Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lord Orsam's Blog

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
    Good morning, Caz, I'm up early.

    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
    So no answers to my questions then, RJ.

    May I take it that David B hasn't provided you with any answers either?

    Here we are again:

    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"?
    I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

    Comment


    • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
      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.
      So you believe that Anne, who knew her husband better than any of us, had 'no choice' but to get involved with him in such a project, then let him loose with a fake they had only just physically created together?

      However, an anonymous hoaxer who wanted his handiwork to turn up in the right place - Battlecrease House - would have had no reason to suppose it would end up with someone like Bongo Barrett of all people. More likely, they'd have anticipated that someone living in the house would come across it.

      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 hoaxer had only to express their interest in the Maybrick case and be one of the many tourists who turned up at Battlecrease over the decades for a nose around the old place. No need for a closer connection than that to the main players. If Lyons just happened to be the first person to come across it, and this was on 9th March 1992, when we know he was sent to the house on a casual basis to help out, everything that happened from that point falls into place and makes sense. Devereux, of course, had been dead for seven months by then, so - as Bongo himself let slip while talking to Feldy in July 1995 - he never knew the diary existed. But Feldy wasn't listening.
      I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
        So no answers to my questions then, RJ.

        May I take it that David B hasn't provided you with any answers either?

        Here we are again:

        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"?
        Hi Caz,

        Patience, dear, I have several irons in the fire and cannot be expected to instantly provide you with answers every time you say "chop chop."

        Anyway, there seems to be a technical issue with Howard's server; I'm often unable to connect.

        I realize you aren't a fan of Lord Orsam's articles, but if you'd be brave and simply read what we are discussing, you would see that he has established that Baillie was not Florie's cousin, and this was simply an error that crept into the literature --- Ryan, Christie, etc.

        Here is the link below. It is a long article, so, for the relevant part, you'll want to scroll nearly to the bottom under the subsection "How to Befuddle and Confuse, Part 94." You may wish to brace yourself with an adult beverage beforehand, because you will find some of it unpleasant.



        The following article may be more to your liking, also linked below. My understanding, and it looks convincing to me, is that John Addison, QC, made the error because -- as we know -- Florie did stay with an aunt part of that week: but it was the aunt of her friend, John Baillie Knight. Chalk it up to a misunderstanding.



        If you don't care to frequent Lord O's site., I suppose I could drop him a line and see if he wants to respond to you directly, for old time's sake.

        Let me just say that he appears to have studied a cache of documents at the National Archives -- depositions, Justice Stephen's notes, etc., all taken from the Maybrick trial, and these reveal that the two women had met in Switzerland. They were merely friends.

        To be blunt, I can't quite fathom why you are so invested in this rather obscure point, considering your willingness to admit the Diary is a hoax. Is it because it suggests the writer was not truly aware of the subtleties surrounding Florie's friends and relations, as someone connected to the Maybrick household would have been?

        We must go where the evidence points us, mustn't we, rather than bending it to our will?

        As for your other question, it is something I don't wish to discuss in a public forum, but, since you asked: according to your own account, Graham was an emotionally and physically abused woman, and if that is true, then "all bets are off" in regard to what she would or would not do to appease her then husband. Anyway, I do not trust her, and I think I have good reasons for not trusting her.

        Comment


        • Dear RJ,

          Be a gent and save me the trouble and discomfort of wading through the ordure for the answers to my remaining questions. It's not quite cocktail hour yet, and I would consider it an utter waste of a decent gin and It, to use it purely for the medicinal purposes you suggest.

          Really, all I want to know is a) is it known for a fact that Florie saw her Godmother while she was in London, staying with John's "Aunt Margaret", and b) could Florie herself not have referred to this close family friend as "Aunt Margaret"?

          You say that the diary author 'was not truly aware of the subtleties surrounding Florie's friends and relations, as someone connected to the Maybrick household would have been'.

          But we are talking about 'Sir Jim' here, a fictional grotesque of a husband who was 'killing' his treacherous wife over and over again down in that London, and I would question how much he, or the real James to be fair, would have known, or cared to know, about the friends and relations of Florie on her mother's side - his mother-in-law's.

          I am married to husband number three, and I can tell you that not one of them could have told you the names of any of my 'aunts', who were either my maternal cousins once removed, or close family friends of my mother's. They might have worked out that I had no real aunts as my parents had no siblings, but beyond that not a clue. I had clean forgotten who my own Godmother was until the other day, when I was sorting through old family papers and found the certificate, naming my primary school teacher, Mrs Morgan. Again, if my husbands were aware that I had been christened, they would have had no idea when, or who had been my Godmother. And if I had said I was going to see "Auntie Stella and my old teacher Mrs Morgan", they'd have been none the wiser and it would have gone in one ear and out the other.

          This is not about whether the diary is a hoax or not. It's about the argument that the real James Maybrick would naturally have known all about his wife's friends, her relations and her Godmother, and would never have got in a muddle over the details, when we know that Florie was lying through her teeth to him and using two of these women as her excuse for going to London. If 'Sir Jim' had been a perfect authority on his wife and mother-in-law's friends and relations, that would have hit a bum note for me even more than our hoaxer making the kind of mistake which any husband writing in his diary could be expected to make.

          I meant to add that a better argument might have been that the real James Maybrick almost certainly didn't know about Florie's secret arrangements to stay with her lover in London. It's not clear if he ever found out, even if he had his suspicions and kept them to himself. Yet 'Sir Jim' appears to be psychic, imagining in the diary that Florie will be seeing her 'whoremaster' during the visit.
          I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

          Comment


          • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
            ...according to your own account, Graham was an emotionally and physically abused woman, and if that is true, then "all bets are off" in regard to what she would or would not do to appease her then husband. Anyway, I do not trust her, and I think I have good reasons for not trusting her.
            According to Anne Graham's account, she had been emotionally as well as physically abused by the time she took off with her daughter in January 1994. I can't recall if she backdated anything she herself described as 'abuse' to before the diary became a negative force in their lives, although she did claim Mike was drinking heavily before he saw it for the first time. But in any case, you don't trust her account of events, and we only have her word for any of it.

            If you are suggesting Anne would have had no choice but to go along with Mike's plans to research, compose and physically create this diary, that would imply a fairly lengthy period of having to 'appease' him to ward off domestic abuse, wouldn't it? Which in turn suggests you'd be willing to take her word on that score, because it suits your argument to do so.

            I have to say that if my ex husband had ever tried to involve me in such a bonkers scheme, I'd have left a lot sooner than I did. I most certainly wouldn't have stayed around and handwritten a fake diary for him, imagining this would have done anything to improve the relationship. Quite the reverse.
            I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

            Comment


            • Hello Caz.

              Back in the fourth grade, when studying Greek mythology, my favorite God was Hermes, the messenger; I even named a goat after him.

              That said, I think you can appreciate why I, a mere mortal, am hesitant to act as a messenger between you and Lord O, for any number of reasons, but particularly since those of us who refer to his articles are accused of being lackeys, slathering sycophants, etc., rather than simply people interested in the same topic, and who are trying to weigh the evidence.

              Just this once, I have obtained a direct response to your questions, and reprint them for your enjoyment and education, though please realize this is a "one-off." I assume Howard doesn't mind, if he does, I will happily remove it.

              Q1. Do you know for a fact that a) Florie saw her Godmother during that week, while she was staying with the 'misses Baillie'?

              Lord O: Whether Florence did or did not see her Godmother in London is irrelevant bearing in mind that the entry in the diary was supposedly written before the visit. All that is relevant is that we know for a fact that she gave to her husband as an excuse for going to London that she was going to see her Godmother who was said to be visiting London to consult a surgeon. This is from the evidence of Dr. Hopper.

              I would also add that it is misleading to suggest that Florence was staying with the misses Baillie 'for that week'. Florence was in London between 21 and 28 March but was at Flatman's Hotel for the first four days in order to spend time with Brierley (and appears to have been planning to remain with him longer than this). It is unknown if she was planning to visit or stay with the Misses Baillie while in London, or only went to them because Brierley unexpectedly left her, but it is noteworthy that she originally asked to book the room at Flatman's Hotel for a week.

              I set all this out in my article, Bunny's Friend at Orsam Books
              .

              [The link provided earlier in this thread].

              Q2: and b) she never referred to Margaret B or her Godmother as her "aunt"?

              Lord O: She would never have referred to Margaret B as her aunt bearing in mind that she was a personal friend she had met while travelling on the continent. As for her Godmother, there is no good reason to think that she ever inaccurately referred to the Countess de Gabriac as her aunt, especially considering that Dr Hopper was personally told by the Maybricks that she was her Godmother, and it's not even relevant bearing in mind that, even if she had ever referred to her inaccurately as an aunt (for which there is no evidence), that would not have confused James Maybrick who would have known that she was her Godmother (and did know this, as confirmed by Dr Hopper's evidence) and he would thus not have inaccurately used the word 'aunt' in his personal journal.

              Finis.

              RP's commentary.

              My apologies for the following utterly crass a juvenile comment, but surely the only aunt to make an unexpected appearance at Flatman's Hotel that March was "Aunt Flo," which suitably explains Brierley's sudden exit to parts unknown, cads being cads being cads.

              Or so I suspect.

              Florie then fled to Margaret, but Maybrick did not have the opportunity to confuse the issue (in the same way that Addison, QC, did) because he was only aware of the false "excuse" involving the Countess, but obviously could not have known anything else about what had happened in London.

              I think we have rung this one dry, haven't we? Yes, we have, but I wish to pose a philosophical question in a second post.

              Comment


              • Hello, Caz.

                Part Two.

                What I find curious is that you are arguing a stance that seems to run counter to what we would normally expect to see in the methodology of the historian.

                We have a first-hand account of what happened.

                We also have a second-hand account of what happened.

                In effect, you are arguing that the second-hand account is true, even if it disagrees with the first-hand account. Isn't that thin ice to skate on?

                Dr. Arthur Hopper is our only true witness. He was told by Maybrick --directly--that Florie was going to visit her godmother.

                And, lo, the Countess, though she was a bogus excuse, was Florie's godmother.

                So far, so good. It's straightforward.

                We then have a second-hand account, offered up by John Addison, QC. He wasn't there. His understanding of what happened is based on the pile of depositions that he's working from, including Hopper's. There is now a chance for confusion, for the plot has thickened; there are new actors on the stage; the week didn't turn out as planned; Florie went off and stayed a few days with Miss B, who was J. B. Knight's aunt, and when Addison goes to tell his second-hand tale, the "godmother" now becomes "the aunt."

                Theoretically, this game of Chinese Whispers could have continued indefinitely, until a third or fourth-hand source turned the Godmother into a sister. "The Bitch tells me she's going to visit her sister."

                Yet, by now, you are willing to wander down a slippery slope.

                Though evidence is lacking, it is just possible that Florie did refer to her Godmother as her sister, because they were so close. It was a joke between them. They were "soul sisters."

                But if we go this route, it means the diary is no longer open to falsification.

                As long as we are willing to ignore our first-hand witnesses, the diarist can do no wrong. Whatever "Maybrick" writes, he remains historically accurate; it "could" have happened the way Addison reported in his summary of events --the argument goes---even if Addison contradicts our only first-hand witness, Dr. Hopper.

                Using this same method, we can even prefer the second-hand account of the Kelly murder scene, and what was supposedly on the bedside table, rather than Dr. Bond's first-hand report.

                The psychotic Maybrick, reading the second-hand news accounts of the Kelly murder, came to believe the accuracy of what was reported. He was in the throes of Lustmord and didn't really have a clear memory of his debauch. His "mistake" has an entirely plausible psychological explanation, even though it directly contradicts Dr. Bond's report.

                One can make that argument. Indeed, people HAVE made that argument.

                But if this is allowed, how then do we make the diary's text open to falsification? Haven?t we skated out on ice so thin that it is now imaginary? What is our method for knowing the document is a fake, if we are willing to allow it to disagree with our primary witnesses?

                Ultimately, maybe "history" is just a probability wave.

                The historical method of relying on first-hand accounts sometimes gets it wrong. Sometimes they are misleading.

                Historians have just decided that this method gets it wrong far less than any other method, especially if we decide to fly by the seats of our pants.

                Comment


                • R. J. Palmer November 28

                  Hello, Caz.

                  Part Two.

                  What I find curious is that you are arguing a stance that seems to run counter to what we would normally expect to see in the methodology of the historian.

                  We have a first-hand account of what happened.

                  We also have a second-hand account of what happened.

                  In effect, you are arguing that the second-hand account is true, even if it disagrees with the first-hand account. Isn't that thin ice to skate on?

                  Dr. Arthur Hopper is our only true witness. He was told by Maybrick --directly--that Florie was going to visit her godmother.

                  And, lo, the Countess, though she was a bogus excuse, was Florie's godmother.

                  So far, so good. It's straightforward.

                  We then have a second-hand account, offered up by John Addison, QC. He wasn't there. His understanding of what happened is based on the pile of depositions that he's working from, including Hopper's. There is now a chance for confusion, for the plot has thickened; there are new actors on the stage; the week didn't turn out as planned; Florie went off and stayed a few days with Miss B, who was J. B. Knight's aunt, and when Addison goes to tell his second-hand tale, the "godmother" now becomes "the aunt."

                  Theoretically, this game of Chinese Whispers could have continued indefinitely, until a third or fourth-hand source turned the Godmother into a sister. "The Bitch tells me she's going to visit her sister."

                  Yet, by now, you are willing to wander down a slippery slope.

                  Though evidence is lacking, it is just possible that Florie did refer to her Godmother as her sister, because they were so close. It was a joke between them. They were "soul sisters."

                  But if we go this route, it means the diary is no longer open to falsification.

                  As long as we are willing to ignore our first-hand witnesses, the diarist can do no wrong. Whatever "Maybrick" writes, he remains historically accurate; it "could" have happened the way Addison reported in his summary of events --the argument goes---even if Addison contradicts our only first-hand witness, Dr. Hopper.

                  Using this same method, we can even prefer the second-hand account of the Kelly murder scene, and what was supposedly on the bedside table, rather than Dr. Bond's first-hand report.

                  The psychotic Maybrick, reading the second-hand news accounts of the Kelly murder, came to believe the accuracy of what was reported. He was in the throes of Lustmord and didn't really have a clear memory of his debauch. His "mistake" has an entirely plausible psychological explanation, even though it directly contradicts Dr. Bond's report.

                  One can make that argument. Indeed, people HAVE made that argument.

                  But if this is allowed, how then do we make the diary's text open to falsification? Haven?t we skated out on ice so thin that it is now imaginary? What is our method for knowing the document is a fake, if we are willing to allow it to disagree with our primary witnesses?

                  Ultimately, maybe "history" is just a probability wave.

                  The historical method of relying on first-hand accounts sometimes gets it wrong. Sometimes they are misleading.

                  Historians have just decided that this method gets it wrong far less than any other method, especially if we decide to fly by the seats of our pants.
                  R. J. Palmer is offline Add Infraction for R. J. Palmer Report Post IP

                  Comment


                  • Gary Barnett November 29

                    The historical method of relying on first-hand accounts sometimes gets it wrong. Sometimes they are misleading.
                    *************************************


                    Thanks, RJ, for making my point for me. The historian’s role is therefore to consider the likelihood of error in any particular first-hand account.

                    If your assessment is that it is far more likely that a barrister made the mistake of referring to Florrie’s godmother as her aunt despite never having heard the term applied to her than it is that the lady was referred to informally as such within the family (consistent with English usage at the time) and that informal usage independently fed through to the diary and the courtroom, that is a reasonable position to take. Given the wealth of other evidence that suggests the diary is a modern fake, I am of the same opinion.

                    What is not reasonable is to completely dismiss the alternative and to claim that this ‘error’ is in and of itself proof positive that the diary is a fake. It simply isn’t. Step back and ask yourself whether if this was the only anomaly discovered in the diary you would be of the opinion that it was irrefutably a fake. And whether you would consider those who were willing to consider the alternative to be ‘batshit crazy’ (or was it horseshit?).

                    Thanks again. As you say, we have wrung this topic dry.

                    Comment


                    • Caroline Brown December 1, 2020

                      Thank you, RJ. So it's irrelevant whether Florie's plans for her London trip ever included seeing her Godmother, or whether she saw her at all that week. Good to know what we don't know.

                      The reference in the diary to Florie's aunt comes, of course, before the trip, when, at least according to Bernard Ryan, she had written two letters, one to Margaret Baillie, a close family friend of her mother's generation, expressing a wish to 'stop with her for a few days', and one to Margaret's younger relative [nephew? cousin?] John Baillie Knight, a close family friend of Florie's generation, to ask if he would escort her to dinner on her first evening.

                      I don't know Ryan's source for the first letter, but John did indeed escort Florie to dinner that evening, and she did indeed 'stop' with Margaret after leaving Flatman's Hotel, staying until her return to Liverpool. So it would have been prudent to set this up in advance, as her contingency plan, should the need arise - which it did.

                      The excuse Florie gave to James and Dr Hopper about her main purpose for going to London - to see her Godmother - came after the event, so it's not clear what, or how much James was told beforehand. Florie had to tread carefully and not tell any lies that he could easily discover before she even set off. Setting up her stay with Jonn's Aunt Margaret - assuming Florie would not have turned up on her doorstep unannounced - would have given her options. She could spend the whole week with her lover if all went well, and then claim afterwards that her Godmother had needed her, to explain why she didn't stay with Margaret after all. If things didn't go so well, she had Margaret to fall back on, and she could then say her Godmother had only needed her for the first couple of days. Florie's need was to sort herself out a credible 'alibi' for the nights she would be spending at Flatman's with Alf, whether it was two nights or six. She couldn't say afterwards that she had stayed the whole time with Margaret, because Margaret could have contradicted her. So her 'alibi' for the crucial time spent with her lover became her Godmother, who may not have been so easy for James to contact for confirmation.

                      It appears that the real James was not best pleased with Florie on her return to Battlecrease, as he intercepted letters to her from Margaret and sent them back to London, unopened, leading Margaret to think Florie had gone on to stay elsewhere without telling her. His motive for doing this is not clear.

                      I'm as interested in the psychology of a woman like Florie, planning adultery in real life in the late Victorian age, as I am in a working wife and mother in the late 20th century, supposedly needing to 'appease' her heavy drinking husband by helping him commit an audacious fraud that could have landed them both in prison, and their young daughter in dire straits, if a forensic document examiner had been able to report: "But this isn't Maybrick's handwriting, Mr Barrett. It's your wife's!"

                      I'm left wondering how Anne could have known that wouldn't happen, unless she remains as ignorant as we all are, as to whose handwriting is in the "old book" Mike came home with

                      Comment


                      • Caroline Brown December 1, 2020

                        Originally Posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                        Hello, Caz.

                        Part Two.

                        What I find curious is that you are arguing a stance that seems to run counter to what we would normally expect to see in the methodology of the historian.

                        We have a first-hand account of what happened.

                        We also have a second-hand account of what happened.

                        In effect, you are arguing that the second-hand account is true, even if it disagrees with the first-hand account. Isn't that thin ice to skate on?
                        No, I'm not arguing for either. The 'first-hand account of what happened' was down to Florie, not James or Dr Hopper.

                        We don't even know if Florie saw her Godmother during the trip. We only know what Florie said happened, after her return to Liverpool, and we know she lied, as her main purpose was to sleep with her lover, not to tend a sick Godmother, aunt, or family friend on her mother's side. We don't know - can't possibly know - what she told James about her plans in advance. We, like our hoaxer, are left to guess - or make it up.

                        Quote:
                        Dr. Arthur Hopper is our only true witness. He was told by Maybrick --directly--that Florie was going to visit her godmother.

                        And, lo, the Countess, though she was a bogus excuse, was Florie's godmother.

                        So far, so good. It's straightforward.
                        What is your source for the real James speaking to Dr Hopper about Florie's plans before she left for London? I thought it was only after the event, when Dr Hopper learned from both Florie and James that the main purpose of her trip had apparently been to see her Godmother. Florie needed a cover story for the first three nights at Flatman's, because in the event she had only stayed with John's "Aunt Margaret" for the remaining four.

                        Quote:
                        Theoretically, this game of Chinese Whispers could have continued indefinitely, until a third or fourth-hand source turned the Godmother into a sister. "The Bitch tells me she's going to visit her sister."
                        I imagine even the real James - and our hoaxer - would have known for a fact that Florie had no sisters. Aunts and Godmothers and family friends, as we know, are a wee bit less black and white and easier to lie about or use to cause confusion.

                        Quote:
                        What is our method for knowing the document is a fake, if we are willing to allow it to disagree with our primary witnesses?
                        I take it you were not really expecting me to answer this one. The tried and tested method as far as I am concerned would be the handwriting, over and above anyone's textual analysis or attempt to date when ink met paper. A fake is a fake is a fake, whether it was written in 1889 or 1989.
                        __________________

                        Comment


                        • R.J. Palmer December 2, 2020

                          If I wanted to convince people the diary was an old fake, I'd steer clear of a textual analysis, too.

                          Comment


                          • Caroline Brown December 2, 2020

                            Why would you want to convince anyone of that, RJ?

                            In fact, why would you want to convince anyone of anything concerning the diary? People will believe what they want to believe, just as you do. Just as Orsam does. Just as Feldman did.

                            Comment


                            • R.J. Palmer December 2, 2020






                              Comment


                              • You know very well, RJ, that I believe Anne's 'in the family story' was not true, and was an attempt to limit the damage done by Mike's stupid forgery confession. His initial claim came when the couple were already estranged, and was to the effect that he'd faked the diary himself, but that didn't mean the repercussions would not have rubbed off on Anne and her daughter. As you say yourself, you wouldn't believe that Mike could have worked on the diary - either researching it or faking it - in that tiny house without Anne knowing about it, and nor would I, so there you are. Of course his confession would have adversely affected the whole family.

                                Similarly, neither of us believes Mike's original Devereux story either, in which case he lied to Doreen from the start, claiming the diary had been in the Barrett house since before Tony died. We don't know when he confessed to Anne that he had lied to Doreen and Shirley, having told them he had spent the months following Tony's death researching the diary. Shirley naturally wanted to see the fruits of his considerable labours, so he had to produce something representing the period from August 1991, even though neither you nor I believe he was researching anything during that time. Mike had already told Doreen that Anne was onboard and "ruled the roost", so she'd have had little choice but to go into damage limitation mode and help tidy and type up Mike's notes as he produced them. They were not ready to be handed over in April 1992 with the diary, or even with the transcript, but were finally given to Shirley in the July or August, a year after Mike's research was meant to have commenced.

                                The whole thing reeks of covering up for Mike's first big lie, that he got the diary from Tony in 1991. Once Anne had been dragged along with it, without her knowledge or consent, her 'in the family' story, two years later, kept that first big lie going, and was designed to undermine the second big lie - Mike's claim to have faked the diary, which implied that Anne was complicit in the faking of both the diary AND the research notes.

                                You will never convince me that Anne was 'onboard' with a plan to create this diary with Mike, and was naive enough to presume that none of Maybrick's handwriting would have survived, despite the notoriety surrounding Florie's trial for his murder, which she'd have read up on extensively while gathering material for the hoax. The idea that she'd have let Mike call Doreen with his unconvincing "dead pal" story, AFTER planning, researching and drafting the hoax with him, but before he was able to find an old book for her to use for it, and would THEN have had to set about keeping that story straight, not once but twice, just seems bonkers to me, when we have the 9th March double event standing in opposition.

                                IMHO, Anne was merely dragged along with Mike's plans for a best seller, after he'd seen the diary for the first time in March 1992. Just like she was dragged along with his previous literary ambitions, tidying and typing up his efforts, because they were important for his self esteem and therefore the marriage itself. That was a deception too, wasn't it, if Anne said nothing at the time, allowing Mike to take all the credit. I often used to help my ex with any written correspondence. Mr Brown rarely needs it, but still asks for my opinion with his creative writing. That doesn't mean we'll ever turn our hands to fakery for filthy lucre.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X