Special Announcement

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As I don't have a dog in this race, my mind turned to the meaning of Lobster.

I found Caz's original — Lord O's Big Sexy Truest Ever Reveal — and then came up with —

Lashings Of BS To Exasperate Ripperologists.

Stay safe everybody.

Simon

[The Baron]

I'm glad that you hold would-be historians to such high standards, Caz.

Splendid.

After how many years? 20.. 30? years of researching, you recieve such a criticism!

Are you satisfied now Caz?! Proud of yourself?

Happy Lobster for you!


The Baron

[Kattrup]

I suppose that's for others to judge, Kattrup. Your question did strike me as below the belt, unnecessarily provocative, and not one you genuinely expected me to answer

It’s not for others to judge when you’ve already stated the answer, is it?


My question was a natural follow-up to your statement:

Apologies if Inside Story misled anyone by sticking to the chronology of what we know happened on what date, without always going the extra mile to explain who knew about it and when.

If Inside Story misled people on this point, as you admitted, it is natural to want to know if the rest of the book could mislead as well.

That is neither below the belt nor unnecessarily provocative, and of course I expected an answer - seeing as you know about the error you made, and the editorial choices prioritizing readability over precision, do you consider the rest of the book generally trustworthy or not?

As I then explained to you, David Barrat still had his Whay and Harrison communications mixed up when you read this. We don't refer to the conversation on January 16th 1995. This one related back to what Mike Barrett told Harold Brough in June 1994 about obtaining what Shirley described as an 'unremarkable empty album'. It would be another two years before she had sight of Mike's January 1995 affidavit, and was able to share it with Kevin Whay and ask him to do a new search based on Mike's complete change of story to an album with 125 pages of WWI photos plus a compass. All the information needed for David B to correct his own misleading claims about the purpose of the above-mentioned phone call was posted around 4 months ago for RJ Palmer's benefit, and it has now been posted again for yours.

Maybe you could do the honours and make sure David B knows about it this time, so he won't be caught again with his pants down concerning who knew about Mike's affidavit and when.

Well, you’ve certainly explained something but seeing as the book Inside Story unequivocally states the phone call took place “soon after Barrett’s affidavit was made public” and that Keith Skinner, as you know, has stated the phone call took place January 16th 1995, I’m not sure who’s getting caught with his or her pants down.
It’s of course possible that Inside Story or Keith Skinner conflated two different conversations, but that is hardly anyone else’s fault, is it?

It really seems like it would be a lot easier if you’d just read David Orsam’s page yourself. As he is the best informed and most reliable researcher writing about the diary, his posts are sure to benefit your understanding of the “mystery”.

Then you and David B and RJP and Observer and Abby Normal and The Baron and Uncle Tom Cobley & All might wish to consider why Melvin Harris didn't want Shirley and co seeing that affidavit and investigating its new claims when Mike first swore it, and why a version of it eventually found its way onto the internet before Shirley even got a sniff.

How did Melvin Harris suppres the affidavit?

That's great, Kattrup. I'm happy to draw a line under that unfortunate question, and you can find out for your own satisfaction how David B has reacted to his own mistake over what Shirley was enquiring about and when.

You’ll underline which question, mine? Why underline it, do you mean strike a line through it? I already know how David B has reacted and I don’t think he’s made a mistake.
Your reaction, as evidenced by your posts, is well-known and in my opinion reflects poorly on you.

[rjpalmer]

Do you really think there was only one possible interpretation of the aunt/Godmother reference, and therefore Keith and co 'suppressed' it deliberately, knowing it would instantly kill off the diary, with or without a credible forgery claim from Mike Barrett?

Come on now, RJ, I don't believe you are that naive.

Hi Caz, it would help a great deal if you would actually read what is being discussed. And for the record, I only said Feldman suppressed it; you are the one that has included Graham and Keith into the mix. Graham (to some degree) corrected this error in her book.

What you don’t seem to comprehend, Caz, is that there is not a jot of evidence that Florence Maybrick or anyone else ever referred to Florence Phelan [The Countess de Gabriac---not The Countess de Gabrielle, as Smith, Feldman, and Anne Graham wrongly call her] as Flo’s aunt during Maybrick’s lifetime. Dr. Hopper, in his unpublished statement, reveals that JAMES MAYBRICK HIMSELF referred to the Countess as Florrie’s godmother during the argument over Florrie’s proposed trip to London. She wasn’t Florrie’s aunt; she wasn’t even her blood relative; she was a friend of her mother’s. Yet ‘Maybrick’ of the Diary, in a passage supposedly written after this same argument, refers to her as his wife’s aunt. If you can't see a problem in that, than there's little I can do for you.

The FIRST TIME (and what should have been the last time) that anyone made this mistake came AFTER James Maybrick’s death, when John Addison, in his statement to the court, got into a muddle and called her Florrie’s aunt instead of her godmother. (Orsam speculates, very plausibly, that Addison was thinking of ‘Aunt M’ from a previous visit Florrie had made to London). Addison’s error was then repeated in secondary sources up until the time of Anne Graham’s book--which Orsam references and acknowledges.

You really should bite the bullet and read the article before commenting further, Caz. The Diary repeats an error made in court after Maybrick’s death (just as ‘Maybrick’of the Diary quotes other trial testimony made after his own demise), so, yes, it is clearly an error in the text traceable to Addison, and, in my estimation, traceable to modern secondary sources.

Why? Because the Diary simply does not have the wealth of detail one would expect from a hoax created from obscure, primary sources. It just repeats the same basic details found in Ryan, Christie, etc., and offers nothing new whatsoever and even repeats their same errors, as the above demonstrates. It is simply inconceivable that two independent authors would access the same vast trove of archival documentation and come up with exactly the same overlap of data, with no exceptions, and with the same errors. That is where the ‘old hoax’ theory flounders and fails: not a smoking textual gun; just cold, hard, boring, but deadly plausibility.

By the way, had you actually read the article, you would see that Lord O nowhere claims that Feldman suppressed evidence. He simply states that no one (evidently including Graham and Skinner) had noticed that this error directly contradicts what the hoaxer had written in the black ledger. I’m somewhat more skeptical. Considering Feldman’s obsession with Florence Maybrick’s genealogy, and the fact that Graham correctly identifies de Gabrielle [sic: Gabriac] as Flo’s godmother, I am at a loss to comprehend why Feldy would still be referring to her as Flo’s aunt, unless he was hellbent on avoiding exposing a textual anomaly. But then, maybe I’m being too much of a hard-arse.

Really—just how many ‘barnacles’ needs to cling to the hull of a ship before everyone admits that it is no longer seaworthy? Are five errors not enough? How many does one need? Can anyone give me a ballpark figure of how many textual ‘anomalies’ need to be present before we can all openly admit that a document is bogus? I hate to repeat myself, but one of Mark Hoffman’s forgeries was dismissed by Lincoln scholars because it was simply folded incorrectly! But maybe they have higher standards.

As for Harris, I know nothing about it. My understanding is that on at least one occasion Melvin offered to work with Harrison, but she declined. I think this had to do with the ink testing. Afterwards there was little or no cooperation.

Presumably the affidavit would have fallen under attorney/client privilege, and Barrett’s solicitor had advised Mike in early 1995 (I quote from memory) “to stop killing the goose that is laying the golden egg (!)”, so I can’t imagine that Bark Jones would have gone all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of Mike turning over his confession to those still promoting The Diary as an authentic document. But perhaps you know differently? I don’t know—or remember--the precise details of its eventual release.

Why was Keith quizzing Anne about the red diary if he didn’t know about Barrett’s 5 January 1995 affidavit? When, how, and from whom did he learn of its existence? I’m curious.

With all good wishes.

[MrBarnett]

It’s not for others to judge when you’ve already stated the answer, is it?


My question was a natural follow-up to your statement:

If Inside Story misled people on this point, as you admitted, it is natural to want to know if the rest of the book could mislead as well.

That is neither below the belt nor unnecessarily provocative, and of course I expected an answer - seeing as you know about the error you made, and the editorial choices prioritizing readability over precision, do you consider the rest of the book generally trustworthy or not?

Well, you’ve certainly explained something but seeing as the book Inside Story unequivocally states the phone call took place “soon after Barrett’s affidavit was made public” and that Keith Skinner, as you know, has stated the phone call took place January 16th 1995, I’m not sure who’s getting caught with his or her pants down.
It’s of course possible that Inside Story or Keith Skinner conflated two different conversations, but that is hardly anyone else’s fault, is it?

It really seems like it would be a lot easier if you’d just read David Orsam’s page yourself. As he is the best informed and most reliable researcher writing about the diary, his posts are sure to benefit your understanding of the “mystery”.

How did Melvin Harris suppres the affidavit?
You’ll underline which question, mine? Why underline it, do you mean strike a line through it? I already know how David B has reacted and I don’t think he’s made a mistake.
Your reaction, as evidenced by your posts, is well-known and in my opinion reflects poorly on you.

Hi Kattrup,

To ‘draw a line under’ something is to bring it to a close.

To ‘underline’ something is to highlight it.

I think Caz probably meant what she said.




Gary

[MrBarnett]

Hi Caz, it would help a great deal if you would actually read what is being discussed. And for the record, I only said Feldman suppressed it; you are the one that has included Graham and Keith into the mix. Graham (to some degree) corrected this error in her book.

What you don’t seem to comprehend, Caz, is that there is not a jot of evidence that Florence Maybrick or anyone else ever referred to Florence Phelan [The Countess de Gabriac---not The Countess de Gabrielle, as Smith, Feldman, and Anne Graham wrongly call her] as Flo’s aunt during Maybrick’s lifetime. Dr. Hopper, in his unpublished statement, reveals that JAMES MAYBRICK HIMSELF referred to the Countess as Florrie’s godmother during the argument over Florrie’s proposed trip to London. She wasn’t Florrie’s aunt; she wasn’t even her blood relative; she was a friend of her mother’s. Yet ‘Maybrick’ of the Diary, in a passage supposedly written after this same argument, refers to her as his wife’s aunt. If you can't see a problem in that, than there's little I can do for you.

The FIRST TIME (and what should have been the last time) that anyone made this mistake came AFTER James Maybrick’s death, when John Addison, in his statement to the court, got into a muddle and called her Florrie’s aunt instead of her godmother. (Orsam speculates, very plausibly, that Addison was thinking of ‘Aunt M’ from a previous visit Florrie had made to London). Addison’s error was then repeated in secondary sources up until the time of Anne Graham’s book--which Orsam references and acknowledges.

You really should bite the bullet and read the article before commenting further, Caz. The Diary repeats an error made in court after Maybrick’s death (just as ‘Maybrick’of the Diary quotes other trial testimony made after his own demise), so, yes, it is clearly an error in the text traceable to Addison, and, in my estimation, traceable to modern secondary sources.

Why? Because the Diary simply does not have the wealth of detail one would expect from a hoax created from obscure, primary sources. It just repeats the same basic details found in Ryan, Christie, etc., and offers nothing new whatsoever and even repeats their same errors, as the above demonstrates. It is simply inconceivable that two independent authors would access the same vast trove of archival documentation and come up with exactly the same overlap of data, with no exceptions, and with the same errors. That is where the ‘old hoax’ theory flounders and fails: not a smoking textual gun; just cold, hard, boring, but deadly plausibility.

By the way, had you actually read the article, you would see that Lord O nowhere claims that Feldman suppressed evidence. He simply states that no one (evidently including Graham and Skinner) had noticed that this error directly contradicts what the hoaxer had written in the black ledger. I’m somewhat more skeptical. Considering Feldman’s obsession with Florence Maybrick’s genealogy, and the fact that Graham correctly identifies de Gabrielle [sic: Gabriac] as Flo’s godmother, I am at a loss to comprehend why Feldy would still be referring to her as Flo’s aunt, unless he was hellbent on avoiding exposing a textual anomaly. But then, maybe I’m being too much of a hard-arse.

Really—just how many ‘barnacles’ needs to cling to the hull of a ship before everyone admits that it is no longer seaworthy? Are five errors not enough? How many does one need? Can anyone give me a ballpark figure of how many textual ‘anomalies’ need to be present before we can all openly admit that a document is bogus? I hate to repeat myself, but one of Mark Hoffman’s forgeries was dismissed by Lincoln scholars because it was simply folded incorrectly! But maybe they have higher standards.

As for Harris, I know nothing about it. My understanding is that on at least one occasion Melvin offered to work with Harrison, but she declined. I think this had to do with the ink testing. Afterwards there was little or no cooperation.

Presumably the affidavit would have fallen under attorney/client privilege, and Barrett’s solicitor had advised Mike in early 1995 (I quote from memory) “to stop killing the goose that is laying the golden egg (!)”, so I can’t imagine that Bark Jones would have gone all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of Mike turning over his confession to those still promoting The Diary as an authentic document. But perhaps you know differently? I don’t know—or remember--the precise details of its eventual release.

Why was Keith quizzing Anne about the red diary if he didn’t know about Barrett’s 5 January 1995 affidavit? When, how, and from whom did he learn of its existence? I’m curious.

With all good wishes.

Of course, Lord O is not claiming to have added another barnacle to the hull of HMS Diary. He is claiming to have attached a single limpet mine which on its own is enough to sink the vessel.

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

To ‘draw a line under’ something is to bring it to a close.

To ‘underline’ something is to highlight it.

I think Caz probably meant what she said.

okay, thanks - I was unaware of that expression

[Iconoclast]

Hi Caz, it would help a great deal if you would actually read what is being discussed. And for the record, I only said Feldman suppressed it; you are the one that has included Graham and Keith into the mix. Graham (to some degree) corrected this error in her book.

With all good wishes.

Hi "RJ" (),

You can try all you want to turn an irrelevant mention of an aunt into a smoking gun, but it isn't going to work. I appreciate you'll be disappointed, but it's pure cack, mate.

You can't logic this one into a fatal mistake because it isn't and never will be. Maybrick either belived Florrie was off to see her 'aunt' because she had said so, or else he just got a bit muddled when he was writing his scrapbook. I honestly doubt he'd care about what to him was surely a barely-relevant fact.

Maybrick [Thinks]: "I must get every fact in my scrapbook right - even though I'm writing it for my own pleasure. Who knows who might get confused in 130 years time or so if I'm not very careful about what I write, even though I'm much more focused on my feelings of hatred for Florrie and on renewing my murderous campaign that has gripped the entire world. Then again, it's a lot ******* quicker to just write 'aunt', is it not?"

"Ike"

[Abby Normal]

This has to be one of the more bizarre 'spins' I've seen in a good while.

'Orsam' acknowledges that Feldman and his research team must have seen this documentation. Indeed, it was one of the more disturbing aspects of his article...

The point, as I see it, is that Feldman didn't bother to inform his readers that the aunt was actually a godmother. He must have seen this 'anomaly,' as you call it (would a better word be 'error' or 'discrepancy'?) but never mentioned it.

So what 'credit' is due? Credit for suppressing data damaging to the Diary's supposed accuracy?

I suppose it is time once again to quote Howells and Skinner.

"Supporting evidence was only being investigated insofar as it was of value to the plot, and debilitating research was being omitted altogether."

It makes me appreciate Stephen Senise's honesty for quickly informing the community that he had the wrong George Hutchinson. Unfortunately, that attitude is rather rare in what some call "Ripperology."

And no matter what spin anyone puts to this, it certainly doesn't make Feldman look very good, and it make me wonder what else may have been churned up by his research, but was never reported.

RP

well said RJ

and yes wish there were more forthright people like Stephen.

[Abby Normal]

Hi "RJ" (),

You can try all you want to turn an irrelevant mention of an aunt into a smoking gun, but it isn't going to work. I appreciate you'll be disappointed, but it's pure cack, mate.

You can't logic this one into a fatal mistake because it isn't and never will be. Maybrick either belived Florrie was off to see her 'aunt' because she had said so, or else he just got a bit muddled when he was writing his scrapbook. I honestly doubt he'd care about what to him was surely a barely-relevant fact.

Maybrick [Thinks]: "I must get every fact in my scrapbook right - even though I'm writing it for my own pleasure. Who knows who might get confused in 130 years time or so if I'm not very careful about what I write, even though I'm much more focused on my feelings of hatred for Florrie and on renewing my murderous campaign that has gripped the entire world. Then again, it's a lot ******* quicker to just write 'aunt', is it not?"

"Ike"

yeah that must be it. of course its not the bleedin obvious that a modern hoaxer was just repeating a mistake made on the record, the history of all to see now as clearly outlined by Lord Orsam.

[The Baron]

Hi "RJ" (),

You can try all you want to turn an irrelevant mention of an aunt into a smoking gun, but it isn't going to work. I appreciate you'll be disappointed, but it's pure cack, mate.

You can't logic this one into a fatal mistake because it isn't and never will be. Maybrick either belived Florrie was off to see her 'aunt' because she had said so, or else he just got a bit muddled when he was writing his scrapbook. I honestly doubt he'd care about what to him was surely a barely-relevant fact.

Maybrick [Thinks]: "I must get every fact in my scrapbook right - even though I'm writing it for my own pleasure. Who knows who might get confused in 130 years time or so if I'm not very careful about what I write, even though I'm much more focused on my feelings of hatred for Florrie and on renewing my murderous campaign that has gripped the entire world. Then again, it's a lot ******* quicker to just write 'aunt', is it not?"

"Ike"

I am sure Caz and MrBarnett and the other guy (what was his name ..?) will find your post reasonable and rational, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how many errors one can find in this small scrapbook, its all about feelings, about emotions!


The rest of world though will keep laughing, which is a good thing!




The Baron

[MrBarnett]

I am sure Caz and MrBarnett and the other guy (what was his name ..?) will find your post reasonable and rational, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how many errors one can find in this small scrapbook, its all about feelings, about emotions!


The rest of world though will keep laughing, which is a good thing!




The Baron

No, this thread is all about whether the aunt error is in itself is a knockout blow.

It isn’t.

[rjpalmer]

I should correct one error I made in Post #529. For some unknown reason, I called Florrie's trip to London her "purposed trip," when it had already taken place.

And here I thought I was too young for senior moments.

Either way, Dr. Hopper was there in person. His witness statement has Maybrick referring to the Countess as Florrie's godmother, so Maybrick knew the woman's correct relationship to his wife. The error the diarist makes is the exact same error that was made at trial, and has been repeated in 20th Century texts ever since, including the one named by Barrett as one of his major sources.

Draw your own conclusions.

Whether this is 'fatal' or not, depends on one's personal judgment. It is indisputably an error. Personally, I think it is pretty damn fatal. But then, what killed Rasputin? Was it the cyanide, the two gun shot wounds, the beatings, the ice cold river, or all of the above?

It's not like one can't take their pick when it comes to errors in the Diary.

[rjpalmer]

"proposed, purposed, purple prose." I am worst than the Barretts.

Look Out! Barrett's Scam Tricks Eager Ripperologists.

Good-night and good-bye.

[MrBarnett]

And from the Ipswich journal August 16th 1889.
Just to add to the confusion...

Help me out here. Is this reference to Florrie’s aunt an ‘error’ based on the ‘error’ made by Addison, a reference to a genuine aunt other than Florrie’s godmother or a reflection of the godmother being called an aunt within the family?