Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Major's Raving Lunacy Special


On the last Orsam Day, the Major made another one of his trademark posts about the diary which was nothing more than yet another compilation of daft points made by others which he's picked up over the years - mainly Feldman but also other random nutters - and which seem to attract and beguile him.

The points were so bad that even an ardent diary defender, Steven Owl, described one of them as 'raving lunacy', although that didn't seem to trouble the mad Major one bit.

I did comment briefly about this post on Orsam Day but it really does bear closer examination, as do the responses to it by other sheepish diary defenders, because it is all so delightfully mad.

What the Major's post did reveal is that he obviously hasn't bothered to read my response to his 'Society's Pillar'.  It will be recalled that, when he published his daft document on 16 March 2019, he expressly asked for a rebuttal from me, saying that he wanted to incorporate my response into his own document.

Well I responded in great detail in Pillar of Sand on 28 July 2019 and he's never responded to that at all but it's very troubling to discover that he can't possibly even have read it.  Had he done so, he would have known that some of the points he is still making in support of the diary have been thoroughly debunked.

Here are the top ten raving lunacy points from the Major's post. 


If we take the point which even other diary defenders think is raving lunacy - the Major's claim that a load of the names of Maybrick's relatives can be found in the Goulston Street Graffiti - we find the Major defending it in #8488 when he says:

'Why is the so-called 'B' in 'Blamed' misshapen? It's almost as though it needed to be that way'.

But the 'B' in 'Blamed' is NOT misshapen!  As I demonstrated in Pillar of Sand, it's just the way that Sir Charles Warren wrote the letter 'B'.

The Major seems to think the transcript of the graffiti by Sir Charles was an exact copy, almost like a photograph.  But when you realize that this is not the case, and the 'B' was the way Sir Charles wrote his letter 'B' - as I demonstrated visually - it becomes obvious that the letter 'B' cannot possibly be incorporating Florence's initials, as the Major, in his raving lunacy, seems to believe.

And you don't get the name 'Edwin' out of 'blamed for nothing' as the Major claims.  It's just not there.

But seeing names or initials in the graffiti which aren't there isn't the only element of raving lunacy in the Major's posts.


Incredibly the Major still seems to see significance in the fact that the first two letters of James' first name and the last two make 'Jack' as in:

James Maybrick

What possible significance can there be in this random selection?

After all, why hasn't he taken the first two letters of the first name and the first two letters of the last name to make 'Jama'?

James Maybrick 

What's so special about the first two letters of a name and the last two of a surname?

The answer is nothing.

From someone called Simon Maybrick you would get 'Sick', from someone called Diana Maybrick you would get 'Dick', while from a Colin Maybrick you would get 'Cock', but would that have any meaning?

From Michael Maybrick you get 'Mick' but so what?   Did the diary author call his brother 'Mick' for a laugh?  No, he did not.  Yet we are supposed to think that he called himself 'Jack' due to the first two letters of his first name and the last two of his surname without once mentioning it in the diary.

For Thomas Maybrick, if you take the first two of the first name and last three of the surname you get 'Thick'.  But so what?   

As I pointed out in Society's Pillar, with Richard Hopper you can find 'Ripper' in there if you want. 

All the Major has done is set his own rules as to which letters to choose in order to come up with something he likes.   It is pretty much the very definition of madness.


In his post (#8462), the Major told us:

'James Maybrick’s visage was published for all to see in the Telegraph on Oct 6, 1888. You just couldn’t make it up, could you?' 

This is another fully debunked claim.

The only thing you can't make up is that the Major keeps repeating it.

As I've already demonstrated in Pillar of Sand, the TWO artist sketches published in the Daily Telegraph on 6 October 1888, neither of which, in fact, contained James Maybrick's visage, were created by an artist from published descriptions of the murderer by various witnesses (albeit that it isn't even known if those witnesses saw the murderer). In other words, the artist had no more information available to him regarding the murderer's face than would be known today, in 2022, if a modern sketch artist attempted to create a portrait of the killer.  The only real similarity between one of the Telegraph sketches and Maybrick is that in one of them (the one said to have been the least accurate) the killer is portrayed with a moustache.  That's basically it.


The question asked here is the question of a madman.

'On October 10 1888, James Maybrick wrote a postcard to the Liverpool Echo in which he was adamant that ‘Jack the Ripper’ had not committed some given crime in Dublin. How on earth did the writer know this if he or she were not Jack the Ripper himself?'

In the first place, the writer of the 10 October 1888 postcard was NOT responding to anything to do with any crimes in Dublin.  In the 9 October 1888 edition of the Liverpool Echo, there was mention of the Dublin authorities having received a letter from the Ripper saying he was going to be in Dublin that week. It didn't mention any crimes having been committed in Dublin.  But this can't have been the letter being referred to in the postcard because the postcard was said by the Liverpool Echo of 10 October 1888 to have been 'addressed to the Liverpool Echo office yesterday' (i.e. 9 October 1888) and it referred to 'letters' published in the Echo 'yesterday' (i.e. 8 October 1888). 

In the second place, in the highly unlikely event of the real Jack the Ripper having written to the Liverpool Echo prior to the 10 October postcard claiming to have committed a crime in Dublin or somewhere else, why would the writer of the 10 October postcard have cared whether the real Ripper had, in fact, committed a crime in Dublin or anywhere else, or had actually written to the newspaper?  The postcard was a complete lie, written anonymously, so it simply didn't matter. It certainly wasn't uncommon for writers of fake 'Jack the Ripper' letters to deny that the other letters received by the press and police were genuine but none of them could possibly have known whether that was the case or not.

The Major continues with this non sequitur: 

'The postcard was signed ‘Diego Laurenz (Genuine)’. James Maybrick was putting down his mark again, hiding in plain sight.

How was James Maybrick putting down his mark by signing the postcard 'Diego Laurenz'?  The Major doesn't explain it in his post and we know that there is no connection.


It was particularly surprising that Stephen Owl didn't describe the next paragraph of the Major's post as raving lunacy, although I suspect that, like the rest of us, he didn't have a fucking clue what the Major was talking about:

'So many Jack the Ripper letters flooded the Metropolitan Police after they published the September 25 version of the ‘Dear Boss’ saga (the second, as it happens, in the series). Many of them contained absolutely meaningless statements such as ‘I am in Poplar today’, ‘my hand in practice’, ‘delightful mourning’, ‘once tackled goodnight’ and other obscure lines. None of this made any sense until SC Davies came along and showed us that these were derived from a simple Maybrick matrix. Hiding in plain sight.'

This is a reference to a book by one S.C. Davies called 'Time Reveals All: The Funny Little Games of Jack the Ripper' not mentioned in the Major's Society's Pillar and thus not debunked by me but, from a single example provided by the Major in #7184 of the Incontrovertible thread, in which the expression 'I am 35' is supposed to be 'James', you can already see how crazy it is.


'James Maybrick sent at least a couple of rhymes to the Central News, and one of these contained the line ‘as time will show’ and another ‘I’m society’s pillar’. Astonishing. Maybrick placed his family motto – more or less literally – into this rhyme and then in the very next line revealed that his name had something to do with pillars. Impossible to have deciphered at the time, of course, as Maybrick was never a suspect, but easy to understand now in the light of Maybrick’s confession in his scrapbook. Hiding in plain sight.'

Unfortunately for the Major, there never was a letter sent to the Central News, or anywhere else, containing the lines 'as time will show' and 'I'm society's pillar'.  This rhyme was a modern invention of Donald McCormick.

Entirely appropriate that the Major is fooled by yet another fake.   


'James Maybrick sent a letter to the authorities on September 29, 1888, and he signed it ‘Jack the Ripper’. The letter came from Liverpool and it was received before the infamous nom de plume was known. He didn’t add the year, sadly, but it’s not difficult to imagine which year he sent it.'

This is another non-existent letter that no one has ever seen (other than one journalist who must have been writing from memory more than 40 years later).  The letter, as it was described by the journalist in 1927, was not dated 1888, nor was it even dated 'September'.  There is literally no reason to think it was dated 29 September 1888 and it clearly was not.  It's all an invention.


'Michael Maybrick gave brother James a valid reason to be in London and Gustavus Witt gave him a valid reason to be in or near Whitechapel. His relationship with Sarah Robertson many years earlier had even furnished him with a working knowledge of the locus of his ‘campaign’. No hoaxer could reasonably expect such remarkable largesse from a universe of random chances.' 

Ryan's 1977 book literally told the forger that Maybrick often went to London on business.   That's all the forger needed to know.  And Cullum Street, in the City of London, where Gustavus Witt had his business was closer to the Bank of England than to Whitechapel.


The Major sees the letters 'FM' on the wall of Kelly's room in the crime scene photograph.  I've already demonstrated that those letters are not there (see Lord Orsam Says...Part 29).  The Major sees them because he is a raving lunatic.


'Yes, the scrapbook itself exists, it is hard evidence, and it has never – despite many mendacious or just plain ignorant claims to the contrary – been proven a hoax!' 

This is, of course, false.  The scrapbook was proven to be a hoax in 2016. 
The inclusion in the diary of the expression 'one off instance' proves the diary to be a fake, as does 'bumbling buffoon', Bunny's Aunt and the wrong positioning of the Kelly's breasts, as well as a number of other basic errors by the author.

The Major is simply in denial, if not la la land.   

The responses from other diary defenders to the Major's raving lunacy were as interesting as they were embarrassing.

The Bitha, while making an attempt to distance himself from the Major's writing on the wall lunacy, said this (#8487):
'Although Ike and I may not agree on the cryptic origins of the GSG [LORD ORSAM COMMENT: 'may not agree' LOL!], I would not describe his belief as raving lunacy. After all, we have no proof to the contrary. He is entitled to that conclusion.'
So you see, the Bitha thinks that, if you have 'no proof to the contrary', any sort of claim is permissible.  You don't actually need to have any proof that what you are saying is true.  No, no, no.  You can say whatever you fucking like, according to the Bitha, however crazy.  The burden of proof is on the rest of the world to disprove it.
So if I were to say that I think there are little green men living on the moon, that would a perfectly sane position to take, bearing in mind that no proof to the contrary has ever been presented.
That's the fiction loving Bitha for you.  I wouldn't even mind were it not for the fact that the diary HAS been proven to be a fake so that we do have proof to the contrary for everything the Major says.

What was particularly amusing was that Miss Information couldn't quite bring herself to say that the Major wasn't a raving lunatic and, in #8491, could only muster:

'Well at least if it is raving lunacy, Ike, it's the kind that doesn't really hurt anyone.'

Saying there are little green men living on the moon doesn't really hurt anyone either, nor does walking along the streets in pyjamas shouting at the traffic, but it's still raving lunacy.

According to Miss Information, there is something called 'real raving lunacy' whereby someone has to be hurt, thus:

'Real raving lunacy in my book is insisting Trump won the election; believing the pandemic is a hoax; claiming that vaccination is at best ineffective and at worst killing more people than the virus; arguing that Brexit was a really good idea; denying the effects of climate change. I'm sure there's another one but I'm not putin my finger on it.' 

But now we have a clash with the Bitha, because the Bitha tells us that something isn't raving lunacy when there's no proof to the contrary.  So where is the proof that Trump didn't win the election?  Sure, there's no proof that there was widespread fraud but how is it possible to prove that there wasn't?  So, according to the Bitha, those 60 million people in the United States who think Trump won the election are not raving lunatics, whereas according to Miss Information they are! 

It really doesn't help the Major to say that his form of raving lunacy doesn't hurt anyone.  He is simply now perpetrating lunacy on the Censorship Forum on a massive scale while links to articles which debunk his raving lunacy are banned!  That's where we are in 2022: the age of Putin, Trump, censorship and perfectly acceptable raving lunacy.


Not content with containing the spread of the madness to one single thread, the Major went over to the 'Most Ridiculous Suspect' thread, apparently to promote Maybrick as the most ridiculous candidate.

In doing so, he spread misinformation worthy of Miss Information herself by saying (#107):

'Letters on Kelly's [wall] were then raised around the end of 1992 by Martin Fido as part of his analysis of the case for Shirley Harrison, and more or less the same time by Paul Begg on behalf of Paul Feldman's research. These letters were the iconic 'F' and 'M'.'

As I've previously demonstrated, this is FALSE. Martin Fido initially thought that he could see the letters 'EM' on the wall, while Paul Begg never claimed to see the letters 'FM' at all.

Nor did the author of the diary come to that!  All he said was an initial here an initial there.  We have no idea if that was supposed to be a reference to any writing on the wall.  Thus, it is patently untrue for the Major to say, as he did:

'the hoaxer has to be the first person to ever notice those letters from which seed he or she backward engineers a story to F'lorence M'aybrick and thence to James Maybrick and then gets the kind of luck which wins lotteries in successive draws when Maybrick works on every level.'

In any case, given that the letters 'FM' are not on the wall, it wouldn't matter if the hoaxer HAD been the first person to imagine that they were there, considering that no one else was interested in the letter 'M' like the hoaxer would have been. 


I've said before that the Major sits like a spider in his Incontrovertible web, waiting for victims - those fools who stumble into the thread to offer a reason why the diary is fake - on whom he can pounce and demonstrate his supposed intellectual superiority over them.

With a recent lack of supply of fresh victims, the Major, as we have seen, has widened his web into the 'most ridiculous victim' thread where he has been able to suck in those who would never dream of posting in the Incontrovertible thread, such as Wickerman.

In a post addressed to Wickerman and Darryl Kenyon (#127) the Major said:

'Countless posters testify that the letters 'F' and 'M' are clear on Kelly's wall' 

Oh really?  Countless?  Well I'd be interested to know the identities of just a few.  I've certainly seen LOADS of posters telling the Major that those letters are either not there or simple pareidolia. Here are some examples from the Incontrovertible thread going back to 2008:
Victor - 'Letters on Kelly's wall that may or may not be there' (#120).

Sam Flynn - 'It's not even proof of an "F" and an "M" on the wall, Tom' (#124).

Ben - 'Trouble is, the image you're looking at isn't just an M....The "F" is worse than useless because it wholly lacks a base, making it look more like a crude "c" if anything...you only get "M" and "F" if you mentally blot out anything that isn't M-ish or F-ish' (#140). 

Billy Bulger - 'Regarding the Florence Maybrick initials in Dorset Street, I have tried but cannot see them amidst the carnage left by the Ripper' (#154).

John Omlor - '"Faith" is the operative word here. This is about faith. That is why there is no point in discussing things rationally with people like Tom. When you run into "faith" -- especially faith in things like imagined letters in a photograph -- all hope for any productive analysis vanishes' (#176).

Sam Flynn (again)  - 'It's one thing to see something similar to an "FM" shape on the wall - which I can - but it's quite another to say that it's a deliberately written pair of initials' (#225).

Ben (again) - 'I don't accept for a moment that I'm seeing letters. I'm seeing a pattern, part of which includes something vaguely resembling an M-shape. If there was a squiggly, spiralling line from ceiling to floor, the chances are strong that part of it would have an S-shape, but it isn't an "S" in isolation. It's part of a larger pattern than includes something looking like an "S". The "F" I don't see at all' (#231).

c.d. - 'I do see an F and an M but I think that is only because I was looking for it. I don't think that I  would have seen it otherwise. I think to consider them initials is pushing it' (#241). 


Christine - 'Sorry, but I can't see the letters. Most people on this site can't see the letters.' (#354). 

Chris - 'comparison with the better-quality reproduction shows that these letters simply are not there in the original.'  (#356). 

Brenda - 'Who are all these people seeing initials on the wall? I've been on this site quite a few years now, and never met "lots" of people that see initials' (#475).

babybird67 - 'i've never been able to see the letters either' (#476).

The Good Michael - 'I'd say it looks like a 'w'. If it's a letter, then it could be a 'w'.' (#508). 
Victor (again) - 'a pair of initials that are vague and a matter of opinion' (#511).
I "see" what it is you are referring to, but I don't believe they are letters scribbled on a wall in blood by the killer.(#476) 

John Hacker - 'People see what they want to see. (Like "FM" for example)' (#565).
Bridewell -  'If those letters exist - and I am yet to find them' (#964).
Pcdunn -  'I see "H B" -- not "M F"... But maybe that's just me. Seriously, it's just visual matrixing...I suppose I can see a "M", but do not see the "F".' (#1423 & #1424).
c.d. (again) -  'Well are they actually there? People see a human face on Mars but close up imagery reveals that it is just a rock formation. It is misleading to say that they are in fact initials. It would be much more accurate to say that they appear to be initials' (#1615).
c.d. (again) - 'You are describing the phenomenon known as pareidolia' (#1623).
John Wheat - 'The FM if it even exists' (#1634.)
MsWeatherwax - 'I'm afraid that I can't see anything resembling the letters 'F' or 'M' anywhere in that picture' (#1655).
GUT - 'Nor can I' (#1656). 

Geddy2112 -  'I don't see it and never have' (#1673).
Abby Normal - 'yup. people only see what they want to see' (#1674). 
Harry D - 'Oh, the pareidolia from a grainy black and white photograph that shows the initials of Maybrick's wife' (#2111).
And the man who supposedly started the whole thing: 

Simon Wood - 'Today you're doing exactly the same thing I did, pointing out the existence of something which isn't there' (#7261)

The Major knows all this because he fought a one-man battle to try and convince every other single fucking member of the fucking forum that the initials 'FM' were  on the wall but no one agreed with him.  The idea that countless posters say that those initials are 'clear' on the wall is an obvious sign of delusion and does make one worry for the Major's mental health. 

According to the Major, in #851 of Incontrovertible:

'It is interesting that - when the hoax debate moves away from Mike Barrett as master hoaxer - it suddenly goes crashingly quiet around here.' 

I'm not sure it's all that interesting.  With him and Miss Information having driven away every sane person who wished to discuss the origins of the forged diary, of course it's quiet.  There's nothing else to discuss other than Mike Barrett's role in the forgery.  

The Major is obviously feeling the pressure now that even diary defenders (including his own mistress) agree that his posts demonstrate raving lunacy.  Hence he felt the need to defend his being 'the lone voice in the wilderness regarding the Maybrick scrapbook' with an approach that 'may seem deeply unscientific' (for which read 'loony') which he claims is 'a perfectly allowable position to take' (#8515 of Incontrovertible).  In particular, he wanted to deny that he is 'in the bracket of a religious zealot', by which he really means 'raving lunatic'.
In a long rambling post, he admitted that the use of 'one off instance' in the diary is a something 'which might point towards inauthenticity' but, he said, if you wanted to know his views on it, 'I strongly recommend that you turn to my brilliant Society's Pillar'.

This is gaslighting of the highest order which he must have borrowed from the Gaslighting Queen because there is no discussion of his views of 'one off instance' in Society's Pillar.  The Major simply mentions it as a problem but doesn't bother to resolve it (because he can't).  I guess he assumed no one would bother checking and, frankly, the Major himself has probably forgotten what he wrote in that nonsensical essay and didn't go back to check.

With respect to 'bumbling buffoon' which the Major denies was 'categorically semantically unavailable to Maybrick's brain' (although it was unavailable) the Major said: 

'if ‘freshly picked carrots’ was never recorded until 1947, I’m not about to buy into the certainty of others that ‘bumbling buffoon’ and ‘spread mayhem’ (inter alia) could not have similarly been short-changed in the written history.'

Needless to say, this is a false comparison.  I've already dealt with the 'freshly picked carrots' issue in Lord Orsam Says...Part 19 under the heading 'THE MAJOR'S SLEIGHT OF HAND'.  In short, it's not an expression. It's just a group of three words.  I mean, it would be like someone 100 years from today finding a 2022 diary in which the author had written about 'freshly oiled carrots' and concluding that the diary must be a fake because no one prior to 2022 had ever used those three words in that order (and it's certainly not something that can be found on Google or in the BNA).

If there is an expression in the diary it's 'freshly picked' and that was available to any writer in 1888.  It doesn't matter whether a particular noun had previously been used in 1888 to follow that expression or not.  Someone in 1888 could have written 'freshly picked carrots' as much as they could have written 'freshly picked sultanas' of which I find no nineteenth century examples on Google or in the BNA.

And it simply isn't true that 'freshly picked carrots' was 'never recorded until 1947'.  That's the Major's fantasy, presumably from using Google Ngrams only.  There is no authority for his statement (such as a dictionary or reference book) and, as far as I know, it's never been researched but I quickly find 'freshly picked carrots' in a 1923 volume of The Journal of Home Economics:

But it really doesn't matter.  No one before or since ever appears to have used the expression 'whoring bitches mound' (or 'whoring bitch's mound' to use the correct grammar) but that's not a problem for the diary. No one would say that the diary is fake because we can't find another example of that same exact group of three words in the nineteenth century.  It simply isn't an expression.  Nor is 'freshly picked carrots'.

On the other hand, 'one off instance' and 'bumbling buffoon' are expressions that simply weren't available to a writer in 1888. Thus the diary is proved to be a fake.


Anyone interested in the origins of the expression 'Bumbling Buffoon' would surely have read my short article from September 2020, Bumbling About, in which I dealt with the character of Mr Bumble from Oliver Twist and concluded that he, and the world 'bumbledom' which derived from it, has no connection to the word 'bumbling'.  Not the Major, it seems, for he appears to have been suddenly struck by the existence of the Mr Bumble character and the word 'bumbledom' as seen in #8623 of Incontrovertible.

As I said back in 2020, and as the Major himself now acknowledges, the meaning of 'bumbledom' is 'fussy official pomposity'.  It is entirely unconnected to the word 'bumbling', as in the expression 'bumbling buffoon', because that means a blustering or bungling incompetent.

Unsurprisingly, in full batshit crazy Clanger style (think horsey instance), the Major now thinks he can re-define the expression 'bumbling buffoon' to mean a fussy and pompous official (buffoon) even though that has never been how it has been used the entire history of the English language.  According to the Major, 'Sir Jim's scathing references to Dr Hopper could easily fit the definition', that definition, according to him, being 'the actions and mannerisms of pompous but inefficient government officials' even though Dr Hopper wasn't a government official!!!

In other words, he seems to believe that James Maybrick alone in 1888 took the existing word 'bumbledom' and changed it to 'bumbling' to describe Dr Hopper as a fussy, pompous and inefficient official buffoon and was the very first and indeed the only person to do so.  Many years later, presumably, and by coincidence, the new expression of 'bumbling buffoon' was coined to mean an incompetent person which had nothing to do with Maybrick's invented expression.

It's just more batshit crazy manipulation of the English language which perfectly fits the category of raving lunacy and would you believe Miss Information responded to say in #8623, 'I could not have put it better myself'.  Well yes, actually, you probably would believe it.  That was also her reaction to the Clanger's batshit crazy horsey instance too.  She laps up any old rubbish to try and defend the diary.

The desperation of the diary defenders is palpable as they try to change the actual fucking English language to fit with their raving lunatic theories about the diary. 
So once again we are asked to believe that Maybrick invented his own bit of English language which no one else in 1888 would have understood!
14 May 2022 

For more on the Major's raving lunacy see Lord Orsam Says...Part 31 

Although Ike and I may not agree on the cryptic origins of the GSG, I would not describe his belief as raving lunacy. After all, we have no proof to the contrary. He is entitled to that conclusion.

James Maybrick sent at least a couple of rhymes to the Central News, and one of these contained the line ‘as time will show’ and another ‘I’m society’s pillar’. Astonishing. Maybrick placed his family motto – more or less literally – into this rhyme and then in the very next line revealed that his name had something to do with pillars. Impossible to have deciphered at the time, of course, as Maybrick was never a suspect, but easy to understand now in the light of Maybrick’s confession in his scrapbook. Hiding in plain sight.