Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 26

CLANGER GONE MAD

When Lord Orsam woke up early on Monday, 24 January, he found that the Clanger had literally gone insane, losing all sense of perspective and making a string of multiple mental off-topic obsessive rage-posts in the Maybrick 'Incontrovertible' thread about Stepney and Lord Orsam which did no more than repeat the exact same thing he'd already posted TWICE earlier in that thread and which, in quoting Lord Orsam, was against the Forum rules (for which he was rebuked by Chief Censor Menges, although, strangely, Menges had nothing to say about the off-topic nature of those posts which, one would have thought, was a more serious offence).

Yes, we all understood the first time the Clanger's big point about Lord Orsam misidentifying James Street which has literally nothing to do with the Maybrick diary but his big point was, of course, a small point, akin to misidentifying a cotton broker as a sugar broker, because it made no difference whatsoever to what Lord Orsam was saying about Lechmere and his lair in the original entry in question.

To prove this, I've now turned the entry relating to the Clanger's Lechmere's lair thread into an article entitled The Clanger's Lair in which 'Stepney' is replaced with 'James Street' but no other changes have been made and the conclusions are completely unaffected.  

That article, in case you missed the above link, can be found here.

This shows what an insignificant issue it is.  It made no difference at all to what I was saying in the article, requiring no other amendments, just the replacement of that one word.

So now perhaps the Clanger can respond to the substantive points and explain to us all (a) what basis there is for suggesting that Lechmere had a lair in or around Pinchin Street to the extent that he created a click bait thread about it on JTR Forums and (b) what it was he discovered about this so-called lair which tempted him to become, as he told us, a full blown believer in Lechmere's guilt.

While he's at it, he might also want to respond to the thousand other points I've made about his arguments on this website which he's completely ignored while obsessing madly over the location of a street.

He might have intended to go to Stepney but it seems that the Clanger has made the rather different journey to the very centre of Barking.

CAROLINE'S GRASP OF THE CHRONOLOGY

It wasn't very long ago - 23 December 2021 in fact - that Keith Skinner was telling RJ Palmer:

'I can assure him that Caroline's grasp of the chronology of this investigation since 1992 far outstrips his own and that of Lord Orsam'.

In saying this, he must have meant to exclude 1992 from the relevant time period because Miss Information has obviously messed up the issue of when Shirley and Doreen first became aware that Maybrick was supposed to be the author of the diary.

In #6399 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread, posted on 29 June 2021, she told us that 'the earliest entry I have, which features the name Maybrick in a diary context, is in a letter from Shirley to Doreen dated 2 July 1992' and that there is 'nothing to suggest that Mike made good his claim at the earliest opportunity to have personally identified Jack the Ripper'.  Note that wording.  NOTHING to suggest that Mike identified Maybrick as Jack the Ripper at 'the earliest opportunity'.

Now, however, she tells us for the very first time that there is, in fact, something to suggest that Doreen and Shirley knew that Maybrick was the supposed to be the diary author at a much earlier time, in early May 1992, for, in Doreen's blurb for prospective publishers, there is what Miss Information describes as 'a cryptic reference' to 'time revealing all'.

Well, sure, it might have been cryptic in early May 1992 but today we can see that Doreen CLEARLY believed she was offering publishers a diary written by James Maybrick.  There can't be any dispute about that. 

So the idea Miss Information had been punting back on 29 June 2021 that no one involved with the diary knew anything about Maybrick being the supposed author until around July 1992 was bullshit.  

We know from Robert Smith's book that Keith Skinner was in a meeting with Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison and Mike Barrett himself on 4 June 1992.  Keith Skinner always takes notes of meetings.  How is it possible that he didn't inform Miss Information that, at this meeting, it was already known that the diary was supposed to be by Maybrick?

Given the 'time reveals all' message in the promotional material from May 1992, of course it was known.

Which then brings us back to 13 April 1992.  Did Mike tell Doreen and Shirley at that meeting that he'd already worked out (from Tales of Liverpool) that Maybrick was the author?

Surely he must have done.

Shirley Harrison's own account of that meeting at page 8 of her 1993 book and page 7 of her 2003 book certainly suggests that Mike explained on 13 April 1992  that he'd worked out the Maybrick connection through the mention of 'Battlecrease' in the diary.

Why is Miss Information so reluctant to admit to this possibility, nay likelihood?

After all, if Mike didn't work it out, who did?  And if it was someone other than Mike, why is there no record of who made the discovery?

If Mike only worked it out after 13 April 1992, as Miss Information has suggested, why again do we have no record of his excited telephone conversation to Doreen or Shirley telling them of his remarkable discovery in which he'd cracked what must until then have been a perplexing puzzle, with no one until that time having a clue about what 'Battlecrease' meant?

No, it seems that Mike must have mentioned Maybrick at the meeting on 13 April 1992 (as Shirley suggests he did in her books).

Which then brings us on to the big question.  Did Mike mention Maybrick over the telephone to Doreen on 9  March 1992?

Miss Information always tells us that no, he did not.  He had no idea, she says, that the diary supposedly given to him by Eddie Lyons had anything to do with Maybrick.  He'd never heard of Battlecrease before.

I don't know what basis she has to make these claims.

While the meagre documentation relating to the 9 March call doesn't mention Maybrick, it also doesn't state that the identity of the diary author was unknown.  On the basis of the existing evidence, it would seem quite possible that Mike did mention Maybrick's name on 9 (or 10) March, but it's certainly likely that he did so on 13 April.

Miss Information's famous timeline seems to have let her down once again. 

NONSENSE ON STILTS

To my astonishment, I find Miss Information posting in #8155 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread:

'It took a sad git to go through Mike's notes with a fine-toothed comb after all this time, and come out the other end with what one highly respected researcher described to me privately as "nonsense  on stilts".

Well, we can see from that what she thinks of someone who does thorough and careful research into the documents on the case.  They are 'a sad git' to be doing it!  Perhaps that's why the team of diary defenders don't bother to go through the documents with a fine-toothed comb.  Perhaps that's why they are ignorant of so many things. And perhaps that's why they've allowed themselves to be scammed by Mike Barrett.

As to the outcome of my research, the bizarre thing about the "nonsense on stilts" claim from the anonymous and cowardly but purportedly highly respected researcher (but presumably one who would never go through Mike's notes with a fine-toothed comb) is that Miss Information herself seems to accept the factual findings of my research!!  Thus she seems to accept that that I have proved that Mike's source references to the Liverpool Echo in his notes were false and that he took much of his information about the Maybrick case from Ryan's book which he didn't mention as a source in his notes.  As far as I can tell, this doesn't seem to be disputed.  It was clearly another scam by Mike equal to his false claim that the notes reflected his research 'since August 1991'.

Where we disagree is not on the factual findings of my research but on what those findings show us.

In my view, Mike's secret reliance on Ryan shows that he didn't want to let Shirley know that he was familiar with Ryan's book because Ryan (as I have demonstrated elsewhere) was undoubtedly the source used by the forger of the diary for the Maybrick information.

In Miss Information's view*, Mike was told by Shirley of the existence of Ryan's book at some point after 13 April 1992 and, having initially (and in her view genuinely) denied any knowledge of it, he couldn't then include any mention of Ryan in his research notes which supposedly reflected research done prior to 13 April 1992 but which 'research' was actually done after 13 April 1992.

There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which is that Miss Information appears to be guessing that Shirley ever mentioned Ryan's book to Mike prior to July 1992 and also guessing that Mike denied knowing of its existence. She certainly hasn't provided any evidence of this conversation which, until some evidence is provided, must be regarded as nothing more than fantasy.

A second problem is that one would have thought that the reason for Mike providing his co-author with research notes in July or August 1992 was to assist his co-author in her own research for their forthcoming book about the diary.  As I discuss in Researching the Notes it would appear to have been a contractual obligation for Mike to hand his notes over to Shirley for the purposes of collaboration and research.  It doesn't appear to have been to prove he'd been doing research in 1991. 

Furthermore, Mike was at that time surely regarded as a co-author and research assistant, not a suspect of the forgery, so that it would be odd if the purpose of handing over the notes was nothing more than to prove he'd been researching the case, rather than a genuine attempt to provide information to Shirley for the book.   

Additionally, no less a personage than Keith Skinner tells us that some of the information in Mike's research notes reflects 'information and input' from Shirley.  If that really is true, although there must be serious doubt that it is  (see Researching the Notes), it would totally negate the possibility that the notes were supposed to evidence Mike's research work in 1991 or early 1992.  If they contained information and input from Shirley then they MUST have and CAN ONLY have reflected research done by Mike after 13 April 1992 and, as a consequence, there would have been no good reason for Mike to have withheld his knowledge of Ryan.  Indeed, it would have been very strange for Mike to have been told by Shirley about Ryan's book yet have failed to consult it when preparing his notes which also contained her information and input

*At the time of writing this entry, it changed subsequently as detailed below.

REAL NONSENSE ON STILTS 

When it comes to nonsense on stilts we find it in Little Scottie Nelson Esq.'s utterly bizarre theory in #8154 in which he was 'just wondering'  if Mike 'used the Liverpool Echo reference in his notes because his friend Tony Devereux worked there'.  If you are wondering, like me, what the fuck that means, Little Scottie tells us that it was all so that 'if Mike was questioned too thoroughly, he could say that he got (some of) the information from Tony.'

I mean, I need a moment to compose myself.

So Mike is challenged by the investigators about the Liverpool Echo references in his notes - because that information sourced to the Liverpool Echo isn't to be found in the Liverpool Echo - and he says "Okay, you win, it wasn't from the Liverpool Echo, it was from Tony Devereux". So the next question the investigators ask is:  "Where did Tony Devereux get the information from?"  Er....err......

And if Tony Devereux knew all about Maybrick, wouldn't Mike's brilliant plan have indicated to the investigators that Tony forged the flipping diary!!!

And in any case, Mike's story was that he pestered Tony constantly about the diary but Tony told him NOTHING.  When was he supposed to have asked him all these questions about the case and got answers?

Anyway, none of that is even the reason why Little Scottie's theory is nonsense on stilts. It's nonsense on stilts because Mike's note is headed 'Transferring all my notes since August 1991'.  Tony Devereux died in August 1991.  So, as Mike would have known, Tony couldn't credibly have been the source for his research notes created SINCE August 1991, could he?

Yet what was Miss Information's response to this nonsense on stilts?

#8159: 'That's a reasonable suggestion, Scotty'. 

Jeezuz.  Is the highly respected but cowardly researcher who hides behind others and can't seem to justify their opinions, and who doesn't seem to contribute any research on this case, going to tell her that this theory which she thinks is reasonable is, in fact, nonsense on stilts?

IS MISS INFORMATION NOW JUST MAKING THINGS UP?

#8156 of the Incontrovertible thread:

'anyone researching the diary innocently might very reasonably have reached for Ryan's book in doing so, as Shirley's own advice to Mike demonstrates'.

What advice by Shirley to Mike?

Where is the evidence of this advice?

Or are we allowed to simply make things up now? 

I don't know if she is making it up, but I've yet to see a single piece of actual evidence that Shirley mentioned Ryan's book to Mike at any time.

CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

Also #8156 of Incontrovertible:

'The reason Mike didn't name Ryan was far more likely to be because he had claimed his Maybrick research dated back to before Shirley first made him aware of the book's existence.'

What evidence is there that Mike ever claimed that his Maybrick research, as reflected in his notes, dated back to before Shirley first made him aware of the book's existence?

And how is that notion consistent with Keith Skinner's published statement that those same notes contain 'information and input from Shirley'
 
MORE NONSENSE ON STILTS
 
In a remarkable twist, Miss Information popped up in a Lechmere thread on JTR Forums to discuss....the diary!!!

It's true.

I know from previous discussions with her on the Forum that she doesn't for one second think that Lechmere was a murderer, so that she obviously doesn't agree with the Clanger for one second that Lechmere had a lair but, in a thread entitled 'Charles Lechmere's Lair?' she wasn't interested in ANY of that.  No, she wanted to talk about ME and the diary! 

Not only did she want to repeat her anonymously sourced 'nonsense on stilts' nonsense in respect of my Maybrick research (in a Lechmere thread, remember!), which isn't even challenged as to its factual conclusion, but so desperate is she now that more evidence has emerged of Mike being involved in fakery that in #440 of the 'Lair' thread, she claimed falsely that Lord Orsam fails to check if his own sources are leading him astray and that:

'using Mike Barrett as a reliable source for anything has always been one of Lord Orsam's most unfathomable mistakes'.

The only unfathomable thing is that she keeps saying this.

Her big mistake is that she fails to read anything which contradicts her own entrenched views.

I've said time and time again that I do not use Mike Barrett as a source for anything.

I mean, what is she talking about?

I'm fully aware that he is not a reliable person so I don't use him as a source for anything full stop.

My latest research of which she speaks in her post expressly does NOT use Mike Barrett as a source because my whole point is that the references in his research notes are unreliable (i.e. fake).  It's the very fucking opposite of relying on him as a reliable source!  If I'd used him as a reliable source, I would have believed that he used the Liverpool Echo as a source for his Maybrick information (something never previously challenged by Miss Information or Keith Skinner, funnily enough).
 
To recap:

My belief that Mike was involved in the forgery plot is based on his search for a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992 for which no sensible explanation has EVER been provided and I can't think of any reason for him doing so other than for the purpose of faking a Victorian diary.    It's got nothing to do with what he said, it's what he is actually proven to have done.

It really is that simple. 
 
Nevertheless, Miss Information will either not read this or pretend not to read it and will no doubt continue to repeat falsely until her dying day that Lord Orsam treats Mike Barrett as a reliable source but, as a professional spreader of misinformation, that is only to be expected from her.
 
She just doesn't like the fact that ONCE AGAIN I've found something relating to the Maybrick diary that no one else spotted, just like the Gladys is unwell issue, just like Bunny's Aunt, and she is oh too desperate to try and pooh pooh the discovery.  But it cannot be wished away.
 
GLORIOUS SELF-OWN
 
Back over in an actual Maybrick thread, Miss Information scored an extraordinary own goal in #8160 of 'Incontrovertible':

'If Mike had faked the diary using Ryan, however, it should have been child's play to pick any Maybrick source but Ryan for his bogus research notes'. 

But that is EXACTLY what Mike did with the Liverpool Echo which he picked as his source for his bogus research notes!

Miss Information didn't even think her argument through.  How could Mike pick ANY Maybrick source?  If the information in that source didn't match what was in his research notes, the plan would have immediately failed.

That was the whole point of using the Liverpool Echo as a source.  No one could possibly have checked the entire back issues of the Liverpool Echo to discover that the information in Mike's notes wasn't in that newspaper.

But with a single book it would have been straightforward for someone to check and find out that what Mike was saying in his research notes couldn't be found in that book.

In other words, if Mike had picked any Maybrick source other than Ryan he would actually have needed to have consulted that source and extracted the information from it, the very thing I was saying in my article that he probably couldn't be arsed to do.
 
In any case, what are all these other Maybrick sources?  There weren't very many books about the Maybrick case in 1992 and most of those were over twenty years old.  Where would Mike have got them?  He'd certainly have had to have gone to the library, but did he even bother to do that?  If he'd already done the research for the fake diary - or someone else had done it - he could simply have used that for his notes.  That was the point of my article.  Mike wanted to use a short cut (the Liverpool Echo fake source) without having to do any work, while relying on Ryan for everything to do with Maybrick.

LORD ORSAM VINDICATED!

None other than the highly respected Major himself finally admitted in #8165 of the Incontrovertible thread on 26 January 2022, a full five days after Orsam day, that:
 
'Mike using Ryan for his research notes and attempting to hide the fact is an interesting discovery'.
 
Yippee!  Lord Orsam really did do it again!
 
DIARY DEFENDER IN TROUBLE

You can tell when a diary defender's in trouble. They suddenly don't have the time to read posts addressed to them on the Forum!

Hence, with three perceptive posts from RJ Palmer outstanding, Miss Information ignored them all but replied to Tom's #8165 (which wasn't even addressed to her) in #8166 to say:

'I have yet to read many of RJ's latest posts and have better things to do right now....'

LOL!

Yes, of course she does.

For the first time ever, she now mentioned the existence of recorded conversations of meetings, on unspecified dates in unspecified years, between Mike, Keith and Shirley, 'confirming that when Shirley first mentioned Ryan's book to Mike, he said he'd not heard of it'.

Note the passive phrasing of this sentence.   Presumably SOMEONE confirmed this.  Who was it?  Shirley or Mike?  And what exactly did they say?  Why are we not told the exact words? 

Amazingly, despite me having literally no knowledge of these recordings, she then said:

'What Lord Orsam needs to do is to demonstrate  that Shirley had the Ryan conversation with Mike after the notes were delivered to her in July/August 1992.'

Erm, no I don't!  That's not the way it works.  SHE was the one relying on this supposed conversation to argue that Mike would have had an 'innocent' motive for hiding his reliance on Ryan.  So SHE is the one who needs to demonstrate that the conversation in question came before Mike's notes were delivered to Shirley.

After all, it seems quite easy to imagine that, after having received the notes, Shirley mentioned Ryan's book to Mike and asked him why he hadn't used it as a source for his research, with Mike replying that the reason for this was that he'd never heard of it.  THAT would be quite interesting considering that Mike would have been lying (for what reason?) but, of course, once again, the actual evidence of the recorded conversation(s) is being suppressed.  Not only are the recordings not being provided but we are not even told what was actually said.

Miss Information doesn't even tell us if it's stated in the recordings when Shirley is supposed to have mentioned Ryan's book to Mike.  Yet she says that I'm supposed to prove it happened after July/August 1992!!  Why not just tell us what the recordings said?

But here's the thing though, the other reason why I don't need to prove anything about the timing of the supposed conversation between Mike and Shirley is because Keith Skinner has told us in writing and in print that some of the 'information and input' in Mike's notes 'came from Shirley' and that 'Mike added this to his own notes' .  Thus, even if Shirley had told Mike about Ryan's book prior to receiving his notes, she wouldn't have been in any way surprised to find Ryan being used as a source.  In fact, the very opposite is true.  If she knew that Mike's notes contained her own information and input she would have expected Mike to have used Ryan as a source.

Is Miss Information saying that Keith Skinner was wrong to claim that Mike's notes contained information and input from Shirley? 

Thing is, I asked about this when I was a Forum member, and it was Miss Information herself who posted Keith's response to me in the Forum back on 1 September 2017 in the '25 Years of the Diary of Jack the Ripper' thread when it was speculated by Keith via Miss Information that:

'Shirley's input into these notes may have been the research she was suggesting to Mike he could do in Liverpool.'

If Mike's notes reflected research suggested to him by Shirley Harrison, why would Shirley have been in any way suspicious to find Mike using Ryan's book, which she had told him about, and why would Mike have needed to hide mention of Ryan's book by using the Liverpool Echo as a disguise? 
 
At time of writing, RJ Palmer had already asked Miss Information about this, but funnily enough it was one of those posts which she had better things to do than read! 
 
A NEW STORY EMERGES

The twists and turns of the response to my article are a miracle to behold.

In #8168 of 'Incontrovertible', according to Miss Information, the reason Mike included fake references to the Liverpool Echo is now because Shirley had been informed by him that, as she included in the first edition of her book, 'He spent hours sifting through microfilm newspaper reports in the Library'. 

Methinks that the person who, we'd been told by Keith Skinner, has an amazing grasp of the chronology of events 'since 1992' had forgotten that Keith Skinner had stated that Mike's research notes had been updated with information and input from Shirley Harrison prior to being handed over to her, so that, if true, her theory that Mike had to hide any mention of Ryan in those notes can fairly be described as nonsense on stilts.
 
So she's had to come up with a new cover story for Mike, namely that what he was actually up to in his research notes was justifying a claim that he'd spent hours sifting through microfilm, even though we have as little idea when Mike told Shirley this, in order for her to include the quote in her book published in October 1993, as when he supposedly mentioned his ignorance of Ryan.
 
Thing is, while the new theory might (if Mike mentioned sifting through microfilm prior to July 1992 of which there is zero evidence) explain some random references to the Liverpool Echo in Mike's research notes, it doesn't explain why Mike covered up any mention of Ryan's book in the entirety of those notes. Don't forget that a number of references taken from Ryan, including the meeting on the Britannic, are NOT sourced to the Liverpool Echo.  So how does the new microfilm based theory explain that?
 
Furthermore, isn't it strange that Mike didn't provide a single newspaper reference in his notes (genuine or fake) for anything to do with the Whitechapel murders?
 
How odd to be researching a Jack the Ripper diary and not provide one single reference to an 1888 newspaper, despite supposedly trying to convince Shirley in his notes that he'd spent hours looking at microfilmed newspaper reports.

ANOTHER TWIST

In #8171 we are told: 'We do know from Shirley herself that she asked Mike if he had heard of Ryan's book and he said no'.

How do we "know" this?  It's never been mentioned before!  I've certainly never heard anything from Shirley herself.
 
From past experience, I don't trust anything Miss Information says.  If she wants to convince us of what Shirley says, why hasn't she given us Shirley's exact words?
 
We need to hear the full recording of these meetings, or at least have a transcript of them, to understand what was going on but, as usual, this is clearly being suppressed. 
 
DOING THE TWIST

Responding to the Clanger who, as we know, seemed to be under the bizarre impression that the 'off Tithebarn Street' point nullified my research and undermined my conclusion that Mike borrowed from Ryan, Miss Information totally ignored his question about that but instead admitted in #8178 that Lord Orsam has demonstrated that, 'Mike took the easy way out by taking his Maybrick notes from a single book - Bernard Ryan's - but pretending to trawl through a load of old newspapers for the info'.

This was, of course, something no one else had spotted before and by amazing coincidence both the forger of the Maybrick diary AND Mike Barrett relied entirely and secretly on Ryan's book for their Maybrick information!

How's about that for one of those Maybrick coincidences?

But Miss Information said that, 'The real trick is working what the purpose was each time, and Lord Orsam has missed this by a mile'.

It's a funny thing though.   I'm old enough to remember being told that Mike's purpose was to disguise his use of Ryan because he'd told Shirley that he'd never heard of Ryan.  But in #8178 Miss Information didn't even mention this supposed conversation between Shirley and Mike about Ryan!!

Oh no, that's been quietly pushed aside and abandoned now that she's been reminded of Keith Skinner's claim (which she can't possibly contradict) that Mike's notes were known to contain Shirley's input, making her theory that Mike was trying to cover up Shirley's input, in polite parlance, somewhat of a nonsense on stilts.

So what we are told now about Mike's purpose by Miss Information in the Big Twist (repeating what she said in #8168) is this:

'He named the Liverpool Echo as the source of the Maybrick info [with no dates or page numbers] to make it look like he had spent hours sifting through microfilm newspaper reports in the library before he made contact with Doreen on March 9th 1992'.

Incredible ain't it that between Orsam Day (21 Jan) and 25 January when Miss Information and the other diary defenders were responding to my article non-stop, not a single mention was made of Mike sifting through microfilm newspaper reports!

Yet within the space of three hours on 26 January, Miss Information mentioned it twice!!  Just fancy that.

She rounded off her post with some meaningless nonsense:

'Once again, for RJ's benefit, if Mike had wanted to avoid naming Ryan's book in these notes, because  he had used it for faking the diary, he had no need to take notes from that book in the first place'.

Had she bothered to read my article, she would see that I'd already dealt with that.  The short point being: what was he supposed to have done?  Where else could he have got all the information that ended up in his notes?

Like I said, there weren't many books available on Maybrick at the time.  To have done what Miss Information is suggesting, he would have had to have done some actual research!    

MISS INFORMATION'S SOUR GRAPES
 
Post #8182:
 
'And yet Orsam can only rustle up 22 votes in 2022'.

Tee hee! Well I didn't rustle up anything.  I had no involvement in the poll.  But even I can see with only 37 people interested enough to vote IN TOTAL, that's why a 'Barrett hoax' vote amounted to 61% of the votes - a landslide - with 69% believing it to be a modern hoax and a massive 75% percent satisfied that the diary is a hoax, even in a poll that was deliberately loaded against such a result (see Lord Orsam Says...Part 23).

That's kind of why you need to look at the percentages, rather than the absolute numbers, despite Miss Information trying to comfort herself that 22 doesn't seem as bad as 61.

And don't forget, I couldn't and didn't vote!

Nor, I think, did Abby Normal who was on an asterisk break at the time.  Mike JG wasn't around, so presumably didn't vote either.  Henry Flower left the board ages ago.  What about John Omlor, Peter Birchwood (and his wife), Karoline Leach and Stewart Evans, all of whom have made their opinions clear about a modern Barrett hoax in previous posts but have since retired from the boards, either fed up with it or driven away by the sheer unpleasantness of the diary defenders?  Some, such as Melvin Harris and Nick Warren, have even died!

So there's a huge body of real people out there (and dead ones too!) who would have voted for a Barrett hoax, as opposed to the imaginary army the Major, the Bitha, and, it seems, Miss Information, have convinced themselves is out there believing in a floorboards provenance.

And frankly the answer to Miss Information is that she could only rustle up FOUR votes (excluding herself) for the 'undecided' category in which she obviously feels people should have been voting.  FOUR!

Fuck me, that's after TWENTY-TWO FUCKING YEARS of posting incessantly, non stop about the subject.  Perhaps people aren't interested in posts of endless speculation and just want the facts.
 
SIFTING AGAIN! 

Also post #8182:

THIRD mention of 'sifting through microfilm newspaper reports' by Miss Information in one single day, having not mentioned it once before in five whole days of frantic responses to my article.

Talk about scrambling to try and repair the damage.  

As for that once-famous Mike/Shirley conversation about Ryan.  Not a squeak!  Wasn't that the crucial thing only yesterday? 

She's gaslighting us! 

MISS INFO IN MISSES POINT NON-SHOCKER

#8190 of Incontrovertible:

'Lord Orsam wants the notes to represent proof of something very specific - that Mike had used Ryan  to fake the diary, so he couldn't risk drawing attention to his use of the same source for his bogus notes. And that's what makes no sense, because all Mike had to do was avoid Ryan entirely when faking the notes.  Instead, he even made a big deal of the 'Britannic' detail he got from Ryan, by ending it with three exclamation marks [!!!]'

I don't know if Miss Information actually read my article about Mike's research notes or simply relied on what others said about it but her statement that 'all Mike had to do was avoid Ryan entirely when faking the notes' entirely misses the point.  If he avoided Ryan entirely he would have had nothing to put in the notes!!!

That's three exclamation marks there from ME.

This was the whole point of what I was saying.  Mike probably didn't have any other Maybrick source which he could easily access pre-July 1992 other than Ryan.  That's the whole fucking point.  He HAD to use Ryan if he was going to be able to fulfil his contractual obligation to provide some research notes to Shirley.
 
But he rather cleverly disguised his Ryan source references to the Liverpool Echo. 

The 'Britannic' detail isn't one of the entries sourced to the Liverpool Echo but, to the extent anyone reading the notes assumed it came from the Echo, there was no possible way for them to prove it didn't.  You'd just have to assume that the Liverpool Echo mentioned it in one of its historic issues.  It's only now with the ability to perform electronic searches that we know it's not mentioned in that newspaper.  So the exclamation marks that Mike added are neither here nor there. 
 
It didn't matter to Mike if anyone knew the Britannic was in Ryan, not just because he could theoretically have taken that information from the Liverpool Echo, but because Mike had literally no idea it was incorrect information and would probably have assumed that ALL books on the Maybrick case said that James met Florence on the Britannic.  That's the thing that I was the first to notice hadn't happened and that Ryan is unique of all Maybrick sources in saying (wrongly) that it was on the Britannic.

Ultimately, though, Miss Information needs to tell us WHAT book Mike was supposed to have used instead of Ryan.
 
The most obvious would have been 'This Friendless Lady' by Morland but that was published in 1957 so Mike might not have been able to get hold of a copy. 

This is what I already said in the article.

And btw Lord Orsam doesn't 'want' the notes to represent anything. He is following the evidence.  And the evidence is clearly leading him to Mike Barrett's door.
 
LORD ORSAM
27 January 2022
Published: Orsam Day 9 March 2022