Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 30


Clanger posted in #583 of the Lechmere 'Interrupting' thread to say:

Yes, you read that right. 

'For me, Nichols was CAL's first murder' 

CAL is Charles Allen Lechmere.  The Clanger is literally saying here that Lechmere murdered Nichols so that Lechmere was, in fact, the man known as 'Jack the Ripper'.  

There are surely only two options. Either the Clanger has actually solved the 134 year old mystery of the identity of Jack the Ripper or he has lost his marbles.  


I'm forced to return again to the Clanger's mistake about the so-called "HO index of the papers in the Nichols file" which simply doesn't exist:

In #13 of the 'Lechmere v Richardson' thread, he posted:


'But there is a HO index of the papers in the Nichols file dated 25/10/88' 

As I've already said in Part 28 of Lord Orsam Says..., I fully debunked this in Part 18 which was published as long ago as September 2021.  How can he be repeating the same error in February of 2022?

No Orsam, Mr Clanger, No Comment! 


In #8041 of the Incontrovertible thread, responding to RJ having said that, 'I never understood what Caz's 25-year obsession with Barrett pounding on the wrong door (or pretending to pound on the wrong door) is supposed tell us', Miss Information posted:

'I'd appreciate it if RJ didn't try to project his own  and Orsam's obsessions onto me?'

Orsam's obsessions???? WTF?

Lord Orsam has never before mentioned, either on this website or while posting on the Forum, anything to do with Barrett pounding on the wrong door [in Riversdale Road], or about Miss Information talking about Barrett pounding on the wrong door.  Not a single word. 

Yet, because RJ has posted about it, she's accused Lord Orsam of being obsessed about it.


It's clearly a sign of her own obsession with Lord Orsam (who was mentioned no fewer than SIX times in her response to RJ Palmer, for no apparent reason).


Of those six mentions of Lord Orsam in one single post, this was my favourite:

'I’m not sure if Orsam is grateful, or grinding his teeth, to see how RJ is giving a masterclass in how to make the research notes reflect his own ability to perform mental gymnastics.'

Frankly, I have no idea what she's talking about when she wonders if I should be grateful or grinding my teeth about something RJ is supposed to have said (to do with her silly Gladys point, apparently).  What I enjoy is the very fact that she is speculating about what I am thinking, in circumstances where she claims never to read anything I write on here!  How will she ever know?

If she's wondering what I'm thinking about the subject of Gladys why doesn't she just fucking read what I have to say about it? 

It's in Lord Orsam Says...Part 28 under heading 'ONE SAD OLD GIT' in case anyone missed it. 


Readers may recall how the Clanger picked up on my reference in Lord Orsam Says...Part 19 to Lechmere's 'so-called connection with Pinchin Street'.  He questioned my use of the expression 'so-called'.  Since then, because, in fact, Lechmere has NO actual personal connection to Pinchin Street, he keeps referring to Lechmere's connection to 'the Pinchin Street area(see Lechmere's Lair thread #346 and #41 of Lechmere v Richardson thread).  LOL! 

But in #23 of the Lechmere v Richardson thread, he forgot about the caveat and asked Herlock Sholmes about John Richardson:

'And did he have a connection to Pinchin Street...?'

But Lechmere himself didn't have a connection to Pinchin Street.

He never lived there, he never worked there. It wasn't even on his route to work!

And in any case, who cares if a suspect in the Jack the Ripper murders had a connection to Pinchin Street?   The body found in Pinchin Street may well not have been a Ripper victim.  We know that some Scotland Yard officials have said she definitely was not a Ripper victim. So what does it even matter? 


I've mentioned before how Trevor Marriott continually copies and pastes from the online version of the Police Code, which is from 1912, yet passes it off as regulations existing as at the time of the Whitechapel murders or the LVP.

And he's done it again.  In #1111 of the 'Is Kosminski the best suspect we have' thread Trevor posted what he claimed were 'guidelines for ID parades in Victorian times'.

What did he actually post?

Yes, you guessed it. An extract from the 1912 Police Code.

Historical Note: Queen Victoria died in 1901.


According to Miss Information in #8402 of Incontrovertible:

'it is an undeniable fact that Dr Fuller's words to Maybrick, in 1889, as they appear in the diary, cannot be found in Ryan's book'.


So here's Dr Fuller's words to Maybrick in 1889 as they appear in the diary:

'Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me'.

Here is what is Ryan's book:

'[Fuller] told his patient that he could find very little the matter with him'.

Both use the exact same wording: 'very little the matter with...'.

So I would say that it is an undeniable fact that Fuller's words CAN be found in Ryan's book. 

And, funnily enough, I would be right (whereas Miss Info is wrong).


#8403 of Incontrovertible:

'by 18th January 1995, he [Mike] could again recite the exact date of that meeting - 13th April 1992 - a day to remember'.

Have you ever seen or heard the quote from Mike saying this?  (let alone him saying this 'again')

No, neither have I.  So how is it possible that Miss Information can be making such a claim?

I don't know, is the answer. 

#8404 of Incontrovertible:

'Mike even admitted to Alan Gray, who later typed up the affidavit of 5th January 1995, that he got his dates wrong on purpose'.

Have you ever seen or heard the quote from Mike saying this?

No, neither have I.  So how is it possible that Miss Information can be making such a claim?

I don't know, is the answer.


Finally, in #159 of the Lechmere v Richardson thread, reality catches up with the Clanger as he posts:

'Although it says in the A-Z that the 25th October document was an index to 'papers on the Nichols murder in the Home Office files', I wonder whether it wasn't just an index to Swanson's 19th October report'.

What?  You mean, just like Lord Orsam said back in September 2021? 

No Orsam, No Comment! 


People email to me all the time, saying, "Lord Orsam, Your Holiness, please tell me why the Clanger keeps saying that Lechmere is Jack the Ripper?".

The first thing I tell them is that the preferred form of address when writing to me is Your Grace, which was how the first Earl of Orsam was always addressed, according to surviving manuscript documents held in the Orsam archives.

As to the issue of the Clanger's strange attraction to Lechmere's candidacy, I always reply that, aside from the Clanger's shocking misunderstanding of how some men in the nineteenth century had two surnames, it's all about the Clanger being a family history researcher.

The guy has spent literally years delving into some of the most boring genealogical documents known to mankind, and writing threads about them on JTR Forums, so dull that no human being has ever read them.

Suddenly, however, he sees an opportunity for the sort of incredibly uninteresting family research that he does on a daily basis to SOLVE THE FUCKING RIPPER MURDERS!!!

So he's found someone who unsuspiciously discovered one of the bodies on his way to work who once lived in an area in which a later murder, which was probably not a Ripper murder, occurred, or at least where a body was dumped, and he's now convinced himself that because that person might have walked down some of the other streets close to where actual Jack the Ripper murders occurred (but not actually in them), he's solved the whole blinking mystery.

You see, it was a family history researcher who was the star in the whole story of Ripperology!  He's a cool kid, not a nerd, after all!

So we literally find him telling Herlock Sholmes on the Forum (#53 of the Lech v Rich thread) that, in order to make a case against John Richardson as compelling as the one he thinks can be made against Lechmere, he needs to:

'Go find his aunt Mary in Pinchin Street or Mitre Square'.

As if finding that a relative of John Richardson living in Pinchin Street will tell us a single fucking thing about whether he was Jack the Ripper.

And I wouldn't mind but Lechmere never had a relative living in Mitre Square, and the Clanger obviously chose that example because it wasn't a residential square.

Even better is that the young John Richardson was living with his parents in Well Street in 1861 (per the census) which was about two minutes walk from Pinchin Street!!!   

Well Street was, in other words, actually in 'the Pinchin Street area' so that Richardson lived in the Pinchin Street area.

What does that tell us about whether Richardson was either Jack the Ripper or responsible for the Pinchin Street victim?  Not a single fucking thing.

While the Clanger might like to imagine himself as Mel Gibson in the film 'Conspiracy Theory', madly connecting in his mind all the streets in which Lechmere and his family lived to the Ripper murders, as if he's discovered the key to the entire mystery, you can rest assured that the Clanger clangs and has, in reality, done no such thing.


You may be familiar with the claim that Lechmere would have passed through certain Ripper murder sites on his way to work.  You may even have seen a map posted online which appears to demonstrate this, taken from the notorious Channel 5 documentary:


It's all, of course, a load of bollocks.

Just looking closely at the above you can see that, after walking down Hanbury Street, Lechmere was supposed to have made a sharp left turn (down Commercial Street) followed by a sharp right turn (presumably down Dorset Street), followed by a strange zig zag and then, after that, up to Bishopsgate.

Even allowing for the possibility that Lechmere decided to turn left into Commercial Street rather than simply walking straight ahead up to Bishopsgate through Lamb Street and Spital Square, there is almost no chance that he would have spurned the opportunity to then turn right into Brushfield Street, which would have taken him directly to Bishopsgate.

For Lechmere to have decided to walk past Brushfield Street and instead turn into the notoriously dangerous Dorset Street during the middle of the night, thus meaning he would then have had to zig zig his way through Crispin Street, Raven Road and Artillery Lane into Bishopsgate, makes no sense.

Let me visualise this.  Here is what the Lechmerians are trying to convince us was the route their man might have taken to to work from Hanbury Street:

Yet, he could have taken this far more direct route to end up at the same point:


Or, if he did take the left turn down Commercial Road, he would surely never have got as far as Dorset Street, and would have done this:


But why even go down Commercial Street at all?  It moves slightly away from the destination.  If he had wanted to make a left turn, surely the smartest thing would have  been to have gone down Crispin Street from Lamb Street, hence:


Or, if for any reason he particularly wanted to walk along Artillery Lane, as he would likely have done when going via Dorset Street, he could simply have done this: 


In no sane world can it be said that Lechmere needed to walk along Dorset Street to get to work, or that it was on his direct route to work.

Yet, when we look at what Ed Stow wrote in 'Charles Lechmere - Hidden in Plain Sight'  in the 2019 book 'Who was Jack the Ripper' we find it said that Dorset Street was 'on one of Lechmere's direct routes to work'.

It's just terrible Fishleading by Stow because there is really no reason to suppose that Lechmere would ever have walked down Dorset Street on his way to work; he simply wouldn't have needed to.  

Not that it makes any difference if he did or did not.  The fact that a person who lived in the East End might have walked down a street where one of the murders was committed is not a relevant fact in considering whether they were responsible for the murders.

When it comes to Mitre Square, even on the Channel 5 map, neither of Lechmere's routes from Doveton Street would have taken him anywhere near it. 

Stow tries to rescue this by saying that Mitre Square was 'yards from what would have been Charles Lechmere's old route to work at Pickfords when he used to live at James Street'.

Yards from!! So he never even would have needed to walk through Mitre Square!!!  Not only that, he wouldn't have walked past Mitre Square either when coming from James Street on any conceivable route. Thus, he might never have even known it existed.  He might not even have gone anywhere near it.  We just don't know what route he took.

When it comes to Dutfields Yard, this is obviously nowhere near Lechmere's route to work so we are told by Stow that it was 'very close' to James Street.  The rules seem to change with this game every minute, all to try and frame Lechmere for the murder.

And then what about George Yard Buildings, where Martha Tabram was murdered?

The thing I love about this is that we know for a fact that the route Lechmere took for work was along Hanbury Street.  In order to frame him for the murder of Tabram, the Lechmerians have to tell us that well he might instead have chosen to walk along Old Montague Street some mornings because, hey, while that wouldn't have involved him walking along George Yard, and thus he would never have passed by George Yard Buildings, George Yard was a turning off of Old Montague Street so he would have walked past George Yard.

We can see it is all so Fishleading, yet there are people who see the Channel 5 map and think that it links Lechmere with all the murder sites.  It does no such thing!


In his latest weird self-congratulatory post, the Major writes (#8406 of Incontrovertible) that Mike Barrett was 'a failure in everything he touched' (like the Major?) and that he only managed to type up his articles cogently enough for them to be published in national magazines 'because the more learned Anne stepped-in to tidy-up and type-up his scribbled notes'.

That is not the exculpatory argument that the Major seems to think it is.  On the contrary, it is downright incriminating!!

The entire argument against the Major is that Mike and Anne Barrett jointly could have forged the diary.

The Major is here admitting that Mike and Anne jointly had articles published in what was actually two national magazines.

So it's utterly futile for him to say that Mike Barrett wasn't really the journalist whose articles were published under the name 'Michael Barrett' because 'Michael Barrett' was really a combined team of Mike and Anne.  That's exactly the argument against him!

The Major's unsupported claim that Mike's editors  structured his copy into articles doesn't help him one bit because that's precisely what editors are paid to do! 

In any case, unless the Major has an example of Mike's articles before they were submitted, he can't even claim this.  When the authors of 'Inside Story' approached the editor of Celebrity to enquire about Mike, they were told that he was 'very reliable' (p.150).  There was not a hint of incompetence.  Oh, but sorry, that's actual evidence, not my imagination of what the fictional Mike Barrett character I've created in my head was like.

The Major concluded his post by referring to the 'asinine claims and strenuous efforts of some to convince the easily persuaded' that Mike 'had a creative hand in the scrapbook which he bought to London on April 13, 1992'.

I have no idea why Mike couldn't have had a 'creative hand' in the diary.  I mean, just suggesting that Maybrick was Jack the Ripper because he hated his wife and killed women in substitution for his wife would have constituted a 'creative hand'.  Why couldn't Mike have had such an idea?  There's no reason at all.  Of course he could.

And again, the Major shows that he doesn't fully understand the evidential case against him.  The evidential case against him is that Mike was responsible for acquiring the scrapbook.   That is based on evidence of his known attempt to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages. 

Mike didn't necessarily need to have drafted the text of the diary himself.  Others could easily have been responsible for that, or have assisted him in doing so.  We just don't know.  We don't have enough first hand evidence about how the text of the diary was created.  We can only speculate. But given that Mike and Anne were said to be a team writing paid articles for national magazines, why could they not have been a team when it came to drafting the contents of the diary?

There is certainly evidence that some of the phrases and expressions in the diary match those used by Mike himself to a very suspicious extent, as well as some by Anne.   And that is based on only a small sample of their speech and writing.

We would have more evidence relating to Mike's writing skills if the Major would stop suppressing the examples of additional diary-style extracts that Mike provided to Keith Skinner, of which the Major only posted a select few (i.e. the worst of them) even though he must possess the entire set.   Even those that he did post showed that Mike could easily have written the diary, once his spelling and grammatical errors were corrected, which Anne would have done.

But above all it's terribly interesting that the Major's entire defence of the thread was against the claim that Mike Barrett wrote the diary.  Didn't he tell us that he was fed up with talking about Mike Barrett?

Funny ain't it, that the Major's post was NOT a defence of the diary having been written by James Maybrick?!  For him to have taken that approach he'd have had to explain how the expression 'one off instance' got in the diary, or 'bumbling buffoon'.  He'd have had to explain the Bunny's Aunt mistake and the mistake about Kelly's breasts and key.  But he's hardly ever going to be doing that!


Just to prove the point I was making about the Major's misunderstanding, I find that on 11 January 2017 I wrote on the Forum, in #2769 of the Incontrovertible thread, not far short of six thousand posts ago:

'I don't want to labour the point but I keep having to repeat that Mike claims to have had the assistance of his wife.  A lot of people don't believe that Jeffrey Archer wrote all those novels on his own and that his wife must have helped him.  Lots of creative people need really good editors to make their work readable'.

What was the response to this from the Major back in January 2017?

Yes, you guessed it.  Total fucking silence.

Miss Information did respond five days later, on 16 January (#2898), with her usual incomprehensible nonsense which missed the point (see my reply to her at #2911 if you're at all interested).


I could hardly believe my eyes on 21 February 2022 when I read what must qualify as the worst ever post written on the subject of the Maybrick diary, in number #8407 of 'Incontrovertible'.

It was written, of course, by Miss Information, addressed to her poodle, the Major. 

Claiming 'it's a mystery', she wondered why Mike, if he was trying to frighten and blackmail Anne, didn't date the red diary, auction and physical creation of the diary to March/April 1992 but 'took the sting out' by dating these events back to early 1990.

Rather than consider the obvious answer - the one I've repeatedly put forward on this website - that Mike in late 1994 or early 1995 mistakenly believed that the red diary, auction and physical creation of the diary occurred in 1991 (having told a reporter in 1994 that he brought the diary down to London in 1991) and that Alan Gray, who typed the affidavit, wrongly typed the year as '1990' (subsequently corrected in manuscript to '1991'), Miss Information said:

'I suspect there were two reasons for Mike dating the purchase of the red diary, the auction and the physical creation to an impossibly early 1990: 1) March 1992 was too close to home, as this was when he had really acquired the diary, and 2) he would have considered it impossibly late to have created it in early April 1992, because who in their right mind would believe a simple man and wife team with no previous could have pulled off a stunt like that? He’d have risked a good kicking from Alan Gray for starters, if he ran the idea past him.'

The problem with this - and the reason why it qualifies as being the worst post ever written on the subject of the Maybrick diary - is that Miss Information doesn't acknowledge - she doesn't even seem to be aware of the fact - that when Mike explained the story in his own words in April 1999 he made very clear that the creation of the diary occurred in March/April 1992.

If Mike genuinely believed in 1995 that April 1992 was too close to the date he actually acquired the diary, and also thought that it would have been impossible to have created the diary in such a short space of time in April 1992, why didn't he hold exactly the same view in April 1999? 

What had changed?

I mean, how can anyone seriously write a post about this subject without even considering the point?

Furthermore, Mike's 1995 affidavit had stated that it only took eleven days to write the diary, so it's hard to think he couldn't have believed it could have been created between 28 March and 13 April (a total of 16 days if one includes the 28th of March as the first day and the 12th of April as the last).

Unbelievably, the post got even worse when Miss Information said: 

'Little did Mike understand the power of suggestion and wishful thinking that would one day have him attending that auction just a couple of weeks before Shirley took the Victorian guardbook, reeking of linseed oil, to Jarndyce and the British Museum.'

So she's saying there that those who think that the diary was created in March/April 1992 are (unlike her) subject to the power of suggestion and wishful thinking!

But it's truly amazing that Miss Information can write a post of this nature without even mentioning the detailed story told by Mike in April 1999.  What does it mean?  Is she unaware of it?  Well, she was in the fucking audience at the time, so that can't be the answer.  Or is she in denial? 

I think it has to be denial.   She's simply blanked it out of her mind.  To the best of my knowledge, she has never mentioned it.  She's never even offered up one of her mad, convoluted and speculative theories for Mike's April 1999 story.

If Mike so badly wanted the world to believe that the events of the diary creation occurred in 1990, why didn't he say so when he publicly told his story in his own words for the very first time?

Surely the answer is that the affidavit contains an erroneous date and that Mike was too drunk and lazy to read and consider it properly before he signed it.

And, thus, surely, the fact of the matter is that Mike's story from the 1995 affidavit, if told correctly, would have been the same as the one he told in 1999.

It's real simple.  Surely the Major is aware of what I've been saying about the April 1999 event. Did he challenge Miss Information about this?  Do me a favour. 


As usual within the diary defender eco-system, one daft post produces another. 

Sure enough, within just a few minutes, the Bitha was up with #8408 in response to Miss Information, saying:

'...and yet the ink was apparently still dripping off the page'.

What utter nonsense!  Does this guy not know how ink works?

When people in the nineteenth century wrote a letter or a postcard to another person, which would either have been received on the same day or the next day, did the recipient find the ink dripping off the page of the paper or card they were holding?

Of course not! 

Don't be totally fucking stupid. 

Ink dries very quickly.  It doesn't drip off the page.  It would be impractical for any commercially produced ink to drip off the page of a document on which it is deposited.  No one, either in 1882 or 1992, would ever have bought or used it!

Just utter madness from the error-loving Bitha once more. 


In #8410 of Incontrovertible, RJ Palmer quoted Miss Information's claim that it is 'an undeniable fact that Dr Fuller's words to Maybrick in 1989, as they appear in the diary cannot be found in Ryan's book'.  He then placed Fuller's words to Maybrick above those words as paraphrased in Ryan's book to demonstrate that they are virtually identical.

Hence (diary):

'Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me'.

AND (Ryan):

'[Fuller said] he could find very little the matter with him' .

I was wondering how Miss Information was going to deal with this in her response.

What do you think she said about it?

Yes, you are right.


In her reply, in #8412, she skipped over that entire part of RJ's post as if it didn't exist, only commencing her response to it from the second half where RJ had begun, 'What Caz seems to be suggesting...' which was an entirely different point.

I can only assume that the penny has dropped and that she realizes that it is an undeniable fact that Fuller's words CAN be found in Ryan's book, and that she has been found guilty once again of yet more misinformation which, as usual, she refuses to admit to.


Miss Information did say some things about Fuller's words in her evasive #8412 post.

She wrote:

'I can assure you, if Ryan's choice of words had appeared in the diary, where Fuller's or anyone else's should have been, I'd have ripped Ike a new one if he failed to acknowledge this was not just dodgy but absolute proof of a modern fake'.

It's a little difficult to understand this because, of course, Ryan's choice of words DO appear in the diary (contrary to Miss Information's previous claim that they don't, which I assume she has silently retracted).  It's just that Ryan's source was Dr Fuller's reported testimony from the trial so that it's impossible to say that Fuller didn't actually say those words to Maybrick.

But the fact of the matter is that we have no idea what Fuller actually said to Maybrick on 14 April 1889.  We only have Fuller's recollection set out in his trial testimony some months later.  Hence, if Ryan had used different words to those used by Fuller in his testimony, we couldn't say for certain if Fuller actually said them or not.  Ryan might have got them right by pure luck.

So Miss Information is living in dreamland if she believes she would have been able to rip the Major a new one.  After all, 'one off instance' proves the diary to have been a modern (post WW2 fake) but she's never ripped Ike a new one on the basis of it.  

There are so many other errors in the diary which prove the diary to be a fake, modern or otherwise (including Bunny's Aunt), but does Miss Information rip the Major a new one?  Do me a favour!  Of course she doesn't.  


The other thing Miss Information did in #8412 in relation to Fuller's statement, while evading the main issue, was to refer to:

'the chances of anyone hitting on Fuller's words by copying any phrase directly out of Ryan's book.  It's not that Mike wasn't stupid enough to try, it's the chances of succeeding if that's how they went about it'.

So what I think she's saying there is that no forger would have relied on Ryan to summarize Fuller's opinion as having been that there was very little the matter with Maybrick.  I'm not sure why.  Does Miss Information think that Ryan made everything up in his book and that no forger could possibly have relied on anything he said?

At the risk of repeating myself, the problem with her argument is threefold.  Firstly, we don't know what Fuller said to Maybrick at his meeting on 14 April 1889. We only have Fuller's summary of it (as reported).  Secondly, the diary author doesn't quote what Fuller is supposed to have said, just paraphrases his words.  Thirdly, why on earth could the forger not have relied upon Ryan's summary?

As it happens, we know that Ryan took his information directly from Fuller's reported trial testimony.  That's the type of thing I would expect him to have done if I had been the forger. 

But let's say that the forger had used Morland as his source for the diary.  He would then have seen that Morland summarized Fuller's opinion as being that 'Dr Fuller found nothing wrong except that the patient was suffering with indigestion'.

Now let's assume that instead of the diary having said:

'Fuller believes there is very little the matter with me'.

It had said:

'Fuller believes there is nothing wrong with me except that I am suffering from indigestion'.

According to Miss Information, if I have understood her correctly, that would have proved that the diary is a post-1956 fake because it doesn't tally exactly with Fuller's testimony at the trial (even though he might have actually told Maybrick that that he could find nothing wrong with him other than indigestion!).

As we've seen, however, she claims she would have ripped the Major a new arsehole on this basis!

But it's ludicrous isn't it?  The idea that the words 'there is nothing wrong with me' would have proved the diary to be a fake, derived from Morland, is ridiculous.

And I should note for those who are unsure, Fuller's reported trial testimony (at least in the Liverpool Daily Post) was that he could find very little the matter with him 'except that the patient was suffering from indigestion'.   

Here's the thing. The diary doesn't record that Fuller told the author he was suffering from indigestion.  And here's the bigger thing.  Ryan didn't bother mentioning it in his book!  So there is, in fact, a difference between what is in the diary and what seems to have happened in reality.

Is Miss Information going to rip the Major a new one on this basis?  Don't make me laugh. 


The diary defenders are all so sure that Fuller said in his evidence that he told Maybrick that there was 'very little the matter with him'  on 14 April 1889 because that's what MacDougall tells us, but is it true?

In the absence of an official transcript prepared by shorthand writers, where did MacDougall get his information?

Almost certainly from the report of proceedings in the  Liverpool Daily Post of 2 August 1889, for both MacDougall and the Liverpool Daily Post have Fuller saying this, word for word:

'The examination lasted over an hour. I found there was nothing the matter with him. I told him there was very little the matter with him, but that he was suffering from indigestion, and that I was perfectly certain there was no fear of paralysis'.

Does this mean that they were Fuller's exact words in the witness box?  Absolutely not. It's just one reporter's recording of them.  We all know that journalists don't necessarily take down the complete and exact words of a witness. 

Just look at how the same testimony was reported in the Liverpool Mercury of 2 August 1889:

'Witness was with deceased for an hour, and did not find anything the matter with him organically, but concluded that he was suffering from indigestion, and there was no fear of paralysis, as all the symptoms might be attributed to indigestion.'

Suddenly the word 'organically' has appeared.  Did the Mercury reporter invent it?  Or did Fuller actually say it and the Liverpool Post reporter missed it?  If Fuller did say it then suddenly we have a potential divergence between the diagnosis he recollected in the witness box and what is actually in the diary.

We can also see that the words 'very little' don't appear in the Liverpool Mercury reporting. 

What about the judge's notes of Fuller's evidence?  Here is what is recorded in those notes by Mr Justice Fitzjames Stephen:


'I was with him for an hour.  Found nothing the matter with him.  Said he was suffering from indigestion.  No fear of paralysis.'

The judge didn't record the words 'I told him there was very little the matter with him' and, indeed, the only spoken words of Fuller to Maybrick recorded by the judge are that the doctor told him that he was suffering from indigestion.  But, even if the judge's notes omitted some words, Dr Fuller, per the Liverpool Mercury, might well have said, 'I told him there was very little the matter with him organically' or even, 'I told him that I could not find anything the matter with him organically' which puts the diary's entry into an entirely different light. 

Or, indeed, Fuller might simply have said to Maybrick, 'There is nothing the matter with you except indigestion'.


Proving that Miss Information simply cannot construct a rational and logical argument, she wrote in her #8412 that:

'if the Britannic had appeared in the diary itself, Lord Orsam could have awarded himself a gold star, and you could have basked in the sunshine of his success.'

Oh how she deceives herself.

To the extent she is saying that it have would proved anything about Mike Barrett having forged the diary, she is obviously wrong.  If the diary author had mentioned meeting Florence on the Britannic all it would have shown is that the diary was a fake and that the forger had relied on Ryan's book.  It would have proved nothing about Mike Barrett.

And if Mike had mentioned the Britannic in his research notes it would simply have meant that he had copied it from the diary which would not have been in any way suspicious.

Now, when I said that if the diary author had mentioned meeting Florence on the Britannic it would have shown that the diary was a fake, I meant for normal people.

The Major, as I've already said, would simply have told us that Maybrick might have got muddled in his mind about the name of the ship.  We'd have been presented with  endless examples of people forgetting things about how they met their spouse.  No doubt the Major would have had a good personal story for us, considering that his own memory is, as we know, diabolical.

And as night follows day Miss Information would have backed him up, probably with stories of her own. The diary, we would have been told, had survived again.

After all, these jokers are able to set aside the fact that James Maybrick managed to confuse his wife's godmother with her aunt when we all know that this mistake was first introduced into the record by prosecuting counsel during Florence's trial, after Maybrick's death.  It proves that the diary is a fake but Miss Information and the Major pretend it doesn't.

The fact that the diary author thought that Gladys had been unwell prior to 1889 when she had not (or at least there is no record of it) whereas Ryan and other authors mistakenly believed she had suffered from whooping cough in 1887 is more evidence that the diary is a fake.  But Miss Information and the Major not only pretend this evidence doesn't exist but have never commented upon it to my knowledge.

The use of 'one off instance' and 'bumbling buffoon' by the diary author proves the diary to have been written in the twentieth century but Miss Information and the Major close their eyes, hoping beyond hope that some day someone will find them an example from the nineteenth century!

The mistake by the author that the breasts of Kelly were placed on a table when they were not proves that the diary is a fake because this was a mistake made by the newspapers and repeated in subsequent books about the Ripper case.  I don't even know how Miss Information explains this because she never mentions it but I do know that the Major follows Robert Smith in claiming that Maybrick got confused because he read in a newspaper that the killer had placed the breasts on the table and believed it!  I mean, purleease.  Nothing stops these people.  They will deploy the most extraordinary mental gymnastics. 

What about the claim in the diary that Kelly's key was taken away by the killer when we know that it was not?  How do Miss Information that Major explain it?  I don't know, coz they never mention it!

So the idea that Lord Orsam would have been awarded a gold star for discovering that Maybrick made a mistake about the name of the ship on which he met Florence, yet didn't get one for discovering that Maybrick made a mistake about the woman Florence was supposed to have been visiting in London, is ludicrous.


In case anyone is having trouble following the issue about Mike's kidneys, Miss Information posted in #8227 that on 28 February 1996 a doctor said of Mike that clinically there was no evidence of renal failure BUT at the same time she also posted that:

'the doctor signing the sick pay form five days later diagnoses Mike with renal failure'.

So Miss Information herself was admitting that a doctor in March 1996 had diagnosed Mike with renal failure!

After trying but failing to get some more information about this document, RJ Palmer ended up posting an extract of a document (#8415), which is, in fact, a form to be used either for statutory sick pay or social security purposes (but does not appear to be the same 'sick pay form' referred to by Miss Information) on which the doctor wrote under details of Mike's diagnosis: 'Renal failure'.  We also see the word 'dialysis'.

We can ignore the Clanger's daft suggestion in #8416 that the words 'Diagnosis of your disorder' mean that Mike filled out the form himself (because, if that was the case, it would have said 'Diagnosis of my disorder' durr!). 

The form is signed by a doctor.

So if Miss Information and the Major are denying that Mike suffered from kidney failure, how do they explain RJ's form?   

Furthermore, from Miss Information's #8422, it seems she is in possession of a different sick pay form written by a doctor which advised Mike to refrain from work for an entire year due to 'Renal failure'.  That sounds like a serious problem. I love the fact that she wrote in #8422 that she made 'no attempt to conceal the fact'.  No, indeed, other than that she originally buried it in a long 'housekeeping' post (#8227) designed to convince the members of the Forum that Mike NEVER suffered from renal failure!!


Jeezuz, how dumb is the Clanger?

Having been told by RJ Palmer (#8417) that the above mentioned sick form had been filled out by Mike so that he could claim benefits, the Clanger posted in #8418:

'Surely if the form was completed by a doctor and intended for a third party, it would have said 'diagnosis of patient's disorder'.

What a lot of cocking clanging nonsense.

One only has to enter the phrase 'Diagnosis of your disorder causing absence from work' into Google and one can immediately see that it's standard wording for a medical statement of this nature.  Hence, the top result is a template doctor's statement from Imperial College:



There's then a string of hits from three reported legal judgments, followed by its inclusion in a medical book 'Notes for the MRCPG'.

And this, ladies and gentleman, is a classic example of why the Clanger clangs.



So the woman who once claimed that it was 'undeniable' that Fuller's words weren't in Ryan's book before attempting to gaslight the Forum into thinking she never said it, told RJ Palmer (#8420 of Incontrovertible):

'I can't believe you are this thick RJ...'

Charming, and surely against the Forum rules.

As far as I can tell from her #8420, she's totally lost track of her own argument.  I've read her post a number of times (trust me, none of it is worth quoting) and I've no idea what she is saying.

Leaving her ramblings aside, the short point is that Ryan summarized Fuller's transcript testimony as being that he told Maybrick on 14 April 1889 that there was very little the matter with him and the hoaxer quite obviously incorporated this into the fake diary.

What's so difficult about that?

It would only be difficult if Ryan had NOT used the expression 'very little the matter with', which Miss Information originally appeared to believe to be the case, but the fact is that he did use it and it matches word for word what is in the diary.

That being so, what possible objection can there be to an argument which says that the hoaxer (whose primary source was OBVIOUSLY Ryan's book, as I demonstrated in Diary Deep Dive and Forging a Victorian Diary) took that brief summary of Fuller's words from Ryan?

None, as far as I can see.

As usual, when rattled, Miss Information's posts become incomprehensible and she just fires of baffling non-sequiturs and strange arguments.


In #8421 the Major offered two options as to what has happened with the Fuller summary:

'1) Maybrick heard Fuller say those five words and repeated them in his scrapbook; or

2) A hoaxer (not necessarily Mike Barrett) took those exact five words from Ryan which themselves had been the very five words Ryan had taken from - almost certainly - MacDougall?'

Let's leave aside the fact that this assumes that Fuller actually said to Maybrick on 14 April 1889: 'There is very little the matter with you', something which is by no means certain, it should be obvious that if you were a betting man, as the Major is not, apparently, you would choose the second option bearing in mind that Maybrick could not possibly have written those words in 1889 due to the inclusion in the diary of the twentieth century expression 'one off instance'.

But what's more interesting than the Major's misunderstandings about the diary is that Miss Information added a third option '3) Someone took the words straight from the trial testimony of 1889' to which the Major, in an unprecedented show of dissent, replied that he thought that Ryan 'had to be the middle man'.  To try and soften the blow, he addressed his mistress fondly as 'Cazermo' but, ouch, perhaps the Major truly has grown his small pair of balls back.

His reasoning incidentally as to why Ryan had to be the middle man is flawed in my opinion.  It's not so much that it would mean that he and the hoaxer chose the same five words from the trial transcript as that we know that so many of the other Maybrick facts in the diary can be sourced to Ryan.

When 'Cazermo' responded (#8427), she chose 'dear Ike' to address her rebellious little poodle, in order to soften her own blow of disagreeing with him, summarizing her argument (at last) to be:

'IF a modern hoaxer used Ryan, they must have checked the see what Fuller actually said, before putting his words into the text'.

What a lot of hogwash!

As if the hoaxer checked from the trial evidence that Florence had actually claimed to be going to London to visit her sick aunt or that Maybrick truly bought Florence a present before she went to London or that Gladys had been taken ill before 1888 or that Maybrick's business was really flourishing or that young James really was called 'Bobo' or that Maybrick really called his wife 'Bunny' or that Maybrick truly frequented his club in 1888 or that Maybrick had really married Florence at St James's Church or that he employed a clerk called Lowry or that Edwin really went to America (and returned in April 1889) or that Michael Maybrick knew the art of verse or that Fuller regarded Maybrick as a hypochondriac or that the Prince of Wales was truly at the 1889 Grand National or that there was interference from the servants when Maybrick hit his wife or that Maybrick changed his will.  All of these facts could, and almost certainly were, taken from Ryan, but it is highly unlikely that the hoaxer bothered to check them against the trial transcript (but if he did, so what?).  The hoaxer just didn't need to.  Why couldn't he have relied on Ryan as being accurate?  Why would the hoaxer have thought that all of Ryan's claims about the case needed to be checked? 

Ryan said that Fuller told Maybrick that there was very little the matter with him so in it went into the diary!  Simples! Just like the hoaxer shoved into the diary 'tin matchbox empty' and all kinds of other Ripper facts which appear to have been lifted straight from books about the Ripper case (see Melvin Harris' Guide Through the Labyrinth for examples).

Miss Information also claims that:

'The argument seems to be that because of Fuller's actual words are right there in the diary, this somehow confirms that it was Barrett who put them there, using Ryan alone, and no safety net.'

I don't recall this argument - it's never been made by Lord Orsam - and I don't think RJ has made it in those terms. The hoaxer's use of the expression 'very little the matter' is just another piece of evidence in the argument  that the hoaxer was relying on Ryan as his main source of Maybrick information in circumstances where Mike has said that Ryan was one of the sources he used when forging the diary. 


See The Fuller Picture for more on the subject of Fuller's diagnosis of 14 April 1889.


In the middle of the Fuller discussion, Miss Information said in #8422 that she had a couple of questions for RJ about Mike's research notes.  The first was:

'How many unattributed notes did you or Orsam establish could only have come from Ryan?'

Isn't it incredible that she's asking RJ Palmer what Lord Orsam has established when she only needs to read the pages of this website to find out?

Her second question was:

'Are any of the notes which could only have come from Ryan attributed to another source?'

It should be said that her questions are misplaced.  

We now know that Mike definitely used Ryan's book as a source because of the 'Britannic' mistake.  That is a certain fact.

When we look at other unattributed facts stated in Mike's research notes, we see that, almost without exception, they can be found in Ryan's book.  A good example is Reverend Benjamin Thurston.  This could have been found in Florence's 1905 memoir and, if you take the point in isolation, one can't say that this unattributed note could 'only' have come from Ryan.  Mike could, in theory, have consulted Florence's book.  But in reality it's obvious he didn't do so.  It's obvious, in the context of his Britannic error, that he also took Benjamin Thurston from Ryan's book.  It could, in other words, only realistically have come from Ryan. 

When it comes to the attributed sources, I maintain that 'off Titheburn Street' which Mike attributes to the Liverpool Echo is a giveaway for the fact that he got this from Ryan's book (and nowhere else).  The Flatman's Hotel and the Brierley information also obviously came from Ryan too.  They didn't come from the Liverpool Echo so that Ryan is the obvious candidate.

Like I say, it's an argument.  And it's a very strong and compelling argument.  I concluded that almost all the Maybrick information in Ryan's notes was derived from Ryan's book and that, not only was this done without attribution, but an attempt was made to hide the source, with deliberately vague references to the Liverpool Echo.

One day perhaps she will read that argument herself in full rather than asking RJ Palmer to summarize for her what I wrote!


In #8428 of Incontrovertible, Miss Information's Orsam obsession continued when she wrote in trolling terms to RJ Palmer:

'You and Lord Orsam are like Nick Warren was to Melvin Harris.  I expect you both have access to as much of the same material they had back in the day, so it's odd that all the recycling has still not given you what you need'.

Of course, this also reflects her obsession with ghosts from the past.

Her catty comment followed RJ Palmer posting an image from a document she'd never seen before and doesn't have a copy of.  As usual, she becomes furious when someone knows something she doesn't know about the case. 

I can't speak for what documents RJ Palmer has access to, but, for my own part, the truth of the matter is that I do not have access to all of the material that Nick Warren and Melvin Harris had back in the day nor have I ever claimed to.  I certainly don't have access to the Gray/Barrett recordings, although I don't know if Warren and Harris had access to them.  But, of even more importance, is the fact that I have access to MORE information than was available to Warren and Harris, such as the crucial Bookdealer advertisement which they knew nothing about.

It's very unclear to me why Miss Information seems to think that Warren and Harris had access to everything that RJ Palmer and myself would ever need.  Did they have access to the Barretts' transcript of the diary, which is being withheld?   Did they have access to Mike Barrett's attempts at diary extracts which he personally gave to Keith Skinner?  I don't think so.

Loads of information is being withheld but despite that I really do have all I need in the combination of 'one off instance''bumbling buffoon' and 'Bunny's Aunt' together with the Bookdealer advertisement and the recording of Mike's interview at the Cloak & Dagger club in April 1999 which all clearly demonstrate that the diary is a fake, created with the involvement of Mike Barrett in 1992.  If Miss Information has ANY information which suggests otherwise it must be about time for her to release it but I'm satisfied that the reason so much information is being suppressed is that it all supports the Orsam Theory, just like all new information discovered since 2016 has done.


Anyone remember back on 15 January 2022 when, in #8083 of the Incontrovertible thread, the Major told us that 'focussing on Mike Barrett' as opposed to 'the issue of authenticity vs inauthenticity' was 'exactly what I was hoping we wouldn't be doing in 2022'

His darling Cazzymazzydazzykins told him in response (#8087):

'You have the stage back...It's high time Mike Barrett left it'.

Then, on 26 January, the Major told us (#8179):

'what I am bored with is the entire discussion about Mike Barrett being the author of the Maybrick scrapbook...'

He added:

'Any chance we could talk about James Maybrick for a wee while?'

And then the next day he was back on the same theme (#8191):

'I was so hoping...to expend my energies this year  on the subject of James Maybrick who was Jack the Ripper rather than on Mike Barrett...'.

So, with the rest of January and the whole of February 2022 ahead of them, not to mention the first eight days of March, what did the Major and Cazzylovydovykins talk about?

Let me tell you, it certainly wasn't the question of whether James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper!

Oh no, it was Mike Barrett this, Mike Barrett that, Mike Barrett's research notes, Mike Barrett's sources, Mike Barrett's health....with a little bit of Lord Orsam this and Lord Orsam that mixed in, naturally.

It wasn't as if RJ Palmer was initiating these discussions.  No, it was the diary defenders themselves, they can't stop.

One thing I'm sure we all would love to read, however, is a discussion between the Major and Miss Information as to whether James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper.

I'd pay good money for it.

Mind you, it seems that during more than thirteen years of studying the case, the only reason Miss Information has ever thought sufficiently compelling to show that the diary is a fake is the different handwriting in the diary compared with James Maybrick's handwriting.  That's literally it.  Not a single one of the many other reasons which show the diary is a fake has ever appealed to her, and she's challenged pretty much all of them (for some bizarre reason).

And funnily enough, on the one occasion that I do remember her saying that the diary is a fake because of the handwriting, she rather backed down once the Major said to her that his own handwriting fluctuates depending on what type of document he is writing.

Yet, she tells us, she doesn't believe that the diary is genuine.

So please, Forum Gods, let the Major have his wish and let's see him fight it out with Cazzywazzylazzykins about whether James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper and the diary author, or not.

That's the big fight we all want to see.  But methinks it will never happen coz the Major is too scared and Miss Information simply doesn't want to talk about it.  The only thing that interests her is the repetitive and mindless chant that 'it wasn't Bongo, it wasn't Bongo'. 


The Major was back at it again on 1 March 2022 (#8432) saying:

'We all need to move on from Mike Barrett.'

before immediately writing another post (#8433) about Mike Barrett in which Lord Orsam was mentioned THREE times for no apparent reason. 

But in his #8432 he made clear that, 'I believe that the Maybrick scrapbook was James Maybrick's', so we can surely look forward to the big players in the thread, Miss Information and the Clanger (tee hee!), putting forward their arguments as to why they strongly disagree with him.  [Spoiler alert: Will never happen.]


The second day of March brought a string of five aggressive posts from Miss Information (#8441 to #8445 of Incontrovertible) liberally littered with Orsam this and Orsam that, but the most interesting thing about them was how much she was relying on suppressed documents and suppressed tapes to make positive points in favour of the diary being an old fake.

My policy is to ignore these posts because, without having seen these documents or heard the tapes, I don't know if they are being properly and correctly interpreted and summarized.  No one can possibly forget the way she and Keith Skinner misunderstood what Mike said at the Cloak & Dagger meeting about Anna Koren.

I certainly don't forget the way that I once quoted from a document she'd never seen when I was a member of the Forum and she literally DEMANDED that I post the entire document so that she could see what it said, in case I'd missed out anything important (which, of course, I hadn't). So she knows full well the importance of not selectively citing from documents, but she continues to do so regardless. 

It's interesting, though, that she made a brand new point from the Barrett/Gray tapes about something that Mike was supposed to have said, although, of course, she didn't quote a single word from the tapes, let alone produce a full transcript.  It does make me wonder.  Was she relying on her memory from when she listened to those tapes many years ago? Or does she have a transcript of the tapes which she was able to consult prior to posting (but which is also being suppressed)?  Or has she recently revisited the tapes to listen to them again more carefully than before?

I rather suspect the latter because, after all, if there were any positive points to have been made from the tapes in favour of her theory, surely she would have made them years ago.   So it rather looks to me like she's secretly taken another listen to the tapes to check if there is anything on them supporting the Orsam Theory.   As they still haven't been released, I can only assume that  there is stuff on them that she doesn't want us (but particularly me and RJ Palmer) to know about, hence the tapes continue to be ruthlessly suppressed.

The same is true of the transcript of the 18 January 1995 meeting and, on this score, it was amusing to see the Major's post of #8446 when he wrote:

'anyone who has heard the January 18 1995 tape (or merely seen a transcript of it) couldn't fail to suspect....'

Well I haven't heard the tape or seen a transcript of it?  How could I?  How could any of us? And how could the Major have done?  Has it been provided to him secretly? Do people only get access to important documents in this case if they are sympathetic diary defenders?

It's all a big joke, this ruthless suppression of evidence by the diary defenders while also saying things like 'there's no evidence of such and such'.  Of course there's no evidence of anything, it's all being suppressed!!  What ARE they all scared of?  


Without identifying which 'researchers' he was talking about (but probably meaning just himself), or the alleged 'personal attacks' he was referring to, the delicate flower known as the Clanger - the man who once famously described the researcher and writer Hallie Rubenhold as 'a pampered middle class twat' - posted to RJ Palmer in #8449 of the Incontrovertible thread (after RJ had quite properly posted a link to my 'Secret Source' article):

'Every time you provide a link to Lord Orsam's site you are promoting his personal attacks on researchers who question his research or disagree with his conclusions'.

Apart from being pure piffle, I think I need to repeat here that, while I was a member of the Forum back in 2018, and had never insulted the Clanger (and barely even knew he existed), he called me 'an insulting twerp' in a Maybrick thread.  Right there, in complete breach of the Forum rules and all civilised standards, he was prepared to make a 'personal attack' on another researcher simply because that researcher (me!) had stated that he had proved that the diary was a fake through the use of the expression 'one off instance'

Then, very shortly after I'd started using this website to publish serious articles following my departure from the Censorship Forum, and had, again, said nothing derogatory about the Clanger (I hadn't even mentioned him at all), he reeled off a string of abuse about me on JTR Forums, in post after post, at a time when (like any good bully) he thought I was vulnerable due to the false claim by Admin that I'd been banned from the Censorship Forum.  Thus, in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread on JTR Forums, for no apparent or good reason, but obviously to try and paint me as insane, he posted on 13 August 2019 (#46):

'I suspect the men in white coats are on their way'.

Then, in subsequent posts, again for no apparent or good reason, and without provocation, he called me:

'a silly ass' (#60) 

'Lord Charles' (#60),

'fruit loop' (#63) 

'Mr Multiple Personality' (#157),

'His Multiplepersonalityship' (also #157)

'Major Clanger' (#178) 

'Lord Clang Almighty' (#180)

'Major Clanger' (#181) 

'the Grudgemeister' (#208)

'Hostile Tony' (#247) 

'The Spandex Bully' (#294) 

 the Rabid Carrot' (#495) 

'the Carrot' (#498) 

Presumably he thinks all those names are perfectly acceptable to be used about another researcher with whom he disagrees, so I have literally no idea what personal attacks on researchers he can possibly be complaining about on this site.  I even borrowed the name 'Clanger' from him, or, rather, in my view, he named himself, so there can't possibly be anything wrong with that (if that's what he's objecting to).  

Don't tell me he's a bully who is happy to dish it out but can't take it in return?

Surely not! 

It's not just rank hypocrisy of the most egregious nature but it's the expression of someone who has been furious from the start that I've been able to use this website to voice my own opinions.  I'm sure we all recall how he bullied Kattrup on JTR Forums (calling him a 'grovelling acolyte') after he did no more than post a link to the latest update.  Prior to that, of course, he bullied Howard Brown into moving the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread into a restricted members' only section (literally saying, 'Should we really be giving this fruit loop any publicity?') because he despised, and was obviously jealous of, the attention this website was getting.

The amazing thing is that only a few weeks ago he was congratulating and thanking me for my posts about Riversdale Road (Incontrovertible, #8365, #8370 and #8372).  Prior to that, he crawled over my article into Mike Barrett's secret source and spent days if not weeks discussing it.  In fact, since 2019, he's probably discussed more issues arising from articles on this website than anyone else in the entire world!

He seems to read every update on this website himself (while wanting others not to!) and has crawled over my articles (even the one about Simon Wood's book, a book which he clearly hasn't even read) desperately trying to find errors and attack me.  I still don't think he's recovered from the embarrassment of failing to understand my joke Ripper suspect article which led him to make serious multiple posts on multiple forums challenging the validity of this joke suspect, which he simply hadn't realised was a joke.  He's certainly never once admitted to his howler.

Nor has he admitted to any of the many many mistakes of his that I've pointed out on this website.  His fragile ego evidently cannot stand it when I do so and, as a result, he wants to ruthlessly suppress any links to this website (even though it's clearly in the rules for members of the Forum to post such links and, indeed, has been encouraged by the Chief Censor), hence his bullying of RJ Palmer in the most blatant way in order to discourage others from doing the same thing.

The bad news for him is that crude attempts at censorship of this nature just don't work and the popularity of this website has shot up since 2019, with statistics showing that the number of visitors after every update has gone through the roof.  Some might say it's due to the number of serious and well-researched articles about Ripper related issues, especially with regard to the Maybrick diary, but, personally, I suspect it's down to other researchers wanting to read about the Clanger's latest hilarious antics. He never lets us down, does he, boys and girls?


I do find it interesting that the Clanger always speaks of Lord Orsam's supposed attacks on 'researchers' as if being a researcher (good or bad) somehow gives a person an elevated status, above all other online forum posters, making them free from criticism and ridicule.

After all, that is what the Clanger is really complaining of. It's not 'personal attacks', it's ridicule (of him!), which is a perfectly legitimate debating device and he is seething that he is publicly (and quite properly) ridiculed here on a regular basis.

Being a researcher doesn't give a person exemption from ridicule, especially if they are a bully and a thug.

Furthermore, when the Clanger is mentioned on this website it has nothing to do with his genealogical family research posts, it's about his arguments, and his arguments make him no different to any other common member of the Forum.  He is, actually, terrible at arguments, and I guess this frustrates him enormously.

The Clanger writes hundreds of extremely dull posts on JTR Forums every week (or at least it feels like hundreds), usually based on information from the census or family documents or hospital registers or Booths notebooks etc.  I never comment on these.  Hells bells, I don't even read most of them!  They are way too boring.  Pretty much the only times I've commented on the Clanger's online posts, outside of his numerous responses to my articles and his abuse of me, have been in relation to his posts about Hallie Rubenhold's book and about Lechmere's candidacy for JTR (all arguments).

In contrast, the Clanger picks away at just about every single article I've written if he can do so, with highly provocative yet ridiculous responses.  He brings the ridicule down upon himself.  He may not like it but he has been the cause of his own downfall.  He reaps what he has sewn.

From Day One when I posted about my resignation from Casebook due to the indefensible censorship policies of that website, the Clanger (who had nothing to say about those policies) has been unable to stop himself sticking his nose into matters discussed on this website which are no concern of his.  The truth of the matter is that I wasn't attacking him, he started attacking me and has continued to do so non-stop after almost every update.


For anyone interested further, I have asked my assistant to carry out an independent investigation into this matter the results of which can be found in The Clanger's Nose.


Following the Clanger's explanation of the 'psychology of Orsamism', in case anyone is remotely interested, I thought it was time for The Psychology of Clangerism.


'How the effing hell do you imagine Shirley could have known that?', ranted Miss Information (#8451 of Incontrovertible), 'Was she psychic?'

Her outburst was prompted by RJ Palmer reminding the Major that Shirley Harrison had said that Mike's notes were created before Mike came to London in April 1992.

As usual, Miss Information has lost the plot. The issue is not that Shirley knew when Mike created his notes but that she definitely would have known they weren't created before Mike came to London if they contained her own information and input.

As Shirley tells us that the notes were created by Mike before he came to London, it follows that she did not recognize any of her own information and input in those notes.

Yet Keith Skinner has represented that Mike's notes DO contain Shirley's information and input.


That can't be right if Shirley herself is saying that the notes were created before Mike came to London.

It's a very simple point about diary defender confusion but Miss Information shows again that she cannot follow an argument properly.


It was amusing to see Miss Information telling RJ Palmer (in #8451 of Incontrovertible) that the fact that there isn't a single piece of evidence amongst Doreen Montgomery's papers prior to 13 April 1992 about the physical nature of the diary is 'a gap in the evidence that you should be grateful for'.  Tee hee!  So not a shred of evidence in support of her theory that Mike actually had the physical diary in his possession when he spoke to Doreen on 9 March 1992 OR had actually seen it.

It's a funny thing because, the day before that, she had posted (#8441): 'There is not a shred of evidence that the diary was a figment of Mike or Anne's imagination before [9 March 1992]'.

I mean, no shit Sherlock.  They didn't tell anyone about a SECRET diary project they were working on?  Amazing that there's no evidence of it then, isn't it?

But look at the period between 9 March and 13 April 1992?  What independent evidence is there that the Barretts had possession of a diary during that period?  Absolutely none!  Not a shred of evidence.

But we do have solid evidence about what Mike was up to during a significant chunk of that period, don't we?  Yes, he was trying to acquire a genuine diary from the 1880s containing blank pages!!!!

That's the evidence in the case.  Miss Information still can't explain it and it eats away at her like a starving dog having dinner. 


We are told by Miss Information for the first time (it not having been mentioned in 'Inside Story) and without any evidence provided, that (#8451 of Incontrovertible):

'On 18th January 1995, Melvin Harris wrote to Shirley, smugly claiming there were papers with the forgers' identities in police hands and he was therefore not entitled to say or write anything more on this matter'.

According to Miss Information:

'What does that tell you, if not that Melvin knew all about Mike's affidavit of 5th January but was deliberately keeping it from Shirley so she couldn't investigate the latest claims while the trail was still warm?'

I think this is another case of broken brain syndrome.  Why does Miss Information think that Melvin Harris would have believed that Mike's affidavit had ended up in police hands?  Nothing in the affidavit says that it was being provided to the police and there is no reason to think it was ever given to them.  

This supposed letter of 18 January 1995 is another document which we are hearing of for the first time and are not being shown, so how can Miss Information expect anyone to comment on it?

As I've said before, there is good reason to believe that Shirley was aware of the contents of Mike's affidavit at the time met with Kevin Whay of Outhwaite & Litherland on 16 January 1995, two days before the date of Melvin Harris' supposed letter.

We also know that Anne Graham received a copy of Mike's affidavit within days of it being sworn yet she didn't mention it to Keith Skinner so that he could investigate it while the trail was still warm

This strange obsession with trying to demonstrate that the now deceased Melvin Harris was suppressing information baffles me, especially in circumstances where the diary defenders actually are undeniably suppressing information.


Not content with intimidating members of the Forum to stop them posting links to this site, the Clanger now wants full Soviet style denunciations of Lord Orsam from other Forum members. 

Hence in #8454 of Incontrovertible (totally off topic incidentally) he slammed the 'absence of any criticism of Lord Orsam's ongoing grudges against all and sundry'.

All and sundry, lol!

He means himself, I guess.  But for anyone who thinks I have a grudge against the Clanger please see The Clanger's Nose which exposes this myth.

He concluded his post by saying that:

'The obvious assumption has to be that you condone his behaviour.'

My 'behaviour'!  Daring to challenge the Clanger's thuggish nonsense and holding him up to justifiable ridicule? Is that the 'behaviour' he means.   Everyone should certainly be applauding such fine behaviour. 

But how absurd that he expects every member to denounce Lord Orsam otherwise, what, they get sent off to the Gulag?   


To placate Comrade Clanger, it is strongly advised that all members should immediately make the following post on the Forum: 

"I hereby denounce Lord Orsam and all his behaviour, whatever behaviour that may be, and swear that I will never read any of his articles or link to his website again, and glory be to the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of Clangerkastan". 

Save yourself.


In 8455 Miss Information said:

'So Mike [or Anne, depending on the argument of the day] evidently had a 'talent' for spotting Ryan's dodgy guesswork and avoiding the duds: no reference in the diary to Jim having met his beloved Bunny on Bernard Ryan's Britannic; no reference to the family celebrating Gladys's third birthday a month too early, thanks to Bernard Ryan's error.' 

I can only imagine that Miss Information has forgotten that there is not a single date mentioned in the diary (nor the birthday of anyone, including Bobo) and, if Glady's birthday had been mentioned,  with no murders around that time for reference, it would have been impossible to know if it was 20th June or 20th July.  Equally, there are no flashbacks into Maybrick's history and, if there had, the hoaxer would never have been specific by mentioning the actual name of a ship.

Even so, despite the attempt by the hoaxer to keep everything as vague as possible, the hoaxer DID select two duds from Ryan, about which Miss Information is totally silent.

The first dud is that Gladys had been unwell prior to 1888.  This is something that one finds mentioned in Ryan based on a reporting error, hence the hoaxer writes at some point in 1888 that Gladys was unwell 'again', an important mistake because there is no reason to think that Gladys had ever been unwell before.

The second dud is that the hoaxer wrongly refers to Florence's godmother as her 'aunt', a mistake that the real James Maybrick would never have made.  Ryan also refers to her as her aunt.

So Mike and/or Anne did not, as Miss Information claims, have a talent for spotting Ryan's dodgy guesswork and avoiding the duds.  They also messed it up royally when it came to the Kelly murder, using dud information about the positioning of Kelly's breasts and about the missing key.  No more than one would expect from an project involving Mike Barrett who also screwed up the language of the diary, using expressions which didn't exist in the nineteenth century.


Earlier I suggested that if the hoaxer had mentioned meeting Florence on the Britannic, the Major would simply have styled it out.  How right I was!  For the Major has confirmed this in #8457:

'Mike could have mentioned the Brittanic (sic) in error and it would not have proven the scrapbook to be a hoax as James Maybrick could have genuinely misremembered which of his many steamer journeys he had met Florrie on'.

Tee hee!  Amazing how the Major is now arguing, in predictable bad faith, with full mental gymnastics, about a hypothetical entry in the diary!!  He just can't stop himself.


'I want to know the truth'. announced the Bitha boldly in #8460 of the Incontrovertible thread.  His very next statement then was:

'Anne and Mike did not fake this document...'.

Well....er....if you start with a closed mind, whereby one answer is unacceptable to you, how are you going to get to the truth.  And do you really want to know the truth?

What if the truth is that Anne and Mike faked the document?  How will your mind cope with it? 


In #27 of the 'It wasn't Kelly theory' thread, Simon Wood told us:

'If Kelly really was Kelly, by now Debra Arif would have tracked her down'.

Here's the thing.  John McCarthy was reported on 10 November 1888 to have told a representative of the Central News agency:

'The victim of this murder was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife.  They, however, quarrelled sometimes back and separated'.

If this was accurate - and McCarthy is quite likely to have known (perhaps even better than Joseph Barnett) - it means that 'Kelly' was an assumed name, not her maiden name.

Many women took on the surname of their partners during this period, even though they had never been through a formal marriage ceremony.

So Simon is right in the sense that the victim wasn't really 'Mrs Kelly'.  She was Miss X.

But if we don't know what that 'X' was, how would it be possible for even the best researcher, even Debra Arif, to track her down? 

I'm sure she Wood if she could, but it would be an almost impossible mission. 

What we can say with great confidence is that the woman who was murdered in 13 Millers Court on 10 November 1888 was the woman who called herself Mary Jane Kelly.


In the OP of the above-mentioned thread about Kelly, it was stated by Abby Normal that:

'Lord orsam did an analysis of the Marice Lewis and maxwell sightings of Kelly, and if Im not mistaken, concluded that Lewis was not reliable and was probably parrotting maxwell and or news accounts.'

That's not quite right.  What happened is that in March 2016 I was 'commissioned' by the poster known as Pierre to analyse the reporting of the Morris Lewis sighting of Kelly and concluded that his reported sighting was problematic because, in one report, he was said to have seen Kelly going out to buy some milk at 8am while, in another, he supposedly saw her at 10am in the Britannia Beer House.  I didn't think that Lewis was parrotting Maxwell or news accounts, nor did I draw any other conclusions. 

The statement by Wickerman in #19 of the thread that, 'It was Maxwell who went for milk, not Kelly', however, is ludicrous.  Does he think only one person in the area went out for fresh milk on Friday morning?  There was no reason that Kelly and Maxwell couldn't have bought milk at different times that morning.  The only question is whether that particular sighting was reliable and, as Morris Lewis made no mention of seeing Kelly buying milk in his 'statement' published in LWN on 11 November, and gave a different time for the sighting, it's problematic. 

My 2016 analysis, for anyone interested, can be found here: 

Morris Lewis and the Reporting of his Story

And see also:

Morris Lewis Revisited  


On Orsam Day itself, the Major decided to rehash much of the nonsense from Society's Pillar in a long post (#8462 of Incontrovertible), without even acknowledging my response in Pillar of Sand which demolished it.  

The Major expressly asked me for a response to his Society's Pillar and I gave it to him.  Years later he still hasn't responded to it.  He sticks his head in the sand as if his essay hasn't been entirely demolished.

His post includes such nonsense as 'James Maybrick's visage was published for all to see in the Telegraph on 6 Oct 1888' (it wasn't) and makes various categoric statements about certain 'Ripper' correspondence which he says was written by James Maybrick (none of which is mentioned in the diary) for which there is no evidence.  Perhaps my favourite is the claim that 'James Maybrick sent a letter to the authorities on September 29, 1888' before admitting that, 'He didn't add the year, sadly, but it's not difficult to imagine the year he sent it'

Unfortunately, one requires a lot of imagination to keep up with the nonsense he is spouting.

Indeed, the post was so nonsensical that it contains stuff that even ardent diary defender Steven Owl was forced to describe as 'raving lunacy' (#8464). 

Not a word in the Major's post, of course, about the anachronisms (especially 'one off instance') or factual mistakes in the diary, or why Mike Barrett was attempting to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992. 


On this historic Orsam Day, as you will already know from Lord Orsam Says...Part 25, Lord Orsam has decreed that should anyone wish to link directly to any of the entries in this edition of Lord Orsam Says... or to any entries in any of the previous 29 editions, they only need to email me at the address on the contact page and, as Lord Orsam has instructed, I will then move that entry (or, if required, multiple entries) into a separate page which can be linked to very easily.  This is all in accordance with the Forum rules as randomly devised by Chief Censor Menges which expressly allows a member to link to any of Lord Orsam's articles.  This is a public service from Lord Orsam although, of course, I'll be doing all the work, as bloody usual. 


9 March 2022