Lord Orsam's Blog

[Chris Phillips]

But we are not discussing ?absolute? proof, we are talking about evidence so compelling that you would have to be ?batshit crazy? to question it.

Sorry, but whether it's absolute proof is exactly what we're discussing.


I asked why you why you'd referred to "the aunt nonsense" and you said it was because it wasn't "irrefutable" proof that the Diary was a fake.

[Gary Barnett]

Sorry, but whether it's absolute proof is exactly what we're discussing.


I asked why you why you'd referred to "the aunt nonsense" and you said it was because it wasn't "irrefutable" proof that the Diary was a fake.

But didn’t you say earlier that there was no such thing as ‘absolute’ proof?

I’m not applying an airy fairy philosophical measure. Everything is refutable.

Was Queen Victoria a woman? Yes, I’d say, even without having carried out an intimate examination of her. To deny that she was would be ‘corgi-shit crazy’?

Is the possibility that Florrie thought of her godmother as an ?aunt? and might have passed the idea on Jim so absurd that we need spend no time even discussing it? And if we do, do we deserve to be castigated by David in the most insulting personal terms.

Please answer my questions, Chris. The questions as asked.

[Chris Phillips]

But didn?t you say earlier that there was no such thing as ?absolute? proof?

I?m not applying an airy fairy philosophical measure. Everything is refutable.

Was Queen Victoria a woman? Yes, I?d say, even without having carried out an intimate examination of her. To deny that she was would be ?corgi-shit crazy?.

Is the possibility that Florrie thought of her godmother as an ?aunt? and might have passed the idea on Jim so absurd that we need spend no time even discussing it? And if we do, do we deserve to be castigated by Dsvudvin the most insulting personal terms.

Please answer my questions, Chris. The questions as asked.

Sorry, but I'm not going to repeat things I've already said several times.


As to whether it's worth discussing ways in which Maybrick could have written the Diary, I don't see any value in it whatsoever, because he obviously didn't.


I've already said I'm not going to discuss the personal insults, and that will remain true no matter how many times you bring them up.

[Howard Brown]

I've deleted the previous acrimonious exchange.

I've saved it should anyone care to have a copy....

Peace.

[Gary Barnett]

I've deleted the previous acrimonious exchange.

I've saved it should anyone care to have a copy....

Peace.

How, it’s your gaff and I respect your decision as to where to cut things off.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks Gary....that's appreciated.
It's painful to see two great researchers at such odds over what David posts.

[Caroline Brown]

So basically, if the diary is a joint Barrett production [in which case the 9th March 1992 double event of the Battlecrease floorboards coming up and Bongo phoning a London literary agency would have to be one of those once-in-a-lifetime, eye-wateringly unlikely coincidences], then they wrote 'aunt' by mistake - on top of not bothering to make the handwriting look anything like James Maybrick's.

But they 'got away with' their rogue aunt, because the real James, or in fact anyone hoaxing the diary between 1889 and 1992, could have been given to understand - rightly or wrongly - that Florie's plans included a visit to someone she called her aunt?

Is this the argument that has generated such bad feeling, or am I missing something?

Love,

Caz
X

[R. J. Palmer]

So basically, if the diary is a joint Barrett production [in which case the 9th March 1992 double event of the Battlecrease floorboards coming up and Bongo phoning a London literary agency would have to be one of those once-in-a-lifetime, eye-wateringly unlikely coincidences], then they wrote 'aunt' by mistake - on top of not bothering to make the handwriting look anything like James Maybrick's.

But they 'got away with' their rogue aunt, because the real James, orhttps://www.jtrforums.com/images/smilies/brick.gif in fact anyone hoaxing the diary between 1889 and 1992, could have been given to understand - rightly or wrongly - that Florie's plans included a visit to someone she called her aunt?

Is this the argument that has generated such bad feeling, or am I missing something?

Love,

Caz
X

You're missing something.

I think what is being stated is that there is no actual historical evidence of Florence Maybrick ever referring to this woman as her aunt. There is no reason, that I am aware of, that she was particularly close to this woman. There is no evidence, again that I am aware of, that Maybrick knew her. The only documented time he speaks of her is when he refers to her as his wife's godmother. She lives somewhere in Europe, I think.

David B. is suggesting the 'aunt' reference was an error traceable to one of the legal eagles, a misunderstanding of documents he had been given, and from there his error crept into the secondary sources, Christie, Ryan, etc., who repeat the error without questioning it.

So by referring to the woman as Florrie's "aunt," when, in fact she was her godmother, suggests that the diarist was repeating an established error that the real Maybrick would not have made. One could argue it wasn't an error and she DID call the woman her aunt, but there is no evidence for this.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is proof of an old hoax vs. a new hoax, but it does at least seem compatible with someone using the standard secondary sources and repeating their errors.

[Later addition: As Barrat notes, it is somewhat ironic that the first person who seems to have noticed this discrepancy and corrected it was Anne Graham. I don't think that tells us anything beyond the fact that she was certainly not witless, and, of course, the odd circumstance that a woman who supposedly didn't have enough interest in the Whitechapel Murders to mention she owned the Diary of Jack the Ripper to anyone between the 1960s and 1992, goes on to write about a famous Victorian murder case and was evidently writing a second one]

[R. J. Palmer]

This argument reminds me of the "Mrs. Hammersmith" character that appears in the diary.

It's been pointed out that no such person has been found living in Liverpool in the 1880s.

As far as the historical record is concerned, she does not exist.

This worries the non-believers.

Believers in the diary, however, theorize that maybe it was a nickname.

We will never find this woman, because she was really a Mrs. Smith with a connection to Hammersmith, hence her pet name.

Pure reason has calmed the waters, and belief is allowed to continue.

Similarly, there is no evidence that Florence called her godmother her aunt. It seems to have been an error, but since she could have called the woman her aunt--it is a term of endearment among some people--the waters are again calmed, and belief is allowed to continue.

The handwriting? The will is fake, and at any rate, Maybrick wrote in several different hands, possibly due to drug abuse or a mental disorder. Examples of this in confirmed cases can be presented.

The diary uses a recognizable modern insult, "bumbling buffoon," and the 1889 edition of the OED tells us the adjective "bumbling" is obsolete. The only known examples of its use around this era appear to be dialectical and very rare, but our diarist not only uses the word, but pairs it with "buffoon" to use the very insult that became widely used from 1950-2020.

But since the diarist plays around with words, it is just conceivable that he could have used this rare dialectical word and paired it with "buffoon" which clearly was in common usage at the time, and thus belief is again allowed to continue.

And on we march into infinity. The text cannot be falsified. Viewed through the lens of pure reason our disbelief is merely subjective--an edifice built on sand.

[Sam Flynn]

This argument reminds me of the "Mrs. Hammersmith" character that appears in the diary.

It's been pointed out that no such person has been found living in Liverpool in the 1880s.

We do know of a (sort-of) "Mr Hammersmith" in connection with the Ripper case, though, namely Montague Druitt and his return ticket from Hammersmith. Perhaps the diarist read about the Druitt case and the word "Hammersmith" got lodged in his/her memory.

[Caroline Brown]

Or even 'Emma Smith', Gareth?

The old London cry from railway porters at Hammersmith Station is described as sounding more like "Emma Smith" than Hammersmith.

For me, the diary is the gift that keeps on giving. For others, it routinely ruins their day.

[Caroline Brown]

You're missing something.

I thought you might say that, RJ.

I think what is being stated is that there is no actual historical evidence of Florence Maybrick ever referring to this woman as her aunt. There is no reason, that I am aware of, that she was particularly close to this woman. There is no evidence, again that I am aware of, that Maybrick knew her. The only documented time he speaks of her is when he refers to her as his wife's godmother. She lives somewhere in Europe, I think.

David B. is suggesting the 'aunt' reference was an error traceable to one of the legal eagles, a misunderstanding of documents he had been given, and from there his error crept into the secondary sources, Christie, Ryan, etc., who repeat the error without questioning it.

Yes, I sort of gathered all that, RJ, but there is little doubt that Florie actually stayed with Margaret Baillie during that week in London, and had made written arrangements with her to do so. Both Christie and Ryan describe Margaret and John Baillie Knight as distant cousins of Florie, and I have yet to learn if anyone has proved this to be an error. In any case, being a family friend and of an older generation, Margaret could very easily have been referred to by Florie as "Aunt Margaret", and I have yet to see any reason why not.

I still don't know if it was ever confirmed that Florie also tended to her Godmother during that week, but there was obviously some confusion over what she had told various people about that naughty week down south, before and after the events, and serious doubts about her truthfulness. It's hardly surprising if that confusion continues to this day. Do you know for a fact that a) Florie saw her Godmother during that week, while she was staying with the 'misses Baillie', and b) she never referred to Margaret B or her Godmother as her "aunt"?

[Caroline Brown]

This argument reminds me of the "Mrs. Hammersmith" character that appears in the diary.

It's been pointed out that no such person has been found living in Liverpool in the 1880s.

As far as the historical record is concerned, she does not exist.

This worries the non-believers.

Believers in the diary, however, theorize that maybe it was a nickname.

We will never find this woman, because she was really a Mrs. Smith with a connection to Hammersmith, hence her pet name.

Pure reason has calmed the waters, and belief is allowed to continue.

Similarly, there is no evidence that Florence called her godmother her aunt. It seems to have been an error, but since she could have called the woman her aunt--it is a term of endearment among some people--the waters are again calmed, and belief is allowed to continue.

The handwriting? The will is fake, and at any rate, Maybrick wrote in several different hands, possibly due to drug abuse or a mental disorder. Examples of this in confirmed cases can be presented.

The diary uses a recognizable modern insult, "bumbling buffoon," and the 1889 edition of the OED tells us the adjective "bumbling" is obsolete. The only known examples of its use around this era appear to be dialectical and very rare, but our diarist not only uses the word, but pairs it with "buffoon" to use the very insult that became widely used from 1950-2020.

But since the diarist plays around with words, it is just conceivable that he could have used this rare dialectical word and paired it with "buffoon" which clearly was in common usage at the time, and thus belief is again allowed to continue.

And on we march into infinity. The text cannot be falsified. Viewed through the lens of pure reason our disbelief is merely subjective--an edifice built on sand.

I thought you were going to give it a rest, RJ, and I'm surprised to see you back, considering there is nobody posting to this site who believes James Maybrick had a hand in the diary, and possibly just one or two believers or waverers elsewhere. I noticed you had returned to post on the diary in the other place, but I'm in no hurry to go back there, and when I last checked nobody had responded, so I think you can rest easy.

What I do find curious is that when you have a choice between a) someone planting their anonymous hoax somewhere in Maybrick's old bedroom, at any time before 9th March 1992, with Bongo Barrett being the luckless recipient, and b) Bongo Barrett and his missus being responsible for planning and physically creating this quirky document, with their daughter as a living witness, you would favour the latter over the former. To me, that defies common sense, when the centenaries of the Ripper murders and the Maybrick case, in 1988 and 1989, could so easily have been the inspiration for such a hoax, by someone who had no worries about the handwriting, or a potential prison sentence, and no fear of any of the personal repercussions that were just waiting for the Barretts when an unsuspecting Bongo brought the bloody thing to public attention.

How many questions would be answered if something like this happened?

[R. J. Palmer]

Good morning, Caz, I'm up early.

Do you know for a fact that a) Florie saw her Godmother during that week, while she was staying with the 'misses Baillie', and b) she never referred to Margaret B or her Godmother as her "aunt"?

Being an eternal optimist, I looked at it from the other angle.

What would have been truly impressive is if the Diarist had referred to Florie's godmother.

Then, for the first time--and I dare say the only time--I could have said with complete confidence, Here it is at last! The diarist is demonstrating original and sophisticated research that has gone unnoticed by modern historians of the Maybrick case. What a revelation! No one had previously recognized that she was Florie's godmother

Alas, no such luck. Just the same old aunt.

And so, once again, the diarist has simply led this weary traveler down the same garden path, well-worn and entirely familiar, without the least desire to stray into new territory, but, to the contrary, with an entirely transparent desire to show off that he/she knows all the standard facts.

...whether they are proven 'facts' or not...

But hope springs eternal. Some day I will still get there!


Cheers, RP

[R. J. Palmer]

To me, that defies common sense, when the centenaries of the Ripper murders and the Maybrick case, in 1988 and 1989, could so easily have been the inspiration for such a hoax, by someone who had no worries about the handwriting, or a potential prison sentence, and no fear of any of the personal repercussions that were just waiting for the Barretts when an unsuspecting Bongo brought the bloody thing to public attention.

I could theorize that someone planted the Piltdown bones in the ground in the 18th Century, hoping that someday someone would find them. But what fun would there have been in that? The pleasure seems too abstract to be credible.

I see hoaxers as voyeurs. They want to be around to watch the fun, or, presumably, to share the profits.

And you've asked the question yourself: who on earth would chose Barrett to be their front man?

No one, unless they had no choice.

If you are willing to entertain the idea that the diary is a recent concoction created to exploit the centenary, then doesn't your hoaxer have to be connected to Dodd, Lyons, Barrett, or Graham? [Edit: of course, to my thinking, I would replace Lyons with Devereux]

The only one of the four with a proven history of committing scams is Barrett. He also had motive.