Orsam Books


Given the way that Miss Information has framed her argument about Fuller's diagnosis of Maybrick from the diary as being a defensive one, in response to a supposed claim that it shows Barrett must have forged the diary, it's worth reminding ourselves how the discussion began on the Forum.

It was back on 27 June 2020 when Miss Information, totally out of the blue, introduced the Fuller diagnosis into the 'Incontrovertible' thread. At the time, RJ was discussing Mike's reliance on Whittington-Egan's book, 'Tales of Liverpool' and, in a response to RJ about THIS book (#5406), Miss Information suddenly changed tack half-way through her post and said:

'I have a nice surprise for you concerning Ryan's book'.

Her 'surprise' (to the extent that I can understand it) was no more than that Fuller's evidence at trial was that he told Maybrick on 14 April 1889 that there was 'very little the matter with him'.

It seems like she had just made this discovery and believed it was of great significance.

Her big point was that if the Barretts had used Ryan's book for the hoax, 'Anne must have checked Mike's wording against a much earlier source, to make sure he didn't make a fatal mistake when writing'

The logic of this is baffling. 

Ultimately, it's of very little consequence because, if Ryan's book was checked against the trial transcript in MacDougall by Anne, it would still be a Barrett hoax. But the fact of the matter is that in no way had she demonstrated that Anne 'must have checked Mike's wording'.  It's an utterly absurd claim with no sensible basis.

The other point of her post was a bizarre hypothetical one whereby if Ryan's book had said something different, and the diary had said something different, she would have accepted that the forger had used Ryan's book!

Hence we had:

'If Fuller's words had differed in any respect from Ryan's, I would have accepted that Ryan was a source for the Maybrick hoax'.

Big deal.  What's the point of absurd and pointless hypothetical speculations of this nature?  Far better to concentrate on the actual evidence, one would think.

The strange conclusion to her post was that:

'As it is, the Barretts dodged a bullet'.

Totally incomprehensible and impossible for a normal human being with a functioning brain to understand that claim, but there we are.  The point I want to make here,  though, is that it was Miss Information herself introducing the Fuller point into the debate.  She wasn't responding to anything RJ or anyone else had said about it.

What happened next was quite extraordinary.  In a post of mad bravado, on 2 July 2020 (#5413) Miss Information posted that five planks of the Orsam Theory had supposedly 'gone', the first being Mike's reason for 'ordering' a tiny 1891 diary (a mistake on her part which I've discussed at length elsewhere) and the fifth one was this:

'Gone is Ryan's book, as the only source Bongo would have needed, regarding what Sir Jim was told by Dr Fuller'.

So her insane logic was again being put forward as a reason to say that Ryan's book was 'Gone'.  Naturally, it hadn't gone at all, even on her analysis.  For all she was saying was that Mike DID get Fuller's diagnosis from Ryan but then Anne checked it against the trial transcript. This was itself a completely barmy argument that fooled no one.

She was first challenged about it by Observer who asked her (#5416) to explain how Mike had 'dodged a bullet' as she had claimed.  Her response (#5423) was that she knew her argument would be wasted on Observer, and she simply repeated her bonkers claim that:

'No modern hoaxer would have had the least reason to think that Ryan was taking those words - and only those words - straight out of Fuller's mouth, and would therefore have been safe to copy them in the diary'.

Apart from being mad and illogical, it's a POSITIVE point she was trying to make about how the diary was forged (and that somehow, in her mind, it shows the forger had NOT used Ryan's book). 

RJ Palmer sensibly ignored the madness and, on 3 July 2020, in a discussion with the Major, he responded to yet another mistake in the Major's 'Society's Pillar' in which the Major had claimed that the forger could only have known that Maybrick's parents were buried in a shared grave from 'information buried deep within the text of Florence Maybrick's trial transcript'.  RJ pointed out to him (#5447) that this information was, in fact, available in Ryan's book.

Even though RJ was perfectly correct, Miss Information falsely said his post was 'misleading' (#5459) and then said:

'I can only conclude from your post that, like Observer, the Ryan/Fuller thing was lost on you'.

Miss Information was so committed to her ludicrous Ryan/Fuller 'thing' that she tried to wedge it into a discussion about a mistake in 'Society's Pillar'.  

RJ responded (#5462) by saying that his argument was clearly lost on her.  As he rightly said:

'No one is disputing that Ryan created his volume by referencing primary sources'.

He added that this was, 'Hardly earth shattering' although it seems to have been an earth shattering revelation for Miss Information.

RJ made the wider argument that there are too many instances in the diary of the forger using information from Ryan's book for it to possibly be a coincidence.

Miss Information replied in #5497 on 7 July 2020 to say, 'Ah so it was lost on you, totally'. 

Here is how she summarized her barking mad argument: 

'Ryan referenced a primary source - Dr Fuller, testifying at Florie's trial in 1889 - but in his book he was paraphrasing, not using direct quotes. Now this bit is the clincher. If the Barretts knew, without consulting an earlier source, that the five words they read in Ryan: 'very little the matter with...' and chose for Mike's DAiry, would be the only five words to coincide exactly with the five words Fuller himself used in 1889, then they must have been psychic. 'Coincidences' like that only seem to happen in your world, RJ, but not in mine. If you don't appreciate the wildly improbable scenario of anyone copying verbatim from Ryan's own narrative, and by pure chance hitting on the five actual words Dr Fuller himself had used, I can't help you. Same goes for Anne using both sources, realising that Ryan had simply copied from Fuller without quoting him, and still copying the same five words into the diary, hoping nobody would smell a rat .'

My advice is not to even try to bother to understand it.  It's just a meaningless string of words.  The point I'm making here is that it's a positive argument on her part about the Fuller conversation, to try an undermine the Orsam Theory, not sparked by anything that RJ had said about it.

The next day (#5516) RJ Palmer did his best to try and explain to her why her argument was so bad.  I think that everyone reading this already knows why it's terrible so that I don't need to repeat it.  But Miss Information had been triggered and she was back on 9 July with a long post (#5519) trying to defend her silly point. Without repeating it all, this is what she said to RJ as being the nub of the dispute between them:

'Your argument is that Bongo and Mrs. Bongo used Ryan's book to create the diary. My point is that you have yet to demonstrate that this is the case. I simply don't believe that anyone - Bongo, Mrs. Bongo, you or Lord Orsam - could have read Ryan's book and selected, by pure chance, the actual words Dr Fuller said he told JM.'

As we know, her argument is crazy.  If you were a forger using Ryan's book as your primary source of Maybrick information and you wanted to pretend to be Maybrick summarizing what Fuller had told him, you would have seen Ryan say that Fuller told Maybrick that there was very little the matter with him and you would probably have written something like, 'Fuller said he believes there is very little the matter with me'.  Entirely obvious and easy to understand.  Nothing difficult about it.

But the point I really want to make now is that Miss Information was acknowledging here that RJ's point was that the Barretts used Ryan's book to create the diary based on a complete analysis of (a) what is found in the diary and (b) what is found in Ryan's book whereas Miss Information was focussed on one single example (which RJ hadn't even mentioned), relating to the Fuller diagnosis, as some kind of weird counter-argument which she seemed to think was a compelling one, even though it was just so bad.

There the matter rested for a short time until, in response to a Kattrup post, Miss Information made a totally new claim on 10 August 2020 (#5806), namely that:

'the Barretts most certainly did not lift the phrase '...very little the matter with him...' from Bernard Ryan's paraphrased narrative'.

This, you will recall, isn't what she said in her first post on the subject in June 2020.  Back then, she said that Mike had lifted the phrase from Ryan but Anne had needed to check from the trial transcript that this is what Fuller had said.  Now she was going further to say that the phrase 'very little the matter with' most certainly did not come from Ryan at all.

How is it possible to say this without some sort of mental deficiency?

The fucking words were identical.  So it most certainly could have come from Ryan.  The notion that Mike or Anne would have felt the need to confirm the quote from the trial transcript is nothing more than pure speculation without any evidential or sensible basis.

The matter then rested until 30 June 2021 when, a full year after she had first introduced her crazy claim into the thread, she posted, in response to a post by RJ about the watch being discovered so soon after the announcement in the press of the Maybrick diary, that (#6412): 

'You are free to see those two events as entirely coincidental, along with the earlier double event of 9th March, and - while we're at it - the five consecutive words used in the diary and attributed  to Dr Fuller, by hoaxers who had no idea what his actual words were back in 1889, let alone that he had used that identical phrase.'

She just wouldn't let it lie!

Quite sensibly, RJ responded later the same day (#6414):

'I'm going to leave Dr Fuller alone. It's too tedious'.

Miss Information's silly reply on 5 July 2021 (#6495) was this:

'I don't blame you. I wouldn't want the uphill task either, of trying to explain how the Barretts managed to quote Fuller's words from 1889 directly and accurately, with only Bernard Ryan's narrative to guide them. Stick to the low hanging fruit. Try to forget Fuller, and the sensible brother Johnson, and keep looking towards the dodgy one.' 

I mean it's laughable, 'with only Bernard Ryan's narrative to guide them'.  ha ha ha! The very same narrative in which it is stated that Fuller told Maybrick that there was very little the matter with him!!!!

Incredible how someone's brain can be so twisted that she thinks the fact that Ryan's book and the diary use identical wording means that Ryan's book can be discounted as being the source for the diary!

RJ sensibly didn't respond to this insane provocation and the matter went silent until 17 February 2022 when, in response to RJ's entirely accurate statement that 'it is an undeniable fact: all the 'Maybrick' information in the diary can be found in one book: Ryan's', Miss Information posted:

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

How does one explain this?  It's obviously completely wrong. 

Did Miss Information have a senior moment, forgetting what was in Ryan's book?

I really don't know.  It's inexplicable because, in the past, she had posted exactly what was in Ryan's book. 

Hence in #5519, in July 2020, in an attempt to make some kind of point, she posted:


But then, in the same post, she posited another scenario:


Over the intervening six months had she confused herself and forgotten what was actually in Ryan's book?  Did she think it said 'nothing much wrong with'?

I really don't know.  All I know is that when RJ pointed out her mistake (#8410), she went completely silent and didn't respond at all to it in her #8412.  She still hasn't withdrawn her claim that it's an undeniable fact that Fuller's words as used in the diary can't be found in Ryan.  They can be found in Ryan, which is why the overwhelming likelihood is that Mike simply copied those words out of Ryan's book and into the diary.

The reason I've gone through this at some length is because, as I've mentioned in Lord Orsam Says...Part 30 when darling 'Cazermo' spoke to her 'dear Ike' she tried to pretend that her argument about Fuller was in some way responsive to an argument against her.  Thus she said in #8427, on 27 February 2022:

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

But, having seen the Fuller picture, we can now see that this is a fabricated argument which she's basically invented to justify her repeated posts on the subject.

There was no argument against her which said that because Fuller's words are in the diary this confirms it was Barrett who put them there.  The argument against her has always been that there are so many examples of the diary author borrowing from Ryan that the source of the diary author's information about Fuller's diagnosis must have been Ryan's book (and it was noted that Mike said that he used Ryan's book as the primary source for his forgery).

The argument was not, and never has been, that the inclusion of the words 'very little the matter with' confirms that Mike, or any forger, must have used Ryan's book.  It's always possible of course that the forger could have used MacDougall, Levy or the Liverpool Daily Post for this individual piece of information.  It's just that looking at the fuller picture, one can see that the forger clearly used Ryan as his primary source of Maybrick information, so that he probably did too when paraphrasing Fuller's diagnosis.

It's real real simple.  Not complicated.  Not convoluted.  But for some reason it needs a thousand words to explain it.

9 March 2022