that could have easily held 12 strips of cotton rag of unknown size, perhaps one of our resident experts on tin boxes will produce 1 Victorian/Edwardian biscuit tin that could have held a certain oversized black ledger. If it has a hermetically sealed lid connected to a vacuum pump to prevent chemical decomposition, so much the better.

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Generally, I am quite proud of myself for my minimal lack of involvement in this thread and I have to say that I am astonished by how much time and effort other posters put into it. The one time I attempted to make a substantive contribution to the thread I got ripped a new one by none other than Lord Orsam himself. I take it as a badge of honor.

I can't help but agree with you there, c.d, concerning how much time and effort other posters have put into it, if they are 100% certain, like Lord Awesome and Mandy Rice-J Palmer, that Mike Barrett was behind the diary.

I can't be arsed to do a substantive evaluation of the pros and cons of the diary. Love that expression by the way. One of the best things I have learned on these boards in addition to "Big Girls Blouse" which I have you to thank for.

Why, thank you kindly. I never thought of it that way before, but your own expression - 'pros and cons' - pretty much sums it up for me, if Keith Skinner is one of the professional diary researchers, while Mike Barrett was one of the conmen who succeeded in persuading so many armchair detectives around here that he had a hand in creating it.

I do have an interest in the "initials" though as I can actually see a likeness of them on the wall which makes them intriguing.

As for Barrett and a hoax I will just say that I like to watch Antiques Roadshow. Yes, yes I know but I watch it in a manly way, scratching myself and smashing beer cans into my head. The one thing that it has taught me is the critical importance of provenance. So when I look at the provenance for the diary I kind of shake my head and say well that ain't so good. So I lean towards the hoax camp but try to keep an open mind and doubt I will ever become a fanatic in my opinion one way or the other.

I am actually reading Shirley Harrison's book right now. Kind of a slow go.

c.d.

Well, ever since 1992, a lot of heads have been similarly shaking and saying the provenance was pretty rubbish. Then in 1994, nine months after Shirley’s book came out, Mike said he forged the diary, which neatly resolved the question of provenance – except for the handful of us who didn’t, and still don’t believe Mike, and see no resolution, and nothing remotely neat about any of his claims to know the diary's origins.

We few, we happy few, also try to keep an open mind, so you are not quite alone. I lean firmly towards the hoax camp, but while I don’t personally believe James Maybrick held the pen, and there is no evidence he killed anyone, I do wonder what a good provenance would look like, and how it would ever be established for such an artefact. The private jottings of a Victorian murderer would hardly have emerged in 1992, in the scrapbook, together with a complete and verifiable record of its ownership and whereabouts going back to 1889. So even if the old book was 'liberated' from Maybrick's old home, and no living person had known it was there [or would ever admit to planting it there], I'm at a loss to know how its presence could be proved to everyone's satisfaction, even if the person who liberated it finally wanted to get it off his chest and say so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I am not quite sure how I feel about that. Do you watch in a manly way?

c.d.

lol. nope. giddy as a school girl

[Abby Normal]

I have no desire to engage further with “Caz” Brown or any other Diary supporter, but let me state a couple of objective facts, without involving myself in any additional debate, because my time here is wasted.

19^th Century tin matchboxes were of different sizes and some were quite large. There is no reason to believe Eddowes' was the tiny matchbox theorized above.

At the bottom of this post is a Bryant and May matchbox that is 6 ¼” long. The one next to it (also Bryant & May) is roughly 3” x 2” and quite deep. I have seen others of UK origin that are in the 3 ½” x 2 ¾” range, and another that is 4” x 6”.

It might also be noted that there was a common type of tin matchbox that was very large because it originally held 10 or 12 smaller pasteboard matchboxes inside of it. The tin kept the smaller boxes free from moisture and safe from fire in case of accidental ignition. They are still described as "matchboxes." We don’t know which type Eddowes was carrying or the name of the manufacturer.

Below is a link to an American matchbox from roughly 1860-1880 that measures a whopping 8½ ” x 4½” x 3.”

https://www.ebay.com/i/303549704540?chn=ps

Concerning the suggestion that the cotton strips were originally in Kate Eddowes’ matchbox--I am not insisting this. Read my original post. The cotton could have been cotton balls, or the press could have simply got it wrong. I am merely theorizing why the original press report claimed the tin match box contained ‘cotton,’ while, at the mortuary, the box was listed it as empty.

I have talked to a number of ‘street’ people over the years, and it is not uncommon for them to carry mini first-aid kits, and often these are tins. I used to carry one in my own backpack made from an old Band-Aid tin. Cotton strips—or cotton balls—would be useful for cuts, blisters, etc., that one suffers while tramping around. The cotton rags in Eddowes’ possession need not have been for feminine hygiene; they could have been small, thin bandages, for wrapping around blistered toes, etc. Their size was not listed by the police.

It is instructive to look at how the matchbox is described in two different editions of Donald Rumbelow’s classic study of the Whitechapel Murders.

In the 1975 edition, “The Complete Jack the Ripper,” Rumbelow describes it as a “tin match box containing cotton.” (pg. 44)

In the 1988 edition, “Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook,” he now describes it as an “empty tin match box.” (pg. 64)

What happened between 1975 and 1988 to make Rumbelow change the description?

Answer: Eddowes’ inventory list was made available for the first time. Before that, Don Rumbelow had to rely on the 1888 news article.

Just as a hoaxer would.

This should tell any reasonable person that the diary dates to after the late 1980s, and lo and behold, Barrett owned a book that lists the “one tin match box, empty”—Paul Harrison’s book, page 67.

How do I know Barrett was familiar with this passage? Because Barrett mentions page 67 of Harrison’s book in his research notes—and more than once. (see page 14 of Barrett’s notes, which can be found both here and on Howard Brown’s site). This will also tell you what Mike was thinking about when he wrote about “Abberline” (sic) holding an item back.

It was the mustard tin containing pawn tickets--also mentioned on page 67. Barrett suggests "Abberline" (sic: McWilliam) held a ticket back. Of interest is that Paul Harrison is the only source that lists Eddowes' mustard tin as part of the complete inventory of her items. He also lists it directly next to "one tin match box, empty."

Now that I have produced three Victorian tin matchboxes that could have easily held 12 strips of cotton rag of unknown size, perhaps one of our resident experts on tin boxes will produce 1 Victorian/Edwardian biscuit tin that could have held a certain oversized black ledger. If it has a hermetically sealed lid connected to a vacuum pump to prevent chemical decomposition, so much the better.

great post RJ
and yes give it up and save your sanity-its pointless.

[caz]

I have no desire to engage further with “Caz” Brown or any other Diary supporter, but let me state a couple of objective facts, without involving myself in any additional debate, because my time here is wasted.

I told R.J he was wasted here, only the other day, so I see he agrees with me about something at long last.

19^th Century tin matchboxes were of different sizes and some were quite large. There is no reason to believe Eddowes' was the tiny matchbox theorized above.

At the bottom of this post is a Bryant and May matchbox that is 6 ¼” long. The one next to it (also Bryant & May) is roughly 3” x 2” and quite deep. I have seen others of UK origin that are in the 3 ½” x 2 ¾” range, and another that is 4” x 6”.

It might also be noted that there was a common type of tin matchbox that was very large because it originally held 10 or 12 smaller pasteboard matchboxes inside of it. The tin kept the smaller boxes free from moisture and safe from fire in case of accidental ignition. They are still described as "matchboxes." We don’t know which type Eddowes was carrying or the name of the manufacturer.

Below is a link to an American matchbox from roughly 1860-1880 that measures a whopping 8½ ” x 4½” x 3.”

https://www.ebay.com/i/303549704540?chn=ps

Concerning the suggestion that the cotton strips were originally in Kate Eddowes’ matchbox--I am not insisting this. Read my original post. The cotton could have been cotton balls, or the press could have simply got it wrong. I am merely theorizing why the original press report claimed the tin match box contained ‘cotton,’ while, at the mortuary, the box was listed it as empty.

Yes, very convincing. I expect Kate secreted about her person one of the biggest match boxes known to man at the time, so it would have at least the capacity for a load of fresh [cotton] balls for first aid purposes [or removing her make-up every night perhaps?], if not quite enough space for the dozen sanitary towel sized - er - sanitary towels, made from white rag. [Has Trevor M pinched R.J's username, I'm wondering?]

If R.J would care to read an earlier post of his on this subject, he might see some 'very good clues' he left for himself, which could have cleared up his confusion.

He mentioned the following:

twelve pieces of white rag, some slightly blood-stained

a piece of red flannel containing pins & needles

A small metal button.

A common metal thimble.

R.J even suggested the following: '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?'

Yet now we are expected to consider that the match box could have been a particularly large one, to accommodate cotton balls, which were removed and then got lost or thrown away, or even tossed to one side, and were therefore never itemised, leaving this capacious tin box empty - or to accommodate the dozen pieces of white rag, some slightly blood-stained [Kate's sanitary rags or R.J's first aid requisites], which were not lost or tossed, but carefully itemised, leaving the same capacious tin box empty.

Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask why Kate, who had been a walking sewing basket, with her pins, her needles, her button and her thimble, didn't have any sewing cotton - thread - on her? Or did she? If she kept it in a normal sized match box, it could very easily have got lost, or thrown away, or tossed to one side, between recording the item initially as a 'tin match box containing cotton', and then as '1 Tin MatchBox, empty'.

Simples, and I suspect they weren't the only ones to lose the thread.

And then if Mike Barrett had wanted his 'Sir Jim' to open a tin match box in the dark [with or without any cotton thread in it] and curse upon finding it devoid of matches, he could have made it so, without proving himself a silly faker in the process.

This should tell any reasonable person that the diary dates to after the late 1980s, and lo and behold, Barrett owned a book that lists the “one tin match box, empty”—Paul Harrison’s book, page 67.

How do I know Barrett was familiar with this passage? Because Barrett mentions page 67 of Harrison’s book in his research notes—and more than once. (see page 14 of Barrett’s notes, which can be found both here and on Howard Brown’s site). This will also tell you what Mike was thinking about when he wrote about “Abberline” (sic) holding an item back.

It was the mustard tin containing pawn tickets--also mentioned on page 67. Barrett suggests "Abberline" (sic: McWilliam) held a ticket back. Of interest is that Paul Harrison is the only source that lists Eddowes' mustard tin as part of the complete inventory of her items. He also lists it directly next to "one tin match box, empty."

As I haven't got Paul Harrison's book, I will take R.J's word for it that he lists it as "one tin match box, empty", and not as Martin Fido does, as: '1 Tin MatchBox, empty'.

But I do have my own copy of Mike's research notes, and while he pondered the question of whether the 'very good clue' could have been a third pawn ticket Maybrick had taken from the mustard tin, which Abberline kept out of the papers 'hoping that the Ripper would make the mistake of redeaming [sic] the ticket', Mike himself adds ('although I have to admit this is unlikely'). He goes on: 'Maybrick says he has left a clue. In spite of what is written about the pawn ticket, I think the clue he left was his initial.'

But Mike decided to leave it much vaguer than that when he WRot his DAiry, referring only to a 'very good clue' left at the scene. He could have had soooo much more fun with this, if only he'd seen R.J's lovely BRYANT & MAY tin match boxes, in all their glory, sporting Florie's nickname for James, no less. Mike could have capitalised on this - in both senses - and had Maybrick leave his name right there - MAY - for all the blind fools to see, just like he capitalised on the words of the Punch cartoon.

Bongo missed a trick.

And so, I suspect, has R.J.

This has nothing to do with being a diary 'supporter'. It is about whether Mike Barrett, and others once named by him, faked it in 1992. If RJ, among others, remains 100% certain in his own mind, that this is the only possible conclusion, based on all the evidence he has seen and heard to date, then what both Keith and I simply cannot understand is why it would bother him that not everyone agrees? Why 'engage' with the subject for this long, and with those who continue to express doubts about Mike's forgery claims, if he considers us to be either as thick as mince or thick as thieves?

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi

A question for some of the more knowledgeable proponents of the Ripper case, you know Mr Palmer, Simon Wood, (even though I believe JTR was a single individual) you know individuals of that ilk.

At what stage in the saga was it suggested that the Ripper murdered five women, and five women only? We know the Macnagten memorandum didn't emerge until 1959, but did anyone else put forward the case for the five canonicals prior to that?

[jmenges]

Hi

A question for some of the more knowledgeable proponents of the Ripper case, you know Mr Palmer, Simon Wood, (even though I believe JTR was a single individual) you know individuals of that ilk.

At what stage in the saga was it suggested that the Ripper murdered five women, and five women only? We know the Macnagten memorandum didn't emerge until 1959, but did anyone else put forward the case for the five canonicals prior to that?

F.P. Wensley said in his memoirs that there were "officially only five, but possibly six" victims.

There might be more examples using "five victims only", like Griffiths, but I've not looked yet.

Edit- Wensley wrote "officially five" in 1931.

JM