Was Eleanor Bridge Mrs Hammersmith?

[rjpalmer]

There is more than a slight inconsistency in suggesting that both Maybrick’s vices and his protestant beliefs might have prevented him from reading a Catholic author, don’t you think? What was he, a low-living scoundrel, or a man with deep religious convictions? Deeper, presumably, than those of the Presbyterian and Anglican men of the cloth such as Grosart and Ashe who clearly had no problem with Crashaw’s ‘Catholic’ poetry.

If you’d left out the ‘protestant’, my chuckle muscles wouldn’t have been stimulated.

Over-egging rarely results in a satisfying pudding.

No, I don't see an 'inconsistency,' Gary. Not in the least. We've all met the pompous hypocrite who outwardly professes to be religious, but who has never given such matters any great thought, and whose morality is merely a way of being conventional--the necessary outward show of righteousness that is convenient for 'getting on' in the business world, but is immediately abandoned when they drink and double-dip and snort white powders and womanize. These are precisely the sorts who would profess to be disgusted by 'Romanism'--because that is the conventional and the expected attitude of those in their circle.

I don't see a 'protestant' businessman like Maybrick having much of anything in common with a 'protestant' like Ashe. Or even a Protestant like Sir Robert Anderson.

But all of this is idle chit-chat, is it not, for we know Maybrick didn't write the diary, so why the need to pretend that he could quote Crashaw from memory?

Let's keep in mind that during its first two years of existence, 1992-1994, no one knew that Crashaw was quoted in the Diary. Many suspected that 'Oh Costly' [O Costly] was a quote, but no one could place it, even though many tried.

And what great scholar finally identified it for the first time?

None other than Mike Barrett, alias 'Mr. Williams,' --the same bloke who brought the diary to market in the first place! Worse yet, he found it in the middle of an essay on literary criticism, which to my mind, and the mind of others, is a near impossibility unless he knew where to find it to begin with.

It's a bit like a confessed murderer telling the police that they could find the victim's bloody clothing in under a haystack on the edge of town, and lo, when they check, the bloody clothing is indeed under the haystack.

It doesn't precisely prove he did the deed, but it certainly suggests that he had inside knowledge.

[Scott Nelson]

For me, it would need to have been written prior to 9th March 1992.

As I've suggested Caroline, I think Devereux rewrote the diary after watching the 1988 miniseries and incorporated various Abberline snippets here and there.

[MrBarnett]

RJ,

You say,


“I see Gary Barnett is chuckling elsewhere over the opinion that a middle-class protestant cotton broker whose tastes ran to money, women, horses, and arsenic wouldn't likely have been a connoisseur of a 17th Century Roman Catholic metaphysical poet.”

Not entirely true, is it?

I was chuckling solely at the absurdity of the idea that Maybrick’s protestantism might have prevented him from being familiar with Crashaw.

There is more than a slight inconsistency in suggesting that both Maybrick’s vices and his protestant beliefs might have prevented him from reading a Catholic author, don’t you think? What was he, a low-living scoundrel, or a man with deep religious convictions? Deeper, presumably, than those of the Presbyterian and Anglican men of the cloth such as Grosart and Ashe who clearly had no problem with Crashaw’s ‘Catholic’ poetry.

If you’d left out the ‘protestant’, my chuckle muscles wouldn’t have been stimulated.

Over-egging rarely results in a satisfying pudding.


Gary

[caz]

I dispute this, but haven't the time or desire to go into it at the moment. Barrett is hardly going to produce his copy of the Sphere Guide in 1992 & 1993 when he is still trying to convince Harrison, Montgomery, and the world that the Diary is genuine! The idea daft. Of course he wouldn't have presented his copy of the Sphere Guide until after he began confessing.

I'm not about to go through all this again, but I'm curious as to which bit you dispute. Have you seen the copy he handed Gray in December 1994? If you had, you'd know it couldn't have been sent to Mike brand new, for a charity appeal, back in 1989, as he claimed. If not, what makes you think he had this same copy back in 1992, and why would he have needed to lie about how he got it? Why not admit that he found it in a used bookshop, in line with the condition of the book?

How do you know he doesn't reference Rumbelow? Have you heard all of the Alan Gray tapes?

I don't. That's why I said: 'Even if he said nothing about reading Rumbelow's book...'

And he was hardly going to make a false confession in 1992/1993, any more than a true one, so I'm not sure that argument really works. I'm quite sure he didn't give Alan Gray in conversation a list of the books he is meant to have consulted, or the affidavit fell seriously short by not following the desired script. Convenient, isn't it, to put this down to Gray not being au fait with what the modern hoax believers needed to see transferred to the affidavit, and Mike being too befuddled at the time to produce the right goods.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be confusing me with someone who believes Maybrick himself had a penchant for quoting Crashaw. At least I don't believe for a single second that Mike Barrett did when the diary first emerged.

Have a good evening.

[caz]

I'm sure Eddie exists. I've been told that he's even been on video.

It's just a little difficult to entertain the idea that he is guilty of theft and rubbing elbows with Mike Barrett when all we know is that he lived on Fountain Road and once worked for an electrician, though evidently in a non-official capacity.

It's like accusing George Hutchinson of murder when, as far as I know, he was a six-foot one-armed choir boy with bright red-hair who helped little old ladies cross the Whitechapel Road.

But I can understand the need to keep him a cypher, so thanks anyway.

Well, RJ, my logic may not be up to yours, but surely one could only 'keep' Eddie a cypher, if he was one to start with.

You are of course free to believe he is a cypher, all the while you admit to not knowing much about him, and have not quite grasped what has already been posted about this electrician's brief employment by Portus & Rhodes. And you can also believe that those naughty diary defenders know just as little as you do, but are too afraid to admit it, and who among the true Barrett believers would blame you, or not share those beliefs?

I'm not being difficult here, but a thank you wouldn't go amiss, for letting you carry on believing for a while longer.

[rjpalmer]

I think you just poured cold water on your own theory there, RJ, because the evidence strongly indicates that Mike didn't have access to the right Sphere volume until late 1994, nearly three years after the diary emerged, and the copy he finally handed to Alan Gray was not new and had signs of being used by a student.

I dispute this, but haven't the time or desire to go into it at the moment. Barrett is hardly going to produce his copy of the Sphere Guide in 1992 & 1993 when he is still trying to convince Harrison, Montgomery, and the world that the Diary is genuine! The idea daft. Of course he wouldn't have presented his copy of the Sphere Guide until after he began confessing.

Even if he said nothing about reading Rumbelow's book and finding the inspiration for Mrs Hammersmith within its pages, a dozen reasons can be found to explain why he was unable or unwilling to 'hammer' home any of his forgery claims

How do you know he doesn't reference Rumbelow? Have you heard all of the Alan Gray tapes?

Shirley Harrison once mused about Barrett's seeming ability to come up with quotes and phrases, despite not being well-read.

In the Gray tapes, Mike makes an odd reference to the novels of Colin Dexter (of Inspector Morse fame), and, in particular, The Dead of Jericho. His point was that Dexter used to include quotes at the top of his chapter headings, and Barrett evidently memorized a few of these in order to impress others, including Harrison.

As I say, Barrett appears to have been something of a magpie, and so was the diarist when it came to Crashaw.

The Crashaw quote is not an organic part of the text. It is a white elephant. 'Maybrick' makes no other literary quotes, unless one counts Donald McCormick, nor is his own poetic inability ("with the key I did flee") really suggestive of someone who could quote a difficult 17th Century metaphysical poet from memory.

I see Gary Barnett is chuckling elsewhere over the opinion that a middle-class protestant cotton broker whose tastes ran to money, women, horses, and arsenic wouldn't likely have been a connoisseur of a 17th Century Roman Catholic metaphysical poet.

Laugh all you want, but this opinion was shared by two doctorates who were lecturers in English Literature, John Omlor and Martin Fido. It was also shared by a woman who was specifically a Crashaw scholar--a friend of Omlor's.

Yes, there were a few religious types and few minor poets who read Crashaw, but that's world's away from Maybrick. Not many freemasons in the late Victorian Age were pro-Catholic. It wasn't absolutely forbidden, but most of them were anti-Catholic.

Just to mention a few names familiar to Ripperologists, Sir Robert Anderson, Chief Inspector Littlechild, and Supt. Charles Cutbush all had strong anti-Catholic leanings.

What evidence is there to suggest Maybrick read 17th Century metaphysical poetry? Or approved of Catholicism?

Have a good day.

[rjpalmer]

I'm sure Eddie exists. I've been told that he's even been on video.

It's just a little difficult to entertain the idea that he is guilty of theft and rubbing elbows with Mike Barrett when all we know is that he lived on Fountain Road and once worked for an electrician, though evidently in a non-official capacity.

It's like accusing George Hutchinson of murder when, as far as I know, he was a six-foot one-armed choir boy with bright red-hair who helped little old ladies cross the Whitechapel Road.

But I can understand the need to keep him a cypher, so thanks anyway.

[caz]

Hi Caz -- Off-topic, but this came up recently, and maybe you wouldn't mind setting the record straight.

It appears that I've misread Eddie Lyon's nickname all these years, and, as I've recently taken more interest in him, I thought I'd ask.

I was certain that I had read someone referring to him as 'Fast Eddie,' but it appears that the name that James Johnston used was actually 'Fat Eddie.'

For the record, was this nickname given to him by the electricians, or is this just a joke by Johnston and others? Was he a large fellow?

Since flashy nicknames are usually reserved for criminals, gang members, or jazz musicians, it seems somewhat relevant.

One of the problems we humble readers face when pondering what role, if any, people like Eddie Lyons may have played in the saga is that we know utterly nothing about them.

I'm assuming he exists, but Eddie Lyons is no more a physical reality in my mind than George Hutchinson. It's just a name. A cypher.

If we knew more about people like Eddie, we might actually be able to judge their character and their credibility .

Do you see the problem?

I see it might be a problem for you, RJ, but it needn't be. You can simply believe Eddie doesn't exist as far as you are concerned, and rest easy that he was therefore not working at Battlecrease on March 9, 1992, didn't live on the same street as Tony D, and has never supped a pint in the Saddle. I'm in no particular hurry to create an Eddie shaped problem for you.

Whatever makes you comfortable.

[caz]

When Melvin Harris suggested that Barret was merely the handler of a hoax created by others--whom he identified as Devereux and 'A.N. Other'-- I suspect that he meant Devereux and Anne Graham.

Some have suspected that he meant Devereux and Kane, but I don't think so.

Devereux and Graham were Alan Gray's suspects, after he washed his hands of Barrett, and I think Melvin was just mirroring Gray. I also believe that Melvin's idea was that the penman was only used as a scribe, but played no other role, or, in other words, that those who created the artifact weren't necessarily those who created the text.

Of course, all of this has been disputed by others.

Not quite following this, RJ. Who do you suppose Melvin had down as the penman in that case, assuming he abandoned his Citizen Kane theory? Tony D or Anne?

I wonder what Melvin meant when he said that neither Mike nor Anne created the diary, but were merely its handlers and placers?

I always assumed he suspected Tony D of creating the text and having his mate Mr Kane copy it into the scrapbook, before getting the Barretts to take over the marketing process - preferably waiting for him to die unexpectedly, so he couldn't be questioned.

I also thought it threw Melvin a bit to read Mike's affidavit and find the name of Kane conspicuous by its absence, and Anne being accused of the actual writing. Maybe that was when Melvin dropped Kane in favour of able Anne?

[caz]

Caz takes me to task for presenting an allegedly circular argument, but she's in the same predicament. What the 'old hoax' theorists fail to explain is what the old hoaxer hoped to gain by dropping the name of some obscure person ("Mrs. Hammersmith") that the target audience had no hope of recognizing.

Or is she suggesting that the intended audience of the Maybrick hoax DID recognize 'Mrs. Hammersmith'?

Again...nice theory, but there is no way of proving it. And, unlike Feldy, etc., she doesn't even have 'true belief' to fall back on, so Mrs. Hammersmith is just as much a problem for her theory as it is for mine.

And perhaps even more so.

Perhaps you could tell me, RJ, what Caz's theory is, because I'm buggered if I know.

Your theory is that the diary author had a 'target audience', and wrote everything - including Mrs Hammersmith - with this in mind, hoping to gain something from the creative process and audience reaction.

It's a theory that I can neither accept nor reject, not having your ability to read between lines and see the skulduggery there. Sometimes, people will write diaries, draft short stories, or try their hand at a novel, play or poem, for their own use, their own satisfaction and amusement, without the intention, hope or even desire for their efforts to reach an audience. They may base their work on reality and use facts where possible, or employ a mix of fact and fiction, or use only invention and imagination to create something that would, if made public, typically come with a disclaimer about the characters bearing no relation to living persons. The author wouldn't need to fear being sued for libel if their characters were real but no longer living, but if the Maybrick diary had been written too close to the events portrayed, I doubt the author would have submitted it for publication.

You see, I think the hoaxer was writing what amounts to a novella. The heroine Florence Maybrick discovers her husband is Jack the Ripper and she fatally poisons him.

Absolutely fair enough, RJ, if at the end of the creative process the author was willing and able to hit a wide audience with this thing. But in that case would it not have been meant to be read as a novella, handwritten by someone who wasn't trying to fool anyone with an attempted imitation of Maybrick's handwriting? I see this as by far the most likely explanation for the lack of imitation - the author simply wasn't asking or expecting anyone to believe it was Maybrick's own work.

To this end, the hoaxer needs to introduce the idea that Florence knows about Jim's dangerous drug addiction, but doesn't confront him about it--yet. Instead, the novelist has Sir Jim learning about Florrie's suspicions through an off-hand remark made by a nosey neighbor: Mrs. Hammersmith.

But our novelist is also a hoaxer who has limited knowledge. The only details they really know about Maybrick's life are those that can be found in Bernard Ryan's book about the 1889 trial of Florence Maybrick.

And because of this, they don't know the name of Maybrick's immediate neighbors, so, rather than doing any original research to find out, they simply make it up. 'Mrs. Hammersmith.'

But Bernard Ryan does make plenty of references to Mrs Briggs, who was a constant presence in Battlecrease, and likely receiver of the latest family gossip. She gave her address at Florie's trial as Livingston Avenue, Sefton Park. The name Briggs, in northern England, is derived from the word 'bridge' - so the nickname of Mrs Hammersmith fits perfectly into the diary of a character who plays with words and names.

Bernard Ryan doesn't help a hoaxer with what Dr Fuller told JM about his health. His narrative uses no direct quotes, yet the diary contains a perfect five-word phrase, as used by Fuller himself at Florie's trial in 1889. No way to identify or isolate this from Ryan's surrounding narrative, even if you knew that he closely followed his primary sources, often using similar, though not identical words and phrases. But of course, as a modern hoaxer, you can't know if Ryan did this without having a good handle on those primary sources yourself, and recognising the similarities in language. And if you had that, you wouldn't need to rely on Ryan and pure chance, for a verbatim quote by Fuller!

For what it is worth, 'Hammersmith' appears twice in Donald Rumbelow's book. He mentions MJD's last train ticket, but also briefly discusses the Hammersmith nudes case.

Right, so Mike Barrett picked up on Monty Druitt's association with Hammersmith, and also the modern 'nudes' case, and thought it would be a great idea for James Maybrick's DAiry, to call an invented female character Mrs Hammersmith? It's a bit left field, isn't it, even for Mike? I'm not annoyed by this idea, and I'm more bemused than dismissive. It can't be proved or disproved, and Mike is the gift that keeps on giving. Even if he said nothing about reading Rumbelow's book and finding the inspiration for Mrs Hammersmith within its pages, a dozen reasons can be found to explain why he was unable or unwilling to 'hammer' home any of his forgery claims, for his target audience when in the mood to confess all.

None of this proves that this is the genesis of Mrs. Hammersmith, of course, but, to my thinking, Mike just randomly grabbing a name while flipping through a book aligns rather nicely with Mike just flipping through the Sphere Guide to find a line by Richard Crashaw.

I think you just poured cold water on your own theory there, RJ, because the evidence strongly indicates that Mike didn't have access to the right Sphere volume until late 1994, nearly three years after the diary emerged, and the copy he finally handed to Alan Gray was not new and had signs of being used by a student.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Caz -- Off-topic, but this came up recently, and maybe you wouldn't mind setting the record straight.

It appears that I've misread Eddie Lyon's nickname all these years, and, as I've recently taken more interest in him, I thought I'd ask.

I was certain that I had read someone referring to him as 'Fast Eddie,' but it appears that the name that James Johnston used was actually 'Fat Eddie.'

For the record, was this nickname given to him by the electricians, or is this just a joke by Johnston and others? Was he a large fellow?

Since flashy nicknames are usually reserved for criminals, gang members, or jazz musicians, it seems somewhat relevant.

One of the problems we humble readers face when pondering what role, if any, people like Eddie Lyons may have played in the saga is that we know utterly nothing about them.

I'm assuming he exists, but Eddie Lyons is no more a physical reality in my mind than George Hutchinson. It's just a name. A cypher.

If we knew more about people like Eddie, we might actually be able to judge their character and their credibility .

Do you see the problem?

[rjpalmer]

Agree, R.J. Except possibly substitute Tony Devereux for Mike Barrett. Devereux also working from an older source, but making up new misinformation as well.

When Melvin Harris suggested that Barret was merely the handler of a hoax created by others--whom he identified as Devereux and 'A.N. Other'-- I suspect that he meant Devereux and Anne Graham.

Some have suspected that he meant Devereux and Kane, but I don't think so.

Devereux and Graham were Alan Gray's suspects, after he washed his hands of Barrett, and I think Melvin was just mirroring Gray. I also believe that Melvin's idea was that the penman was only used as a scribe, but played no other role, or, in other words, that those who created the artifact weren't necessarily those who created the text.

Of course, all of this has been disputed by others.

[caz]

It kind of sounds like there were two documents involved, one with verifiable facts and another with unverifiable "facts". Maybe someone reworking a older text in modern times. No?

I have wondered before about this possibility, Scott, that the diary we have may have begun life in another form and then been adapted by whoever found or possessed the original. It would explain why no attempt was made to copy the real Maybrick's handwriting, if neither version was ever intended for publication or profit. But how modern would the 'modern times' have been? For me, it would need to have been written prior to 9th March 1992.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

Agree, R.J. Except possibly substitute Tony Devereux for Mike Barrett. Devereux also working from an older source, but making up new misinformation as well.

[rjpalmer]

It kind of sounds like there were two documents involved, one with verifiable facts and another with unverifiable "facts". Maybe someone reworking a older text in modern times. No?

Unfortunately, I think the philosopher Karl Popper would pop-in at this juncture and point out that this suggestion is non-falsifiable.

How do we know the unverified facts are really 'facts' if they aren't verified?

We can't hope to prove something is non-existent to a true believer; for all eternity they will simply argue that the thing does exist...we just haven't found it yet.

In other words, Members of the Society for the Advancement of the Maybrick Diary can claim, speculate, theorize, etc., that Mrs. Hammersmith and the Manchester strangulation murder are yet-to-be-discovered 'facts,' and all I can do is point out that after 27+ years of Desperately Seeking Susan they still haven't gotten any closer to proving it.

But it's not like that is going to stop them.

Caz takes me to task for presenting an allegedly circular argument, but she's in the same predicament. What the 'old hoax' theorists fail to explain is what the old hoaxer hoped to gain by dropping the name of some obscure person ("Mrs. Hammersmith") that the target audience had no hope of recognizing.

Or is she suggesting that the intended audience of the Maybrick hoax DID recognize 'Mrs. Hammersmith'?

Again...nice theory, but there is no way of proving it. And, unlike Feldy, etc., she doesn't even have 'true belief' to fall back on, so Mrs. Hammersmith is just as much a problem for her theory as it is for mine.

And perhaps even more so.

You see, I think the hoaxer was writing what amounts to a novella. The heroine Florence Maybrick discovers her husband is Jack the Ripper and she fatally poisons him.

To this end, the hoaxer needs to introduce the idea that Florence knows about Jim's dangerous drug addiction, but doesn't confront him about it--yet. Instead, the novelist has Sir Jim learning about Florrie's suspicions through an off-hand remark made by a nosey neighbor: Mrs. Hammersmith.

But our novelist is also a hoaxer who has limited knowledge. The only details they really know about Maybrick's life are those that can be found in Bernard Ryan's book about the 1889 trial of Florence Maybrick.

And because of this, they don't know the name of Maybrick's immediate neighbors, so, rather than doing any original research to find out, they simply make it up. 'Mrs. Hammersmith.'

For what it is worth, 'Hammersmith' appears twice in Donald Rumbelow's book. He mentions MJD's last train ticket, but also briefly discusses the Hammersmith nudes case.


None of this proves that this is the genesis of Mrs. Hammersmith, of course, but, to my thinking, Mike just randomly grabbing a name while flipping through a book aligns rather nicely with Mike just flipping through the Sphere Guide to find a line by Richard Crashaw.

Those who believe the Diary is a more complex document will obviously be annoyed and dismissive of this idea.