Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 31


So the Major, like a madman shouting in the street, asked in #8529 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread if anyone can reconstruct what happened with the creation of the diary between 1889 and 1992 using Mike's affidavit.  Although he acknowledged that Lord Orsam has already come up with a reconstruction, he seemed to want a second reconstruction from someone else and, by way of psychological comfort, he started muttering again about drainpipes. 

Anyway, there's no need for two reconstructions, here's the story told in the affidavit of 5 January 1995 of what happened, with spellings corrected: 

The idea of the Diary came from discussion between Tony Devereux, Anne Barrett my wife and myself, there came I time when I believed such a hoax was a distinct possibility. We looked closely at the background of James Maybrick and I read everything to do with the Jack the Ripper matter.  Once I realised we could do it. We had to find the necessary materials, paper, pens and ink. I gave this serious consideration. I spoke to William Graham about our idea. This was my wife's father and he said to me, it's a good idea, if you can get away with it...During this period when we were writing the Diary, Tony Devereux was house-bound, very ill and in fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony being severely ill....Anne and I went to town in Liverpool and in Bold Street I bought three pens, that would hold fountain nibs, the little brass nibs. I bought 22 brass nibs at about 7p to 12p, a variety of small brass nibs, all from the 'Medice' art gallery.... Anne Barrett and I visited the Bluecoat Chambers Art shop and we purchased a small bottle of Diamine Manuscript ink. I cannot remember the exact price  of the Ink. I think it was less than a pound. Anne and I started to write the Diary in all it took us 11 days. I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper.

What could be more straightforward?

Mike had the idea.  It's not stated in his affidavit that he had the idea in 1989, but he has said this elsewhere.  It took a while to research the facts of Jack the Ripper and the Maybrick case.  It then took more time to draft the text of the diary.  There was then a period when nothing happened because Tony was ill and they 'left it for a while'.  Once it was decided to proceed it then took more time to acquire the materials and create the diary, which brings us to 13 April 1992.

The Major, who says that he doesn't 'wish to be the person who reignites the Barrett-theory in 2022', even though he can't stop talking about him, can rest easy.


After RJ Palmer quoted Ed Stow on JTR Forums as having claimed that 'Dorset Street was also one of Lechmere's direct routes to work', Stow replied, 'One of his direct routes - one of', as if that answered RJ's post (Proposed modification thread, #8).

But Dorset Street was not one of Lechmere's 'direct' routes. That's the whole point. One can say that it was a possible route that Lechmere could have taken but that doesn't make it a direct route.  A direct route is surely the quickest possible route (or at least one of the quickest possible routes) without deviation.

For Lechmere to have walked along Dorset Street, it wouldn't have been one of quickest possible routes and would have involved deviation.  For that reason, it's unlikely that he would ever have chosen to walk down Dorset Street unless he wanted to deviate from his direct route to work.


The Administrator of the Jack the Ripper Forum on Casebook.org, Crazy Ally Ryder, has asked me to post this message for any members of her forum who missed it when she posted it first time round:

'We're recently having a little issue with people using the Report Post button to harass people they particularly dislike. It's now time for members to harass people they particularly like.  All members need to report at least five other members on a daily basis, especially their friends.  They also need to report themselves at least once a week.

I need informants to police this forum for me because I simply can't be arsed to read all the shit you guys post, and, frankly, Chief Censor Menges is utterly useless.  Anyone who doesn't participate in giving up their friends and relatives will be shot.

Reporting enemies is obvious harassment, even if they clearly break the rules.  Not following my orders is harassment.  Posting links on Lord Orsam's website is harassment.  I don't know what harassment means.' 

Thank you.  If I have to suffer, so do you.  I believe in sharing the joy.  I am crazy.' 

No problem Ally, I'm always happy to help out my fellow Admins. 


It was amusing to see the Maybrick expert, Error Bitha, posting in a Druitt thread on JTR Forums.  Informing the board of 'an interesting morsel of information' which he had discovered in the Christchurch Times of Saturday 1st December 1888, he posted:

'Not sure if this bears any relevance to anything, but it appears MJD was appearing in court in Bournemouth Tuesday 30th November representing James Druitt.' 

One short sentence containing no fewer than two serious errors!

Well, this is the Error Bitha we are talking about, after all.

MJD did not appear in a Bournemouth Court - it was a court in the Royal Courts of Justice in London - and there was no 'Tuesday 30th November' in 1888, something which should have been obvious from the fact that the newspaper was dated Saturday 1st December 1888.  The 'Tuesday' in question was 27 November 1888.

I've headed this entry 'Duck Out of Water' but, as we all know, the Bitha is capable of making such basic errors in Maybrick threads too. 


For reasons impossible to fathom, the Major wrote a long post about the recent return of two of Charles Darwin's missing notebooks to Cambridge University Library.  He said (#8549 of Incontrovertible) that he was 'intrigued' by the fact that 'these two apparently Victorian notebooks, written in apparently genuine Victorian ink, have been so rapidly accepted as the genuine articles'. 

I'm not really sure if he had any serious or genuine point to make but there is obviously a huge difference between missing items being returned to a library which is already familiar with them, and knows what they should look like, and the Jack the Ripper diary appearing for the very first time out of the blue with its crudely removed pages, freshly applied ink, factual errors and impossibly anachronistic expressions.

The Major has probably never been in a library archive in his entire life but the image of the cover of one of the notebooks alone shows that it is unmistakably a genuine article:


That kind of thing isn't fakeable. There are a number of other reasons why the notebooks were obviously genuine and, while it was always prudent for the library to ensure no one was hoaxing them, the conclusion was never in doubt.

There is simply no comparison between the Darwin notebooks and the diary, but clearly the Major was feeling lonely in his dead thread and wanted to create a rumpus.


It's amazing that after all this time the diary defenders (or watch truthers as they should probably be called) still don't understand the scientific reports relating to the watch.

According to the Major (#8551 of Incontrovertible), there were 'fragments of one of the implements used to make the Maybrick marks' embedded in the watch.

There were no fragments.  But there were brass particles with supposedly corroded surfaces in the bases of the scratches which, Turgoose speculated, had come from the inscribing tool (although, not having the inscribing tool in his possession, he couldn't possibly have been in a position to confirm this) and, according to Turgoose, 'this may suggest some significant time since they were deposited'.

But he didn't seem to consider an obvious alternative possibility that the particles had been on the inscribing tool for some significant time and were deposited when the Maybrick markings were made (in 1993). And that's just one obvious alternative possibility: see Harris on the Watch.


Even though the clear evidence from the owners of Stewarts the jewellers is that the watch had been in the possession of their family for some years prior to July 1992 (i.e. statement of Ron Murphy dated 20 October 1993: 'I had owned the watch for a couple of years prior to selling it.  It had been given to me by my father-in-law...' ), the watch truthers now think that this was all an error on their part.

'Is there a receipt for this transaction...? cried the Bitha (#8553 of Incontrovertible).

It's funny that the watch truthers are suddenly so interested in receipts.

Where is the receipt to prove that Albert bought the watch from Stewart in July 1992?

I've never seen it.  Have you?

It's not reproduced in Feldman or Harrison nor in Linder et al.

Why aren't they demanding it be produced? 

Inconsistent dates have been given for when the sale actually took place (Feldman says that it was on 2 July 1992, as per the supposed receipt, whereas Murphy says it was on 14 July 1992).

Without any published supporting documentation, why should we accept that Albert purchased the watch when he said he did?


Hilariously, Miss Information asked RJ Palmer (#8561 of Incontrovertible):

'And what bloody evidence is there that the typical Victorian guard book...is Edwardian?'

The answer has to be that the evidence of it being Edwardian is the same as the evidence of it being Victorian, i.e. none.

Miss Information tells us that it was an unidentified friend of Donald Rumbelow who described the diary as having been written in a 'typical Victorian guard book' but even if Rumbelow's friend was right (and it's unclear what knowledge this friend possessed about Victorian items) that doesn't actually exclude it from also being a typical Edwardian guard book.  What are the differences between them?

The fact of the matter is that an actual expert, Kenneth Rendell, described the item as 'a Victorian or Edwardian era scrapbook'.   I appreciate that Miss Information sticks her head in the sand when it comes to Rendell so she can just ignore him but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the diary is in a guard book that's Victorian as opposed to one which is Edwardian.  It's never been established. 


The Bitha explains why he thinks the particles found in the watch are so important (#8569 of Incontrovertible):

'The keyword in the original report for which hangs my insistence on the watch being real, and the word you conveniently ignore, is ‘embedded’.' 

The word 'embedded' doesn't actually appear in the original report of Turgoose dated 10 August 1993 who simply said that 'Particles were seen in the bases of the scratches'.  He said nothing about them being embedded.

It was Wild who used the word 'embedded' in his report dated 31 January 1994 but not in the main body of his report in which he referred to an area 'which contained an engraving with a particle in the base'.

It was only in the 'Discussion' section of the report that Wild spoke of embedded particles (of which he only appears to have observed and investigated one single particle himself) but he doesn't seem to ascribe any significance to this.  He was relying on Turgoose's report for evidence of the existence of other particles and by saying that the particles were 'embedded' he appears to simply mean that there were particles at the base of the scratches, as Turgoose had said.  In other words, it's nothing more than a word to mean that there were particles located in the scratches.  'Embedded' has no special or scientific meaning in this context - I can't see what it adds to the existence of the particles - but it's not surprising that the Bitha has let his imagination run wild, to the extent that he seems to think that the use of the word 'embedded' means that the particles were almost fused into the watch by the passage of time.


I'm old enough to remember when Christer Holmgren repeatedly insisted that it was impossible for a body to feel cold a mere hour after death.  It was, he told us, against the laws of physics.

This occurred in the epic but now closed thread on the Censorship Forum 'Chapman's death'.  A few reminders of what happened in that thread. 

Very early on (#46), Christer told us:

'If an hour only had passed, the body would still be warm, simple as.'

Against him was Michael Banks, posting as Herlock Sholmes, who told him (in #380):

'An hour after death, having lost a lot of blood and  in the cool temperature, Chapman's body could easily have been cold to touch (on the left hand side!), as Phillips himself admitted, and the Coroner actually FOUND as a bloody fact!!!' 

But Christer would not accept this, telling us in #487 that:

'the temperature will NOT start to drop immediately after death, but instead we will retain our body temperature for between half an hour and an hour before the dropping process sets in. So arguably, Chapman would have been ALL WARM or very close to all warm one hour after her death.'

He referred to Herlock as 'Baghdad Bob', as if he was refusing to accept reality, hence (#558):

'There goes Bagdad Bob again. Herlock, you are the one proudly claiming that you have support from experts. And still you think...that bodies can grow all cold in less than an hour...'

Based on evidence of actual cases in the nineteenth century, however, Herlock told him in #565 that:

'It was a noted phenomenon that bodies can feel cold after an hour.'

Christer wasn't having it.  In #606 he posted:

'If you want a question to answer here it is: Why can't a person whose body is cold not have been murdered an hour earlier? The answer is very simple to those who have even the smallest of understanding of the matter: because a body will never cool off that quick....a person that has only been dead for an hour simply cannot be cold. It is physically impossible.'

Then, in #652:

'Bodies that have not been dead for more than an hour are not cold. End of.'

And the coup de grâce in #629:

'There is no way that Chapman can have become all cold (but for that remaining heat that could only be sensed by putting the hands inside her abdominal cavity) in an hour only. It is way beyond the possibilities offered by the laws of physics.'

That was all back in August 2019.

Now (in April 2022), Christer Holmgren has posted the opinion of Ingemar Thiblin, a professor of forensic medicine, about Chapman's death, who told him (JTR Forums thread, Jack the Ripper on Hanbury Street, #18):

'I can accordingly not rule out that the skin will feel cold already after some hour in a body that has been outside in September'.

Voila!!!! And, just like that, the physically impossible has magically become possible.  

Thus, in Christer's own words:

'Thibilin sees no problem with how Chapman's body felt cold to the touch on the outside - that could  well occur within an hour, depending on the elements...'

This was EXACTLY what Herlock was telling him over and over again back in August 2019 based on expert knowledge, but Christer, as we have seen, flatly refused to accept it.  Only now, when his own expert has told him this directly, does he finally appear to accept it.

But don't worry.  If you think this means that Christer Holmgren must now accept that Chapman might have been murdered at about 5.30am on the basis that her body felt cold to Dr Phillips at about 6.30am, that would be too rational.  

Oh no, even though Dr Phillips did not specify which part of Chapman felt cold in his evidence, Christer has decided to 'guess' that the doctor was 'aware of how this was where the bodily warmth would remain longer' so that, when he told the coroner that Chapman's body felt cold at 6.30am, he was including under the armpits and the groins.

Even though Christer has literally said that he is guessing about this, he nevertheless concluded his April 2022 post by saying that:

'To me, this leaves little doubt, Annie Chapman was not killed at 5.30'.

I mean, the logic and shamelessness is astonishing.  He's literally just been told by an expert that an exposed body lying in the street in September can feel cold within an hour of death. Chapman's body (or rather the left side of it only) felt cold to Dr Phillips, so, for anyone who isn't trying to frame Charles Lechmere for the murder, it must be perfectly possible that she was murdered at about 5.30am, exactly as the coroner concluded.


In #22 of the 'Jack the Ripper on Hanbury Street' thread in JTR Forums, Christer Holmgren refers to the witnesses in the Chapman case whose evidence pointed towards a time of death of 5.30am, and says:

'The Home Office described the testimony from the triumvirate of witnesses as "doubtful" for very good reasons'.

Curious as to the source of this information, a bit of googling led me to an article by Wolf Vanderlinden entitled 'Considerable Doubt' and the Death of Annie Chapman which can found online here.   I discovered that this article first appeared in 'Ripper Notes', issue 22, dated April 2005. According to Vanderlinden, there is a comment on a document in a Home Office file (which, according to Vanderlinden, is a police comment, not a Home Office one) which says:

'doubtful evidence points to some thing between 5:30 and 6: but medical evidence says 4 o'cl.' 


The source reference given for this quote is 'HO/144/220/A49301C, f 8g'.  The problem with this reference is that, on the microfilm copy of the file HO/144/220/A49301C held at the National Archives, there is no such document - i.e. no folio 8g.  In the comprehensive transcription of that file in the Ultimate Sourcebook, Evans and Skinner do not refer to a folio 8g.  I also don't find it in other major books such as Sugden.

Vanderlinden seems to be the only person who has seen the document in question.  The only other person who has cited the quote that I can find is Christer Holmgren.

Now, in saying that folio 8g is not in the microfilm copy of the Home Office file, I can't rule out the possibility that it is in the original paper file which I haven't seen.  Certainly, I find in Evans and Skinner references to folios 6 a-f and 4f and a few other pages that aren't in the microfilm - but these are all newspaper cuttings.  It would seem, therefore, that some cuttings were added to the file after the file was microfilmed and were given new page references.

There is a folio (or page) numbered 8 in the file but this is a report from the Times of 4 September 1888 on the Nichols inquest (as below). 


If there is an 8g I can only imagine it is an additional press cutting, probably from the Times, inserted behind this report.

While I can't rule out that an individual Home Office official (not 'the Home Office'!) wrote an annotation on a document (presumably a press cutting), which only Wolf Vanderlin appears to have seen, comparing Dr Phillips' estimate of a time of death of about 4am with the 'doubtful' evidence of the witnesses who suggested that death occurred at 5.30am, this opinion can surely only have been derived from Chief Inspector Swanson's report of 19 October 1888 in which he wrote that the evidence of Mrs Long 'must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted'.  But this comment of Swanson was based on the assumption that Dr Phillips was able to correctly estimate the time of death as having occurred at or before 4.30am, something which we now know -  but Swanson could not possibly have known - was impossible (and even Christer now knows that a body can feel cold within an hour of death).  

The short point is that it is doubtful in the extreme that 'the Home Office' or an individual in it came to any such conclusion about the witnesses at the Chapman inquest as Christer claims, or had any very good reasons to come to such a conclusion other than from having read Swanson's report. 


One of the Major's big points from his useless 'Society's Pillar' as to why Mike Barrett wouldn't have placed an order for a diary in the period 1880 to 1890 is that he would have needed one for 1888/1889 only.  Any other year, according to the Major, was of no use (while 1890 was, of course, after Maybrick had died so utterly useless, says the Major), see page 96 of the updated version of the useless 'Society's Pillar'.

Yet, in #8578 of Incontrovertible, the Major himself posted an image of a genuine 1899 diary (apparently by Henry Scott Tuke) thus:


In other words, if Mike Barrett had requested via Martin Earl a diary from the period 1880 to 1900 he might well have been offered something like the above.  The Major, as author of Society's Pillar, would say that this was ten years after Maybrick's death, and thus useless for the purpose, but we can see that, assuming there were some blank pages at the end, all Mike would have needed to do was tear out the pages with writing, remove or erase the dates written on the front cover and bingo! he would have had a genuine nineteenth century notebook in which the fake Maybrick diary could have been written. It would, in other words, have been perfect.

When posting the above image, incidentally, the Major was trying to counter a point made by Kenneth Rendell that Maybrick would have 'brought a normal Victorian diary, but if for some reason he would have wanted to use a scrapbook he would have bought a new one'.  By posting a genuine Victorian diary written in a notebook (not a scrapbook!) the Major, in his typically confused state, somehow thinks he has answered Rendell but Rendell went on to say that Maybrick, 'would be unlikely to take one he already had and tear out the contents'.  This is the key point which the Major hasn't even come close to refuting.  He doesn't claim that Tuke tore out any pages from his own notebook and then commenced his diary.  Of course Tuke wouldn't have done this!

It's not that Maybrick is supposed to have chosen to write in a scrapbook which is so suspicious but the fact that he is supposed to have torn out a chunk of pages at the start of the scrapbook.   This is a glaring red flag because it's something a forger would have done who wanted to a fake a Victorian diary in a genuine Victorian scrapbook. 

While the Major obviously thought he had made some kind of big point in defence of the diary - writing at the end of his post that, 'This is why my role on this Casebook is so important - to keep you all on the right track as much as I possibly can' - all he had done is score another embarrassing own goal. 


Regarding the watch, the Major told us in #8586 that:

The "sufficient expertise" lay in convincing Wild that the engravings were many tens of years old. If the particles could have been already aged when they were embedded into the engravings, then why did Wild not simply say this? My reading of Wild was that he was saying that the particles were aged because they were in the engraving not because they may have been shed from an aged implement. If this were even vaguely possible, surely Wild would have said "It is impossible to age the watch by the age of the embedded particles because they could have been embedded there very recently - yesterday even - using an aged implement". 

This is the very issue in question.  Wild absolutely SHOULD have said that it was impossible to age the watch by the age of the embedded particles because they could have been embedded there very recently using an aged implement but he failed to even consider the possibility.  He certainly didn't exclude it.  That's why his report is worthless.  


Another massive own goal by the Major in #8591 in a classic diary defender type post about Celebrity magazine.  It's classic for a number of reasons:

1.  The Major, or someone associated with him, has been reviewing back issues of Celebrity magazine for articles by Mike Barrett a full five years after Lord Orsam first did so, despite repeatedly saying that Mike Barrett is irrelevant and had no role to play in the creation of the diary!

2. It is stated by the Major that 'Mike claimed to have interviewed the comic Ken Dodd' but, typically, no evidence is produced by the Major in support of this statement.

3. No mention is made of the fact that, according to Inside Story (page 172) Mike's interviewees 'included Bonnie Langford, Kenneth Williams, Stan Boardman and Jimmy Cricket'.  It is not stated by the Major whether it has been confirmed that Mike interviewed these celebrities but my own review confirmed Langford, Boardman and Cricket while a 1986 issue carried an unattributed interview with Kenneth Williams which might well have been conducted by Mike Barrett.

4. The Major doesn't consider what possible motive Mike would have had for lying about having interviewed Ken Dodd.  Given that he most certainly did interview a number of celebrities for the magazine, what purpose did it serve Mike to lie about Ken Dodd?

5. The Major also doesn't consider that if Mike had only said "I interviewed Ken Dodd for Celebrity magazine" and this was untrue, it would surely have led him (on the basis of the way he deals with Maybrick issues) to the conclusion that Mike didn't interview ANY celebrities for Celebrity, a conclusion which would have been false.  We know for a fact that Mike did interview celebrities for the magazine.

6. I have said many times that some of Mike's account of how he wrote the diary might be untrue, either due to his bad memory or due to his ability to confabulate, but that this doesn't make his entire story untrue.  The Major, however, clings on to any factual error as proof that the whole thing is a lie.  This is why he has scored another own goal with his silly Ken Dodd point. 


Like jackals around a corpse, the intellectual powerhouse duo of Stow and Holmgren have been beside themselves with excitement at the very real possibility that Montague Druitt could be eliminated as a suspect for the Ripper murders through being in Dorset at the time of the Nichols murder, allowing them more opportunity to frame Charles Lechmere.

According to Stow, if Druitt can be eliminated as a suspect (#874 of 'Proof of Innocence thread on JTR Forums):

'this could undermine totally the belief that the police had any sort of clue about their suspects...what does it say about Kosminski...what does it say about the so called Canonical Five...'

Equally wetting himself with excitement at the prospect of eliminating both Druitt and Kosminski with one fell swoop, Holmgren replied (#875):

'I have said much the same for a long time now...I agree with Edward that the dismissal of Druitt must also to a significant degree be a dismissal of those who speculated about the murders (sic) identity back in the late nineteenth century'.

He means those who speculated about the murderer's identity but who didn't speculate about it being Charles Lechmere!

The failure of logic in the arguments of these two individuals should be obvious.

Melville Macnaghten put forward the names of three possible Jack the Ripper suspects in his 1894 memorandum. At least two of those suspects were definitely, with 100% certainty, always going to be entirely innocent.  That has always been the case.  Macnaghten would have known it. His readers would have known it. Nothing whatsoever changes if it turns out that Druitt was innocent.  It certainly can't possibly mean that Kosminski was any more likely to be innocent than before.

That really should be obvious.

To the extent that it is being said that Macnaghten should somehow have known in 1894 that Druitt was innocent, that is entirely ridiculous (and just as ridiculous as saying - as Simon Wood does - that he should have known that Ostrog was innocent).  The police in the 1890s didn't do cold case review investigations, let alone investigations into dead suspects.

Macnaghten received some private information that Druitt was suspected by his family of committing the Whitechapel murders and that was it.  There is no reason to think he carried out an investigation during the 1890s into whether Druitt was or was not the murderer, or whether he had alibis for any of the murders, and, indeed, he wasn't in any position to do so, not being a detective himself.  There is no reason to suppose that Scotland Yard opened any kind of investigation into Druitt, with the expenditure of resources this will have entailed, bearing in mind that no conviction of the man after December 1888 was possible.


The Major (#8621 of Incontrovertible) seems to think that when Turgoose wrote in his report that the actual age of the engravings 'would depend on the cleaning and polishing regime employed' and that 'any definition of numbers of years has a great degree of uncertainty and to some extent must remain speculation', we can simply ignore all that because Turgoose then went on to say  that, 'I would be of the opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years, and possibly much longer'.

But in between his caveat and his opinion, Turgoose wrote 'Given these qualifications I would be of the opinion that...'.  In other words, his opinion that the engravings are likely to date back more than tens of years was qualified by him having said that there is a great degree of uncertainty and that his opinion must remain speculation.

There isn't any other sensible way of reading it. 


In a hilarious situation on the Censorship Forum, a new poster called StarlitShoal was complaining (in thread 'Blocking/Ignoring Question') about an allegedly abusive poster who had said 'some really awful things' who she had added to her block list and reported.  She now wanted the help of Admin.   Problem was that the abusive poster in question was............Admin!!!!

For yes, using her personal account of 'Ally', none other than Crazy Ally Ryder herself was the poster who was the subject of the complaint.

The Chief Censor, noting that the posts StarlitShoal had reported were made in Pub Talk, directed the newbie to that part of the Major Rules which said, 'We also do not particularly care what occurs in Pub Talk (unless especially egregious such as threats etc.)' but StarlitShoal responded to him with another extract from the Major Rules where it is said:

'If you participate in a thread ridiculing another poster, you will also be banned. We will not tolerate this. Do not do it. Not even in Pub Talk.'

A furious Ally came back to accuse StarlitShoal of being untrustworthy and thereby a hypocrite (because she is a Christian and supposed to be trustworthy) alleging that she had quoted from the Major Rules out of context.  According to Ally:

It is not trustworty (sic) to select text out of context to misrepresent what is said. The full text that you are quoting from states that you are not to CREATE a thread for the sole purpose of ridiculing another poster, nor participate in one. Which no one has yet done to you. But give me time.

This was rather unfair.  In context, the full quote reads (underlining added):
It is not trustworty to select text out of context to misrepresent what is said. The full text that you are quoting from states that you are not to CREATE a thread for the sole purpose of ridiculing another poster, nor participate in one. Which no one has yet done to you. But give me time. 

'If you create an entire thread that exists solely to ridicule another poster, expect a lengthy (possibly permanent) ban. If you participate in a thread ridiculing another poster, you will also be banned. We will not tolerate this. Do not do it. Not even in Pub Talk.'

The immediate context, therefore, was not 'create' but 'participate'.
What was presumably intended by the drafter of the rules was for it to be said that 'If you participate in a thread which has been created to ridicule another posted, you will also be banned' although that would still have been ambiguous as to whether it was simply participation which was the problem (i.e. perhaps you participated by defending the subject of ridicule), so what the rules really should have said was, 'If you participate in a thread which has been created to ridicule another poster and then yourself ridicule that poster, you will also be banned'.    But the rules do not say that.  They give the impression that you will be banned if you simply participate in a thread (any thread) by ridiculing another posted. 
Now, I haven't even read the Pub Talk thread in question, so have no idea if Crazy Ally actually ridiculed StarlitShoal or not, but what is so creepy is that last sentence of Crazy Ally's post in which, after saying to StarlitShoal that no one has yet created a thread to ridicule her, she added: 'Give me time'.   Apparently, therefore, in total breach of the Forum Rules, Crazy Ally IS prepared to create a thread ridiculing SarlitShoal which, of course, she will get away with because she is also Admin.

If she was being honest with StarlitShoal, she should have just replied that the Major Rules don't apply to her because she is Admin and she can do whatever the fuck she likes. 
Members of the Forum should take note, however, that if you want to ridicule another member of the Forum, you can do it without worry of punishment in ANY Pub Talk thread as long as that thread wasn't specifically created to ridicule that member. In fact, you can say anything about that member in a Pub Talk thread as long as you don't threaten them.  I guess that doesn't include threatening that you will create a thread designed to ridicule them, as long as you are Admin.

After she made her post in her own name of Ally, she then used her Admin powers by closing the thread  StarlitShoal had created, even though Admin hadn't actually posted in it.  

Abuse of power?  You decide. 
On the subject of the watch, Miss Information said to RJ Palmer (#8613 of Incontrovertible):
'And still we get no sensible discussion out of you, and no answers to the questions repeatedly asked, concerning the process by which you believe Robbie [or Albert, or Val, or baby Daisy?] planned, engineered and executed this bandwagon hoax between April and May 1993, including that Maybrick signature, which could have fooled Maybrick himself.'

Leaving aside the false premise (from someone who at other times claims not to be able to comment on handwriting because she's not a handwriting expert!) that the signature on the watch is so similar to Maybrick's actual signature that it 'could have fooled Maybrick himself' (when in reality it's nowhere near a match, just vaguely similar), the statement is ludicrous for two reasons.

Firstly, RJ Palmer does not have police powers of investigation.  The flimsy 'investigation' which was carried out during the 1990s and early 2000s by partisans and true believers who seemed to hope that the diary and watch were genuine and didn't ask any tough questions - on the contrary, one of them allowed herself to be taken out for an agreeable meal by Albert Johnson - failed to uncover any relevant facts, and all the information has not been provided.  Just to give one example, we haven't been told the identities of all of Albert Johnson's work colleagues who were present at the time Albert said he first saw the scratches on the watch.  Either the investigating team failed to find out their names or they are keeping those names to themselves.

I'm not sure if almost thirty years after the event, when the main players are dead, Miss Information expects RJ Palmer to carry out his own investigation but, at this stage, it's ridiculous to expect him to be able to detail precisely how the fraud was carried out and who did it.
But the second reason is even worse.  Although Miss Information herself believes that the engravings in the watch are a forgery, placed on the watch by someone other than James Maybrick, she hasn't provided any answers as to who could possibly have done it, when and why.  Nor has she provided any answers as to how that watch, along with the diary, could possibly have ended up under the floorboards of Maybrick's house, as she obviously believes it did.

So she's simply criticising RJ Palmer for not doing something which she herself is totally unable to do. 

A much-loved talking point of Miss Information reared its ugly head in #8615 of Incontrovertible when she said that, to Baxendale's credit:

'he didn't try to suggest that the diary might easily have been written as early as April 1992.  He left that one to the amateurs who came along later'.

Well, of course, Baxendale did not exclude the possibility that the diary was written in April 1992.  He just confirmed it was written in the post-war period, thus confirming it was a fake, which was all he was being asked by his client to do. Miss Information never seems to understand that it's not possible for a document examiner to precisely date a forgery simply from the looking at the ink on paper.  I mean, it is literally impossible.
The 'amateurs' who suggest that the diary was written in April 1992 do so not as the result any kind of examination of the ink (which, as it happens, other experts have said looked freshly applied when examined in 1993) but simply from the fact that the person who produced the diary, Mike Barrett, is now known to have been actively attempting to acquire a genuine Victorian diary with blank pages during March 1992. 
The reason why Mike was wanting to do so is quite obvious for anyone who is able to think rationally - and Miss Information herself has been unable to come up with a single sensible reason why it was done if it wasn't to be used to fake a Victorian diary - but of course Baxendale did not know this when he was writing his report in 1992.  At that time, he was simply trying to establish for his client whether the diary was a fake or genuine and he confirmed it was a fake for a number of reasons, one of which being that the ink failed a solubility test.  He wasn't being asked to say exactly when the diary was written, and, as I've said, that would have been impossible on the basis of an examination of the ink. 

Kattrup asked on JTR Forums about some correspondence between James Monro and Sir Edmund Henderson held at the Norfolk Record Office.

I visited the Norfolk Record Office back in June 2016 to examine this correspondence.  I made photographic copies but seem to recall that I signed a very strict copyright document, hence I can't post the images but I can say that the correspondence isn't terribly interesting. It's basically just Monro moaning to the former Chief Commissioner, with whom he had a good relationship, about Sir Charles Warren.  There aren't any new insights into the reasons for Monro's resignation.
I've been thinking for some time that I might publish a transcript of the correspondence but have never quite got round to it.  I might still do so one day unless someone beats me to it but, like I say, it's not earth shattering information by any means. 
An additional letter from W.T. Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette to Henderson, also in the collection, is only of interest in that it shows that Stead was contacting insiders from Scotland Yard for his famous series of articles about the police entitled 'The Police and Criminals of London' which were published in October 1888 and thus helps to explain how he got his information.  There is no record, however, of Henderson responding.


I was surprised to see an old post of mine mentioned by Seanr on the Censorship Forum (thread: Police File CID 52983).  As discussed in the Lord Orsam Says...Simon Wood Special, back in August 2017 in response to Simon Wood having uploaded three images of documents bearing the number '52983' with the comment, 'I shall leave you to sort this out for yourself', I posted:

Well it's very easy and straightforward. 52893 was a standard Metropolitan Police file/correspondence reference (created in early September 1888) for the series of Whitechapel Murders, as shown in the police report in the third image above, and the top two images are cross-references to that file in the margin of a Special Branch register. All very dull really. 

In his commentary on this, despite quoting my post in full, Seanr claims that, 'The file was dismissed as very dull really'.

Fact Check: FALSE!
I was, of course, not dismissing file 52983, which I've never seen (because it no longer exists), as 'very dull'.  For all I know it was a remarkably interesting file.

What I was saying was that the file number 52893 is very dull, being nothing more than a dull file reference number, identical in format to every other Metropolitan Police file reference number.

I don't know how Seanr, who appears to be able to read English, could possibly have thought I was dismissing the entire file as very dull.  As I said in my post: '52893 was a standard Metropolitan Police file/correspondence reference'.  There is nothing interesting about the number.  One only has to look at Simon Wood's post 25 earlier in the 2017 thread to see why I was making this point:
If you create an entire thread that exists solely to ridicule another poster, expect a lengthy (possibly permanent) ban. If you participate in a thread ridiculing another poster, you will also be banned. We will not tolerate this. Do not do it. Not even in Pub Talk.

I mean, what kind of madness was that?

What on earth was Wood trying to say? 

The madness goes on to this day because on 16 March 2022, in thread 'Littlechild - Whitechapel Murders Find', Wood posted:

'What is really interesting about this entry is the file number 52983'.  

How can a file number possibly be interesting?   I mean, of course the police had a file relating to the Whitechapel Murders and of course that file had a number.
I wrote an article for Ripperologist about the Home Office file A49301 but I don't regard the number as being of any interest.  It's just a reference number. A very dull reference number!


The Major's long and pompous 'greatest challenge to Ripperology' post in the 'How to Make Ripperology Better' was unintentionally ironic.  He wrote (#131) of 'an audience who do not always appear to know much about what they are casually dismissing'.
This is from the person who is yet to respond to my detailed response to his ludicrous 'Society's Pillar' so he knows full well that his argument about the diary has not been casually dismissed (although he's never bothered to read my 'Pillar of Sand' article properly) but the irony is in the fact that it is the Major who has casually dismissed the unfortunate fact of diary author having written of 'a one off instance' and a 'bumbling buffoon' and of his wife going to visit a sick aunt, amongst many other a factual errors.  There has never been a proper response to these basic mistakes from the Major who has basically stuck his head in the sand while casually dismissing the 'one off instance' problem with nonsensical ramblings about a mythical 'off instance'.  Nor has there been anything other than a casual dismissal of the problem caused by Mike's attempted purchase of a Victorian diary with blank pages.  
Strange though that while criticising casual dismissals, the Major has never had anything to say about the  Bitha's casual dismissal of my 'Pillar of Sand' with the mere words 'highly flawed' without any further particulars or detail to explain the purported flaws.  

If the Major genuinely wants to 'make Ripperology better' isn't it time for him to get to grips with these topics and either provide a full and detailed response or admit that the diary is a shabby modern fake. 


The invitation on JTR Forums by Chris Phillips 'for people to post corrections of errors, warnings about possibly incorrect statements and uncredited sources of material in Hallie Rubenhold's book'  in the thread 'Suggested Annotations for Hallie Rubenhold's Book "The Five" (2019)" naturally triggered the Clanger, who immediately started posting a string of corrections of his favourite errors from the book, some of which, amazingly, weren't even errors, such as Kelly having been said by Rubenhold to have been to Paris, a reported contemporary claim which she was perfectly entitled to rely on.

While my own article about Hallie's book Deconstructing Hallie was very popular (and I noticed a huge influx of visitors to that page from Facebook shortly after publication), lesser noticed was my entry in 'Lord Orsam Says...Part 9' about the five best and worst criticisms of Hallie's book made on JTR Forums which I've now republished as an article on its own in Five of the Best...and Worst.

At the same time, I've also republished three additional entries relating to Hallie's book which you might have missed: Unfair Criticism?, Ballard of the Clanger and Pass the Sick Begg, Ally.  

While I'm sure it's a good thing that Hallie's errors are being collated in a single thread on JTR Forums, I can only assume that exactly the same thing is soon going to happen with Simon Wood's book, Michael Hawley's book, Jonathan Hainsworth's book, Christer Holmgren's book and, dare I say it, Paul Begg and Keith Skinner's 'Scotland Yard Files', because I'm sure Hallie isn't being singled out simply because she doesn't post on the Forums or regard herself as a 'Ripperologist' or indeed because she is not a man.  The books by Wood, Hawley, Hainsworth, Holmgren, Begg & Skinner (and others) are every bit as deserving of having their errors collated as Hallie's book, if not more so bearing in mind that within the world of Ripperology no one seems to take Hallie's book seriously, whereas the other books I've mentioned seem to have been treated by the Ripperology community with more respect. 

Unsurprisingly, the Rubenhold thread on JTR Forums soon turned into a general hate-fest, moving away from the stated aim of identifying errors and uncredited sources to criticising the entire concept of the book, its publicity (#49) and its very title (#48).

And in the midst of this, naturally, Simon Wood joined in (#47) with one of his typical one line posts:

'I would annotate the cover with the words "Caveat Emptor".'

Quite right.

I've even done it for him:


In the very same thread ('How to make Ripperology better') in which the Major highlighted a post by Wickerman, who had jokingly noted that there was 'a legitimate reason for a JM on Kelly's wall after all', by saying in #141 'if this post doesn't prove my point, none ever will' (because Wickerman had confused 'JM' with the purported but non-existent 'FM' on the wall), the Major in #162 amended one of the Clanger's posts to read (with the Major's addition in red): 

'I agree with you that characters like this, and Bury, deserve at least as much attention, if not more, than Liverpudlian cotton brokers who have no evidential link to the crimes such as a confessional scrapbook which predicted where we would find a specific set of initials and a confessional watch with an extremely good facsimile of the candidate's known signature inside or cricket-playing barristers who have no history of serious violence against women and who may never even have set foot in the East End in the late 1880s.' 

Leaving aside the question of whether the signature in the watch is truly 'an extremely good facsimile', in circumstances where James Maybrick's signature was in any case publicly available from his marriage certificate, the fact of the matter is that the diary doesn't predict where we would find a specific set of initials.  Although it mentions initials, it doesn't mention any specific set of initials nor does it mention where they could be found. 

Furthermore, it could only have been a prediction if (a) the photograph of the Kelly crime scene hadn't been publicly available prior to the emergence of the diary and (b) there were initials placed on the wall.   As the photograph of the Kelly crime scene was widely available in 1992 and there are no actual initials on the wall, the diary author never predicted anything.  Anyone could have 'seen' letters on the wall in the photograph in 1992 and, indeed, Simon Wood had already done so (just different letters!).


RJ Palmer hit the nail squarely on the head with his #196 in the 'How to make Ripperology better?' thread explaining how the diary defenders have 'a faith based belief, utterly removed from the need for any evidence or proof'.

But, in the midst of the thread, he noted that everyone had failed to shake the diary defenders' rock solid belief in the diary and that 'Lord Orsam, too, has failed'.

Can this possibly be true?  Lord Orsam?  Failed???  It doesn't really compute does it?

My response to this is threefold:

Firstly, it has never been my aim to force the Major to break down and confess that the diary is a modern forgery.  What I have always attempted to do with the Major is counter his nonsense with actual facts.  What he then wants to do with those facts is up to him.

Secondly, the fact that the Major has utterly failed to produce a response to my 'Pillar of Sand' three years after I first published it in July 2019, and that he now tells us he has no intention of producing a response before 2025, which will be six years later, but which basically means never, is extremely revealing.  I know, and he knows, that he has no response to it and that his own positive case in favour of the diary being genuine has been utterly destroyed.

Thirdly, I note with satisfaction that the Major and the other diary defenders have avoided providing almost any response to what I have been saying about the diary on this website during the last three years.  While there have been a few selective responses to some things I have said (and, of course, about a million mentions of Lord Orsam this, Lord Orsam that) none of the diary defenders have ever got to grips with all the big points I have made about the diary, most especially in respect of 'one off instance' but also in respect of many other things including, of course, Mike's hunt for a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.  Every Orsam Day I see these cowards sticking their heads in the sand, unable to articulate any kind of sensible response.

So, as far as I am concerned, Lord Orsam has enjoyed an overwhelming moral victory over the entire gang of diary defenders: the Major, the Bitha, Miss Information and the rest.  In the absence of engagement with Lord Orsam's arguments, I know that they are morally and intellectually bankrupt and thoroughly defeated.  They know it, I know it, and the fact that they simply continue to parrot the same claims about their belief in the diary means nothing.


The Major popped up in the 'Who killed Carl Bridgewater?' thread with a post of such astonishing lack of awareness and failed logic that it really needs a psychological paper written about it, but this entry will have to suffice.

In #3 of the thread, the Major said of 'violent criminals and killers' (such as the Bridgewater Four and Bert Spencer), referred to by Abby Normal, that:

'Assuming the evidence of their criminality is cut and dried, lock the bastards up and throw away the key'.

Now what does the Major mean by that?

Is he referring to all violent criminals and killers convicted in court, on the basis that their guilt has been established by a jury beyond reasonable doubt? 

If so, why bother to add the caveat that this should only happen if 'the evidence of their criminality is cut and dried'?  Why not say that everyone convicted of a violent crime or murder should be locked up with the key thrown away?

It looks like he thinks there needs to be a further test, in addition to a conviction by a jury, doesn't it?   In other words, that only certain criminals should be locked up for good.  Those for whom the evidence of their criminality is not cut and dried....well....that's presumably different, because they might be innocent.

So what does he mean by cut and dried?

Does he, perhaps, mean that prisoners should be locked up and the key thrown away in cases where the evidence of their guilt is incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable?  Then and only then can we be sure?  Is that what he means by 'cut and dried'?

There aren't too many criminal cases where there is incontrovertible, unequivocal and undeniable evidence available, are there?  One can almost always deny and attempt to controvert evidence.

And, in the particular thread in which the Major was advocating that someone should be locked up for good with the key thrown away, the discussion revolved around a man, Bert Spencer, who was never even charged with the crime due to a lack of evidence, let alone convicted!

Does the Major say that, despite this, and despite there clearly being no incontrovertible evidence of guilt, the case against Spencer is 'cut and dried'? 

If so, why can we not say that the case against the diary having been written by James Maybrick is cut and dried?

Just another question that the Major himself will never answer.   


14 May 2022 




The answer is very simple to those who have even the smallest of understanding of the matter: because a body will never cool off that quick. 1 - 1,5 degrees per hour is the rate, and since there is a plateau the first half hour to an hour where the temperature does not drop at all (probably due to a chemical process that oxygenates the blood for some time after death, but that is a technical question we need not go into), a person that has only been dead for an hour simply cannot be cold. It is physically impossible