Lord Orsam's Blog

[Gary Barnett]

The pathetic ‘Lord Orsam’ stuff is dire.

And the motivation for almost everything he does seems to be to prove he is cleverer than everyone else in the field. He may well be, but he’s far from perfect and drops some real clangers sometimes.

[Trevor Marriott]

The pathetic ‘Lord Orsam’ stuff is dire.

And the motivation for almost everything he does seems to be to prove he is cleverer than everyone else in the field. He may well be, but he’s far from perfect and drops some real clangers sometimes.

On the contrary he has done a very thorough examination of all the facts ! which clearly some folks wont like because it goes against what they believe to be the real truth.


Perhaps the diary issue can be put to bed now once and for all, the diary is a fake, and I cant see why so many people over the past few years have believed it to be genuine !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Caroline Brown]

You can really tell a man by his supporters.

[Caroline Brown]

Perhaps the diary issue can be put to bed now once and for all, the diary is a fake, and I cant see why so many people over the past few years have believed it to be genuine !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So many people, Trev?

I know of very few who have believed that. Perhaps you have compiled a list of all those who have been keeping the diary from its bed?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

You can really tell a man by his supporters.

Sometimes the truth hurts. I have no horse in this race and simply look for the truth. I personally have said from day one that the diary is a hoax.


If what Lord Orsam has published can be proven to be wrong then those that don't accept it have the chance to respond accordingly instead of posting snide remarks, which doesn't do them any justice and only goes to show that he has hit a nerve or two.


I have clashed with him big time several years ago on Tumblety but on that occasion I was right and he was wrong!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So many people, Trev?

I know of very few who have believed that. Perhaps you have compiled a list of all those who have been keeping the diary from its bed?

Love,

Caz
X

Do you believe it was a hoax ? and you do have a horse in this race do you not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gary Barnett]

On the contrary he has done a very thorough examination of all the facts ! which clearly some folks wont like because it goes against what they believe to be the real truth.


Perhaps the diary issue can be put to bed now once and for all, the diary is a fake, and I cant see why so many people over the past few years have believed it to be genuine !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

I was referring to the hilarious anecdotes about the relationship between Lord Orsam and his lackey David Barrat. They are even funnier than your lawnmower joke.

Gary

[Caroline Brown]

Do you believe it was a hoax ? and you do have a horse in this race do you not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trev, I do believe it was a hoax. You clearly haven't been paying much attention over the years.

What's the name of my horse then, if you are so clever, Trevor?

Lord Orsam's horse must be called Rank Outsider. Anyone who puts forward the theory that Anne Barrett penned the diary for her husband, over 11 days [because she is secretly a masochist and ambidextrous, or has a multiple personality disorder] and then immediately let him loose with it in London, to show her handiwork to God knows whom, and claim it was written more than a century previously, is either having a laugh or is completely out of any better ideas.

Like buying Bronco in a panic because there is no other loo paper on the shelves.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Brown]

I'm dense, so you may need to explain how Anne's documented behavior (accompanying Mike to London, signing the book deal, meeting with Feldman in the Moat House, coming up with the new provenance story, going on Radio Merseyside, etc) is somehow less crazy and more consistent with Barrett having appropriated the Diary from Dodd, as opposed to Barrett having simply created it? There may be a difference, but its subtly eludes me.

Apologies for not responding sooner, R.J.

I cannot imagine Mike Barrett would have found anything remotely 'simple' about it, had he tried his hand at creating such a diary. He was consistently rubbish whenever he put pen to paper unaided, or tried to type anything unaided. Anne knew that better than anyone, so while she was willing to help and encourage her hubby with his modest and childishly innocent writing ambitions in the 1980s, it would have taken a special kind of bravery, bordering on foolhardiness, to plunge with him into criminality to create a forgery, which she knew would take all her effort and skill to save from a disaster of Mike's own making.

Mike was also consistently rubbish at telling a straight story from that first phone call to Rupert Crew - with the one notable exception being his robust denials whenever it was suggested that the diary had been appropriated from Paul Dodd. He considered anything to be less personally damaging than allowing his diary a perfect Battlecrease provenance. So when he was busy claiming it was a worthless fake, created with his involvement, he must have thought he was gaining more than he was losing by swearing to this.

Anne's behaviour makes no sense to me as damage limitation, if she herself had enabled that damage and made it inevitable, by helping Mike with such an implausibly ambitious project. So I think she was totally caught on the hop by Mike when he brought the diary into their home and was determined to "do something with it". If it was indeed passed on to Mike by a tight-lipped Saddle regular, Anne would probably have been at work when the key moments happened: Mike's first look at the diary; his phone calls to Rupert Crew; and when the diary changed hands. She'd have known he was lying about getting it from Tony Devereux, if she knew he had died months before Mike first showed her the diary. But what could she do about it, if Mike had already told Doreen the backstory, before Anne even knew there was going to be one or what it was? How was she then going to deny everything, when Doreen had already understood from Mike that his wife was fully on board and had been helping with his research since August 1991?? She would have been put in an impossible position, having to decide between refusing to play along and exposing Mike's big lie, or letting him get on with it for the sake of their marriage and daughter's security. If young Caroline witnessed her parents having a fierce row over Mike's plans to publish the diary, how much worse would things get if Anne failed to support Mike's story, or actively denied it?

Anne didn't go with Mike to London for that initial meeting in April 1992, and I suspect she had an unpleasant surprise when he came home, not with a rejection and a flea in his ear, but like an over-excited puppy with a bone, and the news that they were in a "go" situation, with her next task [which was in fact her first] being to help Mike type up a transcript of the diary text. In that situation, her worst fear might have been that the diary had been stolen, and its owner would miss it - if not straight away, certainly when it was published. Despite Anne's attempt at humour, when asking Mike a year later: "Did you nick it?", I doubt she really thought he had done so. He may have reassured her by saying he got the diary from someone who insisted that nobody else knew about it, so it wouldn't be missed. As the months went by, and no news was good news, she may have gradually relaxed into the role Mike had thrust upon her, of a wife who had supported him all the way, since his dead pal had thrust the diary on him.

But I don't quite know what you mean by the 'creative process as it happened.' Well, I sort of do, but this wasn't Dostoyevsky discussing the creative backdrop to the Brothers K, was it? This was a paranoid Barrett lodging a private document with his solicitor in case he was bumped off by Paul Feldman. Laugh if you want, but Barrett alludes to threats and unexpected visits, etc. and his fear is directly stated in the affidavit. He is now fully engaged in derailing Feldman's locomotive, and wants something down on paper in case he ends up bobbing the Mersey.

I get all that and I'm not laughing. Mike was genuinely afraid - as well as hopping mad - that Feldman and others were out to get him, and he knew the best way of 'derailing' that locomotive was to shove the diary firmly in its path, with a statement signed in blood that he had fooled everyone with a recently created fake. Making money out of selling the 'full story' could have been a bonus [and seen by Alan Gray as the only way he was likely to be paid for his time and trouble], but I doubt it was Mike's major motivation, and it says nothing about the truth or otherwise of his forgery claims. If anything, the major 'derailing' motive, coupled with any minor money-making possibilities, could provide a reason for volunteering a confession to something he didn't do. If Mike knew it could never be proved in a court of law, because it wasn't true and his 'evidence' was conjured up and cobbled together, with Gray's unsuspecting and unpaid assistance, it would have served his 'derailing' purposes and kept Gray on board - for the time being - without leaving himself vulnerable to a forgery conviction.

(Which, now that I mention it, I saw an old post of yours, announcing your mother’s 100th birthday. My father’s side of the family lives to be in their late 90s. We both have strong genes, so do me a favor. If we are still discussing this 30 years from now, feel free to hunt me down and strangle me).

Ah, you misunderstood. Sorry. That old post would have been in December 2017, when my mother would have been 100 years old, had she not passed away in 1993, at the more tender age of 75. I think I take after my father's side more, and he was 84 when he died, so I hope I have a few more years yet to engage with people on this subject. Seems you at least agree that it won't be dead and buried before we are.

As for Kane, perhaps I'll post more later, but I certainly don't insist on it being the correct answer. I’m like Keith; I have no pony in the race, I just have preferred theories. Except that all my preferred theories date to 1992. I can see the strength of Lord O's focus on Goldie Street. Ockham's Razor, and all that. The simplest and most direct answer is often the correct one.

And that's again where we differ regarding the definition of 'simple'. The fact that we are still here, working on and discussing our various theories [my own dating to 1992, but for different reasons], suggests to me that the simplest and most direct answer would not involve the diary being 'simply' created in Goldie Street and 'directly' brought forward by the man of the house. Had that been the case, I should have expected it to fall at the first hurdle and be shot. The Grand National in 1992 was on Saturday April 4th, so "Sir Jim's Delight" would have been up and running in Goldie Street that day, being lovingly prepared for the big one on Monday 13th.

Love,

Caz
X

[Gary Barnett]

A Little Clanger

In his lengthy attempt to demolish Simon Wood’s ‘Deconstructing Jack’, his Lordship presents The Albert Street Story to rubbish Simon’s suggestion that the ‘Eyewitness’ incident took place on the corner of Deal Street and Hanbury (formerly Church) Street:


‘He reveals some very strange reasoning by commenting that, while he can't find a Cohen's sugar refinery in Church Street, there was a Cowan's sugar refinery in Barnes, West London. So did the eye-witness to the verbal assault on the man accused of being 'Leather Apron' confuse a refinery in Spitalfields with one across the other side of London, in Barnes? Rather unlikely.’


‘The eye-witness had probably confused two Jewish surnames (although the owner, John Schwartz, was not Jewish) and meant 'Schwartz' not 'Cohen'.’


‘Putting aside the 'Cohen' v 'Cowan' issue, Wood's theory is that when the the ‘eye-witness' said 'Albert Street' he meant 'Deal Street' which extended from the southern end of Albert Street and intersected with the section of Hanbury Street which, until 1876, as mentioned above, had been called Church Street. Close to the corner of Deal Street and Hanbury Street was Dakin's Sugar Refinery which might have been what the eye-witness wrongly referred to Cohen's sugar refinery' for no apparent reason. This theory has the advantage of allowing for the possibility that Pizer's 'Church Street' was actually Hanbury Street and he thought of it by its old name, albeit that the name had changed 12 years earlier. It's certainly possible but seems to have nothing more going for it (and arguably less) than my theory that the sugar refinery identified by the eye-witness was the one formerly owned by John Schwartz.‘


So whose instincts should we trust - Simon’s or His Lordship’s? Which sounds more likely, mistaking Cowan for Cohen or Schwartz for Cohen?

His Lordship clumsily attempts to put a spoke in the wheel of Simon’s theory by pointing out that Cowan’s refinery was across London in Barnes. But If he had been following the discussions on the subject on Casebook (and he does seem to follow the boards avidly) he would have been aware that Col. Cowan had recently taken over Dakin’s refinery. When you take that into account, and the fact that the last sighting of Pizer in connection with the incident had been outside the Leigh Hoy pub in Hanbury (formerly Church) Street, Simon’s theory that the refinery in question was the one near the corner of Deal Street and Hanbury Street, and that Eyewitness’s reported reference to it as Cohen’s was as as a result of a mishearing of Cowan, becomes infinitely more plausible than the rather silly idea that he got the names Cohen and Schwartz confused because the were both Jewish names.

Nice one, Simon.

Clanger, Lord O.

[Paul]

Sometimes the truth hurts. I have no horse in this race and simply look for the truth. I personally have said from day one that the diary is a hoax.


If what Lord Orsam has published can be proven to be wrong then those that don't accept it have the chance to respond accordingly instead of posting snide remarks, which doesn't do them any justice and only goes to show that he has hit a nerve or two.


I have clashed with him big time several years ago on Tumblety but on that occasion I was right and he was wrong!


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No offence intended, Trevor, but what you have thought about the diary since day one is irrelevant. It's evidence, not a gut feeling, that's needed. And an honest pursuit of that evidence isn't having a horse in the race. I, like you and Caz and almost everone else, and their mother, think this diary is bogus, but none of us know for certain who was responsible for creating it. I don't have either the stamina or the depth of interest to pursue an answer to the mystery, but I am very grateful that people like Caz are doing so. So should you be.

[Kattrup]

Updated, to the joy of most and dismay of some, I'm sure: https://www.orsam.co.uk/news.htm

[Gary Barnett]

Updated, to the joy of most and dismay of some, I'm sure: https://www.orsam.co.uk/news.htm

O frabjous day!

Major Clanger has discovered that Cowan’s soap works in Barnes was occasionally referred to as Cohen’s. And that Cowan was Jewish. Thanks, Maje! Every little helps.

And we have a report in the East London Advertiser of 15th December, 1888 referring to ‘Colonel and Alderman Cowan, who has recently acquired an interest in the district by the purchase of Dakin’s sugar refinery’. Cowan was a City of London Alderman and the Conservative candidate for Whitechapel. He had a long-standing connection to the East End.

So where were we? Is it more likely that eyewitness confused the names Cohen and Schwartz because they were both ‘Jewish names’, or Cohen and Cowan for patently obvious reasons?

Simon and I chose the latter, the Major plumped for the former, although he now seems to be less keen on the idea.

[Gary Barnett]

Updated, to the joy of most and dismay of some, I'm sure: https://www.orsam.co.uk/news.htm

Hi Kattrup,

I hope I’ve increased your joy.

Gary

[Gary Barnett]

3. MR THE CLANGER
Good to see Gary the Clanger making his SIXTIETH post on the Waterstone's blog. Even though it's supposed to be about Rubenhold's book, the Clanger is continuing his one-man campaign against the bookseller's policies about selling books during the Coronavirus crisis. A blog page relating to a book about Jack the Ripper is undoubtedly the appropriate place to be making these types of comments and doesn't reveal an unhinged person on a pointless solo vendetta.
But while he's busy waging his war against Waterstones he still can't seem to find time to ask his great mate and fellow seeker of the truth, Paul Begg, if he accepts that there are serious errors in his book regarding the issue of the resignation of Monro. It's only Rubenhold whose mistakes he challenges, not Begg, never Begg.


This is a classic piece of Clangerism - take a bow, Major.

I’m pleased to hear that the Major has taken the time to count my posts on the Waterstones blog, although he doesn’t appear to have read them. If he had, he would be aware that one of the reasons there have been so many is that Waterstones have intercepted/deleted several longer posts by me and others who have challenged Rubenhold’s Ripperologist-bashing.

In fact, I’m wondering whether the Major has even read HR’s initial blog, which isn’t really about her book as he claims, it’s about her ‘battle’ with Ripperologists. And when Waterstones waded in in her defence by suppressing/deleting perfectly reasonable responses to her attack on Ripperologists, it also became about Waterstones’ methods of selling books. (BTW, my ‘one-man war’ consisted of two short posts.)

I’m sure Major C will see this post and feel the need to respond to it. If he does, It might be interesting to see a comparative word count between my responses to HR’s 878 word blog (one example of dozens of similar tirades against Ripperologists on numerous media platforms across the globe) and one of The Major’s verbal tsunamis in response to a few sentences on the forums. That’ll give us some idea who is truly unhinged. I’m guessing The Major and HR will be well ahead of me in the Colney Hatch queue.

As for the Monro thing, how many times do I have to inform Lord Clang Almighty that I haven’t read Paul’s book and know next to nothing about Monro beyond having a vague idea that he was some kind of a police official involved in the Ripper case.

And once again, LCA claims that it’s only Rubenhold’s mistakes I challenge. Perhaps he hopes that if he says it often enough, it will become true.