The Maybrick Thread (For All Things Maybrick)

[Iconoclast]

I have started this thread because there are simply too many threads going on about Maybrick. Gone are the glory days when The Greatest Thread of All allowed us to know where to go to read about Maybrick, so here's an attempt to get some of that glory back into our lives ...

Sorry Ike, when did I ask if it was theoretically possible for the Barretts to have written the diary? Why do people always want to answer different questions to the ones I've asked them? My question, in a nutshell was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?"

I think that it is possible that the Maybrick scrapbook was a hoax written by Mike and Anne Barrett but that there are reasons for suspecting strongly that they did not.

So there are two possible answers:

I think this is another false dichotomy but I'll do my best to be direct nevertheless.

1. The Barretts could not have jointly created the diary because.....[state reason]

Having just acknowledged that - to the best of my recall - I think that it is possible that the Maybrick scrapbook was a hoax written by Mike and Anne Barrett this question (or statement) cannot be answered by me as if it were a categorical truth or falsehood. Your statement is framed in the categorical, you will note.

2. I know of no reason why the Barretts could not have created the diary (or, if you prefer: The Barretts could have jointly created the diary).

I can't answer this statement directly either because I do think that there are reasons for thinking the evidence points strongly away from this possibility (but not sufficiently so in everyone's minds that your first statement then becomes categorically true).

Some examples of why I believe that there are grounds for doubting that the Barretts created a hoax include (but are probably not limited to):

1) Rod McNeil's ion migration test - used by the US Secret Service and the FBI and not to my knowledge ever 'debunked'
2) The aged particles in the watch (which two experts inexplicably failed to state could have been created using an old pin or whatever leaving amateurs and those with a deeply vested interest to introduce this extraordinary explanation for them)
3) The signature in the Maybrick watch with it's idiosyncratic 'k'
4) The astonishing coincidence of the 'double event' of March 9, 1992
5) The actual and circumstantial evidence which points towards authenticity (too numerous to list here - it would take a book to cover them all adequately)
6) Anne's denials and Mike's inability - as the only person ever claiming he created a hoax - to hold a coherent version of the crime, provide an even vaguely convincing case that he did, or provide even a single piece of evidence whatsoever to support his claims
7) Mike providing an account that was evidentially untrue - the obvious example being his claim to have used Diamine Manuscript ink which the head of research at Diamine ink (Alec Voller) stated on more than one occasion was not used in the scrapbook
8) The sheer, mind-bending implausibility of the Barretts having the motivation to pull off what was clearly going to have to be a long-game (they possibly had an extremely patient bank manager, of course)

That's all top-line stuff, my better case will be made in SocPill25, but it's enough for me to rank the odds of Mike and Anne Barrett having created the Maybrick scrapbook about as highly as I would place Stephen Hawking's.

I'm really interested to see if you are prepared to answer my question directly, without ambiguity or caveat, without changing any of the wording, in a form that I could, if I so desired, quote you on.

I trust that my responses show that I could not be as direct as you wished as you yourself introduced ambiguity by seeking a 'could not' when 'could not' is not yet proven true or false. You have to give me a chance here, Herlock.

To the hypothetical question, "Why could James Maybrick not have created the diary?", my unambiguous answer is:
James Maybrick could not have created the diary because the expression "a one off instance" is a modern, 20th century expression, which didn't exist in the 1880s.
And you can quote me on that!

And you would be wrong. The term one-off was clearly in use by 1888 and you have bought in hook, line and sinker to Orsam's dictat that it could only have been used in the literal sense in 1888 when - in reality - we know that it became figurative at some point but we can never be 100% certain of when that point was. We do not have a record anymore of 1888 spoken words and we have almost none of the printed material from that time (letters, etc.) so Orsam has to argue it is incontrovertible when he knows - and you don't - that it is far far from that and never will be.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, to be clear, you do accept that the Barretts could have jointly created the diary?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you would be wrong. The term one-off was clearly in use by 1888 and you have bought in hook, line and sinker to Orsam's dictat that it could only have been used in the literal sense in 1888 when - in reality - we know that it became figurative at some point but we can never be 100% certain of when that point was. We do not have a record anymore of 1888 spoken words and we have almost none of the printed material from that time (letters, etc.) so Orsam has to argue it is incontrovertible when he knows - and you don't - that it is far far from that and never will be.

This couldn’t be more wrong Ike. What you are relying on is a kind “surely it can’t be impossible that…” argument. David has proven that ‘one off instance’ is an anachronistic statement. You and others have had 10 years or do to find just one example…just one…in the whole history of the written word but you have found nothing. Not even close. How long is your caveat Ike. Do you get 10 years or 20 or 30 to find one single example. Or will the goalposts move as each milestone is reached.

David Orsam has achieved the aim of the initial thread. He has provided the One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary.

[rjpalmer]

8) The sheer, mind-bending implausibility of the Barretts having the motivation to pull off what was clearly going to have to be a long-game (they possibly had an extremely patient bank manager, of course)

I see it the t'other way round. The turnaround between composition and payment for Mike's freelance interviews & articles published in the 1980s would have been fairly short. We've seen some of the paperwork. Being unfamiliar with book publishing, Barrett might have wrongly assumed that he would be given a nice advance for the diary's manuscript and the book would be published rather quickly. It's really a non-argument you are making, and I'll be surprised (not really!) if Caroline doesn't accuse you of "reading Mike's mind."

What you're continuing to ignore is that selling the hoax outright to an auction house would have exposed Barrett & Graham to an immediate criminal investigation when it was shown to be a fake (as it was three times before it was published by Smith). This is why Caroline's attempt to compare Konrad Kajau and the Hitler Diary fiasco to Barrett is wide of the mark. The comparison is a false one because Barrett never sold the physical artifact for big bucks like Kajua did. Barrett instead sought out a literary agent. Going the slower route of selling his 'story' and helping Shirley write a book about it was a grayer area legally. He wasn't selling a fake; he was selling his own investigation of a fake on the false premise that he didn't know whether it was real or not and with the safety net that "dead men (Devereux) don't tell tales."

You might not know this, but in the early 2000s the writer Ivor Edwards found a police detective who was willing to reopen a criminal investigation into the diary. Barrett & Graham were never truly investigated--Robert Smith was (Barrett willingly gave an interview to the police during this investigation). But taking advice, this detective of Ivor's had to drop the plan because no criminal complaint had been filed. Who was going to file one? Robert Smith? He was the alleged 'victim,' but he had paid a single pound for the diary, made thousands off it, and was arguing for its authenticity. By going through a publisher and linking his 'victim' to the financial windfall of the hoax, Barrett sidestepped the risk of criminal prosecution.

He wasn't as dumb as some people think.

But this observation, too, is pointless because those emotionally attached to the diary will continue to deny this fundamental fact.

It's how many scams operate, Ike. The scammer makes his 'victim' an unwitting accomplice in the scheme, thus lowering the risk of a criminal complaint or prosecution.

RP

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) Rod McNeil's ion migration test - used by the US Secret Service and the FBI and not to my knowledge ever 'debunked'

I found it odd that you didn't say what the result of Rod McNeil's ion migration test was, so I looked it up. He said the diary was created between 1909 and 1933.

This means that, according to Rod McNeill, James Maybrick couldn't possibly have written the diary, as you say he did.

So tell me, Ike, why would you base your very first point against the Barretts' forging the diary on a test that you strongly believe produced a false result? Why? Why would you do it?

I also couldn't locate any evidence that the US Secret Service or FBI ever used his test. Could you please provide the source of this statement?

2) The aged particles in the watch (which two experts inexplicably failed to state could have been created using an old pin or whatever leaving amateurs and those with a deeply vested interest to introduce this extraordinary explanation for them)

But weren't those expert reports preliminary and heavily caveated?

How, in any case, do aged particles found in a watch tell us whether or not the Barretts could have forged the diary?

3) The signature in the Maybrick watch with it's idiosyncratic 'k'

Please explain how the signature in the Maybrick watch having, in your opinion, an idiosyncratic "k" is relevant to my question of whether the Barretts could have forged the diary.

4) The astonishing coincidence of the 'double event' of March 9, 1992

What is "astonishing" about workmen doing some work in an old house in Liverpool on a particular day? It must surely happen every day of the week, like it happens every day of the week in every town and city in the country.

5) The actual and circumstantial evidence which points towards authenticity (too numerous to list here - it would take a book to cover them all adequately)

I already asked you what the "actual" evidence is which points towards authenticity and you failed to come up with a single piece of such evidence, which undoubtedly means there isn't any.

Far from being "too numerous to list," the reason why you don't provide any examples is because they either don't exist, in the case of "actual" evidence, or are extremely weak, in the case of "circumstantial" evidence.

6) Anne's denials and Mike's inability - as the only person ever claiming he created a hoax - to hold a coherent version of the crime, provide an even vaguely convincing case that he did, or provide even a single piece of evidence whatsoever to support his claims

But if, as you seem to think, the diary came out of Battlecrease, Anne must be a liar mustn't she? How can you place any value in the denials of a liar?

Michael Barrett did provide a coherent version of the crime. I'll repeat it for you. He said came up with the idea to make some money in the late 1980s because of financial difficulties caused by taking on a mortgage. He decided to write a fake diary of Jack the Ripper as if James Maybrick had committed the crimes. After a while, he started his con in 1992 by calling a literary agent in London to see if she'd be interesting in publishing such a diary. When she said she was, he immediately attempted to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages so that he could use that to write the text of his fake diary. When that idea proved unsuccessful he went to an auction house and successfully bid on a photograph album from which he crudely ripped out the pages containing photographs and removed any distinguishing marks. He then dictated the text of the fake dairy which he'd typed on his word processor to his wife who was able to write it out with a fountain pen using nibs and ink acquired specially for the purpose. He then took it to London where Doreen Montgomery saw it and the rest is history.

What is incoherent about that?

And, as I asked Caz, if the physical evidence (i.e. the nibs, ink and receipts) had been destroyed in 1992, as one would expect it to have been, what evidence could he have possibly provided to support his claims?

Mind you, he did provide one piece of evidence being the Victorian diary he received in March 1992, didn't he? And we also have a copy of the advertisement that was placed on his behalf asking for a Victorian diary with blank pages. But, strangely, neither of those things exist in your mind as evidence, even though they both are evidence to support his claims..

7) Mike providing an account that was evidentially untrue - the obvious example being his claim to have used Diamine Manuscript ink which the head of research at Diamine ink (Alec Voller) stated on more than one occasion was not used in the scrapbook

But Voller only made a visual examination of the diary, didn't he? How could he have been able to say for sure that it wasn't Diamine? What expertise could he possibly have had in determining whether documents written in ink two or three years earlier on all types of paper were or were not written with Diamine ink? Presumably his job at Diamine ink was just to make the ink wasn't it?

8) The sheer, mind-bending implausibility of the Barretts having the motivation to pull off what was clearly going to have to be a long-game (they possibly had an extremely patient bank manager, of course)

I don't even understand this one. What is implausible about it? The motivation was money, wasn't it?

It wasn't that long ago, Ike, that you were asking "What is the point of it all?" Remember that? You wondered why you were "investing so much time over the years proselytising and fighting to defend a belief no-one else believes". What answer did you come to? Because if those 8 points are all you've got the question answers itself.

[Iconoclast]

I've answered your questions, chaps - just like I said I would. I answered one of them twice and STILL Herlock asks me a third time!

In terms of your other questions and comments, I'm happy to leave my answers already written in SocPill25 or else add them to them when suitably challenged or pointed in that direction.

That will save all of the silly, roundabout, tittle-tattle which never gets us anywhere and keeps me away from SocPill25 and footy videos on YouTube.

For the record, though, please note that we are yet to uncover the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Maybrick scrapbook. I think like most people I was sort of expecting something more concrete than "it couldn't possibly have been said". I'm going to hang on in there until we find a real incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Maybrick scrapbook. Thirty-three years now and we haven't found one. Got to mean something, hasn't it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have the ‘one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the fake diary. One off instance has killed it stone dead Ike. You’ve had 10 years to try and refute it. How much longer do you envisage needing? To refute something you need more than just “surely that’s not right,” or “surely it’s possible that…”

[rjpalmer]

and footy videos on YouTube.

I'm scared to ask.

We don't have the term 'footy videos' in the American lexicon, but I hope it has something to do with football.

Enjoy your time off, Ike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've answered your questions, chaps - just like I said I would. I answered one of them twice and STILL Herlock asks me a third time!

In terms of your other questions and comments, I'm happy to leave my answers already written in SocPill25 or else add them to them when suitably challenged or pointed in that direction.

That will save all of the silly, roundabout, tittle-tattle which never gets us anywhere and keeps me away from SocPill25 and footy videos on YouTube.

For the record, though, please note that we are yet to uncover the one incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Maybrick scrapbook. I think like most people I was sort of expecting something more concrete than "it couldn't possibly have been said". I'm going to hang on in there until we find a real incontrovertible, unequivocal, undeniable fact which refutes the Maybrick scrapbook. Thirty-three years now and we haven't found one. Got to mean something, hasn't it?

You didn't directly answer my question, Ike, you tap danced around it for the second time.

Regardless, the position remains that no reason has been put forward why the Barretts weren't jointly capable of creating the diary and, that being so, they could well have done so.

Now that we've sorted that one out, are you going to comment on my transcription of the "fifty/fifty" exchange? As I've mentioned (#767 of "The Diary - Old Hoax or New?" thread), I can't hear the critical supposed line: "You said Anne did it; you're still saying it's all her handwriting." In fact, I can't hear a single word of that supposed sentence on the recording. Can you?

[jmenges]

there are simply too many threads going on about Maybrick.

Truer words have never been spoken.

JM

[Iconoclast]

You didn't directly answer my question, Ike, you tap danced around it for the second time.

Seriously, Herlock, when you get an answer to your question - not once but twice, possibly three times? - and you still imply that it hasn't been answered, you are setting a bar which seems to be impossible to hurdle.

I said in #1:

I think that it is possible that the Maybrick scrapbook was a hoax written by Mike and Anne Barrett but that there are reasons for suspecting strongly that they did not.

I then added, albeit later, to clarify your actual question, "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?" at least eight reasons why I doubt they did.

In the spirit of true words being spoken, I'm not sure what else I could have said that would have been more true of my opinion (which you were asking for) and an answer to your oft-repeated (and answered) question:

Ike

PS Please don't ask me it again, Herlock. It has been asked and answered. Let it go, man.

PPS Yes, RJ, footy videos are video clips about football. Here's my current favourite (viewed every day for the last month):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdBpKAg1iZs

[Herlock Sholmes]

Seriously, Herlock, when you get an answer to your question - not once but twice, possibly three times? - and you still imply that it hasn't been answered, you are setting a bar which seems to be impossible to hurdle.

I said in #1:



I then added, albeit later, to clarify your actual question, "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?" at least eight reasons why I doubt they did.

In the spirit of true words being spoken, I'm not sure what else I could have said that would have been more true of my opinion (which you were asking for) and an answer to your oft-repeated (and answered) question:

Ike

PS Please don't ask me it again, Herlock. It has been asked and answered. Let it go, man.

PPS Yes, RJ, footy videos are video clips about football. Here's my current favourite (viewed every day for the last month):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdBpKAg1iZs

Had my question been, "Do you think it is theoretically possible that the Barretts wrote the diary?", you would have answered it the first time. Had my question been, "Do you think it is possible the Barretts wrote the diary?", you would have answered it the second time. But my question wasn't either of those. It was "Why could the Barretts not have jointly created the diary?". If, for some reason, you are unable or incapable of directly answering THAT question, it's fine. I just can't understand why you want to answer a different question to the one I asked. Despite now telling me you've answered my question, you literally admitted yourself in the OP, "I cannot answer this statement directly" - those were your words! - so, instead, you answered the question, "Are there any grounds for doubting that the Barretts created the diary?". Even then, your grounds, such as a "k" engraved on a watch, were absurd. I'd really love to know why you think McNeil's dating of the diary to between 1909 and 1933 is reliable and trustworthy, and whether you are finally admitting that Maybrick could not therefore have written the diary. Because if it applies to the Barretts it must apply equally to Maybrick, no?

Well I somehow doubt you'll be answering that one, or telling me what evidence there is that the US Secret Service of FBI used McNeil's discredited test.

But I'm hoping there may be more chance of you telling me what you could hear on the "fifty/fifty" recording. Or will I just be hearing crickets?

[rjpalmer]

Well I somehow doubt you'll be answering that one, or telling me what evidence there is that the US Secret Service or FBI used McNeil's discredited test.

Ike doesn't give his source for this claim, so I can't be certain, but I think he might have fallen victim to the hazards and pitfalls of Google searches.

Results from Google do claim that the F.B.I. uses an ion migration test to determine the age of ink. However, if you trace the source of this claim it comes from a short blurb in the F.B.I. Bulletin of February 1964. (You can find the relevant passage on page 9 below):

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - February 1964 — LEB

Yup---we are back to the J. Edgar Hoover era!

And the FBI Bulletin actually casts serious doubt on the reliability/appropriateness of the ion migration test for something like the Maybrick hoax.

"A determination of the age of water-based inks is dependent on the presence of either chloride or sulfate ions. These ions theoretically migrate or travel away from the line where they were originally placed by the penpoint. A comparative measurement of the distance traveled is held to be an indication of the age of the writing. The age limit of the chloride ion migration test for ink is about 2 years, under controlled conditions; however, the rate of migration might be affected by the type of paper on which the ink has been placed, the humidity conditions under which it has been stored, the density of the ink, whether it was blotted, and possibly other conditions."

"Unless these factors are known to be common to the documents being tested, the reliability of the chloride migration tests may be questionable."

(my emphasis added in italics).

One complaint against McNeil is that he was claiming the test could determine the age of the ink on a single questioned document with an unknown history and no "controlled conditions," but this was his unique claim because everyone else understood that an ion migration test was only used for comparative purposes under controlled conditions.

In other words, if the chloride ions on some lines had 'migrated' further than those on other lines, this showed that parts of the document (or two different documents) had been written at different times. If only one document was being tested, one could possibly determine if certain lines or paragraphs had been added much later---but it still didn't tell one how old the document was. Instead, McNeil claimed he could determine the age of a single document by migration alone, and not through a comparison---even though he couldn't know the storage conditions, what humidity the document was or was not subjected to, the original density of the ink, how this paper would act with this specific ink, etc. etc.

This is why Nickell (his own teammate) rejected his results---he felt the unsized paper, etc. made the results unreliable and unknowable. The very test itself might not have been appropriate for what McNeil was trying to determine. Meanwhile, Robert Smith's own expert, Dr. Eastaugh, also rejected the results based on certain technical limitations of the equipment.

Thus, Ike's desperate embrace of McNeil is reminiscent of the death struggle embrace between Holmes and Moriarity at the edge of the Reichenbach Falls. Mutually assured destruction is what they called it during the Cold War. He's willing to kill the Maybrick theory in order to drag Mike and Anne over the edge as well.

Take care, Herlock!

RP

[rjpalmer]

Results from Google do claim that the F.B.I. uses an ion migration test to determine the age of ink.

A more concise way of saying this is that the F.B.I. Bulletin shows that the FBI was at least aware of ion migration testing; what it doesn't show is how often they employed it, nor does it show that the F.B.I. ever made the claims for it that McNeil did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ike doesn't give his source for this claim, so I can't be certain, but I think he might have fallen victim to the hazards and pitfalls of Google searches.

Results from Google do claim that the F.B.I. uses an ion migration test to determine the age of ink. However, if you trace the source of this claim it comes from a short blurb in the F.B.I. Bulletin of February 1964. (You can find the relevant passage on page 9 below):

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - February 1964 — LEB

Yup---we are back to the J. Edgar Hoover era!

And the FBI Bulletin actually casts serious doubt on the reliability/appropriateness of the ion migration test for something like the Maybrick hoax.

"A determination of the age of water-based inks is dependent on the presence of either chloride or sulfate ions. These ions theoretically migrate or travel away from the line where they were originally placed by the penpoint. A comparative measurement of the distance traveled is held to be an indication of the age of the writing. The age limit of the chloride ion migration test for ink is about 2 years, under controlled conditions; however, the rate of migration might be affected by the type of paper on which the ink has been placed, the humidity conditions under which it has been stored, the density of the ink, whether it was blotted, and possibly other conditions."

"Unless these factors are known to be common to the documents being tested, the reliability of the chloride migration tests may be questionable."

(my emphasis added in italics).

One complaint against McNeil is that he was claiming the test could determine the age of the ink on a single questioned document with an unknown history and no "controlled conditions," but this was his unique claim because everyone else understood that an ion migration test was only used for comparative purposes under controlled conditions.

In other words, if the chloride ions on some lines had 'migrated' further than those on other lines, this showed that parts of the document (or two different documents) had been written at different times. If only one document was being tested, one could possibly determine if certain lines or paragraphs had been added much later---but it still didn't tell one how old the document was. Instead, McNeil claimed he could determine the age of a single document by migration alone, and not through a comparison---even though he couldn't know the storage conditions, what humidity the document was or was not subjected to, the original density of the ink, how this paper would act with this specific ink, etc. etc.

This is why Nickell (his own teammate) rejected his results---he felt the unsized paper, etc. made the results unreliable and unknowable. The very test itself might not have been appropriate for what McNeil was trying to determine. Meanwhile, Robert Smith's own expert, Dr. Eastaugh, also rejected the results based on certain technical limitations of the equipment.

Thus, Ike's desperate embrace of McNeil is reminiscent of the death struggle embrace between Holmes and Moriarity at the edge of the Reichenbach Falls. Mutually assured destruction is what they called it during the Cold War. He's willing to kill the Maybrick theory in order to drag Mike and Anne over the edge as well.

Take care, Herlock!

RP

It's truly embarrassing, Roger. And presumably this is going to be the standard of the research and argument to be found in his much-heralded but definitely misguided "SocPill25".