Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 21


She really did think she'd caught Lord Orsam out.  For the first time ever!! In #7516 of the Incontrovertible thread, under the impression that I was unaware that Martin Fido had first noted the possible 'FM' initials in his report of November 1992, because she never bothered to check the original source material referred to in RJ Palmer's earlier post, which was actually addressed to Keith Skinner, not to her, Miss Information posted:

'Oh dear RJ.  I do hope you are not allowing a Barrat - as well as a Barrett - to manipulate and mislead you.

Keith received a copy of Martin Fido's 17 page report on the diary in November 1992 which was made independently of Paul Begg and without consultation with him.'

I had, however, noted that Fido's entry in Begg's document of 19 January 1993 had been created in November 1992 but my point, had she bothered to read it, was that it was Begg's own entry that must have been written after Feldman joined the project.  Yet Keith Skinner had assured us that the supposed exchange between Fido and Begg had occurred before this happened.

Skinner was wrong (Lord Orsam was right!) and it just goes to prove that you cannot trust 'em.  These diary defenders.  You need proof of anything and everything they say.  They are a bit like Mike Barrett in that respect.  DO. NOT. TRUST. 'EM. EVER.

Needless to say, no apology from Miss Information. All she did was blame RJ Palmer for her own failure to do due diligence and check the facts!   

When she was forced into a humiliating climbdown, in #7533, being left with no option after Keith Skinner had confessed to screwing it up, she said:

'I'm not sure why you think it's down to me to  'admit' to a mistake by anyone else, unless you are still confusing the initials KS with CB'.

Er...the only reason RJ had asked her to admit to Keith's mistake was because she had jumped in to reply to a post which RJ had addressed to Keith Skinner!!!!

That was when she was trying to argue that Keith had NOT made a mistake.  But, when it turns out that Keith DID make a mistake, oh suddenly it's got nothing to do with her, guv'nor!


We don't get many of these, so let's savour it for posterity....

Said Keith Skinner via Miss Information (not via the Major for some reason):

'I've no problem conceding the point that it was an error on my part to claim Paul's report was pre Feldy becoming involved with the project  Quite possibly Martin and Paul did put the idea into Feldy's head there was an FM on the wall - and it was Feldy who then theorised the initials stood for Florence Maybrick'.

No mention there of Lord Orsam's critical role in this affair.  Had it not been for me, humble Lord Orsam, the mistake would have remained uncorrected.  And the only reason I was able to point out the error was because I, somewhat miraculously, had access to an unpublished document that Keith Skinner had cited.  What happens when Keith or Miss Information or the Major cite documents to which Lord Orsam doesn't have access?  I'll tell you what happens.  They get away with murder!


Talking of not trusting those diary defenders, perhaps someone can explain to me how Miss Information is allowed to post this sentence unchallenged in #184 of the 'Inspiration' thread:

'There is a witness who saw Mike in the library on 30th September 1994'.

No name was provided for this "witness" who, as far as I am aware, isn't mentioned in Miss Information's own book nor in Shirley Harrison's multiple books nor in Paul Feldman's book nor in any internet post I can ever recall seeing before.  Has she pulled this person out from the hole in her arse? 


My own theory about the Sphere book doesn't seem to have caught on for some reason, even though it seems to be the most likely scenario.  Let me set it out again very simply.

I think Mike did obtain the set of Sphere books in 1989, although I have reason to think that it might have been Anne who contacted the publisher to get them for the Hillsborough appeal.

Flipping idly through volume 2 one day, Mike saw the Crashaw quote and later used it in the diary but two years after this had misplaced or lost the book.  He was told by Shirley Harrison it was important to find the source but must have been annoyed that he couldn't remember where he had got it from.

Nevertheless, he had a head start on everyone else. Going to Liverpool Library he quickly located the correct volume.

Being Mike he couldn't resist pretending that he still possessed the book and pretended to lodge it with his solicitor. 

I think it's as simple as that.  Whether Mike then purchased a cheap second-hand copy himself, or Alan Gray did in order to scam Keith Skinner out of a wad of cash, I don't know.


Well, well, what do we have here, posted by Miss Information herself in #187 of the 'Inspiration' thread:


Not only does this mean that Miss Information is following events on Orsam.co.uk very closely but members of the Forum are now positively allowed to call her 'Miss Information' because, you see, she owns the name and welcomes it.

I have no doubt this is true.  As the leading spreader of misinformation on the Forums she must feel it is very appropriate. 


In #7522 of the Incontrovertible thread, Miss Information said to RJ Palmer that Mike's January 5th 1995 affidavit is:

'full of claims that are provably untrue'.

Has she really forgotten what happened five years ago?  In the same thread, more than five thousand posts earlier, in #2046, she wrote on 10 November 2016 that much of what Mike claimed, 'turned out be demonstrably untrue'.

What happened in response is that in #2051 I asked her:

'If much of what Mike claimed in his statements has turned out to be "demonstrably untrue" could you kindly demonstrate those things that are untrue?'

At the same time, I asked her to take into account two earlier posts I'd made (#1574 and #1922) in which I'd suggested that Mike had made an obvious mistake of chronology in saying that he'd bought the scrapbook in 1990, when he must have meant 1992, and also in saying that he was given a 'ticket' at that auction (when he was probably referring to a 'receipt'). 

In her first response (#2054), she stalled for time, claiming the onus was on those who were saying that Mike did tell the truth. 

I pointed out to her (#2058) that she was the one who had stated that much of what Mike Barrett had said was demonstrably untrue and that I was hoping she could demonstrate it.

We were now at 5 December 2012, more than a month after I had originally asked her to demonstrate the untruths, and Miss Information said to me (#2084):

'I will - I promise - address the 'demonstrably untrue' issue once I have caught up with every post in this thread, so I know what else has been asked and if I can help with outstanding queries'.

She didn't need to catch up with every post in the thread to answer my question but time passed, we hit 11 December, so we were now more than a month since I asked her the very simple question, to demonstrate what was demonstrably untrue in Mike's affidavit. 

Nothing happened. 

Then we reached 21 December and Miss Information was telling us (#2243) that she had 'wanted to read everything in context before responding'.  She had now caught up with reading all the old posts but, what a shame, her husband was about to come home from work and she didn't have enough time to do the demonstration of the demonstrably untrue parts of Mike's claims.

The next day, 22 December, she responded to a post I'd addressed to the Major after the Major had said that 'Barrett's confession is fundamentally incorrect in every respect' . I had asked him why certain parts of that confession were 'fundamentally incorrect'.  As she wasn't herself claiming that Barrett's confession was fundamentally incorrect in every respect, I have no idea why she answered in the way she did.

Still no demonstration from her.

We are now at 29 December and, in #2376, Miss Information is telling me:

'No, I don't want to demonstrate to you that Barrett's auction claims were untrue.  This is not a court of law.'

Odd that isn't?  Considering that she'd promised me 24 days earlier that she was going to address the 'demonstrably untrue' issue.

Hence I said to her in #2379:

'What I hope you now understand is that you can't say that Barrett's affidavit is "demonstrably untrue" in this respect, albeit that it might be mistaken as to the chronology of events'.

All I got from Miss Information in #2380 was that it must be untrue that Mike obtained the scrapbook in 1990 (because he said he did so after he acquired the red 1891 diary) and that this, therefore, was a 'demonstrable untruth'.  This was despite the fact that I had been specifically asking her to take into account, when demonstrating these demonstrable untruths, that Mike must have made a dating error when he mentioned buying the scrapbook at an O&L auction in 1990.

What she couldn't demonstrate to be untrue was that he bought the scrapbook at an O&L auction in March 1992.  The reason for this is that the records of O&L were never searched for that period.

Reader, it will not surprise you to know that I never did get a demonstration of the supposedly demonstrable untruths in Mike's affidavit.

For the same reason, I am sure she will never identify the claims in Mike's affidavit which are 'provably untrue' despite that affidavit supposedly being 'full' of such claims. 


So desperate is Miss Information to find mistakes in Mike's affidavit that in full Desperate Dan mode she's gone back to babbling about the obvious error in that affidavit which says that Mike had been trying since December 1993 to expose the fraud (#7529 of the Incontrovertible thread).

As I've already (exclusively) revealed on this website, and since repeated numerous time, this date was subsequently corrected from "December 1993" to "1994":

I suppose I'll have to continue posting that extract until the end of time before Miss Information acknowledges its existence.

And I suppose I also need to repeat until my dying breath that the affidavit was undoubtedly drafted and typed by Alan Gray so that the error is likely to have been his, based on garbled information from Mike.

Considering that the tapes of the conversations between Gray and Barrett are being actively suppressed it's hard to get to the bottom of exactly how the mistake happened. 

The one thing that is certain about the affidavit is that the chronology in it is all wrong.  That is not in any dispute! The other thing that is certain is that the chronology was subsequently corrected.

So it is utterly futile and pointless to make a point of the affidavit stating that Mike started to expose the diary from December 1993.  We know that this happened in (June) 1994. That was what the affidavit was trying to say and did say in the corrected version. 

Miss Information then went on a ramble in #7529 about the Sunday Times article of 3 July 1994 by Maurice Chittenden (which her poodle then later picked up on, nonsensically).  As she has impudently addressed Lord Orsam by saying:

'Perhaps Lord Orsam might like to have a bash at establishing blah blah blah...'

I will deal with this in a separate article, 'The Chittenden Mystery' which can be read here.

Funny though, isn't it?  One day she is refusing to read anything written by Lord Orsam.  Next day she's keen to know what Lord Orsam thinks on a particular subject.

This is diary defending.  Go figure.


Incredibly, in a later post (#7531), after I'd already written the above, Miss Information, after continuing to babble on about the 'December 1993' claim, ludicrously accused me, Lord Orsam, of 'turning a blind eye at the serious anomalies and jarring notes in the affidavit where Mike made that claim, while putting all his faith in any little detail he can use to support a joint Barrett enterprise'.

This is all a bit rich from someone who literally has turned a blind eye to the obvious fact that Mike's affidavit was drafted by Alan Gray, a man who had no first hand knowledge of events.  I've been making this point for years but she's literally never confronted it.

Far from turning a blind eye, I deal with EVERYTHING, however minor, that is thrown up against my arguments.  I dodge nothing.  The same cannot be said for Miss Information and her poodle. 

Then she concludes:

'So I'm not expecting any plausible explanation, and I doubt he will think he needs to offer one'.

The fact of the matter is that, long before she even wrote that post, I'd already explained that the 'December 1993' error had been corrected on an amended version of Mike's affidavit.  I've explained it multiple times on this website.  It's another thing that SHE has turned a blind eye to!

The idea that the inclusion in the affidavit of an erroneous date as to when Mike started to expose the diary of 'December 1993' (in circumstances where it was subsequently corrected to 1994) is a 'serious' anomaly is utterly ridiculous.  Nothing whatsoever turns on the date when Mike started to expose the diary.  It is after all a matter of public record that he went to the press in June 1994. The idea that Mike was trying to deceive anyone with an affidavit stating that he'd started to contact  Robert Smith, Shirley Harrison and Doreen Montgomery, as well as the press, to expose the diary, in December 1993, is utterly ludicrous.  Of course he wasn't trying to say this.  It's just a wrong date included by a sloppy and incompetent Alan Gray.  He obviously meant to write June 1994.  There was literally nothing to gain by saying December 1993.

Miss Information must know this.  Her arguments are in pure bad faith and made in desperation because she knows how badly things have been going for her.

When it comes to turning a blind eye, she is the expert.  In particular, she once again turns a blind eye to what Mike said at the City Darts pub - where she was in attendance - on 10 April 1999.  This is the really important event because we then heard what Mike said with his own mouth, not interpreted (and misunderstood) by Alan Gray.  Frankly we can ignore the affidavit.  Everything we need to know is right there in what Mike said on 10 April 1999.  But Miss Information DOES. NOT. WANT. TO. TALK. ABOUT. THAT.


The Major, in #7530 of the Incontrovertible thread, pictures Lord Orsam 'wondering why his website is the only website in the whole of the internet which needs the reader to enlarge the zoom perspective in order to avoid reading it as through a drainpipe'.

No, Lord Orsam does not wonder this.  Lord Orsam can read articles on this website perfectly well, without using the zoom function, on multiple computers.  This website, indeed, has the same width of other websites.

It's just that the Major said he had difficulty reading the articles on his device, as if the text was too small.  So what I told him is that, if that's the case, he should use the zoom function to enlarge.  I have no idea what setting the Major uses on his device.

But as far as I am concerned, and, it seems, as far as everyone else in the world is concerned, there is no difficulty reading the articles on this website.  If the Major thinks that this website is different from any other, it can only be an optical illusion.

The one thing I do differently is enlarge the font size from standard 12 point to 14 point, because I thought that was easier to read, and perhaps that might create the illusion for the Major of narrowness, but, otherwise, the settings on the website are totally standard and I've frankly never understood what the Major is whining about like a little baby after every update. 


I always knew that, when they got desperate, the diary defenders would start trying to make points selectively from certain words taken from the transcript of the diary prepared by the Barretts.  You know, the one that they are actively suppressing.  The one that Keith Skinner promised to publish but then reneged on that promiseThey love referring to documents WHICH NO-ONE ELSE CAN SEE.

In #7530 of the Incontrovertible thread, the Major refers to 'the version of the transcript which I have seen'.  He doesn't tell us which version of the transcript this is (and there were a number of them flying about in 1992/3), but then says that, in the transcript he has seen, the line about the mole bonnett is rendered as:

'Christmas save the whore's mole bonnett'

The Major's argument about this barmy.  It's a big pile of steaming poo.  Let me reproduce it in full here for you to see if you can make any sense of it.


Well, I did ask above Is there evidence that this is what happened or is there evidence that - actually - the transcript on the PC was self-evidently based upon the content of the already-written scrapbook? The answer to that seems to me to be unequivocal: the version of the transcript which I have seen (presumably the one Martin Fido was working off in November 1992) contains inconsistencies which are very obviously based upon the scrapbook's occasional opaqueness which led inevitably to guesswork by the Barretts. The one which I recall from the transcript I have seen is the line "Christmas save the whore's mole bonnett". Now, every transcript since October 1993 has rendered this line in this way - as obscure as the sentiment is, it is at least sensible and grammatically correct in this format. But here's the rub, the line in the scrapbook quite clearly looks for all the world as though it reads "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnett". This is interesting because it is this latter version which Anne Barrett apparently transcribed into the scrapbook. How is that possible? Orsam would have to argue that Mike Barrett had intended the line to read "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnett" (because the transcript on Barrett's PC has to come first, remember) and therefore that is what Anne Barrett wrote into the scrapbook. He would then have to argue that all subsequent transcripts of the scrapbook 'corrected' Mike's line so that it made grammatical sense (if not perhaps modern day sense itself) by turning what he intended into "Christmas save the whore's mole bonnett".

Which version feels more instinctively realistic, dear readers - that the Barretts misread 'save' as 'soul' in the scrapbook or that Mike Barrett actually typed the word 'soul' and that that was therefore felicitously transcribed by Anne Barrett into the scrapbook?

'Well, I did ask above Is there evidence that this is what happened or is there evidence that - actually - the transcript on the PC was self-evidently based upon the content of the already-written scrapbook? The answer to that seems to me to be unequivocal: the version of the transcript which I have seen (presumably the one Martin Fido was working off in November 1992) contains inconsistencies which are very obviously based upon the scrapbook's occasional opaqueness which led inevitably to guesswork by the Barretts. The one which I recall from the transcript I have seen is the line "Christmas save the whore's mole bonnett". Now, every transcript since October 1993 has rendered this line in this way - as obscure as the sentiment is, it is at least sensible and grammatically correct in this format. But here's the rub, the line in the scrapbook quite clearly looks for all the world as though it reads "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnett". This is interesting because it is this latter version which Anne Barrett apparently transcribed into the scrapbook. How is that possible?  Orsam would have to argue that Mike Barrett had intended the line to read "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnett" (because the transcript on Barrett's PC has to come first, remember) and therefore that is what Anne Barrett wrote into the scrapbook. He would then have to argue that all subsequent transcripts of the scrapbook 'corrected' Mike's line so that it made grammatical sense (if not perhaps modern day sense itself) by turning what he intended into "Christmas save the whore's mole bonnett".

Which version feels more instinctively realistic, dear readers - that the Barretts misread 'save' as 'soul' in the scrapbook or that Mike Barrett actually typed the word 'soul' and that that was therefore felicitously transcribed by Anne Barrett into the scrapbook? '

Can you make any sense of that?  Ironically, he had just accused me of throwing around non sequiturs like sweeties when nothing in his argument follows at all and is one big non sequitur.  

Doing the very best I can to decipher the Major's twitterings, I think that what he is trying to say is that in a transcript he has seen (and he seems to be going from memory here), the line which is apparently written in the dairy 'Christmas save the whore's mole bonnett' is transcribed as 'Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnet'.   From this, he says, 'Lord Orsam would have to argue that Mike Barrett had intended the line to read "Christmas soul the whore's mole bonnett".' 

I simply don't understand the Major's logic here. 

He says 'the transcript on Barrett's PC has to come first remember'. That's not actually true at all and seems to be based on the Major's confusion about what the transcript in Keith Skinner's possession is.  There was once a claim that a transcript was found by the police on a hard disk of Mike's computer in 1993 but no-one seems to know fuck all about this or where this transcript, if it ever existed, is.  As far as it is known, the transcript in Keith Skinner's possession is one voluntarily provided by the Barretts to Doreen Montgomery in 1992 (which may or may not be the same one allegedly found on Mike's computer).  This transcript might easily have been made by the Barretts after the diary was written, in order to assist Doreen, and might contain errors made by the Barretts either deliberately or accidentally, yet the diary could still be a forgery.  That's what we need to work out.  But what does that transcript say?  'soul' or 'save'? 

The Major, incidentally, in my view is being very crafty in referring to 'every transcript since October 1993' having rendered the word as 'save'.  I think he knows that the transcript Paul Begg was working from in January 1993 rendered that word as 'send' but that's not helpful to him so he's introduced this arbitrary date of October 1993.

Without telling us what is in the transcript produced by the Barretts - which he does not do - his entire argument makes no sense.  At one point he seems to say that the word 'soul' is what 'Anne Barrett apparently transcribed into the scrapbook'.  Did he mean to say that?  Did he mean to say that Anne wrote the word 'soul' in the scrapbook?  Or was he referring to the transcript?  Fuck knows.

But it's crazy to be speculating in this way from selective quotations apparently posted from memory.  Release the entire fucking transcript, Skinner! 


According to Miss Information (#7533), without providing any source for her claim (emphasis in original):

'Mike never forgot the date he took the diary to London'.

To which Lord Orsam calls: BULLSHIT

How does Miss Information explain Harold Brough writing this, in the Liverpool Daily Post of 27 June 1994:


'Ever since he took the diary to a London publisher  in 1991, Barrett has maintained that he was given the old black ledger by Liverpool print worker Tony Devereux who died in 1991 - but that he did not now how Devereux had obtained it.'

Where did Brough get the idea from that Mike took the diary to a London publisher in 1991?  It can only have been from Mike himself.

Therefore Mike must have been under the impression in June 1994 that he bought the diary to London in 1991.

I'm guessing that it will never penetrate her thick skull that the year of 1990 mentioned in Mike's affidavit was a typo and was intended to be 1991, just as it was corrected to on the amended version of Mike's affidavit.

She will obviously stubbornly continue to claim that Mike was saying that he brought the diary to London in 1990 for eternity, despite this being contrary to all the indications as to what Mike was intending to say in the affidavit.  It was, we can safely conclude, nothing more than a mistake attributable to Alan Gray.

Anyway, we are now told for the first time ever - another daft rabbit being pulled out of a ridiculous hat - that Mike mentioned the date 13 April 1992 'within days of Alan Gray typing up the affidavit on January 5th 1995'.  This is something not mentioned in Miss Information's own book and one assumes that, if it is true, which remains to be seen, it must have been something said by Mike at the meeting on 18 January 1995 which was taped.

But even if that's true, it tells us nothing.  Mike could have learnt the correct date he brought the diary to London five minutes after swearing his affidavit.  If she wants to make good the point that Mike knew the correct date that he came to London at the time he swore his affidavit (or rather at the time he gave the information to Alan Gray), she needs to show us Mike referring to that date at any time between 27 June 1994 and 5 January 1995.  Her obvious failure to do so means she can't do it.

How does one categorize her claim that Mike "never forgot" the date he brought the diary to London?  Demonstrable untruth? Can she genuinely have any belief in it when she has no idea what was in Mike's mind between June 1994 and January 1995?

She knows she can't win the argument with truth and facts so she's moved on to fiction and fantasy. 


The 'Evidence of Innocence' thread (#3631) saw RJ Palmer confront Christer Holmgren about his claim of 'one hundred documents' in the name of Lechmere noting that, even if this number is correct (something which no one knows because we've never been told what they are), many of the documents will be dated after September 1888 and thus totally irrelevant.

In response (in #3633), Christer waffled about how few documents there could possibly be when Lechmere was a child before identifying just TWO documents from before 1888 in which the name "Lechmere" was used (his wedding certificate in 1870 and the 1871 census). 

Now TWO is not 100 or anything like it.

Christer also mentioned the fact of Lechmere's sister using that surname in 1889 but that is not only after 1888 but entirely irrelevant in any case.  She didn't work for Pickfords! 

Christer then went on to say that, 'many other entries where Charles Lechmere gives his name as Charles Lechmere are available from the 1870s'.  Ok fine, so what are they?

Christer simply doesn't identify them.   No one has ever identified them!

He ended his post by falsely claiming that:

'the decade [1870s] is brimming with Lechmere signatures by the carman'.

This is utter nonsense.  Aside from the marriage certificate, what signatures can he possibly be talking about?

As we know, Christer has a habit of confusing someone  recording someone else's name in a document with someone signing their own name. 

But, whatever he's talking about, it's no good just to say "I HAVE LOTS OF EXAMPLES"; they need to be produced.  It's so sad to see others being suckered into repeating the "100 examples" factoid when no one knows what these examples are. 


Michael W. Richards has truly taken the Censorship Forum to a new low.

He started a new thread entitled "Nov 16, the Star" to reproduce a story from the Star of Friday, 16 November 1888, in which a Mr Galloway gave a statement to a reporter which began, 'As I was going down Whitechapel in the early hours of Wednesday morning on my way home...' and then tells of how he saw a man resembling the description given by Mary Ann Cox of the man seen with Mary Jane Kelly.  Mr Galloway says he informed a constable of what he had seen but, 'The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance'.

Commenting that this 'seems to suggest the police were still operating on the assumption that her murderer was likely the toff alleged by Hutchinson to be seen in Mary's company'Michael Richards asks just one question:

'Why would there still be contrasting opinion on this when the Irish Times had already reported that Hutchinson was discredited?'

This question is astonishing.

Even if we allow for the idea that the 'man of a very different appearance'  who the constable said he was looking for was the man described by Hutchinson (something not expressly stated by the constable), why on earth does Michael think that this Metropolitan Police Constable would have read the Irish Times, or have had the first clue what was in that newspaper?   Because that is the assumption underpinning his question and thus the entire thread!

Okay let's allow for a mental block on the part of Michael Richards, not knowing that it was a London newspaper, the Star, which had first claimed in its issue of Thursday 15 November that Hutchinson was 'discredited'. So let's rephrase his question as:

'Why would there still be contrasting opinion on this when the Star had already reported that Hutchinson was discredited?'

There's still no reason for the constable to have been a reader of the Star newspaper, and to have been aware from the newspaper of the discrediting of Hutchinson, but let's assume he did read the story and let's also assume that the Star was entirely accurate and that Hutchinson had, in fact, been discredited within Scotland Yard so that all Metropolitan Police constables had been told to ignore the description provided by Hutchinson.

Do we still need to wonder why that constable was, or might have been, seeking a man of Hutchinson's description despite Hutchinson having been discredited?

No we fucking well do not.

Because, as the story in the Star of 16 November made crystal clear, Galloway spoke to the constable in question during the early hours of Wednesday 14 November (at which time the latest information known to any constable would have been from Tuesday 13 November, the very day that Hutchinson came forward to speak to the police and gave a statement to Inspector Abberline!

As I've mentioned, the report of Hutchinson being 'discredited' did not arise until Thursday 15 November when it was reported in the Star. 

The Irish Times itself, to the extent that newspaper is of any importance (which it isn't), stated in its issue of 13 November (i.e. AFTER the exchange between Galloway and the constable) that the information provided by Hutchinson was believed by the police to be 'new and important' and was regarded of such 'importance' that 'Detectives Abberline, Nairn and Moore set about an immediate investigation'.  There was no hint at this time of Hutchinson having been discredited.  The following day, the same newspaper actually said of Hutchinson that, 'his veracity is unquestioned'

So it was literally impossible for the constable spoken to by Galloway to have known anything about Hutchinson being discredited.  It hadn't happened!  It hadn't happened at Scotland Yard, it hadn't happened in the Star and it hadn't happened in the Irish Times.

Why it wasn't possible for Michael Richards to work this out himself is unfathomable. Equally unfathomable is that his thread contains contributions from Little Scottie Nelson and Wickerman, neither of whom appear to have twigged that Michael's question is based on an assumption that Metropolitan police constables in 1888 had the ability to time travel.


The Clanger is the latest of the cowards who seem to want to give the impression of not visiting this website, despite him virtually living here in the past couple of years.

Hence in #346 of the 'Charles Lechmere's Lair?' thread on JTR Forums, he wrote:

'I heard through the grapevine that Lord Orsam has turned his forensic beam on this thread'.

Through the grapevine, lol!  Has he turned into Miss Information then, with people sending him pages from this website so that his delicate eyes do not have to read them here online? 

Perhaps that's why he only responded to a SINGLE one of my entries from the last update, and then only partially, ignoring well over 90% of what I said, even though I responded to MANY OTHER things he has said in various articles relating to Lechmere to which he obviously has no answer. In his response, he's basically gone back to his tedious old trick of obsessing in multiple posts over one small technical detail, one small thing I've written, while ignoring the big picture of what I was actually saying.  Tedious though it is, I nevertheless need to deal with it, because my policy is to deal with everything, so let's go.

Through his grapevine, he's picked up on my summary of Lechmere's so-called connection to Pinchin Street. He challenges my language here but I had in mind the chapter by Ed Stow about Lechmere in the book 'Who was Jack the Ripper' in which Stow links the Pinchin Street torso to Lechmere, saying (p.127):

'...the most interesting of these other murders is the so-called 'Pinchin Street torso'...Lechmere lived in Pinchin Street in 1861 when it was called Thomas Street.  His mother had lived in Pinchin Street until the railway arch under which the body was found, was constructed...The Pinchin Street torso links Lechmere to other torso murders...'.

While challenging my reference to the so-called Pinchin Street connection, the Clanger then basically proved that  it was correct by saying that he doesn't claim that Lechmere 'had a connection to Pinchin Street alone'.  No, he says, the connection is to an 'area'.  A so-called Pinchin Street area connection!

But there is a logic failure here.  Is the argument that Lechmere has a connection with Pinchin Street or not?

If it is, then I am obviously entirely within rights to challenge that argument.

If it isn't, and he's only talking about an area (or the 'immediate area' as he qualified himself back in #15 of the 'Lair' thread) then why should anyone even begin to think that Lechmere had a 'lair' in Pinchin Street, or rather the neighbouring lane?

After quoting a mere two sentences from one of my entries in Lord Orsam Says...Part 19 (and thus carefully and deliberately avoiding any discussion of what I was actually saying in the entirety of the entry), the Clanger remarked:

'At first glance the passage may seem innocuous,  but it's actually misleading on an almost Rubenholdian scale'.

It's a bit rich isn't it for someone to be complaining about misleading information in a clickbait titled thread, which he created, entitled 'Charles Lechmere's Lair?', when there is precisely ZERO evidence that Charles Lechmere had a lair of any description anywhere in the whole of fucking London?!!!

That lair was supposed to be in Pinchin Street (or rather in Backchurch Lane, but for the purpose of this response let's say it was in Pinchin Street) but, again, there is ZERO evidence that Lechmere had even been in Pinchin Street for many years and certainly none that he had a lair in that street.  To get to the notion that Lechmere might have had a lair in Pinchin Street, you have to pile speculation upon speculation upon speculation upon speculation of a sort that, if anyone else attempted it, the Clanger would have brutally laughed them off the boards.

And he claims that something I have said is misleading??!!! His 'Charles Lechmere's Lair' nonsense which, as I pointed out at the very start of my entry, was said to be tempting him to become a fully-fledged believer in Lechmere's guilt, is utter nonsense on a Fishermanian scale.  

As for the part of my argument that is supposed to be misleading, it seems to boil down to the fact that I stated that at the time of the 1881 census Lechmere wasn't living with his mother in Pinchin Street but was married and living in Stepney.  This is perfectly true.  But the key message is that he wasn't living in Pinchin Street!!!

Here is what Ed "Stow" says (in a post accepted by the Clanger):

'...it is true to say in general terms that in 1881 Lechmere was living in Stepney'.

LOL! Right, so it was true!   What's the problem?

Now regard this report of proceedings before a magistrate in the Thames Police Court from the Tower Hamlets Independent of 6 March 1880:


William Newport, a police constable, said he was called to 'James-street, Stepney'.

Was this police constable being misleading in Rubenholdian proportions when giving his evidence to Mr Saunders, the magistrate at the Thames Police court? I don't think so.

While I'm at it - and no doubt the Clanger is reading this - where is the address of this carman, Francis Rain?  Why wasn't it reported? 

Let's look at the report directly above this one from the same newspaper referring to the same police court:

Addresses provided for two carman involved in causing the death of a 13 year old boy!!!  I'll leave it for the Clanger to explain why these addresses are provided in the newspaper but the address for Francis Rain was not (although he won't and he'll ignore this in true Rubenholdian fashion).

Lest it is said that PC Newport was somehow confused, let's now ask people who actually lived in James Street.

In June 1864, Mrs Crouch told the coroner, Dr Lankester, that she lived at '5, James Street, Stepney'.


That's from the Burton Chronicle of 23 June 1864.  Four years later Benjamin Jordan (a.k.a. "Dick Turpin") who lived at also 5 James Street thought he was living in 'Stepney', hence from the Morning Advertiser of 30 October 1868 reporting a case at Greenwich police court.

A report of an inquest at the London Hospital in the Bradford Observer of 5 December 1876 tells us that a child died in a fire at '3, James Street, Stepney'.

Then four days later from the Bromley Gazette of 9 December 1876, a reference to 'No. 3 James Street, Stepney':

Confirmation that 3 James Street, where the fire occurred, was in Stepney. 

I could give more examples but I think that's sufficient.  Both Stow and the Clanger say that if James Street was in Stepney in 1881 then so was Pinchin Street,  While I find no actual stated examples of this between the time Pinchin Street came into existence (said to be 1862), and 1881, in the same way that James Street was said by real people to have been in Stepney as late as 1880, if the issue here is that my sentence should have said that Lechmere had moved elsewhere in Stepney in 1881 or elsewhere in St George in the East then fine, it's nothing more than a drafting improvement, as well as a pedantic technical point which doesn't matter, because the actual point I was making was no more than that Lechmere wasn't living in Pinchin Street (Thomas Street) in 1881, as he had been when he was a child in 1861.  

Now, I didn't say that Stepney wasn't in the East End.  I assumed everyone knew this.  I didn't say or suggest that where Lechmere was living in 1881, wasn't close to Pinchin Street. I assumed everyone, especially the Clanger, knew it was (and, as mentioned, Stow and the Clanger tell us that Pinchin Street WAS in Stepney!!!). I can't enter into pedantic technical discussions about geographical sectors and parishes in every article I write and I'm also not responsible for James Street actually being in Stepney as per the beliefs of those who lived and visited there during the period.  I just wanted to state where Lechmere lived in 1881 and as the examples I've provided show, I believe I did so with sufficient accuracy. I didn't think I was even saying anything new or controversial because, after noting that Lechmere's mother was living in Pinchin Street at the time of the 1881 census, my wording was:

''By this time, of course, Lechmere himself was married and living in Stepney'.

The use of 'of course' signalled that I wasn't saying anything that wasn't already known.

The precise location of where Lechmere was living in 1881 wasn't important to this point because I was dealing with Lechmere's connection to Pinchin Street itself. 

The clanger's first glance, was correct, it was an innocuous statement.

When read in context it can be seen that the only point I was making was that Lechmere wasn't still living with his mother in Pinchin Street in 1881 as he had been in 1861.  That's it!   

So why is it in any way reasonable for the Clanger to suggest that Lechmere had a lair in Pinchin Street in 1889?

Is the Clanger's point that an individual has a connection with every single street in the area in which he lives?  And I go back to what I said above.  Is his claim that Lechmere had a connection with Pinchin Street or not?

He now claims in #349 that his point was that 'Lechmere had a connection to the area by which I meant the streets contained in the small extension of St Matthew, Pell Street north of Cable Street as shown in the map'.  But he had never previously defined the supposed area he was talking about in this highly specific way (I'm not a mind reader) and, if he is now trying to say it included James Street, it's no good him making this point now, for the very first time!

Bizarrely, the Clanger asks why I didn't mention that Maria's 6 year old granddaughter was living with Maria in Pinchin Street in 1881 even though, as we've already seen, Ed Stow doesn't mention this either in his own chapter in 'Who Was Jack the Ripper?' in which he attempts to link Lechmere with Pinchin Street! The answer, in any case, is because, having stated that Maria was living in Pinchin Street in 1881, I didn't need to!   It doesn't seem to matter because Maria had moved out of Pinchin Street by the time of the 1891 census.  We have no idea how long she (and Mary) lived in Pinchin Street after the 1881 census.

Strangely, the Clanger asks 'Why did Lord Orsam bother to tell us that Maria had been a dressmaker in 1881?'  I thought it was perfectly obvious why I did this.  Because I was responding to the Clanger's claim that Lechmere in 1889 'might have been involved in the cat's meat/horse flesh business' despite there being no evidence that he or his mother was was.  For there is no evidence that Maria was involved in the cat's meat business at any time in or before 1889.  In 1881 she was a dressmaker.

He says, 'I can only imagine that he was trying to undermine the possibility of her having been in the cat's meat game in 1889'.  But I wasn't trying to undermine anything.  I was only noting that there is zero evidence that she was in the cat's meat game in 1889.  And if the Clanger had read what I wrote properly he would also have seen me saying that it is difficult to understand the importance or significance if she had been.  He leaps from speculation of her being involved in the cat's meat game at a time when there is no evidence she was even living in Pinchin Street to speculation that she had some control of the cat's meat shed in Pinchin Street to speculation that Charles Lechmere had access to that cat's meat shed to speculation that Charles Lechmere used that cat's meat shed as his lair, to speculation that Charles Lechmere used that lair to dismember a female corpse.  It is literally speculation piled upon speculation with no sensible evidential basis.

The whole point of what I was saying in my article, to which the Clanger was purportedly responding, was that no new information has been discovered which would justify anyone in their right mind to now consider Lechmere a suspect if they didn't already, or to believe that Lechmere had a 'lair' in Pinchin Street.  The point was that all the information about the 1881 census and all the other stuff that the Clanger is now babbling on about was ALREADY KNOWN.  So what has he recently discovered that justifies the sudden 'Lair' claim? That's what I was asking and that's what the Clanger has been totally silent about.  As usual he's missed the point in order to obsess over a minor detail of London geography which even he accepts seems innocuous and is basically true!

A reminder of what I said in my article to which the Clanger was purportedly responding but which he has totally ignored:

Did we already know of the existence of a cat's meat shop in Backchurch Lane?  YES

Is there any evidence that Lechmere ever visited his mother in Pinchin Street when she was known to live there in 1881?  NO.

Is there any evidence that Lechmere's mother was still living in Pinchin Street in 1888 or 1889?  NO. 

Is there any evidence that Lechmere's mother ever sold any cat's meat from the shed in Backchurch Lane?  NO. 

Is there any evidence of a connection between Lechmere and the cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane?  NONE WHATSOEVER.

Is there any good reason to think that the murderer of the Pinchin Street victim used the cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane to dismember the corpse? NO.

Why has the already known existence of a cat's meat shed in Backchurch Lane apparently turned the Clanger from a Lechmere hanger-on who thought he was probably innocent to a full blown Lechmere True Believer?  I HAVEN'T GOT A FUCKING CLUE. 

Now be off with you silly Clanger. 


Mr Edward "Stow" claims to have read through all the blog posts on this site and his bizarre conclusion (#360 of the 'Lair' thread) is that Lord Orsam 'has lost it'.  Sadly, there was no time or space for him to explain what he was talking about.  Just the usual inability that we see all the time from opponents of Lord Orsam to put forward any kind of sensible rebuttal.

It's also a big shame that Mr "Stow" declined the opportunity to tell us whether his own use of two surnames means he has something to hide or whether it's an innocent act, unworthy of comment. 


Directed by RJ Palmer to my 'Blackmail' articles -  Blackmail or Mrs Barrett and Silence of the Anne - where she might have learnt something, Miss Information in #7533 of the Incontrovertible thread childishly said:

'No, I won't.'

It's just too funny.  How ridiculous is that?

Thing is, those articles contain critical information which she certainly didn't know at the time of publication and which, if she truly hasn't read them, and isn't simply pretending not to have read them for her own childish reasons, she still doesn't know. 

That information is firstly that Mike immediately sent a copy of his affidavit to Anne Graham after signing it and, shortly after this, Anne was accusing Mike of blackmailing him.

Secondly, Miss Information had falsely suggested on the Forum that Mike's solicitor Richard Bark-Jones wasn't aware of Mike's affidavit but I proved that he was not only aware of it but was telling Mike not to swear any more affidavits because he would kill the goose that was laying the golden eggs!

Thirdly, I showed that Mike's solicitor believed that there was a reason why Anne would not want to use the affidavit in custody proceedings.  That reason appears to have been that Anne would not want it publicly known that she had been responsible for writing the diary.

But Miss Information is clearly not interested in evidence.  She just wants to continue speculating endlessly without any evidence about how Eddie found the diary under the floorboards.



27 October 2021

'If Martin Fido is the reason why we are talking about Florence's initials on the wall, I will eat my deerstalker hat (once lord Orsam returns it to me).' 


27 November 2021 

'I suspect that it is to Martin Fido that we owe the first mention of [the letters F and M] back in November 1992'.


Strange really. On the one hand the Major tells us that Farson's 1973 paperback presented the initials on Kelly's wall 'in quite unmistakable terms', yet tells in the same post that, for the Barretts to have identified those same initials from the published photograph in books, they were 'frankly off-the scale geniuses' (#7545 of the Incontrovertible thread).

It literally makes no sense!  Why do you have to be a genius to see what is unmistakably there?

Pure and utter logic fail. 


The Major also tells us in #7545 that he wouldn't have seen the initials himself without help, yet in his very first post in the thread, back on 30 August 2008, the Major said:

'Without doubt, for me, the 'M' is crystal clear in every version I have seen of the infamous picture'.

If that's true, why did the Barretts have to be geniuses to see at least the 'M', bearing in mind that in any photograph of the crime scene that they cared to look at, according to the Major, it was crystal clear? 

Another logic fail. 


Talking of logic fails, someone tell me how it is possible for the Error Bitha to have written in #7568:

'I stand by the fact that I believe his purchase of the 1891 diary was to see how easy it would be to  obtain a similar document as a starting point by Mike.  He was curious.'

Here's the problem.  Mike asked for a diary from the period 1880 to 1890.  Let's leave aside that, if had been shown the item in question, he would have been shown a photograph album or scrapbook or guard book or whatever you want to call it.  For the purposes of this discussion, let's accept that in his mind he had been shown a large black diary.

So tell me this.  If he wanted to see how easy it would be to obtain a similar document, why would he have included the requirement for a diary from the period 1880 to 1890?   It makes no sense.  Nothing about the photograph album or scrapbook he would have been shown would have indicated it was from that period.  If he thought it might have been a forgery, he couldn't possibly have had any idea to which period it was dated, could he?

Even the experts can't tell us today whether it's a Victorian or Edwardian photograph album.  How would Mike have been in any position to know that he wasn't being shown an item from 1991 or 1951 or 1921 or 1911?   If it was from, say, 1911, how would the availability or otherwise of a diary from no later than 1890 have assisted him one jot in his quest to see how difficult it was to locate a similar document to the one he'd been shown?

If an expert cannot visually date the photograph album, how could Mike possibly have thought that the forger must have obtained one from the period 1880-1890?

There is, of course, a date written on the last page of the text of 3 May 1889, and the diary is supposed to describe the Ripper murders of 1888, but anyone could write any date they wanted to in an undated journal and write about any subject.  If that particular period was so important why didn't Mike ask for a diary specifically from 1888/1889?

So it fails entirely on those grounds alone.

Then we come the next problem which is that all Mike could ever have discovered from contacting Martin Earl was how easy it would be to obtain a 'similar document' (ha ha!) via a single rare and second hand BOOK dealer over the telephone.  Did he really think that was the only route a forger could have taken to acquire such an item?  What about an antiques shop?  What about an auction?

Furthermore, Martin Earl confirmed to Shirley Harrison in a letter dated 23 June 1999 that 'this type of request is unusual'.  He explained that, 'As an out of print Booksearch company the majority of inquiries are for published out of print titles'.  Using his company to locate a nineteenth century diary, therefore, was the last thing anyone would do, and would tell a person nothing about how easy they were to obtain from other sources.

Then the next problem is that Mike actually agreed to receive and purchase the 1891 diary.  Why did he do this?  He'd already discovered that Martin Earl could NOT source a diary from the period 1880 to 1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages so why agree to go ahead and purchase the 1891 diary?  Why not just tell Martin Earl when he mentioned the 1891 diary "thank you very much, that isn't what I wanted, it's outside the date range I specified" and leave it there?  He's already answered his question about the availability of empty diaries from 1880 to 1890, according to the Error Bitha. As the Error Bitha himself said: 'Turns out it was not so easy'.  Mike's agreement to accept the 1891 diary from Martin Earl makes absolutely no sense, and only meant he (or his wife) would have to pay £25 for something which he knew was going to be utterly useless because he only needed to know whether it existed or not (and, even then, how the existence of an available diary from 1891 helped him in any way is unfathomable).

Right, so then we have the next problem which is that Miss Information has told us that the following specifications of the diary would have been read out to Mike by Martin Earl over the telephone:

A small 1891 De La Rue's Indelible Diary and Memorandum Book, 2.25" by 4", dated 1891 throughout – three or four dates to a page. Nearly all of the pages are blank and at the end of the diary are two Memoranda pages. On one of the two pages someone has written in blue biro 'EATON PLACE' and on the other 'ETON RISE'. Then there are four blank pages and on the last one is written in blue biro '19 W at 3 = 57 19 W at 4 = 76' 

In what world is that 'similar' to the large black photograph album?  I mean, see the word 'small' there?  

Then finally one more rather big problem.  There are 63 pages of text of the diary (and a further 17 unused pages).  So, if looking for a similar document, surely Mike would have needed to know how easy it would have been for a forger to get his hands on a diary with at least 63 blank pages (or 80 blank pages if he truly wanted to replicate what he'd been shown).  Yet he asked for a minimum of 20 blank pages.  If he'd found one with 20 blank pages how would that have been a similar document to the one he'd been shown?  From such an item it would have been impossible to recreate the diary as he'd been shown it!

In short, it is a complete failure of logic to say that Mike went on a diary hunt because he was looking for a similar document.  The evidence is perfectly clear that he was not looking for a document similar to the large black scrapbook.  He was looking for a genuine diary from a specific time period, which was either totally or partially blank.  That's what he wanted!  There's only one reason I, or anyone else, can think of for this. 


In #7576, while citing something I'd said, RJ Palmer commented that, 'Through his lawyer, Mike almost immediately retracted his initial confession to Brough',

I'd just like to make it clear that my own belief is that Mike's lawyer was acting without instructions when issuing a statement retracting Mike's confession while Mike was in hospital, doing what he thought was in Mike's best interests in order to protect the golden goose.

I don't think Mike did actually wish to retract anything he'd said in June 1994.

As far as I know, he maintained his confession until he weakened when he learnt in December 1994 of a large royalty payment that was due in June 1995 (or at least he thought there was a large royalty payment due - it wasn't quite as big as he initially thought).  This meant that he wished to keep his affidavit secret, while telling Keith Skinner on 18 January 1995 that he did get the diary from Tony after all.

While the big payment never came, by the summer of 1995 there was now talk of a film of the diary and untold riches.  At the same time, Mike also wanted Anne to take him back. He was fully back on board and saying that he got the diary from Tony.  Once the film fell away and there was no chance of Anne taking him back, he returned to claiming that he and Anne faked the diary.

Come 2002, Shirley Harrison was going to publish another book of which Mike would share copyright.  That meant royalties.  He was back to telling the authors of Inside Story that the Tony Devereux origin of the story was true.

So we can see that he was prepared to walk away from his confession whenever there was something it for him.

You can argue that he only confessed to the diary in January 1995 to get at Anne, although that makes it a puzzle why he had confessed in June 1994 without implicating Anne (and I see no reason why his June 1994 confession wasn't because he couldn't handle the guilt and pressure). 

But the key thing here is that there is no obvious reason why he confessed to the forgery over two days in April 1999, long after his marriage with Anne was finished.

I've never heard an explanation of this even from the Great Speculator herself.  When it comes to April 1999 she just obsesses over the lack of production of an auction ticket.  She doesn't address the confession itself. 


The Major seems to think he has demonstrated something about the transcript created by the Barretts.

In #7584 of the Incontrovertible thread he said:

'...as I illustrated the other day, the transcript has internal errors which show that it came after the diary'.

In reality, he had done no such thing.

I refer him to his post #7530, which must be the one he is talking about, and, if he reads it carefully, he will see that he didn't once provide a quote from the transcript.  The closest he came was telling us that Anne transcribed something 'into the scrapbook'.  Consequently, despite what he thinks, he has failed to show that the transcript has internal errors which show it came after the diary.

To the extent that the Major has, in fact, been provided with a copy of the transcript produced by the Barretts - the very one that Keith Skinner promised me he would produce in 2018 but failed to do so - from which he is now quoting selectively (or trying to), it is an utter disgrace. 

If it's so obvious from the transcript that it was created after the diary was written, why the secrecy?


In #7586 of the Incontrovertible thread, the Major told Trevor Marriott that Mike's affidavit was written by Alan Gray 'under the direction of the wicked Melvin Harris'.

This is both nonsense and untrue. And the Major knows it.

It was nothing more than a suggestion by Melvin Harris to Alan Gray he should take a 'concise statement' from Mike, which either he or Gray said should be sworn as an affidavit, describing how he forged the diary in order for the facts to be nailed down.  He didn't 'direct' the writing of it.

Diary defending has now come down to twisting words and misleading the public. 


It will be well remembered from the last update that the Major claimed that:

'If the author talked about Liverpool Football Club, we'd all agree it was a hoax'.

It will also be remembered that in Lord Orsam Says...Part 19 I showed what nonsense this was by the fact of an 1874 newspaper report referring to a match between 'the Edinburgh Academicals and the Liverpool Football Club'.

My comment was, 'The diary would have survived again! There's always some kind of explanation that can be produced'. The Major obviously read this update but kept very quiet until The Baron confronted him with it in #7604 of the Incontrovertible thread.

In response (#7606), the Major, clearly discombobulated, came up with some sort of invented nonsense about the difference between 'Liverpool Football Club' and 'the Liverpool Football Club' for which, he claimed, there is 'a whole world of difference (especially if you're a Scouser'). Absolute crap, as we shall see. And just look at this word salad from the Major regarding the supposed meaning of 'the Liverpool Football Club':

'it means the football club in Liverpool - implying that there was only one but not Liverpool FC'. 


First of all it's rubbish.  Secondly, the idea that if the diarist had written 'Liverpool Football Club' the Major wouldn't have celebrated a reference to 'the Liverpool Football Club' in 1874 as proving that the diarist could have written 'Liverpool Football Club' in his diary in 1888 is too preposterous for words.

But we really don't need to worry about a stray definite article.  Just look at this letter from Edward Kewley to the Sportsman written on 29 January 1874 and published on 31 January 1874:


We can see clearly there that Mr Kewley described himself as:

'Captain Liverpool Football Club'.

So should anyone have challenged the other newspaper report I referred to, this would have been the clincher.  A diarist in 1888 COULD have referred to a team called Liverpool Football Club of which, in 1874, Edward Kewley had been captain.

This was, incidentally, a RUGBY team, which I assume is where the Major has gone badly wrong.

And lest anyone be wondering if the club was still going in 1888, oh yes it was. From the Liverpool Daily Post of 12 April 1888:



And if you want proof of just what utter bullshit spews form the Major's mouth, we find the actual Liverpool (Association) Football Club, Liverpool FC, being referred to in the Lancashire Evening Post issue of 30 April 1892  as 'the Liverpool Football Club':

'The differences between the Everton Football Club and the Liverpool Football Club ... have been settled...'

For some modern references, this is from Plunkett's Sports Industry Almanac of 2009:


'The Liverpool Football Club is a professional English football club based in Liverpool'.

And this is from 'Sports Management: Principles and Applications', 2012, by Russell Hoye et al:


'Formed in 1892, the Liverpool Football Club has been one of the most successful clubs in the English Premier League...'

Finally, from a 2016 book entitled '111 Places in Liverpool That You Shouldn't Miss' written by Scouser Peter de Figueiredo and Lancashire born Julian Treuherz:


'...."You'll Never Walk Alone," the anthem of the Liverpool Football Club'.

A reminder that the Major had the sheer nerve to say to The Baron:

'I'm assuming that English is your native language so it's not obvious why you would fail to understand what 'the Liverpool Football Club' means in isolation'.

Honestly, what a chancer.  Trying to bamboozle foreigners with bullshit about the English language.  Can these diary defenders go any lower?


Following the Liverpool Football Club catastrophe, the Major quickly tried to come up with another anachronism that he - presumably positioning himself as a reasonable person (ha!) - would have accepted to prove the diary a fake.

His new far-fetched scenario is that the diarist could have taken time off from all that talk of the murdering to write of standing by the Mersey, casting his eyes upon those two proud Liver bird statues - Bertie and Bella - stood on top of the Liver Building. 

But the Major really has no shame.  The Major has himself tried to explain away the reference to the Poste House - a public house that didn't exist in Liverpool under that name in 1888 - as being.... well, he says, perhaps the pub known as the 'Muck Midden' in 1888 was legally called the Poste House at that time but, hey,  sadly we'll never know (Society's Pillar, p.100). 

If the diarist had mentioned the Liver Building, the Major might well have said that the diarist was actually referring to Liver Buildings in Tithebarn Street, very close to the Mersey, and, of course, the location of Knowsley Buildings, Maybrick's office, as referred to in the Liverpool Daily Post of 28 April 1868, as below.


Perhaps it was locally and colloquially known as the Liver Building.  How could it be proved it wasn't?  Or perhaps there was another building known only to locals as the Liver Building before the other one opened in 1911.

Why couldn't there have been hitherto unknown representations of liver birds called Bertie and Bella on top of the Liver Buildings in Tithebarn Street or on the unknown Liver Building of our imagination?  Put it this way, how could anyone today ever prove they weren't there?  No doubt the entry in the diary that the Major is imagining would have been as vague as everything else, and would have had many possible meanings to be derived from it.  The idea that it would have been as specific as the Major is trying to convince us is ludicrous. So would we have been able to provide the absolute proof of which the Major is asking?  I don't think so. 

One off instance provides the incontrovertible and irrefutable proof perfectly well, thank you very much. 


Trevor Marriott, who claims to read the articles on this website, strangely seemed to have some difficulty providing the Major with the proof that the diary is a fake.

Perhaps I can remind him of a one small thing:

'One off instance'.

Never controverted.  Never refuted. 

The Major seems to live in hope that perhaps one day it might be controverted or refuted but really that's not good enough.  It hasn't been and it proves the diary is a fake, 100%.


'Bumbling buffoon'

Never controverted. Never refuted.

And, the icing on the cake:

'her aunt...the sick bitch'

Never controverted.  Never refuted. 

Game over the for the Major.  The diary is as fake as a plastic chocolate cake.


A highly amusing appearance of Fisherman in #3651 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread.  He did his usual 100 documents routine:

'There are around a hundred of examples of when he used the name Lechmere.'

He keeps saying it but still no evidence is provided of this being true. Until the actual evidence of these 'around a hundred' signatures is provided they cannot be accepted to exist.

Then we had:

'All of the one hundred signatures where he called himself Lechmere are examples of contacts with various kinds of authorities.'

Now it's not just examples of him using the name Lechmere.  It's signatures!!!

Not knowing on what documents are found these purported signatures, it's impossible to confirm whether they are examples of contacts with 'various kinds of authorities' but you really have to stretch the meaning of the word 'authorities' to include the man taking the census or the vicar at the church or the headmaster of the local school or whatever it is that Christer is talking about. 

Of course, he wants to equate these 'authorities' with the coroner and the police but they are different things.  The whole point is that if he was known as Cross at Pickfords it would entirely explain why he gave his name as Cross at the inquest.  It wouldn't matter if we had a million documents in the name Lechmere, if those documents didn't relate to Pickfords.

But here's the great stuff.

After having told us about these 'one hundred signatures' Christer accepts that they are not one hundred signatures after all! 

'Dusty points put that he did not sign all of these examples himself, but that is yesteryears news - it has been pointed out innumerable times'.

Right, so it's been correctly pointed out 'innumerable times' to him that Lechmere could not have signed all these documents himself yet he still keeps saying that Lechmere 'signed' these hundred documents. How does that make any sense?

Then we get: 

'And it is not as if the ones who signed for him were told that he was called Cross but mischiveously (sic) signed Lechmere instead, is it...? So that argument is - also - bonkers.;

The ones who signed for him!!!

He still doesn't get it.  No-one was signing anything for Lechmere. They might have been recording his name as Lechmere but they weren't signing.

Truly, I don't think the Christer's English is so bad that he doesn't understand what the word 'sign' means.  Hells bells, I've personally explained it to him!

Why does he keep saying that Lechmere signed his name as Lechmere in 100 documents?  It's because he's doing what he always does: manipulating the language to suit his own purposes.   It sounds much more damning doesn't it, that Lechmere kept signing his name as Lechmere on documents, yet gave his name as Cross at the inquest?

Less impressive would be the claim that his name was recorded as Lechmere in electoral registers spanning 30 years.  Or that he was recorded as Lechmere in multiple trade directories after 1888.  Even if the argument is that he gave his name as Lechmere to the people compiling these documents, why not just say this?  Why over-egg the pudding with a word like 'signing' which simply isn't true?  Like I say, he knows he's doing it which is why he likes to say that Cross was found alone with the dead body of Nichols, that he used an alias in court, that Nichols' blood was exsanguinated, that the blood was flowing and running from her neck, that Lechmere left his house at 3.30 etc.

He obviously thinks he's improving the case against Lechmere but the reality is that he's just turning people off his argument.  If you have a good case you really don't need all this fish-twisting of the language.


Stung into revealing her thoughts about the supposed initials on the wall, Miss Information said in #7627 of the Incontrovertible thread:

'For what little it's worth, I can see what looks like a letter M on the wall behind Kelly's remains in the photo and, like Martin Fido back in November 1992 pre-Feldman, I can also make out the vague letter F shape to the left of it if pushed.'

Congratulations to her.  But how does she then explain having posted four years earlier in the same thread (#4079) that there is, 'No FM in blood on the wall in the photo'?  Has her eyesight miraculously improved over the past four years?

Weirdly she then continued in #7627 (underlining added): 

'The wounds on Kelly's forearm stand out to me like a sore letter F, and I don't believe for a second that they were made while her blood was still pumping. I do think the diary author may have been referring to this as the clue ['it' - singular] left in front for all the see, but again that's mere speculation which gets us not very far.' 

Well now this is very interesting.  If the diary author, or hoaxer (as Miss Information tells us it was), was referring in the diary to the letter 'F' supposedly carved onto Kelly's forearm, how the hell did the hoaxer know it was there?

With the Kelly crime scene photograph not having been published until 1899 (and then only in an obscure French book), is Miss Information now saying that the diary wasn't created until after 1899 at the very earliest?

And realistically doesn't it really mean that the hoax wasn't written until the 1970s at the earliest when Dan Farson's book was published but more likely after 1987 when the Kelly crime scene photograph was published in a number of popular books?

Sadly no one asked her the question so we can only wonder at the marvellous workings of her brain that allows her to envisage the diary as being an old hoax AND a modern hoax at the same time and one that can perceive writing on a wall that she tells us isn't there. 


Miss Information is struggling?  How?  Here's how (#7630 of the Incontrovertible thread):

'I'm struggling with how Martin thought he was keeping Simon's letters a closely guarded secret. If he didn't even know - or remember - what they were, he couldn't spill any beans about them, and he had to know what they were, in order to know they were not the M and F he referred to in his November 1992 report.'

The answer is very simple and was revealed exclusively in my article Simon Wood If He Could.

Simon thought that Kelly might have started to write the name 'Joe Barnett' on the wall.  Fido could remember that basic fact but not the exact letters that Simon thought he could see.  He wanted to keep the fact about Joe Barnett a secret in case Simon wanted to publish his theory in the future.

How simple is that?

Once again proving the old adage: NO ORSAM, NO COMMENT!


All the above was written in the ten days between Orsam Day (20 November) and 30 November.  Time for a new page....


30 November 2021
21 January 2022