Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says....(part 13)


The Clanger was fast out of the blocks following the last Orsam Day.  Never able to contain his personal grudge, he wrote on JTR Forums in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread #386:

'Lord Orsam's rants aren't worthy of a response.'

It's real funny that, because the individual who has probably responded THE MOST to the articles on this site is none other than the Clanger himself!!!

Indeed, who can forget his ridiculous response to my joke article about Joseph McCarthy being Jack the Ripper?  Sorry, I should have said "responses" for he madly posted responses in multiple threads on multiple forums, thinking that he'd somehow managed to demolish the idea that McCarthy was Jack when it was only a joke in the first place.  Somehow he'd missed that!

It was ludicrous behaviour like this that earned him the title of the Clanger.  And practically every single Orsam Day he responds to something or other I've said (usually something very minor), whether it's something he's misunderstood about 'one off instance' or the mistake he made about Charles Cross or his misguided nonsense about Alfred Wilkins.  He's turned himself into my greatest fan!

And then, of course, he manages to contradict himself in his very next breath by responding to something I'd posted about Andrew Stevens!!  He doesn't seem to accept what I said but the evidence is perfectly clear to anyone who can read English and understands what facts are rather than speculation.  Here is the extract from Andrew Stevens' actual deposition at the inquest into the death of Kitty Roman, given on oath, from the official transcript prepared by the coroner:

As you can see, he testified: 'I am the rateable owner of No. 1 to 6 Miller's Court, Duval Street'.  That's HIM.  Not anyone else. Not John McCarthy.  And he went on to testify that he was the man to whom Kitty Roman went to in the first place to engage her room and made clear that he was the man to whom she paid her rent, which in my (rent) book makes him her landlord!

The Clanger doesn't seem to believe it, but does he have any evidence at all to suggest this wasn't true as at July 1909?  Not a sausage!  But, hey, perhaps like his Ellen McCarthy speculation that I mentioned in the last 'Lord Orsam Says...', he's having another stab in the dark

Frankly, his little rants aren't worth responding to but Lord Orsam performs a public service, so I have to.


In the Clanger's 'Andrew Stevens' thread, Rob Clack doesn't seem to be able to understand how room 12 Miller's Court was also number 6 Millers Court (at #6).

Let me explain.  There were six separate buildings in Miller's Court, each with two rooms on two floors (ground and first).  The buildings and rooms were numbered as follows:

Number 1 Miller's Court - contained rooms 1 and 2

Number 2 Miller's Court - contained rooms 3 and 4

Number 3 Miller's Court - contained rooms 5 and 6

Number 4 Miller's Court  - contained rooms 7 and 8

Number 5 Miller's Court - contained rooms 9 and 10

Number 6 Miller's Court - contained room 11 and 12

I appreciate that I didn't explain it terribly well in the first instance by saying that room 12 was the room above 6 Miller's Court by which I obviously meant it was the room on the first floor of 6 Miller's Court.  Neither room within 6 Miller's Court was actually numbered 6. To clarify, room number 12 was above room number 11.  That was the room in which Kitty Roman lived and was murdered.  So it was room number 12 within building number 6 of Miller's Court.


In one of his subsequent rants in the Lord Orsam Blog thread (#390), the Clanger ranted on about my alleged 'highly personalised attacks on individuals' which, he said, my articles 'invariably are'.

As usual with attacks of this nature, not a single example of a 'highly personalised' attack is provided and, for the record, I deny that my articles ever constitute anything which can fairly and reasonably be described as 'highly personalised' attacks on individuals.

I would like to remind the Clanger, once again, of his own post that he made totally out of the blue on the Casebook Forum on 10 May 2018 when he posted (#4661 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread):

'David likes [to] throw what he considers to be subtle insults at anyone who doesn't tug the forelock. 'Dear boy', 'Muppets', 'Chief Diary Defender etc'  roll off the Awesome pen like shite off a hot shovel. Such a shame, because if he wasn't such an insulting little twerp, one might almost admire him.'

I've never written anything remotely resembling this about anyone and, aside from being ludicrously hypocritical in criticizing me for posting alleged insults while throwing out far worse ones at me himself, none of the three examples he gave can fairly be described as evidence of me throwing 'subtle insults at anyone who doesn't tug the forelock'.  In no known universe is 'my dear boy' a subtle insult and, when you bear in mind that it was how I addressed Pierre in an attempt to be friendly, it shows my incredible restraint (and Pierre seemed to quite like it).  'Chief Diary Defender' was and remains a perfectly reasonable description of the approach taken towards the diary by Caroline Morris who also didn't seem to mind it and responded by describing me as the 'Chief Electrician Defender'.  I didn't mind that either. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever and it just shows how desperate the Clanger was to try and justify his use of the insult, 'insulting little twerp'

The innocuous use of 'muppets' is taken entirely out of context by the Clanger from an innocent exchange I had on the Casebook Forum with Herlock Sholmes who had been totally confused by the claim made in a JTR Forums thread that a use of 'one off' to describe an individual had been found in an 1885 issue of the British Bee Journal; he thought it was a genuine discovery which meant that Maybrick in 1888 could have written 'one off instance' after all.  I simply told him that this confusion had been caused by a bunch of muppets over in JTR Forums who had actually been looking at an issue of the British Bee Journal from the 1970s.  The description was not only appropriate but no-one was identified by name, although the Clanger appears to have taken it as a personal attack upon himself for some reason.

Then we have the Clanger's own contributions to the early days of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread where at #34 he posted of me, 'If you dared question his opinions he might throw down the gauntlet and challenge you to a 3,000 word duel' and then, in #46, 'I suspect the men in white coats are on their way', then in #60, 'His lordship really is a silly ass' but above all (and without any possible justification), in #63,'Should we really be giving this fruit loop any publicity?' , which post, for some bizarre reason, led Howard Brown to temporarily move the thread to the Members Only section (so I couldn't read what was being said). And then, as the thread went on, we got (#157): 'Where to start from this nonsense from Mr Multiple Personality' and (#166): 'the motivation for almost everything he does seems to be to prove he is cleverer than everyone else in the field...he's far from perfect and drops some real clangers sometimes' (this coming from the Clanger!).  On Casebook he has delightfully referred to my 'multiple personalities' (#5214 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread).  For all those stupid insults, though, I wouldn't even describe anything the Clanger has ever said as a 'highly personalised' attack on me, albeit that in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread they were part of a general and combined gang assault on me by a number of posters, frantically trying to portray me as a loon at a time when I was out in the wilderness, on my own, and thus vulnerable, due to my dispute with, and subsequent resignation, from Casebook.  One might, I suppose, validly describe his unwarranted and badly judged assault on Hallie Rubenhold as 'a pampered twat' as a personal attack, but even that strikes me as nothing more than stupid and vulgar abuse rather than any kind of 'highly personalised' attack. 

On this website. I certainly deny that I have made any 'highly personlised' attacks on anyone and it is absolutely absurd to say that my articles 'invariably' contain'highly personalised' attacks on people. Simply absurd. Everything I write is evidence based.  If I say something I give reasons for saying it.  If someone attacks me for no good reason I will invariably defend myself with any legitimate tools at my disposal.

What is perfectly clear is that the Clanger doesn't like his posts being scrutinized because, let's face it, as soon he moves away from interpreting census documents, directories or hospital or workhouse registers etc. he invariably ends up posting a lot of utter nonsense, as regular readers of this website have seen time and time again.


After I typed the previous entry, I went to check out the latest in the 'Andrew Stevens' thread and, lo and behold, with perfect timing, a classic new example of utter nonsense by the Clanger.

For in #11, he wrote that this website is:

'just a vehicle from [Lord Orsam] to slag off Casebook, me, Scott Nelson and Sean'.

He could hardly be more wrong.

I think I'm right in saying that I've only ever mentioned Sean (user name 'Seanr' despite the Clanger inaccurately calling him 'seanb' in #388 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread) ONCE on this website since I started posting articles here more than five years ago, so how can it possibly be said to be a vehicle for me to slag him off?  All I did with seanr is note that he made a small error of fact which I described as 'an inaccurate droplet of information', something designed to convey that it was a small droplet, nothing major, but the Clanger misunderstood.  The idea that, having mentioned the guy for the first time in November 2020, having started posting articles in May 2015, I'm using this site as a vehicle against him is more than absurd.

Likewise, I've barely mentioned little Scottie Nelson in all previous twelve 'Lord Orsam Says...' articles (and never outside of that).  In fact, and LOL!, Mr Nelson Esq. himself posted in the 'Lord Orsam Blog' thread (#393) to say:

'Hey! I finally got a few mentions on Lord Orsam's Blog!'

If he doesn't sound like the aggrieved victim of a vehicle created especially to slag him off, that's because he ain't! 

As for this website being a vehicle to slag off the Clanger himself that is utterly ludicrous.  The fact of the matter is that it was the Clanger who, from about August 2019, used both JTR Forums and Casebook as vehicles to slag ME off because, from that time, he started to avidly read the articles on this website and then went on a posting frenzy about my joke article on Joseph McCarthy (which he simply hadn't understood was a joke, nor has he ever admitted to now knowing it is a joke) with the specific but ridiculous aim of trying to undermine my findings on 'one off instance'; his angle being that if he could find a mistake I'd made about something, anything, on any other subject, he would use that as a way of saying that I was also wrong about 'one off instance'.  

If you think that is unlikely I can assure you that it is absolutely true, and it's something he actually started doing on the Casebook Forum while I was a member.  Nevertheless, I ignored him while I was on the Forum and if you look at the early articles on this website going back nearly six years, the Clanger simply wasn't mentioned. I had literally no interest in him!  He put himself in the frame by his own actions responding to a number of my articles, entirely unnecessarily (because he got it all wrong each time), and then became a figure of fun due to all his various daft antics.  He can't seem to stop himself. But it's why I pay him so much money every month to keep doing it (although, sure, the most recent cheques have been held up due to Covid but don't worry, the Clanger, they are on their way!).

But all things considered - and, yes, I do call it the Censorship Forum, which title it plainly deserves - I don't even think it's true to say that I slag off Casebook!  I certainly criticize the ridiculous rules of the new moderator about members not being allowed to quote me.  I mean, I don't think any reasonable person could dispute that I have a right to do so.  But how do I use this website as a vehicle to 'slag off' Casebook?   Bearing in mind that I only post here due to the censorship of Casebook, it would seem odd if I didn't draw attention to that very same censorship, which I've done on occasion, but it's hardly the main theme of the vast majority of articles on this site.

The truth of the matter is that I started to use this website over five years ago as a vehicle for me to post long and fully researched articles that were too long for posts on Casebook.  Hence, my original Suckered! series of articles.   I then followed with many other articles on various subjects. Then, when I could no longer post on Casebook due to a false and libellous ruling by Admin (since withdrawn), I used this website to give me my voice, without censorship, in order to defend my legacy of posts and articles, of which I'm very proud, including those relating to the Maybrick diary

All the Clanger's comments show is that he DOES talk utter nonsense whenever he steps out of his narrow field of genealogical research (and even then I'm not entirely sure he quite knows what he's doing).


In a discussion about little old me with Chris Phillips, the Clanger, after having started to allege that I invariably make 'highly personalised' attacks on individuals, then shifted his ground in #392 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread on JTR Forums by saying that much of my research:

'is littered with snide comments and digs at other researchers'.

That, of course, is very different from the original allegation - snide comments and digs do not constitute highly personalised attacks -  but, boy, as we've seen that the Clanger once said that the men in white coats were coming for me (for no good reason whatsoever) and called me 'a fruit loop' (again for no good reason whatsoever) that really does take the biscuit and is a classic case of the pot attempting to call the kettle black.

Once again, the Clanger gives no examples of what he's referring to when he talks of snide comments and digs and it's hard to respond to this because, of course, from the start, back in 2015, many articles on this site were responses to the (often shoddy) work of other writers and researchers. 

Incidentally, just because one is a 'researcher', or describes oneself as such, it doesn't provide some kind of magical immunity from criticism.  The Clanger seems to think that every 'researcher' should be referred to in tones of respectful reverence, apart from Hallie Rubenhold of course!

And, sure, these days I'm often responding here to online posts made on Casebook because, durr, I can't respond on Casebook, so I'm obviously going to be frequently correcting what I see as errors of others.  That's the nature of the beast.  I maintain that my use of language on here is legitimate and proportionate to what I'm responding to.  If, to take just one obvious example, Simon Wood posts some more utter nonsense on Casebook about a government conspiracy cooked up within the Home Office to murder and mutilate women for no apparent reason, contrary to all the evidence, I'm going to say so in my response.  

The way I read the Clanger's complaints about me is this: When he refers to highly personalised attacks and snide comments and digs on researchers he is actually talking about the criticisms I make of HIM and only of him. I suggest - as I've said before - that he is a bully who loves to dish it out but simply cannot take it.  We all know the sort.  


The word 'anger' is, appropriately, in his name and I've noticed on a number of occasions that when the Clanger faces opposition (like any bully) he doesn't deal with it very well. He becomes so clearly angry that his posts become sloppy and poorly written and sourced.

Three classic examples of this can be found on JTR forums when he was being challenged both by Chris Phillips on the Forum and by me, making statements in response, on this site.

Thus, in his rage at people standing up to him, he claimed (#501) that I'd once stated that:

'no Victorian could possibly have thought of using a manufacturing term for a unique item to describe a person or event'. 

As I explained in my Third Special Statement, that simply wasn't true.  I'd never said that at all.  But the only way the Clanger seems to be able to respond to my arguments is to twist my words, while ignoring pretty much everything that I HAVE said.

Then, in an attempt to fraudulently induce Chris Phillips to criticize me on a false basis, he falsely claimed (#524) that I'd described his response to Bunny's Aunt as 'batshit crazy' which also wasn't true and was actually how I'd described his own horsey theory about 'x-off' (although I prefer 'horseshit crazy'), nothing whatsoever to do with Bunny's Aunt, but, in his fury at people answering back to him, he had gone to pieces and was  making no sense.

In a further attempt to fraudulently induce Chris Phillips to criticize me on a false basis, he falsely claimed that I'd once responded to a researcher's 'reasoned arguments' with the expression 'word vomit' (and invited Chris Phillips to criticize me for doing so) something wholly and totally untrue as I explained in the Third Special Statement having ALREADY explained it in the seventh edition of 'Lord Orsam Says...'.

In the end, his posts descended into such a glut of unpleasantness that Howard Brown had to step in repeatedly, ending up with certain posts being deleted. He can't seem to have a civilized discussion with anyone.


Just before he was warned by Howard Brown to get back to the subject of Andrew Stevens in the 'Andrew Stevens' thread and stop talking about me (which he can barely prevent himself from doing), the Clanger wrote (#18):

'The personal insults run through the other stuff.  If you're happy to ignore an image of a post it with a note with 'I am an idiot signed xxx' scrawled on  it in crayon, that's your choice.  I doubt such puerile antics would be allowed on any respectable internet forum'.

I've literally no idea what the rules of internet forums have to do with this site - and it's a bit rich in any case for the Clanger, who once called me an 'insulting little twerp' on Casebook, in clear breach of the Forum rules, to be referring to 'puerile antics' that aren't allowed on internet forums - but the Clanger has clearly misunderstood the purpose of the note I posted on 'A Dig in the Archives' which said 'I am an idiot' and was purportedly signed by Paul Begg.  The whole point of it was that it was so obviously NOT a note signed by Paul Begg.  I was simply using a statement which Paul Begg would clearly NOT write in order to make the point.

The point, of course, for anyone with normal comprehension skills, was that Paul Begg's claim that simply because the Maybrick diary exists, and is real and tangible (even though it isn't in Maybrick's handwriting), means that it is a worthy object of discussion, is ridiculous.  I was demonstrating the utter worthlessness of this point by producing an obviously faked but REAL note by Paul Begg which was not in his handwriting.  That Begg had supposedly written 'I am an idiot' was nothing more than a way of showing it was a fake.  The content of the note, by definition, HAD to be something absurd.  If it was something Begg was likely to have written it wouldn't have worked.

I don't happen to think Paul Begg is an idiot.  He has, for some reason (which is almost certainly because he committed himself far too early to saying that the diary is genuine) made some genuinely idiotic posts about the diary (as explained in previous articles), and he and Keith Skinner made a very bad mistake in one of their books about the resignation of James Monro as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in 1890 (which borders on idiotic), although he can't seem to admit to having done so, but those are very much out of character.   

And, truly, if that's the only example the Clanger can produce of 'personal insults' on this site it shows he's got diddly squat.


Hilariously, in the 'Andrew Stevens' thread, after having made FOURTEEN posts on the subject, each one more irrelevant than the last, the Clanger suddenly had a moment of clarity.  Perhaps he needs to look at the inquest evidence!!! Ha ha!  But he doesn't have it. So in #23 he puts out an appeal:

'Does anyone know if a transcript of the Roman inquest is available online?'

Perhaps he should have been asking this question BEFORE trying to rubbish what I'd said on the matter!!!

In any case, as I've said so many times, there's no such thing as a transcript of an inquest from this period.  What we do have for some inquests is official transcripts of the depositions which are available from the National Archives.

I've already quoted above from the deposition of Stevens  and the facts are crystal clear.  For some reason, the Clanger also seems to doubt that Stevens could have been both a lodging house deputy and a rateable owner of property (#21), claiming that he must have been 'delusional'  to think he could be both, although on what basis he makes such an extraordinary statement I have literally no idea.

As for whether McCarthy was mentioned, only his shop was mentioned because Harry Benstead, who discovered Kitty's dead body, immediately ran into McCarthy's shop to break the news.  Jeremiah O'Callaghan and John Day were both in the shop.  O'Callaghan testified: ' I reside at 13, Miller's Court, Duval Street, Spitalfields. I am a stableman.  I am in the employ of Mr. McCarthy, Duval Street, Spitalfields'.  The two men went up to Kitty's room and one or both (but probably just O'Callaghan) remained until the police arrived.

We may note that it's also bizarre that the Clanger seems to doubt that Kitty was paying five shillings for her room (#22).  Again, he posts rashly not having seen the evidence in the case (even though I'd helpfully given an extract from Stevens' testimony on the matter confirming that her rent was five shillings!).  In his total ignorance he states: '5s in 1909 seems a bit steep'  As it happens, Stevens went on to say in his evidence, 'These furnished rooms are let at 5s and 6s a week'.

Who do we believe?  The Clanger, who clangs everything he touches into a clanging mess of clangingness, or the witness from 1909 who not only had first hand knowledge of the matter but was the very person who took the money for the rooms? 


The Clanger's journey regarding the story of Andrew Stevens has gone through so many twists and turns, only to end up in a dead end, that I think it's worth tracking it because it is truly hilarious

At the start of the thread (#3), the Clanger asked about Andrew Stevens:

'How likely is it that he would have been the 'rateable owner' of 1-6 Millers Court?'

It was an extraordinary question because the answer, in light of Stevens' inquest testimony (which I had already reproduced in my original article), is 100% likely!

During a prolonged conversation, mainly with himself, the Clanger ended up in by saying (#30):

'It's possible that for some reason he was appointed the rateable owner of some of the properties in Miller's Court and collected rents for them'.

Tee hee!

Now, I don't know how one gets to be 'appointed' the rateable owner of a property.  One either is the rateable owner or one is not. Andrew Stevens WAS the rateable owner of the property inhabited by Kitty Roman and HE was the person to whom she paid he rent.  He was, in other words, her landlord.  It wasn't John McCarthy, as everyone up until now seems to have assumed, it was Stevens.

But the Clanger's journey is more convoluted than this because even AFTER having admitted that Stevens might, after all, have been the rateable owner of room 12 Miller's Court, he said sarcastically in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread at #397 of McCarthy:

'It seems he handed responsibility for running his hovels over to his mad, blind brother-in-law'.

Now that's odd because at the very start of the 'Andrew Stevens' thread (#2), the Clanger had said of Stevens *(underlining added):

'It seems he may have changed his employer and lost his sight shortly after giving evidence at the Roman inquest'.

This post was made on 15 November, at which point he was accepting that Stevens had become blind AFTER the inquest, yet a mere two days later, on 17 November, he was now saying that, BEFORE the Roman inquest, McCarthy had handed over the running of his hovels to a 'mad, blind' man, someone who the Clanger himself had previously decided was likely NOT blind at the time of this hand over!

No new evidence had been brought to light in the intervening two days, so how does that make any sense?

And I have no idea why a blind man couldn't, in any event, be a rateable owner of a property or what would be wrong with McCarthy selling or transferring any of his assets to a blind man.  Perhaps the Clanger can explain it. 

And what about the 'mad' part of the equation?

Well this comes from Stevens being admitted to the Whitechapel infirmary as 'mental' on 8 September 1911 more than TWO YEARS AFTER the murder of Kitty Roman.

Thus, even though the Clanger knows that there is no evidence that Stevens was either blind or mad prior to July 1909, he sneeringly wants to suggest that he was a 'mad, blind'  person at the time because he's presumably still in denial about the fact that what I stated about Stevens being the rateable owner of the properties in Miller's Court was entirely correct.

Strangely, what the Clanger doesn't do is reflect on the fact that his main 'argument' as to why Stevens wasn't likely to have been the rateable owner in July 1909 (see #2 of the 'Andrew Stevens' thread) is because McCarthy was recorded as 'the owner' in the land tax records in 1910 but, if McCarthy became the rateable owner at some point after July 1909, not having been so in July, we might thereby find an explanation of this change in ownership in the fact that Stevens was going blind and/or mad and felt he could no longer operate as a landlord - not that it was impossible for him to do so as a blind man - hence he sold or otherwise transferred his interest in Miller's Court (back) to McCarthy. 

The fact of the matter is that circumstances change and the Clanger's hopeless attempt at investigating what happened to Stevens in the future, after 1909, as a way of undermining my claim, based on the evidence, that Stevens was Kitty's landlord in 1909, was always doomed to failure.  It would be rather like saying that Horatio Nelson couldn't have been appointed Rear Admiral in 1797 because the British Navy would never have allowed a one-armed man with only one good eye to rise to such a rank!!!

In any event, it's important to understand that a rateable owner of a property is not necessarily the same person as the ultimate owner of that property.  In the case of Miller's Court, McCarthy could have owned the freehold to the six buildings in Miller's Court in 1909 and leased them to Stevens who thereby collected the rent from the tenants while himself paying a form of rent to McCarthy.  That would be a quite normal arrangement but would mean that Stevens was Kitty Roman's landlord, not McCarthy, a man she might (in theory) never have met or known about.

In #10 of the 'Andrew Stevens' thread, the Clanger admitted that he often 'cherry-picked' some of the 'smaller nuggets' on this site because, in his delusional opinion, they 'often contain very amusing stuff' and that my post about Stevens was 'a classic'. Well, yes, I suppose it was a classic Lord Orsam post in the sense that it was entirely accurate but what I liked was the Clanger giving himself away here with his 'cherry picking' remark.  Yes, he does 'cherry pick' what he responds to from this site and he blatantly avoids admitting to all the times I've proved him wrong on so many subjects.  In fact, he usually pretends not to have read those ones!

A classic, indeed. 

The Clanger's thread on Andrew Stevens, incidentally, soon fizzled out and turned to other subjects.  By #44 the Clanger was telling us about his great grandfather handling sacks of grain.  LOL!



Caroline Morris pops up in the Lord Orsam Blog thread (#398) to say:

'Why on earth would I want to read any of his obsessive personal attacks?'

As usual, no examples of these alleged obsessive personal attacks are produced and, as she claims to not read any of the articles on this site (a claim she later changed!), one wonders how she is any kind of position to make such a statement, although she claims to have it 'on good authority'.

Interestingly, her reason for not visiting this site seems to have changed since she bizarrely said on Casebook that she doesn't come here because I was banned from Casebook, which never made any sense (and the truth, of course, is that I resigned).

The articles I write about the Maybrick diary are not different in substance to the posts I used to make on the subject on Casebook and would, I think, if we follow the Clanger's line of thinking, be deemed within the Forum rules, thus, by definition, cannot contain personal attacks.  The fact of the matter is that the majority of recent articles have been about the Maybrick diary and the person who makes the most online posts in defence of the diary, often mentioning me by name, is Caroline Morris, hence a lot of my articles are in response to what she has posted.  But I dispute that they can be categorized as 'obsessive personal attacks' bearing in mind that I always focus on the substance of the issues.

It's a bit rich to read about these 'obsessive personal attacks' from someone who posted in #61 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread:

'Every time I think of clicking on one of the links you supplied I get an electric shock to remind me not to go there.  The man in the white coat standing behind me says its a new forums policy to save the sanity of the vulnerable.'

And in #145:

'I doubt Lord O has a clue whose writing is in the diary, and is merely enjoying the attention from all the puppies wagging their tails and running after his balls'.

And in #205:

'If he brushed up on his general knowledge a bit, he could probably enter for Mastermind, with his specialist subject being 'bearing a grudge'.'

And in #226:

'What a waste of space that man is. I'm beginning to think he may actually believe what he writes after all.  I used to assume he was making it up  just for jolly, either because he has nothing better to do or he thinks he is winding people up.'

And in #237:

'Orsam's skin is so thin...you can see right through it to the bare bones of his posturing.'

And in #260:

'To me he's like the cross-eyed teacher who couldn't control his pupils.'

And in #304:

'How many people out there are still visiting him in his bat cave for their dose of brain washing?...keep as much distance as you can from the toxic fumes of subjective reasoning and empty rhetoric'.

The idea that this same Caroline Morris is such a sensitive flower that she can't bear to read the articles on this site because they might contain some criticism of her is absurd.  But, of course, in claiming not to have read any of my articles, it means she doesn't have to respond to them or correct her mistakes (once I've pointed them out).  Oddly enough, the person who reports to her about this site doesn't seem to have mentioned that she made a dreadful mistake in saying that Margaret Baillie was related to Florence Maybrick - something which she relies upon to support the authenticity of the diary - or, if they have, she hasn't corrected her inaccurate string of posts on Casebook on the subject.

She has a history of this.  On JTR Forums she once wrongly claimed that Maybrick's father was an engineer even though I pointed out on Casebook shortly afterwards that he was, in fact, an engraver, but she's never corrected her JTR Forums post to this day.

She once promised to concede if it turned out to be the case that Alec Voller didn't have the title of 'Dr' but even though she must now know he doesn't, she never did admit to her mistake on this.

I could go on.  We all know she's made misleading if not downright inaccurate posts on Casebook about the information given to her by Martin Earl in 2020.  She's also never corrected her ferocious attack on me for supposedly misunderstanding the passage in her book relating to Shirley Harrison's conversations with Kevin Whay, even though it's clear that SHE had misunderstood the passage!  Yet there has never been a correction or apology for this.

I guess she thinks that if, like an ostrich, she sticks her head in the sand, and doesn't read articles which support the idea of a Barrett related forgery, or challenge the idea of an ancient forgery, then they don't exist.  It doesn't work like that though.


Mr Poster, who never misses the chance to contribute to a discussion about me, popped up in #400 to ask, 'could it be slinging bile is his main objective...?' thus harking back to his reference to 'bile drenched....ramblings'  in #37, although it's strange that he is still wondering about my objectives given that he already concluded back in #39 that I had a 'penchant for slagging people off to no purpose except massaging his ego'.

At the same time, Mr Poster seems strangely obsessed by my book on Spandau Ballet - mentioning it in numerous posts - but doesn't quite seem to realize that book about Spandau Ballet is no more or less 'important' than a book about Jack the Ripper.  

Mr Poster, who was banned from Casebook, once wrote of me (#39): 'it's no wonder he's banned from certain websites and confined to his own little echo chamber'.  The fact that, as an avid reader of my site, he must know that I resigned from Casebook, but hasn't corrected his statement, suggests to me that whatever his own objectives are, establishing the truth isn't one of them.


We've seen that the Clanger has admitted to 'cherry picking' when responding to articles on this site but when Trevor Marriot in #401 quite correctly claimed that he'd never seen 'one person who he has challenged [who] has bothered to either prove him right or wrong' the Clanger responded 'So you've not seen a single challenge to any of his research on here?'

I'd love to know what 'challenges' the Clanger is thinking of here.  Does he have in mind his own misguided nit-pick challenge to my joke article about Joseph McCarthy being Jack the Ripper?  Or his equally misguided nit-pick challenge to my statement about what Alfred Wilkins was likely doing at midnight in old Dorset Street?  Or perhaps his equally misguided nit-pick challenge to my claim that Alfred Stevens was Kitty Roman's landlord?  Or his nit-picking about the sugar refinery which wholly missed the the point in my article about Simon Wood's book? Or does he mean his ludicrous challenge to my claim about 'one off instance' when he invented a completely new and bizarre meaning of that well known expression????  

Yes, in ever more desperate attempts to try and prove me wrong about something, anything, the Clanger has tried to nit-pick his way into challenging a number of minor points in my minor articles (including the odd typo believe it or not) but he never seems to succeed in even this limited ambition!

I think Trevor was talking about substantive challenges to my major articles of which, over five years, I truly don't recall any, on JTR Forums or elsewhere.  Perhaps one could categorize Mike Hawley's 166 Rip article about Tumblety as a response to one of my articles but that didn't go to well for him (as I demonstrated in Fake Orders, Fake Discovery) and there's been only silence from him since.

The point I think Trevor is making, as I've said before, is that when trying to form his own views on a subject he wants to read both sides of the argument.  He reads what I say on this website but then, when he wants to know what those on the other side of the argument have to say in response - those who are supposed to be the experts - he only finds silence.  I regret to say that this happens time and time again.

What SHOULD happen is that my arguments should either be challenged, with evidence/reasons, or the critics should concede that what I'm saying is correct.  That's the only proper way to move forward.  But what Trevor is finding is that all he reads from the critics are personal attacks, abuse and insults, with the substantive points totally ignored.  This doesn't help anyone. I think it makes him suspicious that what I'm saying is true but certain people don't want to admit it.  And you know what, on this occasion Trevor might just be right!


The Clanger, after having falsely and bizarrely alleged that I carried out 'half-arsed research' into Andrew Stevens ('Lord Orsam's Blog' thread, #405) when, in fact, I wasn't researching a biography of the man, merely stating correctly that he was Kitty Roman's landlord (based on solid evidence), then demonstrated his total lack of research skills by saying (#425):

'Lord Orsam took me to task for pointing out the flaws in HR's Waterstones blog, but for some reason hasn't mentioned Trevor's performance as her pet mysogynist.  I wonder why?  Perhaps he's scared of Trevor'.

Leaving aside the Clanger's inaccurate characterisation of me having taken him to task for pointing out flaws in Hallie Rubenhold's Waterstones blog (when I was, in fact, referring to the obsessive number of posts or comments that he was making on the blog), and leaving aside that he has, for some reason, ignored the specific criticisms I made about his attacks upon her on JTR Forums (e.g. 'pampered twat' etc.), the Clanger is totally wrong in what he says about me not having mentioned or criticized Trevor Marriott in this context.

I refer the Clanger to my article of 12 August 2019 entitled 'A Funny Thing Happened on the way to JTR Forums' which can be found here in which I referred at some length to Trevor's poorly judged intervention into Hallie's twitter feed as this screen shot, which is an extract from my aforementioned article, demonstrates:

The Clanger, therefore, could not be more wrong (as usual), yet he set off a hare running in the JTR Forums thread which Mr Poster was only too happy to follow (#426) with various odd speculations as to why I hadn't criticized Trevor in the past.

Will the Clanger now admit to his mistake or will he (as usual), like Nelson, or even Mr Stevens himself, turn a blind eye?


As I write this, the Clanger has decided to turn the Andrew Stevens thread into an opportunity 'to discuss Lord Orsam's discovery of a no. 14 Miller's Court', presumably because he hasn't been able to find any evidence that Stevens wasn't Kitty Roman's landlord and it acts as a nice distraction.

Personally, I would have thought that a separate thread about 14 Miller's Court would have been the best way to discuss such a subject but there you go, that's the Clanger for you. 

Anyway, it was most gracious of the Clanger to admit in #46 that 'There is certainly a no.14 on the police plan'.  That was nice of him.  That was all my article said. And the police plan, it should be noted, is labelled on the original as being a 'ROUGH PLAN OF MILLERS COURT, E'.  At the Police Court, the constable who made the plan testified that he had made a plan of 12 Miller's Court which 'also shows the neighbourhood of Millers Court'.  It can be seen that the plan doesn't include ANY properties other than those in Miller's Court (and, for example, neither 26 nor 27 Dorset Street is identified). 

The Clanger now wants to know if 14 Miller's Court appears elsewhere on census or tax records.  Well, if it had, it probably wouldn't have been a discovery by me, would it? Someone would have noticed it yonks ago.

I'm not sure how closely the Clanger read my article but I was very careful not to say that number 14 represented a room within 26 Dorset Street in 1909.  In fact, I asked the question: 'Does this mean that the door led into a room on the ground floor?'.  It was confusing because there didn't seem to be such a room behind that door in 1888 nor in 1898.  I expressly said that I couldn't take it any further but what I was (I thought helpfully) drawing attention to was that the police map indicated a number 14 Miller's Court.

For some reason, in his discussion of the subject, the Clanger asks if there were 15 rooms above McCarthy's shop.  This seems to be on the basis that there was a room 15 within 27 Dorset Street. I personally fail to understand the significance of this.

What seems to have happened is that the room numbers from Miller's Court continued into 26 Dorset Street (after number 13).  We know that there were numbers 19 and 20 on the first floor of 26 Dorset Street in 1898 (and we also know that Elizabeth Prater lived in room 20 of 26 Dorset Street).   

Anyway, the Clanger goes on to ask: 'Was there really a 14, Millers Court?'.  The answer is: yes there was, because we have the 1909 police map which, as I have shown, was a map of Miller's Court.  Whether the 14 indicated a room, however, or was simply the number on the door which led to a staircase, is another matter.  And given that the numbers of Miller's Court and 26 Dorset Street seem to have merged into each other, a room 14 Miller's Court could also be a room 14, 26 Dorset Street.

I happened to write the above before the Clanger wrote something similar in #58 which seems to have been his big (baby) point to which he was always leading.  Awwww, he squawks it wasn't 14 Miller's Court it was 14, 26 Dorset Street.  So Lorwwd Orwsam is wwwrong!!! WelI, of course, I already knew that 14 Miller's Court could also be 14, 26 Dorset Street - it's obvious - but it's semantics.  Number 13 Miller's Court could also be Room 13, 26 Dorset Street.  Surely we all knew that. In the same vein, number 14 Miller's Court could also be Room 14, 26 Dorset Street.  It's two sides of the same coin.

The Clanger seems to distinguish number 14 from number 13 because number 13 is shown in census records as a separate address within Miller's Court but the Clanger needs to consider two things.  Firstly, if number 14 didn't reflect an actual room then it wouldn't be shown in any census records.  Secondly, if it DID reflect an actual room numbered 14, it was the only room within 26 Dorset Street, aside from number 13, which was directly accessible from the street, or rather the pathway leading to Miller's Court.  That must, surely, distinguish it from all the other rooms within the property. Equally, if it WAS a room but didn't exist at that location in either 1901 or 1911 - just in, or around, 1909 - it wouldn't be shown on any census records either.  The Clanger claims that '14 to 20 were all part of 26 for [census and tax] purposes' but he hasn't shown that at all.  He's not provided any evidence of number 14 being recorded as part of number 26 for either census or tax purposes at any time, only a mere assumption.  If he thinks he has provided such evidence, he surely needs to tell us who is ever known to have lived in number 14 according to the census records. But, as far as I can tell, he's not found a single reference to number 14 in any records.

The point is that we have a police map which both logically and expressly shows a 14 Miller's Court and no-one ever appears to have appreciated before that number 14 was the number on the door in the passage leading to the court, regardless of whether number 14 is thought of (by anyone) as being part of Miller's Court or 26 Dorset Street. That was the real point I was making.  It was only another lighthearted point, upon which nothing turns but, honestly, there don't seem to be any lengths to which the Clanger will not go (and fail) in his ridiculous and petty attempts to try and undermine my harmless little articles.


So Caroline Morris is only going to read articles on this site in which I identify the hoaxer or hoaxers (#427).  That's a bit like saying you are only going to read a book, article or post about Jack the Ripper if the identity of the Ripper is actually revealed!

It's utterly crazy.

Caroline Morris has written thousands and thousands of posts about the Maybrick diary, not a single one of which identifies the hoaxer or hoaxers.  A small number of them contain speculation about a possible hoaxer's identity but none of them identify the hoaxer.  So why does she impose such a ludicrous condition upon one of her opponents? 

In any case, I've made perfectly clear who I think are the most likely forgers are AND IDENTIFIED THEM but I'm not the police; I don't have any investigative powers and I can't prove anything.  Neither the actual roles of the people involved nor the details of precisely how it was done are in any way important if it is accepted, as seems certain, that Mike Barrett was deeply involved in the forgery plan.

What Caroline Morris is really saying is that she is not prepared to read any responses to her posts if her own arguments are taken apart.  And she is not prepared to listen to any view other than her own.

It's funny really because she has called my own theory about the diary being created in 13 days in March/April 1992 a lunatic, crazy, mad theory.  But I don't run away and cry.  I look at the reasons she gives for saying this and respond.

It's totally childish of her to ignore my articles in circumstances where I am one of the main advocates for the modern hoax currently writing about the Maybrick diary. For Caroline Morris to say she's not going to read anything I write, however factually based or accurate, is plain daft and self-defeating to boot.  It simply means that her own arguments and posts are going to proceed on a false basis, without knowing all the information that she, as a supposedly informed person on the subject, should know.  Moreover, if she doesn't learn from her mistakes she's simply going to repeat them, isn't she?

One other thing needs to be stated.  Having read through the archives of Maybrick diary posts, I can tell you that Caroline Morris has been dishing it out online for the past twenty years.  Trust me, her opponents have, with the sarcasm dial turned up to eleven, been criticized, ridiculed and dragged through the dirt to her little heart's content over the course of twenty years on a non-stop basis. Different rules, however, apply to anyone on the other side of the argument.  One has to be nice to her otherwise she packs up and goes home.

The truth of the matter is that Caroline Morris wants to think of me, and portray me, as someone shouting into the wind with no-one listening or reading and, by not reading my articles herself, or at least by claiming not to read them, she can comfort herself that this is the reality.  At it's core, it is the behaviour of a child, especially when she mentions me disparagingly in post after post then sticks her fingers in her ears, or covers her eyes, when I make a response.    


Or should I say heroine?

A big shout out for Karoline Leach.  I'd never heard of her before.  She's an expert on Lewis Carroll who was a regular in the Maybrick threads at the turn of the century.  Although she was developing a post made by Peter Birchwood, I feel she nailed it in a post on 15 April 2001, when she wrote:

'MB (and his cohorts?) purchase(s) the red diary, perhaps after only a cursory examination - or perhaps after only seeing it described in a sales catalogue where the wording did not make it clear that it was actually physically dated '1891' in any indelible way.  They order it, planning to use it for the text of their forgery. But when it arrives in late March - with only weeks to go before 'the diary of JTR' is due for its first public appearance - they are horrified to discover the thing has '1891' written all over it.  There is an understandable panic. The text of the 'diary' is waiting on MB's wp - but they have nothing to write it in.  MB, and probably all others involved begin scouring junk shops and auction rooms, desperately searching for any remotely suitable article. But time is short and unused diaries from the right period are not very plentiful - and all they can find is one turn-of-the-century- photo album, bedecked with pics from WW1. They grab it - because it's better than nothing (perhaps MB doesn't make the purchase himself, hence his inability to give correct details about doing so), rip out the pics and the first few pages (which are too incriminating in some way)... and off they go....' 

Now, bearing in mind that this was written six years before it was known that Mike had requested a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992, it shows amazing perspicacity.  In particular, she avoided the red herring of Mike's affidavit with its dates of 1990 or 1991 for the creation of the diary.  Obviously the details of the purchase of the little red diary from Martin Earl (which weren't then known) aren't quite right but it's essentially what is likely to have happened.  I don't quite subscribe to the notion of 'panic' - because Mike was in control of the timing of when he produced the diary - but, considering the amount of information that wasn't available in 2001 it's a very good attempt. 

From reading historic posts, what's extraordinary over the years is how many intelligent people were satisfied that Mike Barrett was involved in the forgery.  Unfortunately, they all had to wrestle with Caroline Morris' inflexible nonsense over the years and one by one everyone dropped out of the debate for whatever reason.  Some actually died.

R.J. Palmer is also one of the heroes of the story not only because he also appreciated that the diary could have been created in March 1992, after the telephone call with Doreen, but also because he is pretty much now the lone survivor from the early years.


It gets worse in the 'Andrew Stevens' thread. The Clanger tells us (#62):

'The witness Jeremiah Callaghan who found Kate Roman's body was a stableman'.

Jeremiah Callaghan (or O'Callaghan as he gave his name at the inquest) did NOT find Kate Roman's body.  Harry Benstead found Kate Roman's body.  Jeremiah O'Callaghan was in McCarthy's shop when Benstead came in and told him that "Someone has done the old woman in".  O'Callaghan then went up to Kate's room and remained there until the police arrived.

Without batting an eyelid, in #68, the Clanger then quoted O'Callaghan's evidence from the Old Bailey when it was made clear that he didn't find the body!  But he didn't say anything about his earlier error.


In #447 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread, Caroline Morris stated, curiously:

'Back in September I was sent, unsolicited, some of his [Lord Orsam's] updated writings, which showed me that he has a habit of misreading my message board posts, taking him down a rabbit hole of false assumptions, leading to invalid arguments and thousands of wasted words.'

Now, pausing there, it is to be noted that Caroline Morris doesn't say who sent her these 'unsolicited' writings nor does she say if she knows the identity of the individual who did so but I want to make very clear for the avoidance of any doubt that it was not me who sent these to her, nor did I cause anyone to do so on my behalf nor do I know anything about it. This was the first I'd heard of it in circumstances where she has always, until now, refused to acknowledge having read anything I'd written on this website.

I should also say that I have no idea what she means about being sent some of my 'updated' writings.  What can she mean by the use of the word 'updated'?  I have no idea.  It's also not clear exactly what has been sent to her.  All she had to do was identify the articles in question but she's failed even to do that.  How do we even know that the articles she's supposedly been sent are genuine and not faked?

As to that, it is rather odd, is it not, that she appears to have read the articles in question, rather than delete or destroy them, despite them having been sent to her unsolicited by a person she is either unable or unprepared to identify?  Why would she have done that? After all, to read my articles in their original form, all she needed to do was click on a link?  If she was unwilling to do that, why was she willing to read stuff sent to her (presumably by email) unsolicited?  It doesn't make much sense to me.

As for her general claim that I have a 'habit' of misreading her message board posts, it is noteworthy that not a single example is provided. And I deny it entirely.  I happen to read her message board posts very carefully (far more carefully than they deserve).  There is no doubt that she is not someone who writes clearly, leaving a lot of ambiguity, especially when she is purporting to provide information gained from third parties, but I am quite sure that I have not gone down any rabbit holes of false assumptions and that I have not written thousands of wasted words. 

In any normal debate, what would happen is that she would explain where she thinks I've gone wrong and clarify the situation. As it is, no-one now, least of all me, knows what she is talking about so that we are all in a state of total confusion as to what she has read of mine and as to what I am supposed to have read correctly and what I am supposed to have read incorrectly.  I have no doubt that this is a situation which she has deliberately created, and which she positively desires, in order to throw doubt over my entire body of work and thus avoid having to face the consequences of where I have understood her perfectly and shown, without doubt, that she is wrong.  Because she NEVER admits her mistakes.

She continues:

'Anyone who takes whatever he writes as gospel, without bothering to check his sources - me being the source in this particular case - would similarly be led astray'.

I pause again here to note that this is very strange because anyone who has read even a few of my articles will know that on almost every occasion when I respond to her posts I quote her in full (identifying the relevant thread and post number). If not in full then the important or relevant parts are quoted.  My responses to her are, as a result, replete with her quotes - one could say to a tedious extent - thus enabling everyone to 'check my sources' at the same time as reading my articles. For that reason, I simply cannot understand what she is talking about here.  I cannot believe that on any occasion I have omitted anything material from any of her posts and I am scrupulous in quoting her accurately at as much length as possible.

Then we have the delusion:

'But I don't suppose more than one or two fans bother to read every word he spouts on the diary, much less check it for accuracy against the source he claims to be using'.

Leaving aside that she must know that I am read by far more than 'one or two' people (which is something only in her dreams, to comfort her), this is again pure nonsense bearing in mind that I quote just about everything I respond to from her posts, so that there can be no question that anyone reading my articles is able to check for accuracy against my 'source' i.e. her posts.

She then says:

'When he attacks stuff that was never written or claimed by me, or by anyone else, I have to wonder why.'

I would wonder the same thing myself but I have no idea what she is talking about.  One example would do but, of course, she deliberately doesn't give me the chance to defend myself.  I would be very surprised if I have 'attacked stuff' not written or claimed by her - it strikes me as barely possible and I can't work out how I could possibly have done it - but why doesn't she simply tell us what that stuff is?  It should be very easy for her to do it.  If I've happened to misunderstand something she's written so be it, but there's no way that I've been preventing any of my readers from seeing her exact words.

She says that this is 'for him to worry about'.  But I can't worry about what I don't know.  I have no idea if what she is saying is correct and I very much doubt it.

She goes on:

'I'm going to assume it's a case of accidentally misreading his source material, rather than deliberately misleading anyone about it, in which case I can only put it down to his bias causing his competency to slip.'

Thing is, how do we know that she hasn't misunderstood ME?  She's certainly not letting the readers of her post see HER source material is she?  So why should anyone believe a single word she is saying?

After all, when I make a criticism of something SHE has written, I quote her.  We can, see, however, that when she makes a criticism of ME, no quote is provided.  Why not? Why doesn't she prove what she is saying?   Not only has she not provided any quotes, she hasn't given any clues as to what she is talking about either.  We just don't know what article or articles of mine she is referring to, so it's not possible to verify a single thing she is saying.

Is she just talking about one article or perhaps just one paragraph within one article or just one sentence?  We simply don't know. 

She continues by essentially just repeating what she's already said with different words.  Thus:

'I have found several discrepancies, misunderstandings and factual errors in what little I have read of his diary rants, and unsurprisingly they all favour his creation theories and negative opinions about the investigation, while they remain uncorrected.'

It's laughable.  How can I correct anything if I'm not informed of what needs to be corrected?   How do we know that any discrepancies or misunderstandings or factual errors that she alleges she has found are not irrelevant or minor errors which have no impact on the overall conclusion?  We don't because she says nothing which can possibly help to resolve her supposed complaint.  

We can see that she also admits to only having read a fraction of my articles from this website (i.e. 'in what little I have read') so that she quite obviously doesn't have the full picture.  To the extent I made any errors of misunderstanding, how does she know that I hadn't corrected myself in future posts?  The fact that she seems to show no interest in this possibility strongly suggests to me that she is writing in bad faith, without any real belief in what she is saying.

She concludes her post by saying:

'I'm not about to correct a single one of them.  If  he believes in careful reading and accuracy of his own work, over and above his personal crusade against the work of others, he can do it himself.'

This is just ridiculous, madness in fact, but frankly is very much in character over the past 20 years of her online postings.  Ask her to do anything and you are told to do it yourself.   And SHE doesn't even need to 'correct' anything, just identify what she thinks is wrong.  If she had at least done that then I could certainly have checked myself and corrected anything that needed to be corrected. But without even knowing where the supposed mistakes are in the hundreds of articles, sub-articles and 'blog' type entries I've written about the Maybrick diary, what she suggests I should be doing is both practically impossible and ludicrous.

Here's what everyone needs to know.  That post by Caroline Morris was just another unjustified and unsupported smear and a blatant attempted character assassination of someone who disagrees with her about the way the diary was created.  It's pure propaganda.  A vague catalogue of alleged errors and alleged misunderstandings without a single example being provided.  I don't like to accuse someone of lying through their teeth but in all the circumstances I simply do not believe her. 

I don't know what articles she's read but I strongly suspect that she knows that I've caught her out on multiple occasions and, rather than putting forward an actual defence like a normal person, or admitting to any of her many mistakes that I've clearly demonstrated she's made, she resorts to unspecified and quite blatantly ludicrous allegations in a panicky attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the readers of JTR Forums in order to distract them from her own failings.

It really is a disgrace and frankly I've never seen anything quite like it. 

Not to put too fine a point on it:

Lord Orsam calls....BULLSHIT. 


On 21 October 2020, on the Casebook forum  (#6181 of the 'Incontrovertible' thread), Caroline Morris, who by this time had, she tells us, been sent my articles by someone  in unsolicited fashion (which, she said, happened in September), took the time out of her busy life to post at some length to say that I had misunderstood her when she had denied waging a PR campaign over the last 20 years because she was responding to something R.J.  Palmer had said not what I had said (even though R.J. Palmer appeared to be repeating what I had written).  I responded to that criticism in the last 'Lord Orsam Says...' in what I thought was an appropriate tone to such a minor point, and, ok, fine, she was quoting R.J. Palmer not me, it's hardly of any importance is it?

What I find absolutely extraordinary is that at least 21 days after she had been supposedly sent my articles, by her own account, in which she claims to have found 'several discrepancies, misunderstandings and factual errors' which were supposed to favour the modern creation theory (and thus must be of some importance), she only referred in her post of 21 October to ONE alleged misunderstanding, about this PR campaign point, which was the most minor misunderstanding imaginable (although she falsely claimed that I was 'foaming at the mouth about it' ). It cannot possibly be said to have been a comment which favoured the creation theory, because it makes no difference to that theory, so that cannot be one of the misunderstandings she is now referring to.

Isn't it amazing that she allegedly found all these issues with my articles in September and yet by 21 October the ONLY point she is able to raise in public to try and catch me out is this silly and irrelevant one about the PR campaign?  

This is why I am convinced she is not telling the truth about having found all these errors in my articles.  Had she done so she would surely have mentioned them - or at least some of them - on 21 October.  For if she was mentioning this single minor one, why would she have not mentioned all the other far more important ones?  It doesn't make any sense, does it?


After I wrote the above entries, Caroline Morris posted in JTR Forums (#509) to confirm that the unsolicited email attaching some of my articles was not sent to her by me and expressed surprise that anyone might have understood her to have been saying this.  At the same time she wrote that the articles had been sent to her by 'well meaning individuals' (albeit well meaning individuals who send her unsolicited attachments).

This does beg the question as to why she used the word 'unsolicited' in the first place.  Such a word clearly conveys the impression of an unwelcome and unwanted communication. 

While I don't think she was deliberately attempting to convey such a message, it all stems from her childish attitude of wanting make clear to the world (and probably to me in particular) that she didn't ASK to be sent any of my articles.  She has no INTEREST in them.  But if a friendly, well meaning, person happens to send them to her, in unsolicited fashion, for her information, she WILL read them, strangely enough, even though she doesn't need to.

Given that it's just as easy to access this website as open one of her emails it's an attitude that makes no sense.  After all, her readers will surely expect her to have read the arguments that she is replying to.

I mean, when she replies to my 'Bunny's Aunt' article by saying that, to her knowledge, there is no evidence to contradict the claim in Ryan and Christie that Margaret Baillie was Florence Maybrick's cousin, surely her readers will expect her to have actually read my articles in order to educate herself as to whether any such a statement is true and accurate.  Her wilful failure to do so can only be regarded as negligent in circumstances where she continues to post on the subject.

She knows that I was the first to mention the Bunny's Aunt mistake, so it is incomprehensible that she is not reading what I have written on the subject.  As far as I'm aware, she hasn't even acknowledged reading my original article let alone my responses to the reactions to it.  

Her post claiming to have found misunderstandings and errors of fact in the unidentified articles that she claimed to have been sent was nothing more than a black propaganda mischief making smear when the truth of the matter is that she found no such misunderstandings and errors of fact.  She simply wants to pretend she did so that she can give the impression that nothing I say is correct.  The truth of the matter is that I have corrected her own misunderstandings and errors of fact time and time again.  She must know this and she doesn't like it.    


You know, in my time I've read a number of ridiculous excuses from people as to why they can easily demolish my arguments if they want to but....they are not going to.

Who can forget the classic from Mike Hawley that he had found a flaw in my argument about the 12 constables but he wasn't going to reveal it because (he alleged) I was planning to publish a book on Tumblety and he didn't want to give me any help, or something?!!!!

But this Caroline Morris one is a beauty isn't it?  She's not going to demolish all my articles because it's MY job to do it!  She's not going to bother defending her claim that the diary is an old forgery (despite having spent most of the last 20 years doing precisely this) even though it will apparently be a very easy matter to demonstrate all my misunderstandings, discrepancies and errors, and her reason for not doing so is because..... er...... because... errrrr....what was that reason again?  I don't want there to be any misunderstanding here, so I quote the only reason she gave in her post: 'he can do it himself'

But if I don't actually do it, then the result is that all these misunderstandings, discrepancies and errors remain uncorrected don't they?   

So that's just a mental excuse!

Come on, none of us are born yesterday.  Everyone must be able to recognize bullshit when they see it. Yet not a single person on JTR Forums calls her on it????!!!!!   


I should just add one more of Caroline Morris' excuses for not identifying my alleged errors. She said at the start of the #447:

'I try to follow the 'never complain never explain' rule when it comes to Lord Orsam's outpourings'.

And what was the very next thing she did in the same post?

That's right, complain at length about my alleged 'invalid arguments' and the 'several discrepancies, misunderstandings and factual errors' in my articles (or at least the few she said she'd read), none of which were identified.

So while, sure, there was ZERO explaining from Caroline Morris there was MUCH complaining. 

Lord Orsam says: If you don't explain, you can't complain.


Caroline Morris has complained and Lord Orsam has listened, as he does to all his readers (even those who have been sent his articles on an unsolicited basis).

He accepts that her reference to a PR campaign wasn't a response to something he had said but to something R.J. Palmer had said (apparently based on something Lord Orsam had said earlier).

He has, therefore, deleted the relevant entry from the relevant 'Lord Orsam Says..' but archived it so that it can still be read by anyone interested.

He notes, however, that this is the only entry he has ever deleted and, thus, the only entry he accepts was inaccurate and he would observe that it was a minor entry entirely unrelated to whether the diary is a modern forgery or not.  Lord Orsam also observes that he can only correct any inaccuracies to the extent that they are drawn to his attention. 

As far as he is concerned, this is the only inaccuracy Caroline Morris has found - which is why she can't stop yapping about it on two forums - and he notes that there are NUMEROUS examples of Lord Orsam having identified errors of understanding and of fact by Caroline Morris, not a single one has been corrected by her.

Lord Orsam is also intrigued by the fact that Caroline Morris never comments on the posts or articles in which he corrects all of HER misunderstandings and errors of fact and, indeed, she never even acknowledges reading articles in which they are pointed out, but on the one occasion when Lord Orsam makes a small slip suddenly, and almost by magic, she HAS read that one, and IS willing to comment on it!!!  Amazing, huh?

As mentioned in his Third Special Statement, Lord Orsam also wishes to observe that Caroline Morris' claim regarding her 'PR Campaign' comment that, 'It became obvious that Lord Orsam had not bothered to read the post I was actually referring to'  (#511) is both false and ridiculous because no such 'post' was identified or referred to in her own post. Here, once more, is the proof: 


As can be seen, she didn't identify in any way who or what she was responding to. She just wrote:

'Afternoon All,

Just a bit of housekeeping here to clear up a few false assumptions and suspicions. 

I have not been waging a relentless 'PR campaign' over the last 20 years, either on my own or with others, with the aim of debunking Mike Barrett's various 'confessions'. I don't need to - he debunked them all by himself....' 

It is her claim that Lord Orsam that had 'not bothered' to read the post which she was referring to which now needs to be retracted.

It can safely be said that no such retraction will be made which shows the difference in standards between Lord Orsam and Caroline Morris. 


If the Clanger's posts in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread are not classic examples of trolling of me, I don't know what are, but the Clanger in #449 writes to Trevor Marriott (who for some bizarre reason expressed himself to be satisfied with Caroline Morris' non-response to my articles):

'Trevor, why do you feel the onus on those being personally insulted to challenge the attacker?  That's feeding the troll'.

The Clanger lets himself down again.

In the first place, Caroline Morris made no claim about being 'personally insulted'.  She claimed that I'd misunderstood what she had said and thus reached a false conclusion (or conclusions).  Sure, in one of her earlier posts she claimed to have been personally attacked by me but she made clear that this wasn't something she had read herself, because she said it was something she had (been told) 'on good authority' so that can't be a reference to the unsolicited articles sent to her that she is now claiming to have personally read (unless she was lying). Secondly, I've already stated what Trevor wants.  He wants to read reasoned and rational responses to articles which are themselves reasoned and rational in order to form his own conclusions. He expects the respondent to any of my articles to concede when I'm right and to challenge, with reasons and evidence, when I'm wrong. That is the ONLY way for any adult discussion about any subject between two opponents to progress.

Of course, at the same time, the Clanger has got himself into a world of intellectual confusion.

One minute he was pestering Trevor to retract his statement that no-one on JTR Forums had challenged Lord Orsam's articles, while pointing out that HE had done so on many occasions (e.g. #413, #4178 and #424) then the very next minute he's saying why should anyone 'feed the troll'.  Well which is it?   Is there research that needs to be (and has in some cases been) responded to or isn't there? Or are my articles just trolling?  Because one thing is for sure:  Caroline Morris, who has now admitted to having read at least some of the articles, certainly hasn't responded to any of them! 


Might I suggest that what has brought this on from Caroline Morris all of a sudden is that she's secretly read my 'Dig in the Archives' and that this exposure has hit the mark and unsettled her so much that she's desperately trying to undermine me in any way she can?

It's certainly interesting that she came out of the woodwork only days after the latest update.

I think I am hitting home rather more than she cares to admit.


It's utterly extraordinary that it took three days for any member of JTR Forums to see through the Clanger's nonsense about Andrew Stevens and point out to him that, er, it's shown in the quote from Lord Orsam reproduced in the blooming OP of the thread he started that Stevens himself testified that he was the rateable owner of 12 Miller's Court.  Of course it was Kattrup who finally did this (in #64); he isn't fooled by smokescreens and looks at the evidence.

The Clanger's bewildering response to Kattrup was to say that Stevens' words in which 'it seems he claimed to be the rateable owner'  ("seems"!!  ha ha!) were nothing more than 'out of context words extracted from Stevens' inquest testimony' (#65).   That was utterly bizarre.   The Clanger hadn't even read Steven's inquest testimony, so he was just guessing (and hoping!), and we've seen from Stevens' actual deposition that this witness stated unambiguously that he was the rateable owner of the property and, indeed, this was the very first substantial piece of evidence he gave at the inquest.  That evidence stands alone and is not out of context. And there is no 'seems' about it.  He most certainly did claim to be the rateable owner, no doubt because that's what he was.  There was just no reason for him to lie about it.

Attempting to bamboozle Kattrup, the Clanger said in #65 that records show McCarthy to have been 'the owner of the properties' either side of 1909 which masks the fact that he has no information as to who was the rateable owner of those properties in 1909.  I've made no claims about who the rateable owner of 12 Miller's Court was in 1908 nor in 1910.  I'm not even making any claims about the whole of the year.  But the fact is that Stevens was Kitty Roman's landlord between May and July 1909.  That's all I know because that's what is in the evidence.  It is undeniable and indisputable. And it's all I've ever needed to know because that was the issue at hand: Seanr had claimed that McCarthy was the landlord of both Kelly and Roman.  I didn't need to do any further research into the matter or into the life of Andrew Stevens before or after 1909 as the Clanger madly seems to think.  There is just no reason not to believe his clear evidence.

The Clanger's unwarranted scepticism is not evidence in this case!  The Clanger was sceptical about Kate's rent being five shillings a week but, frankly, he hasn't got a clue. 

Members of JTR Forums should not be fooled by the Clanger however much he tries to bully and hypnotize you into thinking he knows everything.  He is usually winging it.


The above entries were all written in chronological order following the last 'Lord Orsam Says...' and it was at this point in the chronology that I stepped into the fray on JTR Forums with my three special statements.  The First Special Statement was in response to the Clanger, who was having trouble finding the Kate Roman inquest transcripts, asking expressly for my help (although, as I explained in my Second Special Statement, he didn't seem too grateful when he received it).

My statements render some of what I'd already written redundant but I'm keeping it unchanged. 

The short point on the Andrew Stevens issue is that the Clanger hasn't provided a single piece of documentary evidence or reason to think that Stevens wasn't the rateable owner of 12 Miller's Court between May and July 1909 and thus the landlord of that property.   It was all post after post of hot air, with him simply not liking the fact that, once again, I've disclosed some brand new information.  He didn't like it so he nitpicked it down to the nth degree. And then after all the anger and the nitpicking we ended up back where we started namely that Andrew Stevens, not John McCarthy, was Kitty Roman's landlord in 1909!


To my utter astonishment the Clanger (not having read all my previous responses on the subject) has resurrected his lunatic horsey point as if it has any kind of substance.

He seems to think that it is plausible for him to say that a 'one off horse' might have ever had the meaning of an immature horse.

Now, frankly, I don't need even to be discussing this because we all know that a 'one off instance' is a unique instance in the English language, not an immature instance.  So it's really as moot as anything can be.

But I return to the subject once more because in response to me having said ages ago that 'it's not true that the term 'one off' was ever used in equestrian circles to describe 'an immature horse', the Clanger now asks on JTR Forums (#474 of the 'Lord Orsam Blog' thread) 'How can he know that?'

Well the reason I know it is because there is a book (as mentioned by Kattrup on JTR Forums) entitled 'The Horse's Mouth' by Edward Mathew which explains what 'one off' means in this context and it is no more than a way of denoting the age of a horse. Thus:

'When a colt is two off, that is two years and three months old, the milk teeth are all retained...' 

Before we even get to 'one off instance', what the Clanger needs to have demonstrated is that when people were talking about 'one off' horses they weren't referring to the age of that horse, they were actually meaning to speak of an immature horse (of whatever age).

In other words, for his argument to have ANY basis in reality, people needed to start forgetting that a 'one off horse' meant a horse of a specific age and began to replace that expression in their mind with one denoting an immature horse.

THEN they needed to start talking about stuff OTHER than a horse to be immature when described as 'one off'.  So they would have had to have been saying things like "That person is really one off" or "That person is a real one off" to mean a really immature person.

Now, none of this happened.  We know it didn't happen.  It's no good fantasizing that it might have happened because then you are just inventing a new element to the English language.  It's an argument based on no evidence whatsoever.

On the other hand, we know very well what a 'one off' horse was.  It was a horse of a certain age.  Just like a 'two off' horse and a 'three off' horse.  There is no reason to think that a 'one off' horse was regarded any differently to a 'two off' horse in any way other than it was a younger age.  That's all. 

So what I'm saying, and I hope clearly, and I hope for the very last time, is that there was no meaning of 'immature' which has ever been associated with 'one off' in the equestrian world. It's no good the Clanger asking me to prove this fact.  The burden is on him by having created this novel argument, which has never been suggested before by anyone in the world, to demonstrate that even a single person in the world in ANY context ever took 'one off' to denote something immature.

And here I suppose he could say to me: How do you know it's never been suggested before by anyone in the world?

Well, of course, that particular line of argument is just absurd.  What I mean by saying that it's never been suggested before is that I'm not aware of such a thing and simply from having been alive for more than 50 years am very confident that I'm saying something which is correct.

There is pedantry and then there is taking an already ridiculous argument to extremes.

We know perfectly well what 'one off instance' means.  We know that it originated from expressions like 'one off job' referring to a unique manufactured item (which itself was derived from earlier usage of 'one off' to mean a simple number) so that the expression 'one off' came to be associated with uniqueness and it evolved so that other things, and people, were referred to as 'one offs'.  That's how language works and that's precisely what did NOT happen with the horsey 'one off' because no-one ever used it to describe something - EVEN A HORSE - as immature.

I really hope that's clear and the madness of the Clanger's argument is clearly seen by the fact that in the alternative he's ALSO argued that it might have been an indisciplined horse!!!  But just like with 'immature', 'one off' has never been used in equestrian circles to describe 'an indisciplined horse' either.  It's exactly the same argument but thrown into even sharper relief by the fact that we've got two words, both of which were invented to be a possible meaning of 'one off' by the Clanger with literally no evidence.

When you have no evidence, and no good reason, you are simply writing fiction.  

No-one should have any hesitation in referring to this phoney 'theory' as horseshit crazy.  Anything else is just being kind to the Clanger and there is no place for kindness when it comes to issues of this nature.

Finally, I just want to confirm that I do not call the Clanger's horsey 'theory': madness, bonkers and horseshit crazy because 'it threatens to undermine the unequivocalness' of my 'main claim to fame' (as laughably suggested in #486 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread).  Leaving aside that I have many claims to fame, the Clanger must really be on one hell of an illegal substance if he thinks I regard his horsey 'one off' musings as even coming close to threatening to undermine anything I've ever written.  I don't. IN. ANY. WAY. I happen to regard his 'theory' (can one even call it that?) as a complete joke that no-one in their right mind would give any credence to.  The reason I describe it as madness, bonkers and horseshit crazy is because I believe that any rational and reasonable person who is familiar with the English language will inevitably agree with me that it need not be given a moment's consideration. 


Allow me to provide one more example of why the Clanger's theory, and his approach to it, is so insane.

If we looked hard enough we might well find references somewhere to one year old horses as 'frisky'.  And, indeed, that word (along with 'playful') was one that was offered up by the Clanger himself (#20 of the 'two-off' thread). It doesn't matter if it's true or not that anyone did ever describe one year old horses as frisky, I'm just using the word 'frisky' for the sake of hypothetical example to try and make a point.

Now, even if you could show that lots and lots of people in the equestrian world thought of a one year old horse as frisky, would that automatically mean that when someone referred to a 'one off horse' they would think "Ah, frisky horse" so that 'one off" came to mean "frisky"?

The answer is NO.  Of course not.   Sure, it's POSSIBLE that this could have happened, just like all the other words that he's thrown out: 'immature', 'indisciplined', 'coltish', 'naughty' etc. COULD possibly have become associated with 'one off', but the question is did they?  Is there a single scrap of evidence that this happened?  The answer is, therefore, no.  And we know from the books that 'one off' in this context only ever related to the age of the horse.  It did not pick up any other meaning, despite the fact that a one year old horse (or thereabouts) could in theory be associated with all sorts of words.

There isn't even any evidence that a one year old horse is associated with a particular word.  Just because someone might at one time have described a one year old horse as immature or frisky or indisciplined doesn't by itself mean that such a word was automatically and generally associated with a horse of that age.  So there's a fundamental problem for the theory right there and we haven't even got to the 'one off' part of the equation.

The Clanger seems to think that if you can just show that a certain word was used to describe a young horse, this somehow translates to that same word becoming synonymous with a 'one off' horse which is so clearly flawed thinking.  It's totally outrageous in fact.

I believe that my suggestion that a one year old horse could have been a frisky horse demonstrates the absurdity of this entire line of thinking.

Could Maybrick have intended to say that hitting his wife was a frisky instance?  Sure, if you are totally insane.  But it's theoretically possible.  Just like saying it was an immature instance.  While immature may fit slightly better, it is still way, way off from what Maybrick was obviously saying when he wrote that hitting his wife was one off instance which he regretted and would never happen again.

I hope this is the last time I have to write about this horsey nonsense.  It is quite the daftest argument ever invented to which no sane or rational person should even be thinking that it might have a chance of possibly being even close to being near to being adjacent to being even a fraction of a percentage of a chance of being correct. 


A shame that Caroline Morris hasn't read my book 'New Romantics Who Never Were: The Untold Story of Spandau Ballet' available from all good booksellers because, if she had, she wouldn't have referred in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread (#488) to Lord Orsam's 'fetish...with Tony Hadley'.  I guess she simply assumes that because I like Spandau Ballet I must have a 'fetish' for the band's lead singer but, as it happens, I'm rather critical of Hadley in the book.  And, while I certainly liked Hadley's vocal style in the 80s, I always had more respect and admiration for the band's songwriter because that's where I felt all the talent was.

I will also say that Steven Norman is a really nice guy.  As many probably know from the famous Tumblety thread (sic), he recorded some amazing saxophone solos on a couple of my tracks, one of which can be found here:

A Night Like This

And the other can be found here:


Click the play button for sound on each occasion. 


Caroline Morris is never one to miss an opportunity for a gratuitous smear post, especially against someone who writes in defence of Lord Orsam.

Abby Normal posted on JTR Forums (#452) quite correctly in my view:

'he was a perfect gentleman until people started attacking him instead of debating the substance of his arguments, and backstabbing him and personally insulting him. but I guess some people don't like it when theyre mistakes are pointed out to them or lose the debate. he gives what he gets, and hes gotten alot since he jumped into the fray'.

The Smear Mistress, despite herself not being mentioned by Abby, lost no time in digging right down to the bottom of the barrel in #487 for her latest smear which is that she had noticed ON ANOTHER FORUM that two recent posts of Abby's had been 'deleted because they contained personal attacks on a fellow poster, and your name no longer appears to be on the members list there'.

It's a completely unnecessary smear post dealing with a matter relating to a decision by the administrator of Casebook even though Howard Brown has been very clear that members of JTR Forums should not be discussing what happens on Casebook, especially in respect of policy decisions taken by the Admin or moderators on that site.

What if Abby wanted to write back to explain what had happened on Casebook and disagrees with the decision of the moderator of that Forum? See how that opens up a whole can of worms.

I know from personal experience that this is how the Smear Mistress operates because she did it to me on Casebook; eager to parrot the lie from Admin that I was banned from the Forum, she made a number of enthusiastic posts claiming that I'd been banned, and I'm not sure to this day she knows the truth is that I resigned, because she claims not to read the articles here.

Hey, maybe her mysterious informant will let her know that I resigned from Casebook and she won't be able to repeat that particular smear in the future! 


The Clanger is a real piece of work.  Obviously still fretting that I've proved the diary to be a fake due to the inaccurate use of 'aunt' by the forger, and unable to face up to reality, he's bothered to locate and post an extract from an 1891 story in which a woman refers to a family friend who has always been thought of as Aunt Elinour, something which he's posted, he says, to show that the Victorians had 'a relaxed attitude to the use of 'aunt'. (#517 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread).

I really don't know what the Clanger thinks he has achieved. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that there is no dispute that a close female friend can be referred to as an aunt (or could have been during the Victorian period).  In none of my previous responses on this subject have I ever disputed that.  I have always known it, as I assume everyone else does.

But the Clanger seems to have a relaxed attitude to the evidence in this case.

What we know as a fact is that when James and Florence told Dr Hopper the purpose of Florence's visit to London they did NOT say that she had been to visit her aunt.  They specifically told him that she had been to London to visit her godmother.

That being so, it is patently obvious that the Countess de Gabriac was not in the same situation as the woman in the Clanger's fictional story and that Maybrick knew that the countess was not Florence's aunt but her godmother. 

In his typical clanging style I don't believe that the Clanger has ever acknowledged or admitted this.   Yet, it's the central point of my claim that the Bunny's Aunt issue proves that the diary is a fake.

Women in certain families being loosely referred to as an aunt has absolutely nothing to do with this case and the specific facts of this case. 

Maybrick would not have written that a women he knew to be Florence's godmother was his aunt.  We know full well why the diary refers to a 'sick aunt' and how the forger made a mistake in this case.  It was because a barrister misunderstood the evidence and made a mistake, thus deceiving all later writers on the subject, including the forger.  It's as plain as the nose on the Clanger's face. 


The Clanger, in denial that 'Bunny's Aunt' proves the diary to be a mistake, then says 'Ditto one-off' (#519).  Until someone writes a coherent and sane explanation as to how a diarist in 1888 could possibly have written the expression 'one off instance' (one that doesn't involve horses, thank you very much), we can take it that the existence of 'one off instance' in the diary most certainly IS 'a standalone knockout blow for the diary'.  However much the Clanger doesn't like it, it was truly impossible for anyone to have written the expression 'one off instance' in that year for the reasons I have explained at length elsewhere.  That expression simply did not exist.  This has NEVER been controverted and never will be.

It's the knockout blow of knockout blows because it is such a knockout that, on its own, it kills the diary stone dead. We don't even need 'Bunny's Aunt' but that does it too, as does 'bumbling buffoon', the breasts on the table and the missing key that wasn't missing.


Having typed the above, I found the very next day that in #522 the Clanger madly posted ELEVEN examples which, for some unknown reason, he'd bothered to dig up of women who weren't aunts being referred to as aunts from the nineteenth century.  Why?

None of them even involved a godmother, so right there that was a total FAIL.

But once again I repeat that he has completely misunderstood the argument which is that on the facts of the Maybrick case we know that the Maybricks did NOT refer to the Countess de Gabriac as Florence's aunt.  Had they done so it's what they would have told Dr Hopper.

That the Clanger has indeed misunderstood is evident from his #553 when he says:

'Perhaps Florrie was out of step with English norms. If not, it seems highly likely that she thought of her godmother as her ‘aunt’ and referring to her as such would not have been an error. So when Lord Orsam says, Florence never claimed to be going to London to see her aunt. She claimed to be going to London to see her godmother, Countess de Gabriac. it’s just a guess based on nothing other than his desire for it to have been so.' 

I'm going to leave aside the implied claim that it was NORMAL to describe a godmother as an aunt in the Victorian period (something which the Clanger hasn't even begun to support) and the nonsensical statement that it is 'highly likely' that Florence thought of her godmother as her aunt which I simply cannot understand and find it remarkable that he feels he can make such an absurd claim (presumably based on the illogical assumption that if some people called female family friends 'aunts' EVERYONE was doing it!!!).  What I want to focus on is his claim that I am guessing that Florence claimed to be going to London to see her godmother, which he says, is 'just a guess based on nothing more than his desire for it to have been true', a false statement which clearly demonstrates that he has 100% failed to understand my argument.

As everyone else will know, the evidence in the case is that Dr Hopper said that he had been personally told by both Florence and James that she had been to London to see her godmother.  So how the Clanger can describe my statement as 'just a guess' is beyond me although he has history of ignoring evidence (c.f. Andrew Stevens).

I have also drawn attention to what I believe is an obvious mishearing of the evidence of Alice Yapp who was reported as saying at trial that she was told that Florence was going to London to visit her 'mother'.  In light of what we know from Dr Hopper, this simply must be a reference of Florence telling her that she was going to visit her godmother which was either misheard by reporters in court or by Alice Yapp in the first instance.  So, to my mind, that is two pieces of evidence that Florence referred to the countess as her godmother, NOT her aunt.

In any event, it is entirely irrelevant what Florence called the Countess because James would have known the true relationship between the two women and would, therefore, not have wrongly written that she was her aunt in his diary when he knew that she was her godmother. 


There was a classic sleight of hand moment on JTR Forums during the Clanger's exchange with Chris Phillips.

Asked in (#523) to set aside the concept of absolute proof and to state whether he thinks there is any reasonable doubt that the reference to the aunt in the diary is derived from what John Addison said at trial, the Clanger refused to answer the question.

Instead, here is what he said in response (#524): 

'But we are not talking about absolute proof, we are talking about evidence so compelling that you have to be 'batshit crazy' to question it.  That's how Lord Orsam presents his case'.

There are no less than THREE sleights of hand in that short statement.


The Clanger was asked about 'reasonable doubt' and expressly requested to set aside absolute proof but he responded by mentioning 'absolute proof'.  Perhaps it was a mistake and he meant to say 'we are not talking about reasonable doubt' - and this is the Clanger after all so a mistake is quite possible - but in the context of this magic trick it seems to me to have been a deliberate way to avoid mentioning 'reasonable doubt'.


When I referred to 'batshit crazy', I wasn't discussing the responses to Bunny's Aunt, I was talking about a specific (horsey) theory produced by the Clanger in response to my claim that 'one off instance' proves the diary to be fake. So that quote has no place in any discussion about Bunny's Aunt.

As a result, when the Clanger asked Chris Phillips:

'Please can you set aside everything you know about the Diary and state whether you think the idea that Florence Maybrick's family might have referred to her godmother as her aunt is 'batshit crazy' .

he was carrying out a deception.  That's never been said. 

Having searched all seven of my articles responding to the responses to 'Bunny's Aunt', I find that I used the word 'crazy' only once and this was in relation to the theory that the diary might have been created before Florence's trial.

What I said about the idea that Florence's family might have referred to her godmother as her aunt is that it's contrary to the facts of the case because we know for a fact that James and Florence both referred to her godmother as her godmother (unsurprsingly!)

It's the old bait and switch!  An attempt to convince Chris Phillips that I had described the Clanger's arguments about Bunny's Aunt as 'batshit crazy' when I had done no such thing, yet Chris was being invited to criticize me on a wholly false basis.


Even if we were discussing 'one off instance', I have NEVER said that you have to be 'batshit crazy' to question my argument that this expression could not have been written in 1888.  What I have said is that you have to be batshit crazy (and, indeed, horseshit crazy) to think that 'one off instance' meant something other than a unique instance.  It's even more batshit crazy to then take 'one off' in respect of horses which has NEVER meant anything other than the age of a horse and then attribute - or rather INVENT - a new meaning to that term (with ZERO evidence) and THEN go on to say that the meaning you have invented for this term in 2020 might have been what the diarist meant to say in 1888 when that new meaning you have invented has nothing to do with uniqueness.

So it's completely untrue to say that Lord Orsam presents his case as being that anyone who questions it is batshit crazy.

But if you put forward a batshit crazy argument in response then it must be called out as such.

In the same way, Iconoclast's theory (which even he admits is a 'half joke') that the diarist was writing about an 'off instance' is equally batshit crazy because, just like 'one off instance' to mean an immature instance, 'off instance' equally doesn't exist in the English language.

The only difference between Iconoclast and the Clanger is that at least Iconoclast admits to a joke element to his theory while the Clanger, astonishingly, seems to present it as a serious one. 

Perhaps he will one day reveal it was a huge joke and he was having us all on but, until then, both his credibility and his sanity MUST be called into question by seriously putting forward the 'immature instance' nonsense.  His mind must have been flipped by his hatred of all things Orsam.


After the three sleights of hand from the first sentence, there was one more sleight of hand in the Clanger's post, right at the end when he writes: 

'As for the question you've asked me - from the little I've read about it I think the Diary probably is a modern fake. And from the little I know of Bongo, I have no problem with his idea of his being its author.  In which case the 'aunt' error in modern books can only really have come from Addison'.

Tut tut, naughty, naughty Clanger!  He wasn't being asked if the 'aunt' error in modern books can only really have come from Addison.  The question was about the reference to the 'aunt' in the diary and whether the 'aunt' error in the diary can only have come from Addison. The Clanger tries to make it look like he's answered that question but he hasn't.

Perhaps he couldn't bring himself to the take the final step and say the words out loud in case they stuck in his throat.

Let's see.

1. He thinks the diary is probably a modern fake (quite possibly authored by Mike Barrett).

2. He thinks the 'aunt' error in modern books came from Addison.

So now it's just one teeny weeny step to actually answering the question he was asked by saying that, as the forger was probably using modern books, the 'aunt' error in the diary (and hallelujah he's admitted it was an error!!!) must have come from Addison.

So, after all that, the Clanger agrees with me.

What's the problem again? 

Oh the problem, according to the Clanger, is that Lord Orsam calls people who disagree with him about this 'batshit crazy' except that he doesn't and that was a lie.

So, once again, what's the problem?  


The Clanger's grasp of economics is about as good as his grasp on reality.

After apparently finally conceding that the rental prices for the properties in Miller's Court in 1909 were 5 or 6 shillings per week depending on the room, having initially, and quite irrationally, in the face of the evidence of a witness actually living in 1909, attempted to deny it, the Clanger asked in #496 if Lord Orsam has explained:

'how he [Stevens], a mere labourer a few years before and subsequently a lowly employee of his brother-in-law had managed to accumulate sufficient wealth to become a substantial property owner - of at least 12 letting properties generating 5/6s a week in rental income.'

A schoolchild could have worked this one out.

If Stevens was obliged under the terms of his agreement with McCarthy to pay McCarthy 4 shillings a week for the 5 shilling rooms and 5 shillings a week for the 6 shilling rooms, that would have made him a grand total of 12 shillings a week in profit from renting out the 12 rooms in Miller's Court, probably about the same as Kitty Roman would have made in a good week!

Now, I have no idea what the actual arrangement between Stevens and McCarthy was but that's one entirely obvious possibility. 

Although the Clanger claimed to understand the difference between a property owner and the rateable owner of the property, he sure doesn't seem to demonstrate that understanding when he describes a rateable owner as'a substantial property owner'.  That's not how it works. 

But I call it clangernomics. 


Hey, the Clanger wrote that my discovery about Stevens being the rateable owner of the Miller's Court properties was 'of some interest'.  Yay!!! *celebration*

But, at the same time, he seems to think I should have written about it in small print in a footnote, or something.  Coz here's what he said in full in the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread (#494):

'The statement by Stevens, the man apparently receiving the majority of his income from rental income yet who described himself as a lodging house deputy is of some interest, but worthy of an article?'

The Clanger must be hallucinating.  Either that or he has an overactive clangergination.

I didn't write an article on the subject of Stevens!  No such article exists or ever has existed.  I wrote a short entry in an edition of 'Lord Orsam Says...'.   As previously mentioned, I think it was the 42nd entry down the page.  In what world can that possibly be described as an article?

A reminder of what actually happened.  Someone said on the Censorship Forum that McCarthy was Kitty Roman's landlord in 1909, I responded briefly to say that in fact it wasn't McCarthy it was Andrew Stevens.  That was it.  As the Clanger now finally admits, it was 'of some interest'

The irony and total hypocrisy of the situation is that it was the Clanger who thought that the topic was of so much interest that he started a brand new thread entitled 'Andrew Stevens' and went on a frenzy of posting about the guy!!!!

That was when he was on one of his mad missions to try and show I'd made a mistake, but it all just went horribly wrong for him (as usual) not least because, once again, he was discussing something for which he hadn't seen the evidence.

As for Andrew Stevens, sure, a person of interest but worthy of a entire thread?



Let's just go back to the Clanger and Bunny's Aunt for the moment.

In #499, after claiming I'd been tantalizing him 'for weeks' with the promise of 'a death blow for the authenticity of the diary' - not true in two respects (1) because I made clear in the special announcement that I'd already dealt the diary a death blow from the use of 'one off instance' and (2) because no-one noticed the announcement until The Baron posted about it on Casebook meaning the wait was a period of a mere twelve days, from 19 July to 1 August  - the Clanger wrote:

'It was immediately pointed out to him that there was a long-standing use of the word aunt to describe unrelated female family friends, older family cousins etc.'

Now, I fully remember this supposed 'pointing out' to me of something of which I was already aware. The point was made about 15 minutes after I'd uploaded the article by the Clanger who doesn't appear to have read it properly.

In the article, it was made clear (one could say pointed  out to the Clanger) that both Maybricks had described the Countess de Gabriac as Florence's godmother to Dr Hopper and, that being so, Maybrick wouldn't have made such an error as to describe her in his diary as Florence's aunt, knowing full well that he was her godmother.

The fact that, within some families, some people - usually children - might inaccurately use the word 'aunt' to describe a female family friend (something known by the adults in the family not to be true) is neither here nor there, and is wholly irrelevant to my article, because that's not the case with the Countess de Gabriac who was correctly described (by the Maybricks) by her proper title of 'godmother'.

In my view, the Clanger just read the article too quickly and, as usual, due to his personal grudge against me, and his tunnel clangervision, came to a rash conclusion which, astonishingly, he still repeats in every single post on the subject while ignoring entirely the evidence of Dr Hopper which I don't think I've seen him mention once, nor have I seen him refer to any of my responses to his own response. 


Howard had to step into the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread twice.  On the first occasion (#463) he stated (underlining added):

'From this point on, please either debate the points Lord Orsam makes or doesn't make or let others  do it without the egging on in one corner and retaliation in the other'.

Having been ignored the first time round, Howard had to repeat in #485 (underlining added:

'Please stick to a discussion of his points without the animosity'. 

Pretty clear huh?  Just discuss the points Lord Orsam has been making.

What happened next?

Well in #494 the Clanger wrote:

'The thought of him tapping away, for hours,  steam issuing from his ears, every time someone has the temerity to doff their cap to him is amusing'.

I'm not seeing a discussion of my points in that sentence.

Then we had Caroline Morris in #497 (who had earlier, in #489) apologised to Howard for not having seen his rulings, posting:

'Poor old Lord Orsam, never having had the 'pleasure' of writing a thank-you letter to an aunt who wasn't an aunt, for the crisp ten shilling note enclosed in his birthday cards. I expect mummy gave him plenty of jelly and ice cream and cuddles to make up for it - but not too much. I've just been reading a book about Fred Shipman, whose mother worshipped him, but left him early for the next world. According to several professional psychologists, this robbed him of the emotional maturity needed as an adult and probably contributed to his God complex and obsessive need for respect. He had to believe he was intellectually superior to everyone around him, and needed all his patients to worship him like his mummy had.'

Never having written about Fred Shipman, it's hard to see a response in that part of the above to any of my points nor can I see how the question of whether my mother gave me plenty of jelly and ice cream and cuddles relates to any of my points.

The part about the 'thank you note' to an aunt could, at a stretch, be said to relate indirectly to one of my points, albeit based on a complete misunderstanding of an article of mine which she claims never to have read.

Then in #499 from the Clanger (as already quoted):

'I seem to remember Lord Orsam tantalizing us for weeks with the promise of a death blow for the authenticity of the diary before pointing out his aunt 'mistake'.

This doesn't relate to any of my points and isn't even true.  The death blow had already been dealt to the diary by 'one off instance'.  As I noted in the special announcement, this was a second mistake by the diarist that I'd discovered which proved the diary to be a fake. And if the Clanger was 'tantalized' by my announcement that I'd shortly be posting an article relating to a fake diary that I'd already proved to be a fake there's nothing much I can do about it.

Then in #506 we had an invitation to another poster to criticize me for my choice of language (nothing to do with my points):

'so far you haven’t criticised a single droplet of Orsam’s word vomit (his description of another researcher’s reasoned arguments). '

As I noted in my Third Special Statement, my description of the nonsensical and abusive claim by Caroline Morris that you can really tell a man by his supporters (after Trevor Marriott had been vaguely supportive of something I'd said) as 'childish word vomit' was NOT a description of another researcher's reasoned arguments, so that was not only an example of the Clanger concentrating on something that was not one of my points but something that was a downright lie. Furthermore, having complained about my use of the expression 'word vomit' we can see that he was there, hypocritically, describing MY reasoned arguments as 'word vomit'.  In other words, he is literally there doing the very thing which he had falsely criticized me for doing!!!!! All while disobeying Howard Brown's clear ruling.  It doesn't get much worse than that.

Then in #508:

'Lord Orsam seems to believe that the fact that people don’t respond to his multi-word responses is that he has proved them wrong and won the argument. It isn’t, it’s because most people don’t have the time or the desperate need to have the last word (or thousands of words) that he clearly has.'  

A claim that Lord Orsam has 'a desperate need' for anything is not a focus on Lord Orsam's points.  You either respond or you don't, as I understood Howard's ruling. So there's another breach right there.

The lack of respect for Howard's clear rulings is astonishing.


Regarding the claim (as cited above): 

'Lord Orsam seems to believe that the fact that people don’t respond to his multi-word responses is that he has proved them wrong and won the argument'.

Just to clarify.  Lord Orsam does not think that, but, equally, Lord Orsam is not an idiot.  When he sees someone ranting and raving AT LENGTH in response to one of his articles or blog entries and then sees that same person go completely silent after Lord Orsam has responded (in circumstances where Lord Orsam knows that he has made a good and comprehensive response, and where that same person seems to read everything Lord Orsam writes) he does, funnily enough, quite often become suspicious about that silence.  He becomes even more suspicious when that person who at first seemed so interested in the subject suddenly loses interest and claims not even to have read Lord Orsam's response at all (even though he seems to read everything else Lord Orsam writes) and gives an obviously bullshit reason for not doing so.

Pausing there, Lord Orsam recalls that the Clanger once claimed not to have read the entirety of one of Lord Orsam's response articles because there was a typo in one of the early paragraphs which gave the appearance of a grammatical error and the Clanger claimed that he could not, therefore, continue to read that particular article!  Laughable or what?  If he's not doing that, he's claiming as an excuse that the articles are too long for him to read (I mean, seriously, what kind of researcher says such a thing?).

Then Lord Orsam becomes even more suspicious when the same individual, having written at length, in many posts, about one of Lord Orsam's articles, and then having gone very quiet following Lord Orsam's response, later RETURNS to the subject but doesn't acknowledge a single thing that Lord Orsam has said in his response to the original response but does no more than repeat all the original points which Lord Orsam has already answered and dismissed.  Lord Orsam appreciates that you don't need to agree with him but you do need to at least acknowledge what Lord Orsam has said if you want to disagree with him.

Above all, though, Lord Orsam knows when he has made a good point and he knows, when reading responses to his articles, if someone is ignoring that good point, not even acknowledging its existence but continuing to repeat a point that has already been answered and dealt with.  He must say that this is something the Clanger does time and time again to the extent that his comprehension skills must be called into question. 

The Clanger seems to have only one narrative and one aim.  LORD ORSAM IS WRONG AND I'M DAMN WELL GOING TO PROVE IT!!!   In that, the Clanger time and time again refuses to acknowledge what Lord Orsam is saying.  It's happened too many times for it to be accidental.  

Lord Orsam concludes that the Clanger is repeatedly arguing in bad faith.  The equine horsey instance argument is clearly being made in bad faith. No-one in their right mind could seriously give it a moment's consideration.  The claim (made in #503) that Lord Orsam either missed or concealed the 'x off'  point is clearly being made in bad faith.   The refusal to acknowledge the evidence of Dr Hopper is being done in bad faith. The failure to accept the evidence of Andrew Stevens can only be in bad faith.  The continued misrepresentations of what Lord Orsam has said, without any basic checking being done, and the twisting of Lord Orsam's words, is all in bad faith, driven by some sort of incredible personal animus against Lord Orsam which Lord Orsam doesn't understand, although it has been ongoing for years.

At the end of the day, Lord Orsam knows that the Clanger is only making a fool of himself and rapidly losing what little credibility he has left. 

But, having said all that, it does wonders for the ratings of this site  - I get the feeling that, for some people, it's their favourite part of Orsam Day! - so Mr Clanger do feel free to continue to knock yourself out. 


From what I'm reading of the Clanger's posts, it all seems to boil down to my use of language. He doesn't necessarily disagree with what I'm saying, just the choice of language. Can that really be right?

The person who, unprovoked, called me an 'insulting little twerp' and a 'fruit loop', now has issues with language????????

I mean, if I had said his theory about the immature instance was 'wrong' instead of 'horseshit crazy' would that have kept him happy? 

I mean, I do genuinely happen to think it was horseshit crazy which is why I used that expression and I believe it to be perfectly justified but why does he, the man who loves to throw out abuse, get so upset about invective?

The thing about his beef with 'childish word vomit' is no more than amusing.  He just wants to use that kind of stuff as propaganda against me.  Oh how terrible, Lord Orsam used the expression 'childish word vomit', HE NEEDS TO BE PUBLICLY CONDEMNED!!!  I wouldn't mind but when he builds it up in his warped memory as something I was supposed to have said in response to reasoned arguments by a researcher, and then makes this false claim in public, it just shows how desperate he is to try and smear me.

We know the Clanger is not a sensitive flower.  He is a bully.  That is clear.  Funnily enough I've called him a 'bully' many times and he's never, to my recollection, picked up on that particular word.  Is it because he knows it's true? 


After, in #535, posting the most irrelevant Ngram that I can think of for 'adopted aunt' (why?) as his last word on the subject, his real last word then becomes a question (#536):

'Why didn’t Lord Orsam tell us that it was extremely common for non-related female family connections, particularly those who might be expected to leave a few quid in their will to an attentive nephew or niece, to be given the  honorary title of ‘aunt’?' 

The answer will be known to anyone who has actually read my responses on the subject (unlike, it seems, the Clanger).  It is entirely, entirely, entirely irrelevant.

I appreciate that the Clanger seems to think it is relevant because he doesn't stop going on about it but it is of no relevance in circumstances where both the Maybricks expressly told Dr Hopper that the Countess de Gabriac was her godmother.

As James Maybick knew that the Countess was her godmother, he would not have made the mistake of describing her as an aunt in his diary (as John Addison did in court). 

I thought I had made that perfectly clear in my original article and then in my responses to the responses.  The Clanger seems to think it is for ME to anticipate all irrelevant and absurd responses to my articles and then deal with them before they have even been made.

Hence he continues, despite the fact that I've explained it to him no fewer than THREE times, to ask me why I didn't refer in my 'one off' article to the irrelevant horse definition of 'one off' (although, amusingly, he writes 'It's two-off all over again' thus answering his own question as to why it has nothing to do with 'one-off'!).  My article on 'one off' was quite long as it was and did not need to be any longer with a discussion about an irrelevant topic. I made clear in my article that I was discussing the evolutionary path of 'one off' to the extent that this expression referred to something unique (and that I would be ignoring any other combinations of those two words where uniqueness was not involved).  Does the Clanger, or anyone, think I should or could have anticipated that a LUNATIC would one day in the future develop a theory that instead of writing that he wouldn't be hitting his wife again, because it was a one-time act on his part, as per the English language, the diarist was writing that it was an immature or coltish or naughty or indisciplined (or whatever) act on his part?  How could it ever even have occurred to me - a SANE person - that someone in 2020 would invent on the basis of precisely no evidence a brand new meaning (or multiple meanings) for a 'one off filly', in circumstances where you have a 'two off filly' a 'three off filly' etc., whereby each of those expressions refer to nothing other than the age of a horse, and which in 1888 only meant an age of a horse, and that this person would then quite madly apply that to the diary?  These questions, frankly, answer themselves.

And I now expect the Clanger to ignore everything I've written and to one day repeat his horseshit crazy allegation that I either 'missed' or 'concealed' (ha ha ha!) his 100% mental horsey rubbish.

[Note that after I wrote this entry, post #535 about the Ngrams was deleted and all the post numbers changed after Howard deleted a number of the Clanger's abusive posts.  In the process #536 appears to have been deleted too.  I'm baffled as to why this is so. The Ngrams post was not to my recollection one of the abusive ones and if #536 was abusive then it's nevertheless obvious from my quote from this post that things have been deleted which should not have been deleted.]


If the Clanger thinks there is a purpose in putting forward irrelevant newspaper articles, allow me to do the same.

From the South Wales Daily News of 23 May 1889:

'Battlecrease House, Riversdale-road, Grassendale, the residence of the deceased gentleman, is closed, all the servants having left, and it will not be re-opened until the charge against Mrs Maybrick is disposed of. Her two young children have been removed to the house of their god-mother, Mrs Jannion, living at Gateacre'.

Perhaps the Clanger would care to explain why the report referred to Mrs Jannion as the childrens' 'god-mother' instead of their aunt (as was supposedly 'the norm') even though it must have been, according to the Clanger, 'highly likely' that the children referred to Mrs Jannion as their aunt (lol!).

I've never mentioned this article before because it's basically irrelevant to anything I've written but, like I say, if the Clanger wants to trade irrelevant newspaper articles I'm happy to do so! 


Just to follow up on this (and btw the correct spelling, I believe, is 'Janion'), say I wrote a book about the Maybrick case and wrote:

'In May 1889, the Maybrick children were taken to live with their Aunt Janion'.

Would that be a factually correct statement?

I say, clearly not.  In fact, it would be totally false.

I know, dear reader, that you think so too. 

Presumably, however, on the basis of his posts, the Clanger would say it IS accurate, that godmother is synonymous with aunt.  But that is precisely why he is known as the Clanger. 


Caroline Morris seems to like creating imaginary relatives for Florence Maybrick.

Having noticed (from a reproduction of my first statement) that I'd said that her claim that Florence and Margaret Baillie were distant cousins was false, she nevertheless still thinks it was true on the basis that both Ryan and Christie had said so, even though both authors were wrong.  

I've already put up the evidence that the two women were no more than friends, having met on the continent, but Caroline Morris doesn't seem to be aware of this hence, after saying (#497), 'It wasn't my false claim' she wrote about her maternal first cousins once removed and then said she can't remember starting off a letter saying 'Dear first cousin once removed...'.  That doesn't make any sense unless she was still falsely maintaining that Margaret Baillie was Florence's cousin, despite me having proved this not to have been the case.  She confirmed later in #526 that she is living in ignorance because she said:

'Both Christie and Ryan describe Margaret and John Bailiie Knight as distant cousins of Florie and I  have yet to learn if anyone has proved this to be an error.'

That's only because she doesn't read my responses.  I HAVE proved this to be an error. The evidence in the case shows that John Baillie Knight was introduced to Florence by the Miss Baillies who themselves met her while holidaying on the continent. They were all no more than friends.

She then claims that:

'In any case being a family friend and of an older generation, Margaret could very easily have been referred to by Florie as "Aunt Margaret", and I have yet to see any reason why not".

The reason why this would certainly not have happened is that Margaret was not a "family friend", she was a direct friend of Florence, having met her, as I've just said, on the continent.  No-one calls their actual friends their aunts!!!

In any case, the whole Margaret Baillie thing could not be more irrelevant.  We know why the REAL James Maybrick thought that Florence was going to London.  Dr Hopper's evidence tells us beyond any doubt that he knew it was to see her godmother, NAMED as Countess de Gabriac, who had arranged to visit a surgeon in London.  That is the undoubted ultimate source of the 'sick aunt' line in the diary which became twisted via John Addison and then the secondary sources such as Ryan.  Absolutely nothing to do with Margaret Baillie.

As I also noted in the Third Special Statement, Carloline Morris' claim in this context, in #497, that 'Bongo Barrett is alleged to have taken his material for the diary text straight from Ryan'  makes no sense because Margaret Baillie isn't mentioned in the diary, and Ryan says that Florence went to London to visit her aunt who needed an operation, which is the only relevant part of the book. Unfortunately, the last I saw of her posts, she was unaware that Ryan had actually said this, and, unless she's been reading my articles on the subject in the interim, she presumably remains in ignorance.

I keep saying it but I'll say it again.  If you don't read Lord Orsam's articles you will end up making a fool of yourself.   Or to put another way....

No Orsam, No Comment!


While Iconcolast remains In Sulk, he appears to have handed over the honorary title of Major Misunderstanding to Caroline Morris.

I shall reproduce her entire post #531 in the 'Lord Orsam Blog' thread on JTR Forums just so that there is no misunderstanding of what she wrote:

'So basically, if the diary is a joint Barrett production [in which case the 9th March 1992 double event of the Battlecrease floorboards coming up and Bongo phoning a London literary agency would have to be one of those once-in-a-lifetime, eye-wateringly unlikely coincidences], then they wrote 'aunt' by mistake - on top of not bothering to make the handwriting look anything like James Maybrick's.

But they 'got away with' their rogue aunt, because the real James, or in fact anyone hoaxing the diary between 1889 and 1992, could have been given to understand - rightly or wrongly - that Florie's plans included a visit to someone she called her aunt?

Is this the argument that has generated such bad feeling, or am I missing something?' 

For those who bothered to read my 'Bunny's Aunt' article the answer will be known that, yes, Caroline Morris IS missing something.

In the first place, the apparent claim that 'Florrie's plans included a visit to someone she called her aunt' is nonsense.  Not only is there no evidence or good reason to think that Florence called the Countess de Gabriac her aunt but the actual evidence in the case is that she described her accurately, as one would expect, as her godmother. That being so, there is no reason to say that the real James would have been given to understand that her plans included a visit 'to someone she called her aunt'.  

In the second place, there is no warrant to say that the real James could have been given to understand anything about an aunt.  Dr Hopper said that he was told by James and Florence that Florence went to London to visit her godmother.  A godmother is NOT an aunt.  James would not have confused the two in his diary. So, yes, Caroline Morris is missing something.

The Bunny's Aunt issue has nothing to do with the Barretts but what can be safely said is that whoever created the diary wrote 'aunt' by mistake, wrote 'one off instance' by mistake, wrote 'bumbling buffoon' by mistake, wrote that the breasts were on the table by mistake, wrote that the key was taken away by the killer by mistake, plus various other errors, and also did not 'bother' to make the handwriting look like Maybricks.

For those reasons, what it boils down to is that the diary was definitely not written by James Maybrick.

If Caroline Morris is wondering why that simple conclusion has generated so many bad tempered posts by the Clanger then that would be the only sensible purpose of her post.  

I might also add that Mike's call to Doreen Montgomery having occurred on the same day as the floorboards of Battlecrease were supposedly taken up is not necessarily a 'once in a lifetime eye watering coincidence' if Mike had overheard discussions about work to be carried out in Maybrick's old house while drinking in the Saddle thus reminding him of a forgery plan involving the Maybrick diary which had been put on hold following the death of Tony Devereux. And it's not even such an 'eye watering' coincidence in any case bearing in mind that it wasn't the first time the floorboards of Battlecrease had been taken up, that there is no mention in the diary that it was to be placed under the floorboards (on the contrary, it was to be placed somewhere it could be found) and there is no evidence that the diary was found under the floorboards nor that anyone finding a diary under the floorboards would have informed Mike Barrett of such a discovery on the same day.


When we look back and reflect on the Clanger's beef with Lord Orsam it all seems to boil down to a question of presentation.

I mean, how else do we explain the Clanger reproducing the entire 'Special Announcement' from this website in the Lord Orsam Blog thread on JTR Forums?  This post was subsequently deleted by the Administrator, presumably because Howard Brown thought it was a totally insane thing for him to do, but it is very revealing that he decided to reproduce the announcement of the article relating to Bunny's Aunt rather than the Bunny's Aunt article itself.

Him criticizing the announcement of the article rather than the article itself is rather like criticizing a film because you didn't like the trailer! 

My take on this is that the Clanger's memory of events is that he was waiting 'for weeks' (as he said), for the article to be published - even though, in reality, it was less than a fortnight after the announcement was drawn to public attention - and he thinks that I was claiming to have dealt a 'death blow' to the diary, thus 'tantalizing' the internet.

This could hardly be further away from the truth.  As far as I was concerned, at the time of the Special Announcement, the diary had already been dealt a death blow by the knowledge that 'one off instance' was not a Victorian expression.  That proved the diary to be a fake. What I felt was of interest about Bunny's aunt was that almost thirty years after the discovery of the diary I had found a brand NEW mistake proving the diary to be a fake that no-one had apparently spotted before.  

Subsequently, of course, and astonishingly, yet another brand new mistake was spotted (by The Baron) in 'bumbling buffoon' which also, on its own, proves the diary to be a fake.

What's astonishing is that in all these three examples the Clanger desperately tried to dispute them, even though he is entirely satisfied that the diary is a fake!

What's going on?

It just seems to me that the Clanger doesn't like it when anyone proves something, or rather when they say they've proved something.  He seems to want to nitpick everything with ludicrous mental gymnastics to say that it isn't proven after all.

That can be the only explanation for his most feeble and desperate, and indeed horseshit crazy, response to 'one off instance', his irrelevant focus on aunts in the Victorian period while ignoring the actual evidence in the Maybrick case and his frantic searching of the BNA for examples of buffoons but not bumbling buffoons!

And then when it came to Andrew Stevens, while fully agreeing that he was someone of interest and, indeed (eventually) the rateable owner of 12 Miller's Court, he just didn't seem to like that I'd written 'an article' about him, even though I'd done no such thing. 

At the end of the day, who can see into the mind of the Clanger?  It's not really possible to understand him.  You just have to let him rant himself out and then he eventually runs out of puff.


Talking of the Clanger, we find that after having invited Chris Phillips to criticize me on a false basis he did the same with R.J. Palmer.

After stating (in #549 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread on JTR Forums) that he was of 'the same opinion' as R.J. Palmer that it is 'far more likely' that a barrister made the mistake of referring to Florrie's godmother as her aunt than it is that the lady was referred to informally as such within the family which, he claimed, without evidence, was 'consistent with English usage at the time', he then said (underlining added):

'What is not reasonable is to completely dismiss the alternative and to claim that this 'error' is in and of itself proof positive that the diary is a fake.  It simply isn't.  Step back and ask yourself whether if this was the only anomaly discovered in the diary you would be of the opinion that it was irrefutably a fake.  And whether you would consider those  who were willing to consider the alternative to be 'batshit crazy' (or was it horseshit?)'

As I've already stated, it is simply false to allege that I consider Bunny's Aunt deniers as batshit or horseshit crazy.  This was a description I used exclusively to describe the Clanger's crazy immature horse instance argument.  That argument is just horseshit crazy not only because it relies on an invented expression which has never existed in the English language but because it is actually a WORSE explanation than if 'one off instance' was assumed to mean what it is commonly understood to mean, i.e. an unrepeated instance.  The reason for this is that 'one off' was an expression in existence prior to 1888 to mean one item (something I'm not sure the Clanger has ever understood) so that finding another 'one off' expression relating to horses (in circumstances where 'two off' and 'three off' etc. also existed) just gets us further away from an explanation and takes us into la la land because the horsey expression never evolved into anything else.

Had R.J. Palmer responded to the Clanger, he could well have been led to believe that I had indeed described Bunny's Aunt deniers as batshit crazy when I had done no such thing.  They are, I have suggested, misguided and the Clanger's post proves it.  Take, for example, his claim that I quoted above where he says that referring to a godmother as an aunt was 'consistent with English usage at the time'.  Not a single example of anyone in the nineteenth century describing a godmother as an aunt has ever been provided in this discussion!  That's the first problem with the argument. The second problem is that even if such an example was provided, it would still be a long way from a godmother being described as an aunt to an ADULT being confused into thinking that a godmother of a close relative (such as HIS WIFE) was actually her aunt.  The very notion is unthinkable.

But far more than that is the fact that, as I have said many times, the Countess de Gabriac was NOT referred to as Florence's aunt because she was said by both her and James to have been her godmother when they was explaining the reason for her visit to London to Dr Hopper.  Nothing could be clearer.   Yet the Clanger always refuses to acknowledge this when discussing the point.

On its own, this mistake in the diary proves it to be a forgery.  It actually reminds me of the Hitler diary when - prior to the actual exposure of the forgery - it was noted (ironically by David Irving) that Hitler had purportedly made an entry in his diary shortly after the 'Operation Valkyrie' bomb explosion of 20 July 1944 which he wouldn't have been able to do in reality because he was temporarily paralysed in his right arm.  No doubt the Clanger would have had him writing with his left hand but it was a mistake by the forger which, in fact, proved the diary was a fake.

It is, however, great news that the Clanger acknowledges that there are multiple anomalies in the diary which prove it be a fake.  In every post I've made about the diary since the Bunny's Aunt discovery I've stressed that it is one of a number of obvious mistakes.  As far as I'm concerned, I only care about the outcome.  I'm just as interested in the Bunny's Aunt mistake as in the 'bumbling buffoon' mistake and indeed as I am in the 'one off instance' mistake.  It doesn't matter WHO discovered the mistake.  Perhaps in future 'Bunny's Aunt' will be referred to as the Orsam Discovery by historians but while that might annoy the Clanger I simply don't care.  

For someone who seems to acknowledge that the diary is a fake, the Clanger doesn't half seem to expend, and at the same time waste, an enormous amount of energy in trying but totally failing to undermine obvious examples which prove the diary to be a fake, e.g. 'one off instance', 'Bunny's Aunt' and 'bumbling buffoon'.


In the midst of the Clanger's post referred to above, Caroline Morris asked some questions related to the Bunny's Aunt issue. Having been ignored, she then said to R.J. Palmer (#541 of the 'Lord Orsam Blog' thread), 'May I take it that Lord Orsam hasn't provided you with any answers either?'.  Now, I truly don't know why Caroline Morris thinks I should, or would, be channelling answers to her online questions through R.J. Palmer but it just so happened that I was in email contact with R.J. Palmer on a different subject at the time and, as she had specifically named me, I gave him my answers to her questions, leaving it up to him whether he wanted to post them, which he did.  In response, Caroline Morris posted a tangled web of a reply filled with false and misleading statements and misunderstandings of the evidence and I really need an entire article to untangle it. That can be found here: Bunny's Friend Redux


Caroline Morris was back with her smear campaign in #556 of the 'Lord Orsam Blog' thread which I reproduce here in full:

'I meant to add that Lord Orsam got his wires totally crossed concerning what has been posted about the little red pocket/appointments diary for the year 1891, and Mike knew all about it before ordering it. Before accepting at face value what Lord Orsam has written about it, I would strongly advise anyone interested to go back and read the related posts to 'spot the difference'. 

Who can possibly understand what she is talking about?  She doesn't identify the article or articles of mine to which she is purportedly referring (in circumstances where she claims not to visit my site) nor does she identify what I am supposed to have misunderstood nor what 'difference' is supposed to be spotted.  It's a disgraceful way to deal with the topic.  Who writes things in such a way?

I am perfectly satisfied that my wires were not crossed in any way over this subject and, further, when responding to the matter I quoted in detail what Caroline Morris had posted regarding the information received from Martin Earl (which is presumably what she is referring to in her post).  

In fact, Caroline Morris' claim is the very reverse of the truth.  It was SHE who misunderstood the information she received about the diary from Martin Earl and thus believed that the information put an end to the idea that Mike was trying to obtain a diary in order to forge the Maybrick diary.  As I've demonstrated, she falsely claimed that Mike was told that there were printed dates in the diary when this was NOT in the description given to Martin Earl which she herself had posted.

For many years, well before the recent Martin Earl information was received, I had been saying that Mike must have been told that there were multiple blank pages in the 1891 diary (as he had requested) and the information provided by Martin Earl proves that I was entirely correct in this.

It was, in other words, me who was proved right by the Martin Earl information and Caroline Morris who was proved wrong. 

Caroline Morris, of course, ignores that Mike was told about blank pages.  As I've mentioned, she fantasizes that he was told about printed dates.  And then when I demonstrate how she got it all wrong she comes up with the abovementioned post, written deliberately in the vaguest possibly terms, providing no information for the reader whatsoever but still trying to pretend that she is right and I am wrong.

It is both false and meaningless to say that 'Mike knew all about it before ordering it'.  It's false because the description upon which Caroline Morris relies mentions nothing about printed dates on every page and it's meaningless because 'Mike knew all about it' is so vague as to have no meaning.  What precisely did he know?  As I've demonstrated, he knew - because he would have been told - that the diary contained many blank pages.

No-one has yet challenged her on the point in either forum.  God knows, perhaps everyone's scared of her.  In JTR forums I have no idea why no-one has called her out and asked her to particularize her claim that I have got my wires 'totally crossed'.    


I was more than amused to see on JTR Forums a summary of a recent podcast by Mike Hawley, optimistically titled 'Tumblety Did It'.

Amongst the 'new evidence', according to the summary, we find this:

'[Tumblety] was named by two Scotland Yard investigators as the killer'.

Tee hee!  Do you see it?

Anyone familiar with my article Hawley's Howlers will recall that I highlighted Hawley's claim, repeated over the course of many years, that THREE Scotland Yard officials had (variously) considered, confirmed, commented, referred to, stated or named Tumblety as a suspect.

Now we are down to TWO !!!!! but, at the same time, those two have not just named Tumblety as a suspect - which is what Hawley always said in the past - but as THE FRICKIN' KILLER.

This is, of course, as anyone familiar with the case knows, complete rubbish.  No Scotland Yard 'investigator' has ever named Tumblety as the killer (or even as a killer).   

I have no idea, incidentally, why Hawley (assuming he wrote that summary) is now using the expression 'Scotland Yard investigators' when he previously always called them (all three of them) 'Scotland Yard officials'.

Now, I haven't listened to Hawley's podcast.  I just can't face the prospect of hearing him drone on inaccurately about the case again.  But I do wonder which of the Scotland Yard officials he's dropped from the list.

I assume he's kept Littlechild on there.  As we know, Littlechild certainly did NOT name Tumblety as the killer.  He merely informed a journalist that he was one of the suspects, of which we know there were quite a number, and that he, personally, considered him a very likely suspect.

If we charitably assume that Hawley was being characteristically loose in his language, and meant to say that two Scotland Yard investigators had named Tumblety as a suspect, not as the killer, then we can give him Littlechild.

But who is the second 'investigator', I wonder?

Previously, his other two Scotland Yard officials were Robert Anderson and Walter Andrews, neither of whom ever named Tumblety as a suspect, let alone the killer.  Andrews, in fact, stated to a journalist that he was NOT the Whitechapel murderer!

So I really don't know which man Hawley has dropped.  Frankly, he needs to drop them both.

Perhaps he has.  Maybe he's replaced Anderson and Andrews with the imaginary English detective who reportedly told an unnamed bartender that he was in New York 'to get the chap who did it'.   I just don't know. 


A baffling comment from Caroline Morris in #564 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread.  Addressing R.J. Palmer she said:

'I thought you agreed with Lord Orsam that psychology has no place in all this'.

Well I am Lord Orsam and I have no idea what she is talking about.  I don't believe I have ever said that psychology has 'no place' in all of this, or anything similar, especially as I often discuss the psychology of the Barretts.  And given that I don't believe I have said it, I certainly don't recall R.J. Palmer agreeing with me about it!

Is she just imagining stuff now?  


In #569, Caroline Morris tells us about the red 1891 diary that, she says, Mike would have been entitled to return to Martin Earl:

'On the grounds Martin Earl described earlier this year - that if it was not what Mr Barrett wanted, it could have been returned without payment'.

This is palpable nonsense and just more twisting and misrepresentation of the evidence in yet another attempt to befuddle her readers.

I mean, honestly, does she really think that if Mike had said to Martin Earl: "I wanted to forge a diary of Jack the Ripper and what you've sent me doesn't allow it, so I'd like my money back please", that request would have been granted?

The actual evidence from Martin Earl, which Caroline Morris has misrepresented, was very clear (underlining added):

'Customers could always return items if they were not as described'.

That's very different from 'if they were not what they wanted' which is how the mind of Caroline Morris has distorted it.

So, no, Mike could NOT have returned it if it was not what he wanted.  He could only have returned it if it was not as described.  

But she knows this because she then says in her post:

'If it had been correctly and fully described [and we don't know how Martin's supplier described it] it would have been obvious to Mike at the point of ordering it that it was no possible use, if he was planning to fake the diary with it.'

This is a false statement.  It assumes what would have been 'obvious' to Mike from having been given a description of the diary, which she can't possibly know. 

Martin Earl has told us what information about the diary was available to him at the time, which included the critical statement that:

'Nearly all of the pages are blank'

THAT was precisely what Mike was looking for, and is undoubtedly the reason he accepted the diary.

The fact that Mike didn't properly consider the rest of the information he was given is neither here nor there.  Once he accepted it, having been given an accurate description of the diary (but one which did not entirely make clear that individual dates were printed on every page) he couldn't return it.

Furthermore, Caroline Morris wasn't even talking about Mike, she was talking about his wife.  She was answering a question from Kattrup, 'On what grounds would she have been entitled to return the diary, do you think?'.  This followed from her earlier claim in #564 that:

'When it arrived, instead of returning it without payment, which she was fully entitled to do, she signed a cheque for it and kept it.'

Once again this entirely misrepresents the factual position.  There is no evidence that Anne even saw the diary before Mike was chased for payment in May.  A customer of Martin Earl's could not possibly have been entitled to return the diary without payment for an unlimited period.  By holding the item for over 30 days (which we know to have been Earl's standard invoice terms) it would have been too late for a refund.  And there were no grounds for one at any time in any case.  

So she is just spewing nonsense after nonsense about this red diary when it is really all very simple.

The evidence from Martin Earl is that he sold the diary to Mike, not Mike's wife.  Mike was told that nearly all the pages in the diary were blank and, on that basis, he went ahead and purchased it but, after having received it, didn't pay for it. Whether he even mentioned it to Anne at this stage is unknown.  He's never claimed he did.  When payment was chased by Martin Earl, and Mike went to his wife for help, Anne realized that there was no alternative but to provide a cheque, otherwise Mike would surely have been taken to court.

Caroline Morris' entire argument collapses.

And I'm glad to see Kattrup also challenged the repeated nonsensical claim that Anne had no financial motive for fraud when it must be obvious that if Mike obtained money from the diary to pay the mortgage of their house, the motive was right there!  It's absolutely ludicrous for Caroline Morris to suggest that Anne's financial interests were completely separate from those of her husband (as she has done for many years).  The fact is that if Mike benefitted financially from the diary then so did Anne. And that's not to mention that payments from the diary were actually paid direct to Anne: some of them for reasons which have never been explained.


Caroline Morris continually argues on the basis that leaving a record of of his real name and address with Martin Earl must mean that Mike and Anne could never have used any item obtained from him for the purposes of forging the diary (e.g. #573).

But as I've repeatedly stated - and she never addresses - it would have been virtually impossible for anyone investigating the diary to have tracked down Martin Earl in order to obtain that information.

The ONLY reason we know about Martin Earl today is because Mike exposed the March 1992 purchase in his affidavit of 5 January 1995.  None of the researchers had ever come close to finding out about that purchase prior to January 1995.  Anne certainly never mentioned it!   

Even after Mike's January 1995 affidavit, it took YEARS for anyone to contact Martin Earl.  But if Mike hadn't mentioned the 1891 diary to anyone, and the fact that Anne had paid for it by cheque, how would anyone ever have got to Earl?

As I also keep stating, if Mike was going to fulfil his promise to Doreen to bring the Jack the Ripper diary down to London, he HAD to get a diary from somewhere.  He couldn't magic one up out of thin air.  There was ALWAYS going to be a risk of some kind of trace back to him.  But the purchase from Earl was a private transaction that was effectively a secret.  No-one knew about it and probably no-one would ever have known about it had Mike not blabbed the truth.

Once again, another false trail created by Caroline Morris leads nowhere. 


Remember when Caroline Morris kept telling us that Mike had been provided with a 'full description' of the 1891 diary before he bought it?  That diary was, she told us,'described in detail' by Martin Earl (based on information received from his supplier) so that Mike knew 'precisely' what he was ordering. In #5701 of the Incontrovertible thread on Casebook she posted a 'description of what Mike Barrett asked Martin Earl to send him'.

Now, astonishingly, as mentioned above, she tells us that 'we don't know how Martin's supplier described it'.

Well, if we don't know how Martin's supplier described it to Martin then it follows that we don't know how Martin described it to Mike which means it's not possible to say what Mike knew about the diary before he ordered it!

The weird thing, however, is that we surely DO know how Martin's supplier described it to Martin because it must be the description provided by Caroline Morris herself in #5701.

Please don't ask me what is going on inside Caroline Morris' head.  Perhaps she has belatedly realized that the description provided by Martin Earl includes the key phrase 'Nearly all the pages are blank' and, realizing the implication of this, wants to distance herself from the description that she herself gave us.

Mind you, in a subsequent post (#583) she says, falsely, that the diary 'did not have 20 'blank' pages' thus entirely contradicting the information that SHE HERSELF had obtained from Martin Earl and posted on Casebook in which Earl clearly stated that nearly all the pages of the diary WERE blank!  

Her post #583 is a masterpiece of twisted logic and failed thinking and demonstrates a complete inability to present a coherent argument on the subject.  Kattrup has already replied to her very effectively but I would also like to respond. It's too complicated for me to deal with here so it's going to need another separate article (entitled "Item Not As Described") which you can find here.


Although, as I say, I've dealt separately with Caroline Morris' #583, I would just like to comment on Martin Earl's return policy because in saying, 'The fact that Martin Earl let him see the item before committing himself, shows that he could have returned it if he considered the description to be inadequate or misleading'  Ms Morris shows to my mind that she has fundamentally misunderstood Martin Earl's business (even though she seems to think that Mike was given a special exemption from the normal rules, which is what I discuss in the separate article).

Earl was, of course, not a diary seller.  He sold rare and secondhand books.  I don't suppose someone looking for a particular book could simply ask Earl to obtain a copy for them (at Earl's expense), send it to them in the post and then, after they'd had time to read it, return it simply because they personally considered the description he had provided to be 'inadequate'.

It is obviously not the case that Earl let his customers see the books before committing themselves.  His customers committed themselves as soon as they were given a description of the (condition of the) book and agreed to buy it.  It wasn't a case of you could return it if you didn't like it.  That would have been madness for a business like Earl's.  The customer committed to the purchase when they asked Earl to obtain the required book from his supplier and send it to them.

It was obviously important that Earl gave his customers an accurate description of the books they were buying (sight unseen) and that they were entitled to return them if they were not as described.  But if they WERE as described, they were not entitled to return.  It wasn't a question of whether they thought the description was 'adequate' but whether the book was or was not genuinely as described (which, in normal circumstances, would simply relate to the condition of the book).

Caroline Morris, surprisingly, now tells us that we don't know how the diary was described to Mike before he bought it.  If that's the case, it's the end of the discussion because, if we don't know what he was told, we don't know if he was or was not entitled to return it (albeit that Caroline Morris has invented a notion that he didn't need a reason, as discussed in the separate article).

However, Caroline Morris HAS provided a description which she obtained from Martin Earl, which can only be what Earl told Barrett before Barrett committed to the purchase.

What we know about that description is that it said NOTHING about the diary containing printed dates on every page.  The word 'printed' doesn't appear in the description.   Yet, in #583 Caroline Morris says:

'It was for 1891 and had 3 or 4 printed dates to a page'

She italises the word 'printed' as if this is what Mike was told but there is no evidence for this and the word is absent from the official description which she herself posted!!  But what the official description does contain is the claim that nearly all the pages were blank.  Exactly what Mike had been looking for!

And, as I've said repeatedly, the fact that the diary was from 1891 would not have disqualified it because Mike would have accepted an 1890 diary or an 1881 diary.

So what Mike was being offered was a Victorian diary in which nearly all the pages were blank.  This is precisely what he had been seeking, as shown by the Bookdealer advertisement.  It is hardly surprising that he he accepted it.

After receiving it - if he gave it any thought at all - he might have realized that he hadn't been careful enough in considering the description, and that he should have worked out that the dates must have been printed on every page.  But the fact that he misunderstood what he was being told would not, under Earl's stated terms and conditions, have entitled him to a refund.  He couldn't have just said that it wasn't what he wanted because he was hoping to fake a Ripper diary and it wasn't possible in this one so could he have his money back please?

The simple fact of the matter is that Caroline Morris has been unable since 2004 to provide a sensible explanation as to why Mike Barrett was seeking a Victorian diary with blank pages in March 1992.  She has tried all kinds of weird and wonderful possibilities but none of them make any sense and none of them properly explain the need for a minimum of twenty blank pages.   So she's tried a different approach by claiming that the diary which Mike actually purchased could not have been used to create the fake diary. But Mike already told us back in his January 1995 affidavit that the diary he purchased by post wasn't suitable!!! So we just end up back where we started.  The question is: why was he looking for blank Victorian diary in the first place?

From Caroline Morris we only now get dumbfounded silence to such a question.  


It was amusing to see that after Kattrup pushed back on 22 December and pointed out to Caroline Morris that what she was saying about Martin Earl's returns policy (specifically in relation to his transaction with Mike) was not supported by what she had posted from Martin Earl on Casebook (#594 of the 'Lord Orsam's Blog' thread) she just went completely silent.  No response was forthcoming.

Has it finally hit home with her that she has misunderstood what she was told by Martin Earl? 


Can you imagine the howls of outrage if I (or anyone else) accused Caroline Morris of not genuinely believing that the diary was found under the floorboards of Battlecrease?

Yet, on more than one occasion she has bizarrely claimed or suggested that I don't genuinely believe that Mike was involved in the forgery.

The latest is found in #584 of the 'Lord Orsam Blog' thread in which she writes to R.J. Palmer:

'Did you learn that at Lord Orsam's knee?  Is that what makes him convincing in your book, because he sticks with stories he doesn't actually believe himself?'

I wouldn't mind but she knows that the reason I believe that Mike was involved in forging the diary was because in March 1992 he secretly attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages, something for which she is at a complete loss to provide a rational explanation other than that he was doing it for the purposes of obtaining an old diary into which he could forge the diary of Jack the Ripper. So it's not as if there can be any good reason to doubt that my belief is genuine.

Furthermore, R.J. Palmer has held the belief in Mike's involvement for far longer than me and, indeed, posited the theory that Mike telephoned Doreen at a time when the diary wasn't yet in existence long before I did.  He doesn't need to learn anything at my knee. 


After I posted a link to a Christmas song I'd written - nothing to do with the Maybrick diary or Jack the Ripper - Caroline Morris, in a surprise spirit of generosity and absence of malice, made clear that she wouldn't even listen to the track.


She would sooner have boiled sprouts and scrapple for Christmas than listen to it, she said.

She's obviously entitled to do what she wants but what impressed me was the complete lack of self-awareness, and sheer hypocrisy, in her response to a post by Kattrup the very next day.  Kattrup was simply continuing a discussion about the 1891 diary, responding to an earlier post of Caroline Morris, and not even saying anything particularly critical, but Ms Morris started her response (#583) by saying:

'Season's greetings to you, I'm sure'.

It was a bizarre thing to say, not least because it was 18th December, a full week before Christmas, and the only mention of Christmas in the thread up to that point was my own Christmas song which Caroline Morris had said she was refusing to listen to and thus insulting it without even knowing what she was insulting!

But we can see that Caroline Morris has a very flexible approach to the Christmas spirit.  Presumably, she was suggesting that Kattrup should have said something nice and Christmassy to her in his post of 18th December while she was free to post mean-spirited comments about my Christmas song which she hadn't even heard!

We should also note that her mean-spirited response to Howard posting the link to my Christmas song shows that all her excuses for not reading my articles about the Maybrick diary on this website are as false as they are mendacious.  She has pure personal animus towards me and can't get over that.  

Why does she have personal animus towards me?   The answer is that I stood up to her on the Casebook Forum and repeatedly demolished her nonsense over a two year period in a very effective way.  She wasn't used to it. She couldn't take it. She didn't like being made to look stupid. She built up a personal hatred towards me which lingers to this very day. Yay, even unto Christmas Day!


Naturally, the Clanger's own personal animus could not be restrained when Howard posted the link to my Christmas song.  With the lack of originality for which he is famous, he posted:

'Is there no beginning to the man's talent?'

Next he'll be telling me I'm a legend in my own lunchtime.

It didn't take long for Simon Wood to come out of the woodwork, making public his appreciation for the insult. 


How excellent: the full troika of Morris, Clanger and Wood, all rushing to express their hatred of another individual over Christmas!  The level of unchecked unpleasantness and petty vindictiveness on that Forum is really off the scale.

But here's the twist.  When I checked my Soundcloud statistics next day, what did I see?



"Looks like Romford has your tracks on repeat!" 

Who has told us on JTR Forums that he lives in a house in Romford?   You'll never guess, but his name rhymes with "Coat Hanger". 

I guess one listen wasn't enough for the Clanger to try and find a beginning to my talent.  He wanted to hear the song again!!!


This is my favourite Christmas fairy tale of them all.

For some reason, Howard Brown wanted to join in the Xmas fun and suggested to Caroline Morris that her refusal to listen to my Christmas song meant that she wouldn't be purchasing a Christmas album featuring nine Maybrick-diary-based titles of Christmas songs that he had invented.  I can't, in all honesty, say that any of them were very funny (sorry How) and he doesn't appear to have spent much time on them.  I mean, "Hark, the Herald Devereaux Sing" is an example, which pretty much shows the level of thought put into them.  What does that even mean?

But here's the twist.  Caroline Morris, in her usual state of befuddlement, clearly believed that this was a list of titles created by ME, and so she posted this:


'Goodness me, that man has a sad obsession with Carols'.

That man was clearly supposed to be me, but the only person with any interest in Christmas carols in the thread was Howard Brown!!!

In other words, Caroline Morris was saying that Howard Brown has a "sad obsession" with Christmas carols!!!

It's utterly brilliant.  Totally hilarious and surely grounds for expulsion from JTR Forums.  Is it permissible to abuse the administrator in this way?   Is one entitled to accuse Howard of having a sad obsession with Christmas carols on his own Forum?

There truly can be no better example of "No Orsam, No Comment!" than this.  Had Caroline Morris actually checked out this site, she would have known I'd only written one Christmas song and had not listed nine Maybrick diary related carols, thus sparing herself the embarrassment of slagging off Howard Brown.

Mind you, not a single person pointed out her error to her.  Either I'm the only person concentrating or every member of JTR Forums, including Howard, is too scared to correct her. 

To add the icing to the cake, she rounded off her post by saying:

'He's jolly lucky he doesn't let the fake diaries get to him too.  When would he sleep?'

This comes from a woman who has literally spent the past TWENTY YEARS posting incessantly on TWO Forums about those fake diaries.

Not only that but she even co-authored a book on the subject.

Who really has the sad obsession???? 


So, five days after having made her dumb sarcastic remark to Kattrup about 'season's greetings', Caroline Morris popped up on the Casebook Forum on 23 December, the day before Christmas Eve, in full Christmas spirit, to meanly and falsely accuse an innocent member of the Forum of conducting a weird vendetta against Ally Ryder!

Even more than this, it was obvious that Caroline Morris thought this particular member was none other than ME, Lord Orsam!!!

What happened is that a new member with the username of Vfor wrote a post on 18 December claiming that Jack the Ripper was none other than the Ripper's final victim, Mary Jane Kelly.   He doesn't appear to be the first person to have had this bizarre thought because he posted in a thread entitled 'Mary Jane Kelly was Jack the Ripper', which had been started in April 2011 by 'The Bounder' who, at least, described the idea as 'complete balderdash'.   

Resurrecting this thread, in support of the idea that MJK was JTR, Vfor posted in #26 a long list of the daftest points imaginable, one of which (possibly the daftest of them all) was:

'Casebook.org admin's email "queen mean" suggests a female JTR?'

It presumably didn't occur to Vfor that such an email more likely suggests a female admin, rather than that Casebook had established the killer's identity but was keeping it a secret, only hinting at it through an email address.

Even though Ozzy provided the answer in #42 that "queen mean" was probably a reference to Ally Ryder of Admin, Crazy Ally herself felt the need to post a response in #47 saying that "queen mean" 'suggests the email address of a woman with a short temper, and shorter patience for idiotic theories and the people who make wild extrapolations even when they don't attempt to drag me into their stupidity'.   For some reason, but probably just through having the power to do it, she also felt the need to threaten Vfor with expulsion, saying, 'I really suggest you don't do that again if you want to remain on the boards'.

Why she felt so strongly about someone making an obviously nonsensical suggestion about the words "queen mean" is hard to say.  If she responded to all the nonsensical suggestions made on Casebook she would be posting multiple times every day, instead of leaving it all to her gimp.  It wasn't as if Vfor had even mentioned her by name.  But when you allow crazy people to be in positions of power they invariably abuse that power and here we have her running wild again for no sensible reason.

Anyway, Crazy Ally does crazy, we all know that.  We can ignore it.  What happened next is of most interest.   In a creepy suck-up post to Ally two days before Christmas, Caroline Morris wrote, in #50:

'Hi Ally, 

Interesting name for our newcomer.  Someone with lots of time on their hands, hoping to keep others busy responding.

Vfor = Vendetta?'


I knew nothing of this at the time but someone subsequently emailed me to ask me if I thought that Caroline Morris was insinuating that Vfor was actually me, carrying out the strangest vendetta ever, by claiming that Mary Jane Kelly was secretly known to Casebook Admin to be Jack the Ripper!!!

And, of course, yes, I have absolutely no doubt that this is what Caroline Morris was, in fact, insinuating.  A typical smear-type post (at Christmas!) accusing an innocent person of being me in an attempt to wage a vendetta against Ally Ryder!  If I'm right and she did mean me, the woman's brain must be broken.  Even if she didn't mean me (which she obviously did) she was still making a false and outrageous allegation against an innocent person (Vfor) on the basis of nothing.

It's not the first time she's done it.  She suggested that I was 'The Baron' for no other reason than that he had agreed with me about the Maybrick diary being a fake, had posted a link to my special announcement and had joined the Forum after I departed from it (although I'm told that it was a full six months after my resignation that he did so).

Well Vfor posted in response (in #51) to say that his name was actually Vlad and that his username was based on his first initial and the idea of V being for victory.  He said he'd posted under that username in the archive site many years ago.  While I haven't been able to find any of his posts, a quick Google search established that he made a virtually identical online wordpress post to his Casebook post about Mary Jane Kelly being the Jack the Ripper, including the point about the "queen mean" email of Casebook admin, as long ago as 16 July 2013, which post can be found here:


That was years before I even joined Casebook and puts to bed the rubbish suggestion (which was clearly being made by Caroline Morris) that this mention of "queen mean" was part of a vendetta by me against Ally Ryder.

I do wish it was true, incidentally, that I had 'lots of time' on my hands.   But that's what everyone whose theories I shoot down seems to think.  I can assure her that I have plenty of other things that I could be doing than correcting all her mistakes and exposing her attempts to befuddle and confuse the world of Ripperology. And this is Caroline Morris who has spent the last twenty years posting incessantly about the Maybrick Diary, as well as many other Ripper related subjects, on TWO internet forums.

I might also add for completeness that I'd never heard of "queen mean" before, and have never seen such an email address, although another Google search reveals that Ally Ryder used "Queen Mean" as her username on JTR Forums about ten years ago. 

For me, though, what Caroline Morris' failed speculations about me prove is that she is utterly rubbish at speculating.   As we all know, her posts about the Maybick diary are littered with speculation about the motives of Mike and Anne Barrett, yet every single time she speculates about me - as she has done repeatedly - I see at first hand how badly her brain works.  And now it's finally broken!  Sure, she's had a bad year.  Her mistakes in her book about the sequence of events in early 1995 have been ruthlessly exposed.  Her attempt to accuse me of misunderstanding a passage in her book failed. Her claim that Mike's solicitor didn't know about his January 1995 affidavit has been proven wrong. Her attempt to use Martin Earl's information to show that Mike didn't fake the diary failed.  Her attempt to claim that Margaret Baillie was Florence Maybrick's cousin, and also her aunt (lol!), was a disaster.  She's falsely claimed that Kattrup was writing posts on my behalf and now, by implication, she's falsely accused two genuine Casebook members of being me.  

One day, maybe, she'll get something right.  Someone please wake me up when it happens.

Needless to say, she never apologized to Vfor, just like she didn't apologize to The Baron, or to me for all the false allegations she's made about me. 


Talking of people who don't apologize or own up when they get things wrong, I happened to notice a classic example in one of the Lechmere threads.

In the thread, 'Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the Ripper so often discarded', Christer Holmgren, a.k.a. Fisherman, claimed that there was 'a contradiction in the Times report' of 18 September 1888 in which, according to Holmgren, it was reported that Robert Paul stated that, when examining the body of Nichols, he 'touched no other part of her body except her hands and face...but then goes on to say that Paul touched the breast' (#47).  On the basis of this alleged 'contradiction', Holmgren felt able to suggest that the Times report must have been mistaken and that it was Lechmere, not Paul, who touched the face and hands (and that this was Paul's evidence).

But Holmgren had misunderstood the Times report of Paul's inquest evidence.  The Times actually reported Paul as saying:

'Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold...He...did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face...he touched the breast'.

What should have been obvious to Holmgren was that Paul was saying that he felt the face and hands of Nichols to check her body temperature and that he was confirming that he didn't feel any other part of her body for this purpose.  As a result, there is no contradiction in him also having touched her breast because he didn't feel her breast for warmth.  He touched the breast in order to detect a heartbeat.

That is just a matter of simple comprehension.  But Holmgren totally failed to understand it.

This failure of understanding simple English was pointed out to him by Kattrup in #51 but, amazingly, he still didn't grasp it, claiming in #54 that it was 'semantics at its silliest' and, ironically, lectured Trevor Marriott at the same time in #53 that 'things are posted which have no anchoring in the facts'.  

It took a second attempt by Kattrup in #56 to explain to Holmgren that touch and feel are not necessarily synonymous.

It must have finally got through to Holmgren that he had misunderstood the Times report but did he acknowledge his error?   Don't be ridiculous!  Here is what he said to Kattrup in #57:

'Yes, semantics again - and you are perhaps not missing, but seemingly avoiding my point. Who would state categorically that he did not feel any other part of a body than the face and hands, no Sir!, only to then say that he touched the breast and felt a stirring movement inside it? Furthermore, we know that Lechmere started out enthusiastically about examining the woman, but suddenly lost that enthusiasm and said that he would not touch the body any further, so it is perfectly in line with Pauls words about only feeling the hands and face. There is also the example from the DT where this exact mistake was made by the reporter, so there is nothing earthshattering about suggesting it happened here too, not least because it would be in line with the known facts. At some stage, logic needs to enter our thinking.'

I guess Kattrup just gave up at this point.  

Holmgren was even more in error than Kattrup had noted because in his #47, by way of supporting his argument that the Times reporter had mixed up Lechmere's actions with Paul's, he had said:

'all the other sources have Lechmere, not Paul, feeling the face and hands'.

This is patently false.

Leaving aside that some of the reports of Lechmere's inquest testimony (eg. Star, Globe, Morning Post) only mention him feeling Nichols' hands, in Paul's newspaper statement prior to Lechmere's appearance at the inquest (much cited by Holmgren in his case against Lechmere), Paul was quoted as saying:

'I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold...The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time'.

So there is Paul claiming at a very early stage to have found Nichols's hands to be cold, exactly as he was reported to have later told the coroner (which Holmgren appears to think is inaccurate).

Then you've got the Telegraph report of Paul's testimony:

'He felt her hands and face, and they were cold'

This is also stated in the Morning Advertiser.

So how is it possible for Holmgren to say that 'all other sources' than the Times have only Lechmere touching the hands and face?

Neither Lechmere nor Paul said that the other man didn't also feel the hands and face of Nichols to assess her body temperature.  There's no reason to think that they both couldn't have done it. 

Furthermore, it's utter nonsense to say that Lechmere 'suddenly lost enthusiasm and said that he would not touch the body any further'.  Holmgren is referring here to the evidence of Lechmere that Paul suggested moving or raising the body and Lechmere declined to do this.  It wasn't a question of Lechmere not wanting to touch the body.  He just didn't want to move it from where it was lying.  Thus, for example, from the Globe of 3 September:

'The witness's companion suggested that they should raise her, but the witness declined to do anything until a policeman arrived'

I don't really know how it's possible for one man to misunderstand so much from such a short newspaper report but one thing's for sure, he'll never admit to the misunderstanding.

For Holmgren is one of those elite posters like Morris, Wood, Hawley, Vanderlinden, Begg, Wescott and, of course, the Clanger, who don't ever seem acknowledge or correct their mistakes or, if they ever do, the admission and correction has to be dragged out them kicking and screaming.


And then, talking of the Clanger, lo and behold if he didn't make an appearance in the Lechmere thread at #90 to post his usual nonsense on the subject of Charles Lechmere's alternative surname.

After inventing some new terminology of "official" and "street" names, whereby "Lechmere" was apparently an "official" name and "Cross" was a "street" name, while, at the same time, saying, 'Let's not get bogged down in terminology', the Clanger claimed that Lechmere/Cross 'must' have understood the difference between his "official" name and his "street" name (even though the Clanger had only just invented those terms in 2020!) and he then said:

'And he must have known that he was expected to use his 'official' name in his encounters with officialdom'.

It would be nice if the Clanger could provide some evidence of this supposed expectation rather than simply asserting it as a fact.

Noting that Lechmere used the name of Lechmere when he married, in census returns, when registering his kids at school and when registering to vote, the Clanger asked why he didn't use that name on the two occasions when he gave evidence at inquests.

Well I think that everyone who has ever contributed to this subject (but not the Clanger apparently) knows that the likely answer to this - or at least A likely answer - is that Lechmere was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords and, as he was on his way to work on 31 August 1888 (and was at work in 1876 when he was involved in the accident, assuming it was him), he used the most sensible and appropriate name when giving evidence at the inquest proceedings, bearing in mind that he was perfectly entitled to use both names or either one of them.

Surely the Clanger knows this is at least a possible answer to his question, so why does he ask it as if it's never occurred to him?

Then, in #118, again without providing ANY evidence, the Clanger said to Trevor:

'It seems it was common for those using  alternative names in their day-to-day lives to refer to both names when giving evidence in court'. 

Was it? 

I'd like to see examples of this where the alternative name of a witness was of no relevance to the issues being dealt with in the court proceedings.  It should be easy for the Clanger to provide loads of examples if it was a 'common' occurrence.

The Clanger then asked: 'Do you imagine this didn't occur to Lechmere?'  But, of course, if the premise is false, as I suggest it is, then such a notion would never have occurred to anyone

In the same post, the Clanger asked:

'What was the law at the time in respect of names given under oath?'

But he didn't then go on to answer that question!

Is he suggesting that Lechmere was breaking the law, and acting illegally, by giving the name of Cross, which he was perfectly entitled to use?

If so, I would suggest he hasn't got a clue.

Finally, showing that he was, indeed, aware all along that an answer to his question is that Lechmere was known at Cross at work, the Clanger said in #120:

'Come on! - even if he had been known as Cross at work, the man knew it was appropriate to give his 'real' name to officialdom'

Hey, the Clanger actually knows what the guy was thinking in 1888!!! How remarkable.

With no evidence whatsoever, the Clanger tells us what was or was not appropriate. 

As it happens, we have no idea what name or names Cross gave to the police.  He might have mentioned to them that his name was also Lechmere but we don't have a copy of his statement.

But, for the reasons which I've stated at length elsewhere, there was no requirement for him to give both his names at the inquest (see for example my article A Look Under the Barnett and my Forum thread Lechmere-Cross Name Issue Part 2). There was no need for him to do so because it simply wasn't relevant.

The coroner did not need the man's life history nor would he have appreciated it if it had been given.


As we enter yet another year, there is still no sign of either the notorious transcript of the diary prepared by the Barretts in 1992 or the recordings of the Gray/Barrett conversations (or a transcript of those conversations).

Both of them have been promised but neither have been produced.

How many years are we supposed to wait? 

Have we reached the point now where we can say they are being suppressed?  

Did Keith Skinner examine them both and find them both to support the modern hoax theory?   

As far as I am concerned, that is the only sensible conclusion to be drawn from their highly suspicious non-production.


16 January 2021