Lord Orsam's Blog

[Caroline Brown]

Funny how you forget David Orsam's point, namely that no-one else has bothered or been able to compare diary writing with AB's normal (i.e. undisguised) handwriting. No samples of AB's normal handwriting were provided back in the day, so no comparison was possible.

Did Orsam forget page 177 of Ripper Diary, which features a page of Anne's spontaneous handwriting, which she readily produced on January 18th, 1995, when Keith Skinner sprang the request on her without warning, in the presence of Shirley Harrison and Sally Evemy? The book was published back in 2003, and Anne's handwriting looks nothing like the diary, but presumably she wasn't bothered that anyone who was familiar with her usual handwriting - a boss or work colleague for example - would blow the whistle if they saw she had deliberately disguised it.

Similarly, she couldn't have been too bothered about anyone seeing the diary facsimile in Shirley's book and immediately being struck by 'uncanny' similarities with her usual handwriting. Maybe Orsam imagines she spent years avoiding writing anything by hand in the workplace, or in any personal correspondence, so that nobody would recognise her hand when the best-selling diary book was eventually published. Or maybe she simply trusts everyone who could drop her in it, not to do so, out of that old Scouse loyalty that prevents them from "splitting on a mate".

Funny how people now want to forget the desperate suggestions that Anne may be ambidextrous, or suffering from multiple personality disorder. Why were such suggestions needed, if her normal handwriting really is uncannily similar to the diary? More to the point, is Anne so insane that she let Mike loose with a fake diary which was intended to look like the penmanship of James Maybrick, but in fact looked uncannily like her own?

Love,

Caz
X

[Gary Barnett]

Hi Gary

I honestly don’t think it was very gleefully done, and I fail to see it as shitstirring.

I posted: “ Updated, to the joy of most and dismay of some, I'm sure“


When Abby Normal posted: was that gleeful shitstirring as well?

Really, if my post came across that way, it was unintentional. I have a hard time seeing it but this is the internet, so nuances are difficult.

As for your other questions I don’t presently have time to respond in full and I’m not sure it would serve any purpose. Schwartz/Cohen, fanciful since they sound nothing alike but not imagination since there was such a refinery, so it was a suggestion. As you’ve stated yourself, someone made a mistake about Cohen and this was David’s theory of reconstructing it - I don’t think he claimed that it must be correct, but something to consider.

As for the CM comment, yes over the top. agree that less sneering hostility would enhance his arguments but as said, I understand the frustration that I imagine is behind it: repeatedly pointing out basic and possibly dishonest mistakes by the same people all the time, people who don’t want to listen and who are also not taken sufficiently to task but rather remain respected ripperologists.

Anyway I’m getting bogged down arguing all these things. My point was just that I like David Orsam’s meticulous research.

Hi Kattrup,

Abby hadn’t read what David had written and merely suggested it might be interesting. You had read it, and decided to bring the concepts of joy and dismay into the mix, presumably referring to how David’s nastiness would be received by some.

I too am frequently (genuinely) overawed by David’s research abilities. But when someone walks up and punches you in the gob for having dared question a particular point, his talents seem somewhat irrelevant.

Which is a shame, really, because I have one or two long-standing log jams in my own research that someone of David’s abilities might well have been able to free.

And on that conciliatory note, I’m off out on an errand which I hope doesn’t contravene the Covid laws.

Stay safe.

Gary

[Caroline Brown]

Hostile Tony took a comment by Caz:

Too bad nobody - diary 'defender' or
'debunker' - has yet been able to answer one very simple question, which could have put the thing to bed years ago: whose handwriting is it in?

and scrupulously tore it apart, doubtless casting Caz into a deep pit of dismay. Look away Caz:

Within a few hours of her post, the question that no-one in the entire word was supposedly able to answer was answered by Abby Normal who suggested that the handwriting of the Diary might be 'Annes deliberately (not so good) disguised handwriting?'.
That must have shocked Caroline Morris. Having said that 'nobody' was able to provide an answer to the question 'whose handwriting is it in?', a forum member immediately gave her the likely identity of that person!!!


Can you see what Hostile Tony does there? To ridicule Caz, he pretends that he doesn’t understand the meaning of her post. He pretends she meant that no-one ‘in the entire world’ was able to provide any kind of an answer to the question. Is that what Caz really meant? Did she really believe that I couldn’t have posted, ‘The Diary was in Queen Victoria’s handwriting’? I don’t think so, I think she meant that no-one had yet provided convincing evidence of whose handwriting it was. And Hostile Tony knew that was what she meant.

So what did HT achieve by this cheap trick? Beyond a swelling of joy in the bosoms of his acolytes, sweet Fanny Adams.

Neatly put, Gary. Thank you. I can't believe anyone would fail to grasp what I meant. Over the years, we've had all sorts of suggestions from all sorts of armchair detectives about the 'possible' or 'likely' identity of the person who actually held the pen. It's hardly surprising that Orsam stops short of claiming that Abby Normal gave the correct answer to my question, with the result that once again his comments are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

He just can't help himself, can he?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've seen. I've no idea what it's about, or who Hostile Tone is, but can only imagine he's something to do with Hissing Sid or Captain Beaky.

Hi Robert
Its about David Barrat aka as Lord Orsam-excellent writer researcher debater, a ripper outsider, debunker of all things ripper BS related and gadfly in the ear of the ripper clique. oh, and not "stupid". IMHO of course and stated without a hint of glee. ; )

his website is here https://www.orsam.co.uk/

enjoy

PS-Hostile Tone hahaha Good one- in two weeks it will be Tone Hos!

[Caroline Brown]

Hi Caz. The long and short of it is this. What are our opinions and insights other than the sum of our own personal experiences? I've been around a lot of dysfunctional people in my life--enablers, alcoholics, etc.---and have observed a lot of dysfunctional relationships.

As such, I find it very easy to believe that a sensible woman might get sucked into helping a crazy drunk create a hoax, probably assuming (wrongly) that the project would eventually collapse due to its own lack of merit.

But it didn't collapse--and so here we be. I don't think it is any more complex than that.

And I have explained why the evidence indicates that it would need to be a whole lot more complex than you imagine. This 'sensible' woman would not only have got herself sucked into 'helping' this crazy drunk create a hoax - in the immediate wake of the universally condemned Hitler Diaries. She'd have had to take over the entire job herself, researching and composing the text and writing it out in a hand that was, according to Orsam, uncannily like her normal handwriting. If she assumed the project would collapse due to its own lack of merit, she must have had little faith in her own abilities to make it succeed, and it must also not have dawned on her that she could quickly end up in prison like the Hitler Diaries faker.

Orsam is a little like an old prof of mine. He kept you on your toes and made you think, but he also had a fondness for birch.

To me he's like the cross-eyed teacher who couldn't control his pupils. He's now stuck with a small handful of eager students who still willingly attend his charm school, even though it's not compulsory and their Moms are not making them go. They must also have a fondness for birch - but I was always taught it was better to give than receive.

Love,

Caz
X

[R. J. Palmer]

And I have explained why the evidence indicates that it would need to be a whole lot more complex than you imagine. This 'sensible' woman would not only have got herself sucked into 'helping' this crazy drunk create a hoax - in the immediate wake of the universally condemned Hitler Diaries. She'd have had to take over the entire job herself, researching and composing the text and writing it out in a hand that was, according to Orsam, uncannily like her normal handwriting.

Hi Caz. It's probably best to end the discussion, but, while I concede that there is a "crazy" aspect to Anne's involvement, you still haven't explained how Anne being a co-conspirator (which you find so ridiculous) is inconsistent with her behavior as we know it. Graham is the one that paid for the blank Victorian diary. Graham discussed safety measures for the diary with Doreen Montgomery in April 1992. Graham apparently typed up the diary typescript for the convenience of the agents. Graham accompanied Mike to London and signed the publishing contract. Graham was outraged (we are told) when Mike agreed to sell the Diary to Robert Smith for a mere pound. Graham provided Feldman with a new provenance (and thus a breath of life) when Mike tried his best to derail the diary. Graham joined Feldman's research team. Graham wrote her own book about the Maybrick case and went on Radio Merseyside to defend her provenance story. Graham cooperated with your own book by giving an interview.

All in all, none of this appears to be the behavior of a disinterested party who wanted no part of Mike's shenanigans, and couldn't possibly have played a role in them. Her role appears to have been rather....what's the right word?....active.

Or am I missing your point? How can you have it both ways? I think that's the question Lord Orsam was asking.

But, personally, I think the truth is most often gray, and not black and white. Our motivations are complex and often contradictory. My idea that Graham may have originally thought the diary would implode on impact is not made up out of thin air. I can't be bothered to find her exact quote, but at one point she said something to the effect that "I didn't intend for the diary to be published. I thought Doreen [Montgomery] would send Mike packing...."

Doreen, of course, being the literary agent.

It's an odd thing to say. It is a REALLY odd thing to say if she had genuinely thought the diary was an old and mysterious document. She seems to be screaming out that she figured the diary would "lay an egg" and is expressing disbelief that it didn't. Of course, maybe the statement was just a lie--a bluff--and she was up to her elbows in it from the beginning. On the other hand, it DOES sound like the statement of a woman who may have originally just humored Barrett and his crazy project, thinking it would never amount to anything, and she, herself, was caught off guard when it DID take off. How else should we interpret her statement? And her subsequent actions were just a muddled glob of conflicting emotions--terrified of exposure, flattered by Feldman's attention, mindful of disguising her own role in the proceedings, embarrassed by the whole mess, wanting a writing career of her own, etc. It rather works for me. It seems credible. It's just the kind of half-arsed actions that would happen if someone was unfortunate enough to have married Barrett and got entangled in his schemes. But I'm not swearing it is the absolute 100% correct answer.

But, if you don't accept it, you don't accept it. It's my considered opinion, and you can take it or leave it. Give me hell, but just don't sneeze on me. Cheers.

[Caroline Brown]

Hi Caz. It's probably best to end the discussion, but, while I concede that there is a "crazy" aspect to Anne's involvement, you still haven't explained how Anne being a co-conspirator (which you find so ridiculous) is inconsistent with her behavior as we know it.

Her behaviour, 'as we know it', was presumably just a snapshot of the woman as a fully rounded individual and personality, before the diary came into her life. You believe her behaviour 'as we know it' indicates that she made it happen, while I believe the opposite, that it was unbidden, and something which had to be dealt with, due to Mike's behaviour as we know it, telling Doreen that his wife had been on board with the diary since August 1991!

It doesn't matter if I find the suspicions about Anne's involvement ridiculous, or inconsistent with her behaviour as I know it. I don't have to prove anything if I doubt that either Barrett had anything to do with creating the diary. I am presuming them innocent of that particular allegation, and I have every right to do so, unless or until you or anyone else can make a case that would stand up in a court of law. It's simply not good enough to argue that in theory they could have done it between them, or their behaviour 'as we know it' was not inconsistent with the idea. They have to be tied to the diary's creation, beyond reasonable doubt, by a whole lot more than personality traits or behaviour after the event.

Graham cooperated with your own book by giving an interview.

Yes, and I suspect she regretted it. She wasn't comfortable with some of my questions and she said that was the last diary interview she would ever give.

All in all, none of this appears to be the behavior of a disinterested party who wanted no part of Mike's shenanigans, and couldn't possibly have played a role in them. Her role appears to have been rather....what's the right word?....active.

But we are at odds over what Mike's 'shenanigans' were about, which would make all the difference to how we are seeing Anne's role in the affair. If you could just tear yourself away for a second from the diary as Mike's brainchild, and imagine it instead as possibly someone else's, which Mike acquired fully formed, without a clue about its author or origins, before Anne knew what was going on or could do anything to stem the tide of her husband's new hobby, might her subsequent behaviour not look rather different in that context? If you are stuck in a groove with Mike's shenanigans being a direct consequence of his inside knowledge of the diary's creation, you leave yourself no choice but to see Anne's behaviour in that context, as someone who must have shared that knowledge and been in on it with her husband right from the start.

But, personally, I think the truth is most often gray, and not black and white. Our motivations are complex and often contradictory.

That's more like it. Motivation [to commit a crime, for example] can be almost impossible to prove and if you start with any presumptions about it, it can lead you badly astray. If you start by presuming that the diary must have been created for profit, or for fame and fortune, you will inevitably lead yourself to Mike Barrett. But if it was created for any other reason - an anonymous prank for instance - then all you'd have is Mike marketing it for profit.

...if someone was unfortunate enough to have married Barrett and got entangled in his schemes.

And this is why I suspect Mike got Anne entangled in his plans for the diary, without her knowledge initially, and before she could easily extricate herself from his bogus account to Doreen of how and when it had come into their lives and how supportive Anne was being with the research and so on.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

It doesn't matter if I find the suspicions about Anne's involvement ridiculous, or inconsistent with her behaviour as I know it. I don't have to prove anything if I doubt that either Barrett had anything to do with creating the diary. I am presuming them innocent of that particular allegation, and I have every right to do so, unless or until you or anyone else can make a case that would stand up in a court of law. It's simply not good enough to argue that in theory they could have done it between them, or their behaviour 'as we know it' was not inconsistent with the idea. They have to be tied to the diary's creation, beyond reasonable doubt, by a whole lot more than personality traits or behaviour after the event.

The point is not convincing you of their complicity, the point is that you always argue he/she could not have done it for various reasons to do with personality, handwriting, intellect, opportunity or whatever.

None of which is true.

So the argument is just that you’re wrong, there’s no reason to believe he/she could not.

Whether they did can be seen as another matter, we already know you won’t accept they did.

[Gary Barnett]

The point is not convincing you of their complicity, the point is that you always argue he/she could not have done it for various reasons to do with personality, handwriting, intellect, opportunity or whatever.

None of which is true.

So the argument is just that you’re wrong, there’s no reason to believe he/she could not.

Whether they did can be seen as another matter, we already know you won’t accept they did.

‘None of which is true’?

Has that been established conclusively?

That’s a genuine question, I know very little about the subject.

[Caroline Brown]

Whether they did can be seen as another matter, we already know you won’t accept they did.

And that is the point, Kattrup: whether they did or not. Why the hell should I, or anyone else, 'accept' that they did, simply because some people happen to have convinced themselves of it and believe they cannot possibly be wrong?

On the handwriting side of things, if it's not in Mike or Anne's handwriting, they could not have handwritten it. [This is like Trump telling people a self-swab is something you can do yourself.]

On the intellect side of things, if you seriously think Mike could have been behind it, or helped with the text, we'll just have to agree to differ. I can only think you must know something about Mike's abilities that I don't, and are not willing to share it with the rest of us.

As for opportunity, if Mike could have seen the Maybrick diary for the first time in March 1992 [and there is zero evidence of anyone on the planet seeing it or knowing about it before then, it would follow that he and Anne may not have been able to create it.

So again, I need solid evidence that it had been, to Mike and/or Anne's knowledge, in its creative stages before March 9th 1992, or I reserve the right to my opinion that they knew bugger all about it until that date.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

he was a published author lol

[Caroline Brown]

he was a published author lol

And if Mike had written your sentence all by himself, it would have looked a bit like this:

hE wAs A puBlisHD oRtHeR lol

Same challenges with punctuation and the use of capital letters, but you get my drift, Abby. He wasn't quite up to Hilary Mantel's standard.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

And if Mike had written your sentence all by himself, it would have looked a bit like this:

hE wAs A puBlisHD oRtHeR lol

Same challenges with punctuation and the use of capital letters, but you get my drift, Abby. He wasn't quite up to Hilary Mantel's standard.

Love,

Caz
X

well if he needed help with his articles (and there is no evidence that he did anyway) then perhaps ann helped him with those too just like she did with the diary.

[Paul Butler]

he was a published author lol

Overstatement of the year lol.

[Abby Normal]

Overstatement of the year lol.

not
at all.
he was a published author. he knew how to write.

btw whos your avatar?