Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 28


I've said before that the Clanger is one of those hasty posters who doesn't seem to read anything properly (and, in that, he reminds me of Pierre).

I noticed that when RJ Palmer posted this short extract from Paul Feldman's book on the Forum (#8244 of Incontrovertible):


the Clanger, who seems to have the expression 'off Tithebarn Street' on the brain, wrote, in the next post, on 30 January (#8245):

'Who wrote that RJ?  Someone familiar with the 'off' somewhere usage clearly, but presumably not Ryan'.

I couldn't work out what the Clanger was getting at but, on 1 February (#8260), he returned obsessively to the point, asking RJ:

'What was Feldman's background?  Presumably an American, from the NE, because he uses 'off somewhere' in the same way as Ryan does.'

I assume this was some kind of mad sarcasm, on the basis that the Clanger thinks I was saying that 'off' somewhere is an American expression, which, of course, I never said, but the bonkers part of it is that the Clanger seems to have simply imagined Feldman using the 'off' somewhere expression.  It's not there!

Surely the Clanger can't have confused himself due to the extract posted by RJ Palmer containing an extract from the will of Thomas Conconi who, in 1868, had referred to James Maybrick as 'residing at No 55 Bromley Street, off Commercial Road London' can he?

Can he?

I bloody well think he has! 

I mean, it's not Feldman, it's Feldman quoting from a nineteenth century will!

And the reference to (an address in) Bromley Street being off Commercial Road is completely different to the way Ryan referred to a building which was IN Tithebarn Street as being OFF Tithebarn Street.  We all know that streets and roads can be off other streets/roads without any difficulty but it's another matter to say that a building in a street is off that same street.

Has the Clanger's brain now officially broken? 


The Clanger's obsession with Ryan coming from New York and using the expression 'off Tithebarn Street' as if that must be an American expression, or that I am saying that it must be an American expression, is entirely misplaced.

Ryan no doubt got the notion that Knowsley Buildings was 'off Tithebarn Street' from Irving's 1912 book, because (as I have now established) Irving quoted Addison from his opening speech at the trial on 31 July 1889 as saying that Maybrick had:

'an office in the Knowsley Buildings, which is somewhere off Tithebarn Street'.

Irving probably got this from Levy who used the same wording in his 1899 book.

The interesting thing about this is that the reporter for the Liverpool Echo (and the Liverpool Daily Post) reported Addison as saying something different, namely that Maybrick had:

'an office in the Knowsley-buildings, which is somewhere out of Tithebarn-street' .

The Liverpool Echo is, of course, stated to be Mike's source in his notes.

The Liverpool Courier, by contrast, reported the same statement as:

'an office in Knowsley-buildings, Tithebarn-street'. 

The Liverpool Mercury, by further contrast, reported the same statement as:

'an office in Knowsley-buildings, in or near Tithebarn-street'.

But it's only Ryan who took the Addison quote from Irving and shortened 'Knowsley Buildings, which is somewhere off Tithebarn Street' to 'Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn' Street', which, funnily enough, was the exact same thing that Mike Barrett did in his research notes!


The Major's anonymous correspondent, the Minor Major Misunderstanding, who goes by the initials FDC (which can surely only mean Fucking Daft Clown), had been giving some thought - if you can call it that - to the image of a letter from a consultant posted by RJ Palmer and had managed to convince himself (or herself) that it's a forgery.

Hence we find in #8266 that FDC wrote to the Major, for the Major to actually post so that other human beings could read it:

'The scrap of paper supposedly representing a doctor's note has no evidential value in itself.  The note has no header, no identification stamp, and no date of address of the doctor in question...'

FDC doesn't seem to realise that RJ Palmer had cropped the image to remove identifying information.  But I have a copy of the uncropped version of this document and can confirm that what FDC refers to as a 'note' is actually a letter on the letterhead of Walton Hospital which bears the consultant's full reference and is dated 2 March 1982 (something that RJ Palmer had said in his original post).

Without any proper explanation, FDC continued to claim that the 'note' is 'written unprofessionally' (why?) and that:

'The sentence "He has a non-functioning kidney on one side which may require removal...', a doctor is not going to formulate the sentence in this way.'

Why not? 

What's wrong with it?

FDC doesn't explain it, but there can't be anything wrong with the statement that a patient has a non-functioning kidney on one side can there?  

This is from the website topdoctors.co.uk: 


There is an example of a medical site referring to individuals with non-functioning kidneys on one side.  Given this, what does FDC think the consultant should have written?

We know that Mike certainly did have a non-functioning kidney because this was confirmed 15 years later by a doctor who stated on 28 February 1996 that Mike's left kidney was 'non-functioning' (see #8227 of Incontrovertible).  

Equally there can't be anything wrong with the consultant saying that the non-functioning kidney might require removal, can there?

This is by Dr Hunter Wessells on everydayhealth.com. 


As we can see, Dr Wessells says that 'An enlarged nonfunctioning kidney does not necessarily need to be removed'.  Clearly, therefore, some non-functioning kidneys are removed, some not.  What does FDC think he has found that is wrong?

The fact that he doesn't explain what he's talking about strongly suggests to me that he's bluffing, and has no medical expertise to offer.

RJ Palmer has redacted some parts of the consultant's letter which contain medical terms reflecting a knowledge that Mike Barrett couldn't possibly possess, and words he couldn't possibly have spelt correctly unaided.

I have no interest in whether Mike had kidney problems in his life or not.  It seems to me to have no relevance to whether he was involved in forging the diary or not. At the same time, I can't see any reason to conclude that  Rawlinson's letter is anything other than genuine.

Naturally, it can't entirely be ruled out that the letter is a forgery - although not for the reasons provided by FDC - but it should be obvious that if Mike in 1982 could forge a realistic looking doctor's letter in order to secure better housing, at at time when he didn't even own a word processor, he was a master forger for whom the creation of a manuscript diary would have been a doddle.


See Wednesday Bonus for a special historic Orsam Day Wednesday bonus discussing the latest random rules introduced on the Censorship Forum following the FDC controversy.


In #8270, RJ Palmer made a very good post about Mike's entry in his research notes relating to St James, which was similar to what I've said on the subject in  Lord Orsam Says...Part 25 under the heading 'USE YOUR BRAINS'.   Miss Information responded in #8273 but her response was, frankly, incomprehensible.

It's a great tactic, I guess, when you haven't got anything sensible to say to type incomprehensible nonsense which no one understands so it's impossible to contradict!  That seems to be what Miss Information has done here.  

A reminder of Mike's entry in his research notes, as posted by RJ:


This is what Miss Information said:

'there was really no need for Mike to have known it was meant to be a church, RJ. Look at the note again and read what it says this time, and not what it doesn't. Mike had initially assumed the diary author's mention of St. James's [which Mike renders Saint James - another bluff?] was a reference to somewhere of that name in Liverpool, as were the Poste House and Battlecrease.'

She then continued:

'Bongo was clever, very clever. He carefully avoided the trap you want him to have fallen into. He said nothing about thinking it was a church, or thinking it was where Florie and Jim were married. He found the information about where they married, and simply related this to the reference in the diary to St. James's - as anyone would.'

I can't make head nor tail of what she's trying to say here, can you?

First of all, why is Mike suddenly very clever?  Isn't he supposed to have been an idiot?

Secondly, what 'trap' is she talking about?  RJ Palmer wasn't talking about a trap.  He was saying that it would have been far more natural (assuming that Mike had only seen the diary for the first time in March 1992, having received it from Eddie Lyons) if Mike's reaction to 'Tales of Liverpool' had been to remark that he now understood why Jack the Ripper had wanted to burn it to the ground.  He wasn't saying anything about a trap.  For that reason, she's obviously completely misunderstood RJ Palmer's point.

Miss Information seems to be saying that Mike, having obtained the diary from Eddie Lyons in March 1992, saw the passage in the diary which said: 'My thoughts keep returning to Manchester, next time it will thrill me. I  know in my heart it will' which was followed three sentences later by:

'I will burn St James's to the ground'

and, ignoring the mention of Manchester, and despite having a good knowledge of Liverpool, thought that 'St James's was somewhere in Liverpool that he wasn't aware of but had no other thought about that sentence.  He wasn't apparently puzzled as to why Jack the Ripper wanted to burn St James's to the ground, or even what St James's actually was.  His only thought was that St James's must be a place in Liverpool.

Hence, according to Miss Information, when Mike saw in 'Tales of Liverpool' that Battlecrease was where Maybrick lived and that the Maybricks married in St James's Church, Piccadilly, his first reaction wasn't 'Oh now I understand why Jack the Ripper wanted to burn St James to the ground, it was because it was the church in which he married his wife.'  It was simply 'duh, how silly of me to think that St James was in Liverpool when it's a church in London'.

Hence, he stresses in his note that he had first thought that St James was in Liverpool but he now realizes it was in London.


You see, that's the very point that RJ Palmer was making. That it's odd that Mike's note doesn't reflect the fact that he's discovered why Maybrick wanted to burn St James to the ground.  Surely that's the most important thing he will have discovered. And if he didn't even know that St James was a church, he's discovered that too!   

In other words, he's saying that Mike tried to back engineer his reaction as a normal reader of the diary but  failed to do so convincingly.

Hence, when Miss Information said:

'How do  you think he managed to keep this up, carefully back engineering his notes to appear consistent with someone genuinely trying to make sense of what's in the diary?'

it proved that she had completely missed the point.

RJ was saying that this is exactly what Mike TRIED to do but failed. 

We see that Miss Information says that she doubts she could convincingly back engineer her reactions to the diary (another mistake because no one is suggesting she could have forged the diary) but really that's the whole point because Mike did NOT convincingly back engineer his reactions to the diary.  Had he done so, he would have been expressing surprise that St James was a church in which Maybrick married Florence. 

So her response to RJ has simply missed the point and makes no sense as a result. 


It's worth noting how sneaky Miss Information is.

With her first attempt at explaining the St James point, she wrote in #8219 (underlining added):

'Mike read St James in the diary, before identifying Maybrick from RWE, and simply assumed it was a reference to the one in his home town.'

Look at that!   The one in his home town.  What could she have possibly meant by that?

She obviously meant that Mike thought it was a reference to the church in Liverpool called St James.

But when RJ Palmer posted the extract from the research notes she saw that Mike had written 'St James Church, Piccadilly' whereas, by contrast, he wrote 'St James Liverpool' so, without admitting that she was now saying something completely different, she sneakily changed her position and we were now suddenly told in #8270 that 'St James Liverpool' was just 'a reference to somewhere of that name in Liverpool'.  What happened to it being a reference to 'the one' in Liverpool?  That's gone!

And just like with Stalin, history is erased, we are gaslit.  It never happened! 

This is why it's virtually impossible to understand what Miss Information is saying at any one time.  She changes her position with dizzying speed on a daily basis without even acknowledging that she is doing so. 


I'm old enough to remember when Miss Information said that going through Mike's research notes with a fine-toothed comb means that you're a 'sad old git'.  So what has Miss Information been doing?  Yes, you guessed it! She's been going through Mike's research notes with a fine-toothed comb!!!

You literally can't make it up. Shamelessness is her superpower.

In #8276 of Incontrovertible, having been going through Mike's research notes with a fine-toothed comb, Miss Information now seems to want to argue that there is some significance in Mike's entry in his research notes which says:

'One daughter; Gladys Evelyn, date of birth not known' 

The irony here is that Miss Information is using the exact same argument made by Shirley Harrison in 1997 in support of the diary being genuine.  Back in 1997, Shirley expressly pointed to entries which stated 'not known' to argue that Mike's notes reflected 'the uncertainties of a man struggling to understand material that has already been written' (see my article Researching the Notes).

Isn't it amazing how Miss Information always tells us not to rely on anything Mike Barrett says, yet he only has to write 'not known' about something relating to James Maybrick and she falls for it hook, line and sinker?

It's just a scam!!!  Mike randomly wrote 'not known' about certain things to pretend he was genuinely researching Maybrick's history but couldn't find everything.

I already made this point in my original article!

But her argument is another self-own.  Mike's research notes state:

'One son: James Chandler, born on 24th March 1882

One daughter: Gladys Evelyn, date of birth not known'

How did Mike establish the date of birth of James Chandler if he couldn't find out the date of birth of Gladys Evelyn?

Well, Ryan, on page 23 of his book, tells us:

'James Chandler Maybrick was born on 24th March 1882'.


As Miss Information has noted, Ryan states (inaccurately) on page 27:

'On 20th June 1886, in Battlecrease House, Dr Hopper brought Gladys Evelyn Maybrick into the world.'

Mike could have included this in his research notes but, as it happens, he pretended not to know it. The fact that Ryan had got it wrong is of no importance (because Mike doesn't indicate in his research notes that there is any uncertainty about her date of birth). 

We know for an absolute fact that Mike had access to Ryan's book at the time he prepared his research notes due to his inclusion of the 'Britannic' mistake, so we know for certain that he had access to Gladys' date of birth as recorded by Ryan.  He simply chose not to include it in his research notes order to create a smokescreen.

There is, in other words, literally no significance in Mike having written 'not known' about Gladys' date of birth.


It's not just Ryan who got the date of Gladys' birth wrong. 

Ryan probably got his information from Boswell and Thompson's 'The Girl with the Scarlet Brand' because they not only say that Gladys was born on 20 June 1886 (whereas she was actually born on 20 July of that year) but also say wrongly that this birth occurred after the Maybricks moved to Battlecrease House (p.12). Both of these errors are repeated in Ryan.

Christie, incidentally, also says (p.41) that Gladys was born in June 1886 but doesn't give a day of the month.  Whittington Egan (p. 53) just gives the year of 1886.

Morland got it wrong too (p.14), saying 21 July 1886 (it was actually 20 July 1886). 

Of course, it's not impossible that Mike saw conflicting information in Ryan and Morland and decided to write 'not known' as a way to resolve this (although one would think it unlikely) but, if that was the case, it would just mean that Mike was aware of two Maybrick books which he deliberately didn't mention in his research notes, not one! 


I just want to add that Ryan's book doesn't contain the names and birth/death dates of Maybrick's parents which are included in Mike's research notes but I've always believed that Mike was aware of the location in Anfield Cemetery of the Maybrick family grave, and the tombstone on that grave gives the names and dates of birth and death of both Maybrick's parents, William and Susanna, as well as the dates of James' own birth (which isn't in Ryan) and death. 

 So I'm confident that this was Mike's source for that information.  


The Clanger is at it again.

Unaccountably excited by Miss Information's 'not known' Gladys point, he asked in #8277 of Incontrovertible:

'Did Lord Orsam provide this example?'

Being the clanger that he is, he doesn't seem to realize that my article The Secret Source of Michael John Barrett was concerned only with entries in Mike's notes specifically attributable to the Liverpool Echo OR to entries in Mike's notes which can only have conceivably come from Ryan's book.

It wasn't an article discussing the source of every entry in Mike's notes.

The Clanger like a broken record (because he says this every time), said:

'If not, then he's either not as thorough as his fans imagine or he deliberately left it out.'

There is, of course, a third option, namely that the Clanger is a dumb fuck.

The idea that Mike writing 'not known' about Gladys' date of birth tells us anything at all is nothing more than a piece of dumbfuckery.  It's entirely irrelevant, which is why it wasn't mentioned in my article.

I'd already mentioned other instances of Mike saying that certain information wasn't known (which WAS in Ryan) and making the point that, in doing so, he was deliberately playing dumb.  It's the same thing with Gladys's date of birth.  Given that Mike didn't include it, the absence of that date of birth tells us nothing of any value.


Now I've seen some dumb posts from the Clanger - we all have - but this one takes the biscuit. 

Having found an entry in the Morning Post from 23 July 1886 announcing the birth of Gladys on 20 July, the Clanger wrote (#8278 of Incontrovertible):

'MB seemingly didn't pick that up'.

No, of course he didn't dumbo.  Mike Barrett wasn't randomly trawling through editions of the Morning Post from 1886 on the off chance one of them might have mentioned the birth of James Maybrick's daughter!

Honestly, how dumb can the Clanger be?

He then said: 'neither did he repeat Ryan's two errors'.

Well, Mike's research notes don't give the location of anyone's birthplace so he was never going to repeat Ryan's mistake that she was born in Battlecrease.

As for the fact that Mike didn't repeat Ryan's mistaken date of birth for Gladys as 20 June 1886, what is the Clanger (and Miss Information) trying to say about this?  Is it being said that Mike was aware that some sources said that Gladys was born on 20 July 1886 whereas Ryan was saying it was 20 June 1886 so that Mike felt he couldn't choose between them and thus said 'not known'?

Well, if that's the case, it means Mike had already consulted Ryan for his notes!  Which is exactly what I was saying in my article.  

If it's not the case, what is the significance of Ryan's error?

It's not even as if Mike was saying that the date of Gladys' birth was unclear or uncertain. He said it wasn't known.  What does that tell us?  Nothing!

Now, had Mike entered Gladys's date of birth correctly as 20 July 1886, we would have known he didn't get it from Ryan.

But that's not what happened.

I've already said in respect of the Reverend Benjamin Thurston that Mike said that nothing more was known about him, when Ryan DOES give more information about him.  He was lying.  The same is true of Baron von Roques. So his 'nothing known' about Gladys' date of birth should be regarded in the same spirit.

Had Mike entered the date of birth incorrectly as 20 June 1886 then we would have known he had probably got it from Ryan (although it could have been Boswell and Thompson) but we don't need that because we have something even better with the Britannic.

The short point is that Mike's entry about Gladys' date of birth neither subtracts nor adds anything to my article.  Through the Britannic entry alone we know for sure that Mike consulted Ryan's book for his note.  From the entries which are sourced to the Liverpool Echo but which information isn't found in the Liverpool Echo but IS found in Ryan we know that Mike was disguising the sources of his information. 

That's what my article concluded and nothing that anyone has said so far in response has even begun to put that conclusion in doubt. 


Over in the Lechmere thread, the Clanger said (#5587, Evidence of Innocence):

'If he wasn't known by the name Cross, then he did indeed give a false name.'

And so, by a matter of logic, if he WAS known by the name Cross then he did NOT give a false name.

I don't think the Clanger has ever admitted this before.

Because if Cross didn't give a false name, but gave a name he was perfectly entitled to use, there was surely no need for him to give a SECOND name (of Lechmere) at the inquest.  Yet the Clanger has always previously said he did need to.

Perhaps we are making progress. 


Remember when Miss Information was telling RJ Palmer to use his brain? Well she seems to have forgotten that advice when attempting to explain Keith Skinner's annotations on Mike's research notes ( #8282 of Incontrovertible).

It's a bit odd that she's having to try and interpret Keith's annotations. Why not just ask Keith directly what he meant by them? But anyway this is what she said: 

'I suspect Keith may have asked Mike or Shirley on that date [10 April 1999] if his understanding was correct, that Mike had 'updated' the notes using his word processor, at some point after July/August 1992, to include information and input from Shirley. In other words, was there a later version with that input? Shirley would simply have replied that she was not aware of a later version, but the original record of Mike's research would/could have included information she had given him between April and July 1992, or had asked him to look for.

My copy has a covering note typed by Keith, who refers to this as the 'top page' on the first page of the actual notes. The top page still refers to some of the information and input coming from Shirley, which Mike added to his own notes. That would be consistent with the input being included with what Mike handed over, and not involving any subsequent updating.' 

I'm seriously struggling with this.

Let's remind ourselves of what Keith wrote at the top of the first page of the notes.

First he wrote:

'Mike Barrett's research notes given to Shirley and Sally by Mike, July or August 1992.'

Then he wrote:

'They have, however, been updated by Mike, on his word processor, with information and input from Shirley.'

Then finally he wrote:

'(apparently not - KS 10.04.99).'

The obvious reading of the first two entries is that Keith had been told that the research notes he'd received from Shirley on 12 April 1994 reflected not only Mike's original pre-1992 research but also contained information and input by Shirley which had been added by Mike on his word processor after 13 April 1992, so that the original research notes had been updated and did not entirely reflect Mike's pre-1992 research.  The final entry, however, seems to contradict this, suggesting that those notes do NOT in fact contain information and input from Shirley.

But Miss Information's interpretation of the first two entries, if I understand her correctly, is completely different.  She thinks that Keith's initial understanding was that the notes in his possession ONLY reflected Mike's pre-1992 research but that there was a second (unseen) version of Mike's notes sitting on Mike's word processor in which Mike had added further information and input he'd received from Shirley, so that the notes in Keith's possession DID NOT contain Shirley's information and input.

This must explain why she writes of Keith's understanding prior to 10 April 1999 as being, 'that Mike had 'updated' the notes using his word processor, at some point after July/August 1992, to include information and input from Shirley.'  Obviously, if Mike had updated his notes at some point after July/August 1992 they couldn't possibly be the notes Shirley had given to Keith on 12 April 1994 because Shirley told Keith that those notes had been given to her by Mike in July/August 1992.  It obviously wasn't possible for those notes to include information from after that date.  This is why I say that Miss Information must think that Keith initially believed he was being told there was a second set of notes in existence which contained Shirley's information and input.

Miss Information's interpretation of the annotation 'apparently not' is that Keith was told by Shirley on 10 April 1999 there was not, in fact, a second version of Mike's notes sitting on Mike's computer and that the notes in his possession were the only notes in existence.

Bizarrely, and without any evidence, she also suggests  that Shirley 'would' have told Keith on 10 April 1999 that the original notes from July/August 1992 might, after all, have included information Shirley had given to Mike between April and July 1992 (or information that she had asked him to look for) even though Keith made no annotation to that effect. 

I regret to say that this explanation is barking mad.

It's barking mad for three reasons.

Firstly, because Keith Skinner wrote an introduction to 'Michael Barrett's Research Notes' at some point prior to 5 January 1997 (he made a note that he faxed it to Shirley on that date) - which is what Miss Information refers to at 'the covering note' or the 'top page' - in which he said:

'These notes were given to Shirley Harrison by Michael Barrett when she met him in Liverpool, July or August 1992.  Although they are a record of his research, some of the information and input came from Shirley and Mike added this to his own notes.'

As clear as day, therefore, Keith Skinner was confirming that the supposed information and input from Shirley, as referred to in his manuscript annotation, was in 'These notes', i.e. the seventeen pages of typed notes enclosed with his introduction! He wasn't talking about an unseen set of notes on Mike's computer.  He was talking about the very notes we've all now seen.

In other words, prior to 10 April 1999, he did NOT believe, as Miss Information suggests, that he'd been told that there was a second set of notes sitting on Mike's computer with information and input from Shirley added after July/August 1992.  In his mind, that information and input was in the very research notes he was enclosing to his introduction, or covering note, and had been incorporated into those research notes prior to July/August 1992.

It follows, therefore, that the later annotation of 10 April 1999 saying 'apparently not', must have reflected information Keith had received (almost certainly from Shirley) to the effect that he had been quite wrong to say that the notes in his possession contained information and input from Shirley.  They did not.

Secondly, Keith told me on 1 September 2017 that he went to see Mike in Liverpool on 14 April 1994, two days after he'd received the research notes from Shirley.  He told me that he asked Mike about them (see #530 of the '25 Years of Jack the Ripper Diary' thread).  Had he truly believed then, or at any time prior to April 1999, that there was a second set of notes in existence, he would surely have asked Mike about them.  That he did not do so demonstrates he had no such belief.

Thirdly, Shirley Harrison wrote in 1997 that the notes had been typed by Anne prior to Mike bringing the diary to London (see Researching the Notes).  She included that statement in her 2003 book. She wouldn't, therefore, have told Keith in April 1999 that those notes might have included information and input from her. That would have been impossible.

But it's patently obvious from the introduction to the research notes that Keith didn't believe that there was a second set of notes in existence containing Shirley's input and information.  The explanation for his statement that the notes 'have' been updated by Mike on his word processor with information and input from Shirley is the obvious one, not the twisted and unnatural one that Miss Information has tried to befuddle and confuse the Forum members into believing.

If only she would once use the brains that god gave her. 


#8283 of Incontrovertible, says the Clanger:

'I've just been reading Chris Scott's Will The Real Mary Kelly...

According to Chris, Miller's Court was 'off' Dorset Street and Dorset Street was 'off' Commercial Street.  I hadn't realised he was a New Yorker.'

He thinks he's being funny but the joke's on him.

To say that Miller's Court is 'off' Dorset Street is the perfect usage of the word 'off'.  Because it is literally a court off a street.

The same for Dorset Street being off Commercial Street. A street can't be IN another fucking street.  It can only be off it. 

It would be different if someone had said, for example, that McCarthy had a shop off Dorset Street.  We know that he had a shop in Dorset Street.  It would be a bit odd and unnatural to say the shop was off that street.  I'm not aware of any particular regional dialect in which people would use the word 'off' in that situation. 

Equally I suggest it's odd and unnatural to say that Knowsley Buildings was off Tithebarn Street.

I don't want to say that no one would ever have said such a thing (although so far no examples of anyone other than Ryan doing it have been provided, and he seems to have corrupted the original 'somewhere off' expression used by Levy and Irving) just that I can't think of any reason why Mike would have seen the address 'Knowsley Buildings, Tithebarn Street' and translated that in his notes to 'Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street'.  Nor can I see any reason why Mike, assuming that he had known from his general knowledge in 1992 that Knowsley Buildings (which had been demolished some thirty years earlier) had been in Tithebarn Street, would have written it down as 'off Tithebarn Street'.  I don't think it's a particularly natural thing to do.

At no time have I said that to refer to a building in a street as being 'off' it is a New York expression.  This is an invention of the Clanger.  It just so happens that Ryan is the only person in the Maybrick story who has written the expression 'Knowsley Buildings, off Tithebarn Street', other than Mike Barrett.

It's a very simple point.  It really didn't need twenty silly posts from the Clanger. And it's such a waste of egg, what with the Clanger getting it all over his face each time. 


'Is Lord Orsam claiming to have checked every edition of the Echo in existence, and the address of Knowsley Buildings is nowhere to be found?' asked Miss Information in #8286.

No, Lord Orsam is not claiming this!

Miss Information is obviously unaware that the Echo can now be digitally searched in the British Newspaper Archive (as I made clear in my article) proving that she hasn't even read the article on which she is commenting.

It also proves she is still living in the 1990s, being unaware of basic things in the modern world such as electronic searching of newspapers. 

Further, as I stated in my article, the address of Knowsley Buildings IS to be found in the Echo.  It's just that it's not stated as 'off Titheburn Street' whereas Ryan DOES style the address in this fashion.

It's such a simple point that it doesn't need one hundred posts discussing it in ignorance by people who haven't even taken the trouble to find out what I said on the subject. 


Miss Information's convoluted new theory (#8286 of Incontrovertible) is that Mike came away 'from his library research with only his scribbled notes on Maybrick, with nothing to remind him where he found the info - no dates or page numbers'.  The theory goes on, and on:

'Later, when Anne came to put them in some sort of order and type them up, I could see her suggesting that it would look more professional [or more genuine for those with terminally suspicious minds] if Mike could add where he found each piece of info. Short of going back to the library, to retrace his steps and find the precise references [as Shirley had to ask him to do two years later, in 1994, when he told her he had found 'sweet intercourse' there, but had not made a note of the page number and even told her the wrong volume number], did Mike simply try to think back, sourcing just a few of the notes to the best of his recollection? If Ryan's book was back in the library too, would he have remembered the title and author's name by the time Anne typed up his work? Two years down the line, Mike still hadn't learned to make a proper note of what he claimed to find and where he claimed to find it. Mike would claim that his ripper research came first, and he only names two ripper books in the notes, at the end of the various sections, rather than alongside the individual notes, as he does with Maybrick. If he had both ripper books at home when Anne came to do the typing up, it would have been easy enough for him to add the relevant page numbers from those titles at that stage.'

I've never seen such desperation in my life.  

But where are we?

Miss Information is at least accepting that Mike relied on Ryan's book, as a stated in my article.  She now seems to be saying that when he told Keith Skinner in 1994 and 1995 that he'd never heard of Ryan's book before Shirley mentioned it to him this wasn't actually true.  He HAD heard of it before, because he'd actually used it, but he'd forgotten the title!

Oh goodness. 

The reason Mike used information on Ryan but didn't include Ryan in his references (but disguised some of those references with references to the Liverpool Echo) is obviously because he wanted to hide from Shirley the fact that he'd used Ryan's book.  Why? Because, as I've previously demonstrated, Ryan's book was THE primary source used by the forger for all Maybrick information in the diary.


In #8286, Miss Information, still going through Mike's research notes with a fine-toothed comb (the sad old git!), said:

'...it's not clear why Mike thought the address of Battlecrease House was number 6 Riversdale Road...'.

Hmmm, well let's see.  What does Ryan say about the address of Battlecrease House at page 87 of his book?


Ho hum.  '6 Riversdale Road'.  Quelle surprise! 


See The Riversdale Road Mystery for this, which was released as a pre-Orsam Day special on 10 February.


'I have no evidence for this' was how Miss Information started her post #8290 in the Incontrovertible thread.  So no change there then.  She continued:

'but is it not remotely possible that a new diary book is being planned, in which the typescript could feature?'

Oh how depressing.  So we have to pay to see the transcript then?  The one that was promised to us by Keith Skinner three years ago?  And someone is going to make money out it, are they?

The fact of the matter is that extracts from the typescript could happily 'feature' in a future book, as could extracts from the Gray/Barrett tapes, but the full originals could still be provided to us for proper examination right now.  Make what point you want from them in a book.  That doesn't mean that we should have to pay to actually see the fucking primary source material in this case. 


In any case, why is Miss Information speculating about a possible book without any evidence?  Why doesn't her really close good friend Keith Skinner just tell her what the reason is?

And this reminds me of when I asked on the Forum many years back why Keith Skinner hadn't yet released the transcript some months after he'd promised to do so.  Without any evidence, Miss Information scolded me by saying that perhaps Keith was too busy and didn't have the time.  Well, as it transpired, that was NOT the reason Keith wasn't releasing the transcript but, of course, it didn't stop her spreading misinformation.

If the reason for the failure to produce material evidence is that a book is coming out, and we've all got the pay for the pleasure of seeing the evidence, why aren't we positively being told this?

And even if Miss Information's speculation is correct, and Keith Skinner is planning a future book, doesn't that mean that, right now, Keith IS suppressing important information? 


The Major purported in #8292 of the Incontrovertible thread to summarize my views about the Barretts' transcript in an attempt to make them sound overly complex and complicated as follows:

'Apparently Mike's word [processor]...contained a pre-scrapbook version (it is implied) from which the scrapbook text was transcribed by Anne into the scrapbook, and - I hope everyone is keeping-up, I know that Lord Orsam frequently finds my longer sentences incomprehensible but I imagine that's his age - then a post-scrapbook version was obviously typed up, presumably by Anne, in which she was inexplicably unable to properly transcribe what she herself had transcribed into the scrapbook to fool the world, et cetera. We only have the post-scrapbook version, see? Somewhere in the world, there's the mythical pre-scrapbook version which would certainly reveal all (if it was time-stamped, or even if it existed!). With that kind of liberality of interpretation, it is no wonder that Lord Orsam believes himself to simply never be wrong! I wonder if I could catch him out one day - oh boy imagine that!' 

Let's just break that down.

So the first thing the Major attributes to me is that Mike's word processor:

'contained a pre-scrapbook version (it is implied) from which the scrapbook text was transcribed by Anne into the scrapbook'.

Although the Major followed this up by saying 'I hope everyone is keeping up', as if that's a difficult concept to grasp, it's nothing more than what Mike says in his  affidavit, namely:

'I sat in the living room by the rear lounge window in the corner with my word processor, Anne Barrett sat with her back on to me as she wrote the manuscript.'

It's not exactly complicated.  Mike was, he claimed, reading out the text of the diary from his word processor while Anne wrote it down in the diary.

This is the MOST BASIC level understanding in the diary story.

We know that the Barretts handed over a transcript of the diary to Doreen and Shirley shortly after 13 April 1992. 

It's THIS transcript which Keith Skinner apparently has in his possession. 

The Major continued his summary by saying:

'then a post-scrapbook version was obviously typed up, presumably by Anne, in which she was inexplicably unable to properly transcribe what she herself had transcribed into the scrapbook to fool the world, et cetera.'

The fact of the matter is that I have no idea if Anne was 'inexplicably unable to properly transcribe what she herself had transcribed' because I haven't been allowed to see the fucking transcript!!! It's what I've been asking to see.  Without seeing the actual transcript it's impossible for me to say what might be in it, or whether anything is properly transcribed or not.  That is the whole fucking point!

Yet, as we've seen, the Major inexplicably concluded that:

'With that kind of liberality of interpretation, it is no wonder that Lord Orsam believes himself to simply never be wrong!' 

There has been no 'liberality of interpretation'.  How does the Major think I can interpret a document which I've never seen?  I've been asking to see it for four fucking years but it's been denied to me because Keith Skinner thinks I might find 'meaning' it it!

I assume that the Major is thinking of me saying that the transcript: 

'might easily have been made by the Barretts after the diary was written, in order to assist Doreen, and might contain errors made by the Barretts either deliberately or accidentally, yet the diary could still be a forgery.  That's what we need to work out.'

That's just common sense.  Does the Major really think that, having forged the diary, the Barretts would have handed over a perfect transcript of the diary with no mistakes, no mis-transcriptions?  How suspicious would that have been?

I don't know what the Barretts did but if I was in their assumed position, and was required to prepare a transcript of a forged diary of my own creation, I would approach the preparation of the transcript as if I was seeing it for the first time and would include deliberate errors which such an innocent person might make, especially where the handwriting was unclear and a word was ambiguous.  Like I say, just common sense.  

But here's the thing, my entry entitled "THE MAJOR AND THE TRANSCRIPT" in Lord Orsam Says...Part 21 was all about how the Major's attempt to show that the transcript was inconsistent with a forgery didn't make any sense.  I literally stated, with reasons, that the Major's argument was 'barmy' and a 'pile of steaming poo'.   I quoted him in full and asked 'Can you make sense of that?'  I also said 'I simply don't understand the logic here' and, 'his entire argument makes no sense'. The Major has obviously read all this because he's referred to that very entry.  Did he have anything to say in response?  Did he fuck.  As usual, everything I said about his argument has been ignored. 


Demonstrating that he is, in fact, a loon, rather than a medical expert, as he purports to be, FDC is revealed in #8295 of Incontrovertible as someone who sees the name 'Jim' in an engraving of a watch stand.

He also put forward, via the Major, in #8294, another reason why he thinks the medical letter about Mike's kidney is a fake. It's because 'A patient's information is confidential and may not (and will not) be made public!'

Has this fucking daft clown considered that the letter was written for Mike to provide to the council?  There is no prohibition on a patient revealing their own medical information, you fucking daft clown!


It's official.  We've had it from Miss Information herself (#8303 of Incontrovertible, repeating #8227):

Mike Barrett was found to be 'fully mentally competent' by a doctor in February 1996.

Just fancy that!

Haven't we been told all these years that Mike was fully mentally INCOMPETENT and thus unable to even participate in a forgery scheme?

Finally the truth is revealed! 


They do say some people have more money that sense.

In #8304 Miss Information sensationally revealed that she paid a whopping £311 on ebay in September 2004 for a wooden boat shaped watch stand bearing the words 'The Ripper' upon which someone had written 'Jack in Whitechapel at work 1888 & 1889' on the underside of the base.


WHY?  WHY OH WHY?  Even Mike Barrett surely wouldn't have been crazy enough to pay such a large sum for such an item.

It is, of course, the same one on which loopy 'FDC' claims to be able to see the name 'Jim' on it. 


I wonder if 'FDC' can also see two people making love in the bottom right hand corner?

I'm guessing that Miss Information must have had a bit of a shock when, following the completion of the ebay sale, someone posted on the Forum back in 2004 to say:

'The wording 'The Ripper' on the object does not refer to Jack, but rather to the boat.  'The Ripper' is still a popular name for a boat today, and refers to the ability to 'rip' through the water.  The ink writing has been added later (possibly in the last few years) in an attempt to relate a real Victorian artifact to the Whitechapel murderer'.

Oopsie. Fooled by another fake!  Might we worth as much as one whole pound today, then. 


Back in 2010 on JTR Forums, after Chris Scott posted a picture of a box supposedly made out of the wood of the Princess Alice (according to a handwritten inscription inside the lid), we can now see that Miss Information spoke of her own 'Ripper' watch stand (without revealing she was the owner) as if it might be genuine!

'Hi All,

The trinket box reminds me very much of the wooden 'ripper' watch stand that came up for sale a few years back - this is another macabre souvenir of Victorian lives lost, and of similarly simple handmade construction.  If the box is genuine, the watch stand would at least have been quite in keeping with this type of item from the LVP.'

This is particularly amusing because we can see here Miss Information using the same type of desperate argument that she uses in support of the diary.  Hence, she was trying to link the wooden box to her own watch stand by saying that if the box is genuine then her watch stand might well be genuine too because it fits in with 'the type of item' from the Victorian period.

It's clearly utter nonsense of the type she is famous for. You can't link a wooden box said to be made out of the Princess Alice and say if THAT is genuine then it suggests another wooden item with writing on it is also genuine.  It's kind of madness.  But it really is the same type of arguments she's made in the past about the diary, for example linking it to Victorian representations of diaries (such as in Punch) and trying to link the two, as if this makes the diary genuinely Victorian.

She's really not very good at identifying shabby fakes, is she?


RJ is probably too much of a gentleman to mention it but back in #7646, in January 2021, Miss Information posted this:

'Monday 12th December 1994
Extract from a recorded conversation between Alan Gray and Mike Barrett at Liverpool Royal Infirmary.'

Now that RJ has established that the 'Liverpool Royal Infirmary' or rather the Royal Liverpool Infirmary was closed in December 1994, Miss Information has worked out who she can blame for her blunder (#716 of the Special Announcement thread):

'If Gray or Mike mentioned the wrong one on the tape, I don't suppose there is much RJ can do about that now as both chaps are no longer with us.'

Or perhaps someone misunderstood that Gray and Mike were talking about being at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital and assumed it was the infirmary.  Which do you think is more likely?


Don't worry, Miss Information always has someone to blame when she gets it wrong.

Presumably having been told that Lord Orsam has been saying that Mike and Anne did not get divorced on 7 December 1994, she posted this in #717 of the Special Announcement thread:


So we are being told there that Anne supposedly said in a filmed interview on 24th April 1995 that she divorced Mike on 7 December 1994 and that we should allow 'for Anne knowing when her divorce came through'.  You see, it wasn't Miss Information's fault she got it wrong, it was Anne's!

For yes, let us allow that Anne knew whether she was or was not divorced on 1 February 1995 when she wrote to Mike:


'The Decree Absolute will be through in a few weeks time and we will be divorced.'

So, when Anne told her husband on 1 February 1995 that 'we will be divorced' in a few weeks time, she obviously wasn't yet divorced, and it follows that she wasn't divorced on 7 December 1994.

But don't worry, it wasn't Miss Information's fault that she got it all wrong, it was someone else's fault!


With RJ on a break from the Incontrovertible thread, it was inevitable that FINALLY the Major and Miss Information would have it out over the issue of the diary's authenticity on which they so hotly disagree.

And indeed Miss Information kicked it all off with an inflammatory post (#8319), saying:

'The diary is not by Maybrick'.


The Major will NOT be having that in his own thread, on his own home turf.  He surely won't be taking it lying down.

*Lord Orsam grabs popcorn*

Now it's just a case of sitting back, waiting for the Major to enter the fray and the inevitable diary fight to begin.




*still waiting* 


Last seen fleeing north. 

If found, please return to one terrified and high-pitched owner. 


The Major responded to Caz's challenge - 'The diary is not by Maybrick' - by totally ignoring it!!!

He stuck his head in the sand and simply pretended she hadn't posted it. 

What even is the purpose of his thread if he is going to let a provocative statement such as that pass by without comment? 


What are we to make of the crazy new theory as to the origins of the diary as expressed in #8319?

This is what she said:

'I suspect the timepiece came first, and the engravings were discovered and deciphered by someone who strongly suspected they could be genuine, but had no evidence, so they experimented with writing a substantial and imaginative, but misguided confessional diary to accompany the watch. If and when the artefacts emerged from Maybrick's old house, it would be left to others to test the watch finder's suspicions and see if there was anything tangible to connect Maybrick with the ripper murders and support what was in the watch.'

It's hard to describe how barmy this is.

So someone unknown found themselves in possession of a gold watch in respect of which, by some miracle, they managed to see and decipher the scratches on the inside cover made by an unknown person (not Maybrick, presumably, unless she's saying that Maybrick WAS the Whitechapel murderer, but it's unclear).

It should not be forgotten that the scratches are not only invisible to the naked eye but are on a place on the watch where one wouldn't expect someone to be looking for scratches.  Albert Johnson said he only noticed them when they were suddenly caught in the sunlight while he was showing off the watch, but needed a microscope to read them.

So the theory is that this unknown person managed to see and decipher the scratches, noting the name of 'J. Maybrick' on the watch and the words 'I am Jack', working out that this meant James Maybrick was claiming to be Jack the Ripper.

Instead of showing this to anyone and announcing that they seemed to be in possession of Jack the Ripper's actual fucking very valuable watch, they came up with a plan which even Baldrick wouldn't have described as 'cunning'.   This was to do some serious research into the Florence Maybrick case and some serious research into the Jack the Ripper murders and then forge a diary supposed to be by James Maybrick (but not in anything resembling his handwriting) containing a number of unfortunate errors and full of inventions such as Mrs Hammersmith, while adding a new murder or two in Manchester for no apparent reason!!

Then, when they'd created this forgery (in an old photograph album for some unknown reason), what did they do with it?

Oh, the obvious thing.  They buried it, together with the valuable gold watch, under the floorboards of Maybrick's bedroom, where...here's the cunning bit... no one was going to be looking for it!

And then.  Here's the really cunning thing.  They waited.  They just waited.

This cunning forger was probably just giggling to himself thinking of how, one day, someone's going to look under those floorboards and, boy, will there be fireworks then.

How could they ever have anticipated that, once discovered, the watch would be quietly sold off to a jeweller's some ten years before it was even found under the floorboards (the laws of time and space don't apply to this theory) and that the diary would end up in the hands of a freelance journalist who would claim to have forged it himself??!!

Boy, did that plan not go well.

I mean, it's just so ridiculous.  Yet no one, not the Major, not the Clanger thought it was something worthy of challenge on the basis of it being ludicrous.  The Error Bitha, unsurprisingly, positively approved of it!!  Apparently this has always been his 'favoured theory' too (#8325) even though in his book of fiction (as I understand it) he decided that Maybrick WAS Jack the Ripper.  Frankly, the forgery plan as set out by Miss Information would have made a better work of fiction.  Maybe he can do that for his next book.


From #5620 of Evidence of Innocence: 

'In 1891, CAL, his wife and 8 of his 9 children were living in 4 rooms in 22, Doveton Street. Another family were occupying 3 rooms at the same address. 

You have to wonder how a carman with 9 kids managed to keep his family up to a ‘v. decent’ standard and could afford to rent a 6-roomed house.' 

You have to wonder how a carman with 9 kids managed to keep his family up to a ‘v. decent’ standard and could afford to rent a 6-roomed house.

Maybe it's because Lechmere was able to shove all his indecent stuff into his lair in Pinchin Street?

Just a thought. 

*smiley face* 


#5627 of the Evidence of Innocence thread: 


Close up of that Clanging text:


'Look at the HO index to the Nichols file compiled on 25/10/1888:'

As I have said before, however, that is NOT an HO index to the Nichols file!!!

See Lord Orsam Says...Part 18 under the heading 'CLANGER IN READING FAILURE' so there is no excuse.

Is the Clanger reading these pages or not?

Do not forget the golden rule: NO ORSAM, NO COMMENT!

The Clanger has messed up.  What he thinks is an HO index to the Nichols file is nothing more than the index to a single 6-page statement of Donald Swanson!!

The numbers in the right hand column are the page number references to Swanson's statement of 19 October 1888.

Can the Clanger clang any more than he already does?  Yes, the Clanger does not stop clanging.



Having already admitted in #5587, as discussed above, that Lechmere was entitled to call himself Cross at the inquest if that was the name he was generally known by (i.e. he has admitted that it wasn't, in that case, a false name), the Clanger posted in #5630: 


'There are those who can't seem to grasp the fact that by not mentioning his real name in court he was concealing a significant aspect of his identity.'  

What the Clanger can't seem to grasp is that if the man born as 'Charles Lechmere' was commonly known as 'Charles Cross', having had a stepfather with the name of 'Cross', then he DID mention his real name in court when giving the name of 'Charles Cross'.

The Clanger is clearly confused as to the (big) difference between a person's real name and the name they were given at birth.

To prove this, I hereby set the Clanger a challenge and dare him to answer this two part question:

If Charles Lechmere had changed his name by deed poll to 'Charles Cross' prior to 1888:

(a) what would his 'real name' have been in 1888?


(b) when giving evidence at an inquest in 1888 relating to his discovery of a body in the street, would he have been obligated to inform the coroner of his previous name/name change?   

I truly dare the Clanger to answer this question.

If anyone is interested in getting to the bottom of this issue and the Clanger fails to answer it (and you can pretty much bet he will fail to answer because he's a coward), I suggest you ask him on one of the Forums yourself (and on JTR Forums you'll actually be allowed to quote me, if you wish).  It's a critical question. 



Don't leave it to someone else to ask the Clanger this critical question.  Do it yourself!

This is by Order of Lord Orsam. 


2 February 2022
Published: Orsam Day 9 March 2022