Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 29


Lord Orsam does love a good clown show.  And to their immense credit, the clowns of the Forum put on a great comedy display in the 'Incontrovertible' thread when they returned to a discussion of the entry for 6 Riversdale Road in Mike's research notes.

We've already seen how Miss Information was first to join in the fun.  Wearing the big floppy boots she posted in #8286:

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

Oh really?

Yabs then found (#8291) that it was mentioned in MacDougall.

Then Miss Information was back like a broken record (#8299), completely ignoring the MacDougall possibility:

'I don't know what made Mike think Battlecrease was number 6'.

It paused there for a while but in #8320 Miss Information suddenly became interested in MacDougall, asking Yabs for more information about it.

Yabs then gave her a screenshot of the extract in #8321 and followed up in #8327 with some beautiful clownfoolery by asking:

'do you think we can say with some confidence that Barrett at some point very early on read MaDougall?'

Er....no, I don't think we can, Yabs.

The Major decided in #8328 that Mike must have taken a special trip to Aigburth and walked down Riversdale Road and got his numbers mixed up.

Um... I don't think so, Tommy boy.

And then of course the inevitable Clanger in #8330 with his size 15 boots jabbering on obsessively about Lord Orsam:

'It's exactly the type of 'strong' evidence that Lord Orsam uses to argue that MB got all his info from Ryan - warts and all.  (Isn't it?)'.

While the watching Lord Orsam was loving this clown show, he knew it couldn't last.  Sure enough, RJ Palmer had to step in (#8322), rightly describing what he was seeing as 'a circus', to reveal that, sure enough, Ryan DID wrongly inform his readers that the address of Battlecrease House was 6 Riversdale Road (as I already posted a number of entries above this one).

As mentioned in The Riversdale Road Mystery, it wasn't MacDougall who originally stated the address as 6 Riversdale Road.  MacDougall was doing no more than reproducing an article written by Dr Carter which had been published the Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal in which Dr Carter stated the address as 6 Riversdale Road.

MacDougall was one of Ryan's sources and, presumably, Ryan saw this and thought it was accurate.  He thus used it in his book.

Now it's time to do what the Forum clowns forgot to do: engage brain.

Due to the Britannic entry, we now know for an absolute 100% established fact that Mike used Ryan's book for his research notes.  We also know that other rare or idiosyncratic information in Mike's notes, such as Rev. Benjamin Thurston, 'off Tithebarn Street' and the room numbers of Flatman's Hotel are also found in Ryan's book.  Given that the correct address of the house formerly known as Battlecrease in 1992 was 7 Riversdale Road, how do you fucking think that Mike got it into his head that the house was at number 6?

It's not that difficult, is it? 


The Clanger, in his sheer desperation at losing the argument in the Lechmere thread (and we all know that he simply cannot bear being challenged), reached a new low by suggesting that a username of 'drstrange169' by Dusty Miller on an internet forum is in some way comparable to using a false name.

After Dusty said in #5655 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread that, 'The bulk, by far, of the information about Lechmere derives from a person using the fake name Ed Stow', the triggered Clanger, who doesn't like his mates being spoken of in this way, replied in #5655:

'Says 'Dr Strange' '

The Clanger, who hypocritically uses two names himself (his birth name, 'Gary Barnett', and the name by which he is more commonly known, 'The Clanger') clearly doesn't know the difference between a person's actual name and their online username.

But then when Dusty replied: 'aka Dr Strange', the Clanger posted in #5671:


'drstrange169 is what it says.  That's the false name you are posting under.'

He's just proved that he doesn't know what a 'false name' is boys and girls!

Then in #5673 we got:


'That must be it, 'Dusty'/'drstrange169', I don't understand the concept of real/false names.

Mr Gary Barnett [a.k.a. the Clanger].'

Looks to me like he's missed the signature that Dusty has in every single fucking one of his posts:


The Clanger even suggested that 'Dusty' might not be his real name! Hence in #5668 he posted:


He then did it again in #5678 when he said that if Dusty were to give evidence in court the name Dusty 'might not be heard'.

The Clanger really is SO dim. 

You only have to watch an old episode of The Professionals to see Dusty's name in the credits:


I trust that the Clanger is now satisfied that he is getting his arse kicked on a regular basis by a person using his real name!


According to the Clanger, 'Ed Stow' is merely a username like 'Dr Strange'.



Well we can see (again) that he's missed the fact that Dusty DOES have an a.k.a. in his signature but how strange that 'Ed Stow' is supposed to be the equivalent to Dusty using 'drstrange169'.

Coz when I look in my 2019 book 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' what do I find?


Oh look, a chapter entitled 'Charles Lechmere - Hidden in Plain Sight' written by 'Edward Stow'.

How very odd to be using an internet username for a book chapter.  What's going on?

Does Dusty do this?  Well let's have a look at this article from Ripperologist 142: 


Yup, I think it's the same. 

I mean the same name as he posted on the Forum.  Not the same as 'Ed Stow' who seems to be using his false name as a real name.  Just fancy that from someone who thinks Charles Lechmere is Jack the Ripper because he used an alternative name! 


After the circus clown show, the Major spoke some sense for once, saying in #8335 of Incontrovertible:

'In the context of Barrett's research notes...the obvious source of everything for Mike would be one book, and Lord Orsam has probably shown that that book would be Ryan'.

Well well, and he didn't even mention any drainpipes by way of psychological consolation.

Unfortunately, he then fell back to old habits by saying that, 'the reality is probably the No. 26 bus route and a short walk down Riversdale Road'.

'probably'.  Really?

We know for a fact that Mike consulted Ryan's book when creating his research notes so he had the answer right in front of him as to the address of Battlecrease being number 6 Riversdale Road.  Does the Major think that Mike didn't see this and, for the purpose of a single entry in his research notes, decided to travel over to Aigburth in person simply to look at the number on the front door?

And then, apparently anticipating that he would be able to work out which house in Riversdale Road was Battlecrease, even though it wasn't identified by that name, he happened to find it but looked at the wrong door, thus misidentifying the number of Battlecrease in exactly the same way Ryan had done in 1977??

Come on, get real, Major Tom.


'This may be a silly question....' is how the Clanger chose to start his post in #8336.  You can be sure that the question which followed was, indeed, silly.

He doesn't even seem to know where Lord Orsam lives.  Just as the Major thinks it's Chigwell, the Clanger, fresh from his humiliation over 6 Riversdale Road, seems to think it's Stepney.  So we won't be repeating that error of his.

With the error removed, he said:

'Why do we imagine Lord Orsam didn't cut out the middle man and 'prove' Ryan is the only possible source for the Maybrick element of the diary'.

I guess he's never read Lord Orsam's  Diary Deep Dive as discussed in Forging a Victorian Diary in which it was demonstrated that the 21 key Maybrick facts relied on by the forger are all found in Ryan's book.

Of course, the Clanger frames his question in ludicrous fashion, i.e. 'prove Ryan is the only possible source for the Maybrick element of the diary'.  One can't prove that.  I mean, many, but not all, of those 21 facts can also be found in Morland, for example.  Plus it's obvious that the forger invents certain things such as Mrs Hammersmith.

But what my deep dive clearly demonstrated was that Ryan's book was, without question, the primary source used by the forger of the diary for Maybrick information.  Other books cannot be entirely ruled out as having been consulted but Ryan was the primary source.

And now, lo and behold, we've discovered that Ryan was the primary source for Maybrick information secretly used by Mike Barrett in his research notes while attributing some of that information to the Liverpool Echo. 

Everything keeps coming together which points to Mike Barrett's involvement in this shabby forgery. 


The Clanger keeps using the wrong test in his discussion about the Lechmere name issue.

'do you see why a person giving evidence under oath in a court of law might feel it appropriate to reveal his real name...?'

(#5689 of Incontrovertible).

It's entirely irrelevant what any individual feels to be 'appropriate' or otherwise.  Different people will always have different opinions about what or what is not appropriate.  The only test has to be: What is a person giving evidence under oath in a court of law REQUIRED to do.

I say the answer is perfectly clear that they are NOT required to state two names in circumstances where they have two legitimate names.  To say that they are is utterly absurd.  They just give ONE name and ONE name only.  That is all a coroner or magistrate or judge wants.

The Clanger hasn't even provided any evidence that it was generally thought to be appropriate that someone with two legitimate names was supposed to reveal them both.

Almost all the examples we've had of someone doing this are where the actual identity of the witness is relevant because, for example, they were related to the deceased or a prisoner which made their birth name relevant to the proceedings.

Two other things I love about the Clanger's post.

Firstly, he has to deal with the fact that Lechmere gave his name as Charles Cross at the 1876 inquest so what he says is basically: "There is no evidence that Lechmere used the name Cross except for the previous time he did it at the only other inquest he ever attended in his life!"

It's hilarious.

The other amusing thing is his Fishermarian twisting of the language so that he links giving evidence at an inquest with, say, getting married, which are both supposed to be examples of 'interaction with authority'.

But these things are completely different.  When getting married Lechmere was entering into a legal arrangement. Aside from any other considerations, it might, in theory, have caused legal difficulty in the future to marry as 'Charles Cross' when one's name at birth was 'Charles Lechmere'.  It's all rather abstract but in questions of, say, inheritance, there could be an issue, or perhaps a future challenge about the legality of the marriage.  Most lawyers would say it would all probably be fine in circumstances where 'Charles Cross' was the generally known name but lawyers are always cautious and you can't be 100% sure, so the safest thing may be to plump for the birth name.  

The point is that it's a totally different situation compared to giving evidence at an inquest whereby Lechmere wasn't entering into any form of legal arrangement.

Again, it all boils down to what name he was generally known by, either in public or at his place of work.  If he was Carman Cross at Pickfords then he not only could but probably SHOULD have been Carman Cross at the inquest.

It all boils down to a point of evidence which, it seems, cannot be resolved.

But surely, surely, surely, shirley, we need to assume the evidential point is in Lechmere's favour and that he WAS known as Cross at Pickfords.  Every argument must follow from this basic premise.

The problem is that the Clanger does not do this.  He always ignores it, either explicitly or implicitly.  But it is an essential premise for the entire discussion. 


In #5696 Jeff Hamm said:

'one could just describe Lechmere as his "legal name", while Cross is not. The reason I think it might be helpful to do this is that I don't think anybody argues that is not the case, so it is the common ground that can be built upon.'

I disagree with Jeff on this because I don't believe we can say that for certain that Cross was not a 'legal name'.  I would prefer to use the description 'birth name', being the name given at birth.

The reason for this is that one's legal name is not necessarily the name one is given at birth.  A person can change their name.  Or, for example, someone can be born with one name but be brought up by a stepfather and use their stepfather's name.  It would be wrong to say that the stepfather's name, as used by the stepson, is not a 'legal' name.

We know that there are some examples of men in the nineteenth century having two surnames as a result, one they were born with and one they had adopted as a child.  It's not a case of one name being false, or not legal.  

I don't want to say the Clanger is wrong (as he posted in #5697) that people in the nineteenth century would typically refer to a person's birth name as their 'real' name.  In 99% of cases, possibly 99.9% of cases, that would, of course, be perfectly true.  But we need to recognise that there were a small number of cases where a boy would be brought up by a stepfather and take on his stepfather's name.  It was perfectly legal for him to do so if he continued to use that name for the rest of his life, having abandoned his birth name.

While people might refer to the birth name as the 'real' name, it doesn't make it so in law.  It's hard to stress enough that for someone with TWO legitimate names, they only needed to give one when testifying at an inquest as an independent witness.  They weren't required to state both.  That's the only issue.  All else is noise and baloney. 

Which name did someone with two legitimate names (a birth name and an adopted/stepfather name) need to give at an inquest if they found a dead body in the street?

THAT is the question. It doesn't matter what you call each of those names, real name, birth name, legal name, alternative name, alias etc.  The only question is, what name were they required to give?

I can only repeat that in an assumed (and rare) situation whereby Cross was known as Carman Charles Cross at Pickfords but otherwise used the name Charles Lechmere on legal and administrative documents, he was only required to give ONE name, not two, and it seems to me that having discovered the body while on his way to work, the most appropriate choice was 'Cross'.

If the Clanger wants to dispute that, he can do so but where is the evidence upon which he relies? Or is he just making it up as he goes along? 


We can see how the Clanger keeps misdirecting himself on the name issue.

Here is how he phrases the question in #5699:

'Imagine a man whose birth was registered with the forename Robert. On every document he ever fills out he gives his name as Robert. Yet his friends and family call him Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robbie, Bobster… If he gives evidence in a court of law, what forename does he give?' 

It's such a bad example for a number of reasons (and I'm not even going mention the most obvious one that the issue is about surnames, not forenames).  Firstly, it assumes that when signing a personal letter or card this guy wrote his name as 'Robert' (because the Clanger says that's what he put on 'every document') which means that he clearly wouldn't have liked being called 'Bob'!  Secondly, because 'Bob', 'Bobby', 'Rob' etc. are nothing more than shortened versions of Robert and are the same name.  In fact, they are more akin to a nickname, often put in inverted commas.   No one is saying that people would or should have stated their nickname when giving evidence in court, even if everyone called them by that nickname. 

But leave all that aside.  There are three more reasons why I'm saying the Clanger has misdirected himself.  the first is because he hasn't even CONSIDERED what his hypothetical person might have been called at work.  I mean in the records of his employer.   

The second is that we don't actually know in the case of Charles Cross what his 'friends and family' called him.  We literally have no idea.  I'm not saying this undermines the Clanger's point about his 'Bob' but the fact that he frames it as 'friends and family' rather than employers or work colleagues shows that he is thinking on the wrong lines.

Thirdly, because we have seen examples of people who have filled out legal documents in one name yet were more generally known by another name.   When Charles Cross appeared as a witness at an inquest, although he would have signed his deposition, he was not filling in a legal document in the sense of one which gave him an obligation to do anything or required his birth name to be included.

What I also note here is that the Clanger has radically changed his argument.  He used to say that if Charles gave his name as Cross, he was obliged to also inform the coroner that his birth name was Lechmere.  That's not what he's saying in #5699 where he's switched to the argument that Charles shouldn't have even mentioned the name 'Cross'.   But he needs to focus on the actual argument against him which is that Charles was known as Cross at Pickfords.  As I've already said, he needs to assume this was the case. In which case, bearing in mind his stepfather's name, Cross was a legal surname.

My point is that Charles was perfectly entitled to give his name as Charles Cross with no requirement to explain his life history as to how he was brought up by a stepfather but was born with the name Lechmere.

It's very simple but the Clanger never addresses this. 


So let's recap.

Miss Information initially believed that Ryan did NOT state Maybrick's address as being 6 Riversdale Road.

Her conclusion, therefore, was that Mike's source for the address of Battlecrease as being '6 Riversdale Road' was someone or something other than Ryan.

Then RJ proved that she was wrong and that Ryan DID, in fact, state Maybrick's address as being 6 Riversdale Road.

Her conclusion, therefore, was that Mike's source for the address as being '6 Riversdale Road' was someone other than Ryan.

Yes, it's amazing isn't it!! 

Her conclusion is the same when she thinks Ryan did give the address for Battlecrease of 6 Riversdale Road as when she thinks he did not!

Well just fancy that. 

And, bafflingly, even though it was Miss Information's mistake, and Lord Orsam hadn't even mentioned Maybrick's address, she posted in #8340 about Ryan:

'I wonder how many more times he will manage to wriggle away from RJ and Lord Orsam's clutches before they start to realise he was never in them'.

This, I repeat, was in the context of Lord Orsam not having mentioned 6 Riversdale Road at all and RJ had only mentioned it to correct Miss Information's mistake by demonstrating that this is the address Ryan gave for Maybrick's residence in his book.

Yet, somehow Ryan has wriggled away from us due to her own mistake!

It's baffling, but fantastic gaslighting whereby she always manages to reach the conclusion she likes! 


You remember the Clanger's silly question, right?

'Why do we imagine that Lord Orsam didn't cut out the middle man and 'prove' that Ryan is the only possible source for the Maybrick element of the diary?'

Well here was Miss Information's even more answer in #8341:

'Because he can't...Lord Orsam tried it once with an auntie, and thought he'd got away with it'.


My Bunny's Aunt article had nothing to do with Ryan, considering that EVERY secondary pre-1992 source which dealt with the matter, including Morland, tells us that the woman Florence went to visit in London in March 1889 was her aunt.  That mistake, as I explained, was taken from Addison's opening speech which was reported in all the newspapers.

So Bunny's Aunt had nothing to do with Ryan or with demonstrating Mike's connection to the diary.  Every single forger using every single available source would have made exactly the same mistake.  Mike Barrett wasn't even mentioned in my Bunny's Aunt article.

No, my Bunny's Aunt article was about the fact that the mistake made about Florence's aunt is more proof that the diary is a fake.

Miss Information herself supposedly believes that the diary is a fake.  I have no idea, therefore, why she is so resistant to the fact that the forger made an obvious mistake in referring to Florence's godmother as her aunt.


Also in #8341, Miss Information then links my Bunny's Aunt article as a supposed failure to my secret source article, saying that, because that article had supposedly failed (which, of course, it did not) I had to then 'rake through Mike's research notes, looking for clues which were never going to prove anything'.

Well her conclusion is false because I have proved that Mike used Ryan's book as the basis for the Maybrick information in his research notes.

The rest of what she says is false too.  My analysis of Mike's research notes had nothing to do with my Bunny's Aunt article.  I only embarked on it after RJ Palmer raised the point in the Forum about the mention of Tales of Liverpool in Mike's notes not having a page reference.  That made me look more closely at those research notes and, as I happened to have a subscription to the BNA at that time, thought it might be worth checking if Mike's references to the Liverpool Echo were genuine. I soon discovered that they weren't.  At that point, just like I discovered the Bunny's Aunt mistake in the diary while doing a deep dive of the diary facts, I discovered the Britannic mistake which proved that Mike had relied on Ryan's book.

The reason why Miss Information keeps posting like she's got a mouthful of sour grapes is that she sees the force in the point that Mike was using Ryan as his secret source of Maybrick information in his research notes in the exact same way that the forger obviously used Ryan as his secret source of Maybrick information in the diary.

She doesn't like it - try as she might, she can't deny it - but she's got to suck it up! 


Some readers might be old enough to remember Miss Information criticizing Lord Orsam for relying on Mike Barrett (even though that isn't true).

Now look at what she said in #8357 of the Incontrovertible thread:

'I can certainly see how Mike could have got off the 82C bus one day in the early 1990s, walked down Riversdale Road and misidentified the imposing Victorian residence at No.6 as Battlecrease. Far more plausible than having found the number on page 54 of Ryan's book, after missing the date of birth given for Gladys on page 27!'

So when Mike wrote in his research notes that the date of Gladys' birth was 'not known' she's fallen hook line and sinker for it, believing that he really didn't know it and missed it in Ryan's book.

THAT is someone who is truly relying on Mike Barrett, believing the stuff he wrote, and that is why she keeps getting scammed by him, even from beyond the grave.

Also in #8357, Miss Information wrote:
'RJ Palmer has argued that Mike was such an  amateur in this game that he could have taken five of Ryan's words and had them coming straight out  of Dr Fuller's mouth in the diary, without appreciating or caring about the dangers. But how many times could he have got away with such a practice before he made the one fatal mistake which would have proved beyond doubt that the diary could not have been written without reference to Ryan's book?' 

This is ludicrous.  
In the first place, the diary author didn't quote Dr Fuller as saying anything (as Miss Information was forced to admit in a subsequent post, #8358, so that nothing was 'coming straight out of Dr Fuller's mouth').  All her 'Sir Jim' says in the diary was that Fuller told him that there was 'very little the matter' with him.  We would never ever be able to prove that Fuller didn't say those words or that this wasn't the gist of what he told Maybrick.  What Fuller remembered saying in his trial evidence is neither here nor there because he could have misremembered the exact words, whereas the diary would supposedly have been written contemporaneously.

How is it possible in any way that that the forger (i.e. Mike) could have been caught out by this?
The answer is that it's not possible.  Even if Fuller had said in his evidence'I told him that I didn't think there was anything wrong with him' while Ryan and the diary had used the expression 'very little the matter', how does Miss Information think that this could possibly have disproved the diary, or exposed the forger as having relied on Ryan?
The Major would have been able to explain it in a heartbeat, either as nothing more than a coincidence of no significance because Fuller, Ryan and the diary were all, in effect, saying the same thing, or that Ryan was using another (possibly more accurate) source unknown to us, and Miss Information would have supported him.  We all know that. 

Yet, she ignores the glaring errors which DO exist in the diary.  Bunny's sick aunt is an obvious one.  There's also the breasts being said to have been placed in the wrong position, and the missing key.  The forger took all these mistakes from books, yet Miss Information doesn't admit for one second that they prove the diary to be a fake.

With the clearest possible examples of anachronistic expressions mistakenly included by the incompetent forger, such as 'one off instance' and 'bumbling buffoon', amongst others, Miss Information still refuses to admit that this proves the diary was written in the twentieth century. 

To the extent that she is saying that, if the forger could be shown to have copied a unique mistake from Ryan, this would have proved Mike Barrett was the author, that would be equally nonsensical.  All it would show is that the diary was forged after 1977, when Ryan's book was published.  It couldn't possibly prove that Mike did anything, regardless of us knowing that he relied on Ryan for his research notes.

All she's doing is trying to downplay evidence which points to Barrett as the author of the diary while trying to pretend that, if RJ Palmer or Lord Orsam had found some other evidence, she would have thrown up her hands and admitted that Barrett did it.
It's not true.  When it comes to Mike Barrett, about whom she thinks she is the world's leading expert, she will never admit anything. 
There's no doubt that the photographic enhancements of the Ripper victims by Addalime were spectacular, but the one of Kelly (presumably taken from a scan sent to him or her privately which we haven't seen) didn't really improve on the high resolution photograph posted by Ozzy.  Anyone who downloaded that would have realised that the initials 'FM' cannot be seen on that one, despite the greatly enhanced quality of the photograph.

The Major, always optimistic, drew our attention to  Addalime's enhancement of the Kelly photograph in #8364 of Incontrovertible saying:
'Could those pesky initials of Florence Maybrick be made any clearer on Kelly's wall?'
Well let's have a look shall we.
This is the part of the photograph where the initials 'FM' are supposed to be:

Boy, it's not easy to see an 'FM' in there...but let's use some colours and imagination.
Is this supposed to be it?  Am I in the right ballpark?

Well, the problem is that I've deliberately created an 'F' which isn't there.  Because if I was just tracing the dark lines without any preconceived notions, this is what I would have got.  It's not an 'F'.  You can look as hard as you like but there's no cross there unless you invent one.

But going back to my original WITH an 'F' for the moment, there's a curl that I didn't overdraw which means it's actually rather more like this:

Okay a little artistic curl by the murderer (Mr Maybrick).  We can allow that, surely.

But then, what the fuck do we have in the middle?
I can certainly see how Mike could have got off the 82C bus one day in the early 1990s, walked down Riversdale Road and misidentified the imposing Victorian residence at No.6 as Battlecrease. Far more plausible than having found the number on page 54 of Ryan's book, after missing the date of birth given for Gladys on page 27!

Are we just ignoring that shape in the middle?

And do we just ignore all the other lines of the same density that we can see, for example:


Here's another effort I did just trying to follow the dark density lines as faithfully as possible:


It's classic pareidolia.  You can make out whatever shapes you want to make out to form them into letters.

You want a 'T' on the wall Mr Tumblety? You got it. 


MJD?  Of course, Mr Montague John Druitt:


If I want an H (for Hutchinson) I can find one in the lighter density lines:


Frankly what is supposed to be the 'M' in Addelime's picture looks more like a creepy spider to me


When you make up your own rules as to what constitutes a letter or a shape it's not very difficult to see things which aren't really there.

And that, of course, is what the Major, in sheer desperation, has done. 


The source of Addelime's enhanced photograph remains unclear.  It was said to be from 'a scan directly from the book' (#27).  That would potentially have created all kinds of distortions and artifacts. It can't be the one posted by the Major in #18 because that crops out the top of Kelly's head which isn't cropped in Addelime's image. 

A shame that Addelime couldn't positively identify the source. 

What about the high resolution image posted by Ozzy?  The Major doesn't seem to want to talk about that.  While Harmonica suggested that Ozzy's photograph had been 'already AI upscaled by another member on here' (#26), Ozzy responded (#34) that he's had it on his computer for five or ten years (or even more) which would probably rule out any form of AI enhancement having been carried out on it.  Anyway, what does it reveal about the letters 'FM'?


There is without question no 'FM' there (just as there is not on Addelime's enhanced photograph!).  You can't even begin to get an 'F' and what is supposed to be an 'M' obviously is not.

Indeed, I don't even know which of the two shapes we can see in front of the supposed 'M' is supposed to be the 'F'.  Is it the marking I identified in the Addelime pic or the weird shape in the middle?

Ignoring the supposed 'M', this is all I'm seeing in respect of anything that could be an 'F':

If you try and help out the Major, and add in one of the lines with a different density, you can get something close with the middle shape:


The problem for the Major is that going back to Addelime's photograph, we've already seen that this particular shape is nothing like an 'F' in that one.  But it seems to me that we've got TWO competing 'F' candidates here, neither of which actually looks like an 'F'!!

And the 'M' is clearly not an 'M' at all.

What a disaster for the Major! 


We can compare the above two photos with the high resolution image posted by RichardH.  Here's the relevant part:


Once again, there is no 'FM'.  It's just not there.

This is what I see in the middle:


One only gets 'FM' by adding in one's own imagination to arrive at what one wants to see...if you are Major Misunderstanding.


When the Clanger said, 'Another gift for us all' in #8379 of Incontrovertible, he was cross-referencing a post he had made a few minutes earlier in the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread about a leather apron.

RJ had posted an 1886 press cutting in which it was stated that police trying to stop an illegal prize fight, 'observed a large van in Sage Street, Shadwell, apparently loaded with large packing cases and driven by an innocent-looking individual, wearing a large leather apron'.  

The Clanger's comment on this in #5771 was 

'Why it was thought noteworthy that a carman  should be wearing a leather apron, I don’t know, but clearly the way the man was dressed in his work clothes made him ‘innocent-looking’.'

That's obviously a false statement.  The newspaper report didn't explain why the carman was 'innocent-looking' and it can only be speculation that it was because of the way he was dressed.

But let's assume it was because of the way he was dressed and, in particular, the fact that he was wearing a leather apron.  So what?

Well the Clanger tells us:

'CAL no doubt appeared an ‘innocent-looking individual of the carman type’ when he stood in the witness box wearing his coarse sacking apron.' 

So the Clanger concluded: 'R.J. Palmer, the gift that keeps on giving'.

But, er, no.

If, by wearing a leather apron, the carman looked 'innocent' it was in the context of him appearing to be a genuine carman delivering goods, as opposed to carrying nineteen concealed men involved in a prize fight, which is what turned out to be the case.

That's totally different to a situation whereby that same carman turned up at court to give evidence in relation to the discovery of a dead woman in the street.  Perhaps the leather apron might have made him look like a genuine carman (which CAL, of course, was) but it surely wouldn't have made him look innocent of murdering the woman, to the extent that anyone considered the possibility.

But now let's remind ourselves of why RJ Palmer posted the newspaper cutting in the first place.

It was in response to the Clanger's categoric statement in #5767 that: 

'Leather aprons were worn by those who used knives or other sharp tools in their occupation. Carmen wore sacking aprons to prevent soiling of their clothes.'

So there's a big problem for the Clanger right there.  If the carman from the 1886 report who was wearing a leather apron looked like a genuine 'innocent' carman delivering goods in his van, not out of place because he wasn't wearing a sacking apron, it must mean that carmen DID wear leather aprons after all, doesn't it?

One doesn't need to be a genius to see this, but the point seems to have completely eluded the Clanger.

The Clanger really is the gift that keeps on giving...to this website anyway.  I honestly don't know what I'd do for giggles without him. 



'imagine if it turns out I was right all along!' said the Major in #43 of the Liz Stride photo thread.

Poor sod.

The Major cannot possibly be right in saying that James Maybrick wrote the diary.  It's simply not possible due to the inclusion of the expression 'one off instance' which was not part of the English language at the time

But he continues to live in la la land, thinking, hoping, that he might be right.



In the thread, 'Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the Ripper so often discarded?', the Clanger responded to John Wheat's comment that, 'There is zero evidence Lechmere killed anyone let alone had a split personality' by saying in #471:

'Yeah, it's not like he used two names or anything'

If the Clanger's post means anything (and, of course, sometimes he just writes gibberish) it can only mean that he believes that using two names is evidence of either a murderous tendency or a split personality.

He then expressly told us in #482:

'He used two names, and that could be evidence of a split personality'. 

And yet, how funny it is to recall his comment on my 'Lechmere/Cross Name Issue Part 2' thread when, back in August 2019 he thanked me 'for proving the blindingly obvious', explaining that the blindingly obvious was:

'that people sometimes use alternative names'.

How is the Clanger able to reconcile the two views about the use of alternative names in his own head?  Either it's blindingly obvious that people sometimes use alternative names (and there, consequently, nothing remarkable about it) or its a sign of a murderous or split personality.

Which one is it? 

Surely the answer can't be that the Clanger himself has a split personality, saying one thing one day and then the complete opposite on another? 


There's an individual on the Forum who seems to think that the face of Mary Jane Kelly has been deliberately 'rendered unseeable' and 'literally incomprehensible in visual terms' in the photograph of the crime scene (Liz Stride enhancement photograph thread #53 and #57).

Yes, you read that right.  It wasn't the killer who rendered Kelly's face unseeable, it was someone fiddling around with the photograph for reasons, apparently, of 'legal restrictions' (what?) or 'public horror' (what?).

The funny thing about this is that Dr Bond tells us that the face of Kelly was 'hacked beyond recognition of the features'.   This is exactly what we see in the crime scene photograph!

Just fancy that. 

We are also told by Dr Bond that, 'The face was gashed in all directions the nose, cheeks, eyebrows & Ears being partly removed.  The lips were blanched & cut by several oblique incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the feature'.

That was what the doctor saw in real life! It matches what we see today in the photograph.


The other nutter discussing the Kelly photograph was, of course, Simon Wood. He's been babbling on about the MJK photos for donkey's years, promising revelations about them which never come.

He was at it again in the Liz Stride photograph thread telling us (#50):

'my views on MJK1 and MJK2 have changed over the years, especially since I received a high-resolution version of MJK1 which had no AI jiggery-pokery performed upon it. It is very revealing and has opened up new lines of inquiry as to what actually happened in Millers Court.'

He then added:

'Sorry to disappoint you, but that is as far as I can go at the moment'.

And he advised us to 'watch this space'.

It's literally the same old game he's been playing for years.  Pretending to have discovered something which he can't yet mention.

I can guarantee that it's all nonsense and he will never ever reveal 'what actually happened in Millers Court'


The guy is really such a clown.

Having spent years madly shouting 'Jack the Ripper didn't exist' he's come up with a new catchphrase (#25 of 'MJK Pregnancy' thread):

'Mary Jane Kelly didn't exist'.

My goodness, where will it end?

Did Abberline exist?

Did London of 1888 exist?

Does Simon Wood exist? 

Probably not.  No one can be that simple, surely. 

As they say, 'Get over it, guys'.


Every thread about Mary Jane Kelly seems to bring out the loons.

Martyn Priestnall is back in the MJK Pregnancy thread telling us (#32) that he is '100% sure' that he knows the identity of Jack the Ripper plus Mary Jane Kelly and Astrakhan man too as bonuses.

This is apparently going to be revealed and substantiated in a book in which we can be 100% sure it will all be nonsense.

In his post he listed nine things that raise his suspicions about 'the Miller Court event'.

The one that particularly caught my eye was:

'The suspiciously world record abridged one-day inquest'.

I'm guessing that Priestnall has no idea that the vast majority of inquests at the time were concluded within one day.   There was nothing 'world record' about it.

Is there anything else?

'The sudden inexplicable loss of interest by the  press in Kelly's murder'.

This is nonsense.  There was no more 'loss of interest' by the press in the Kelly murder after 9 November than with the entire series of murders.  They just didn't have much more to say.   

We also have:

'The non-appearance of an highly important witness (Hutchinson) at the inquest.'

This is unfathomable.  Hutchinson didn't come forward until after the inquest had concluded.   One could argue that the timing of him coming forward is suspicious but hardly the fact that he wasn't called to the inquest.

Another nonsensical suspicion of Priestnall's is that the police waited for the bloodhounds 'that were of little use at that particular murder scene'.   There is nothing suspicious about this as I've previously explained (see 'On the Trail of the Bloodhounds' in Some Thoughts).  It was done on the advice of Dr Phillips.  Priestnall claims that 'I believe Anderson, Arnold, Phillips and Warren were all on record as discounting the usefulness of bloodhounds in the streets of Whitechapel'.  This is more nonsense.  Dr Phillips literally recommended waiting for the bloodhounds before entering Kelly's room, while Warren was in the process of conducting negotiations for their use.  The views of Anderson and Arnold (whatever they were) are of no relevance to the matter.


Proving that he doesn't even know what an alibi is, the Clanger wrote in #530 of the Lechmere interruption thread: 

'Saying, ‘I forgot to mention it at the time, but I saw a man with wild eyes and carrying a large bloody knife run away from the scene as I approached. I think he may have been wearing a leather apron…’ or whatever, may on the face of it constitute a great alibi, but it would have drawn the full attention of the police and the press in his direction.'

Yes, he actually wrote that Lechmere claiming to have seen the killer running away: 'may on the face of it constitute a great alibi'.

No, numpty, that's not an alibi, that's a defence (to the extent that anyone ever accused him of having committed the murder).

I wouldn't mind, but the meaning of 'alibi' had already been explained earlier in the thread (#506) so there was no excuse for the Clanger to get it wrong.

It's the basics! 


15 February 2022
Published: Orsam Day 9 March 2022