Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Rippercast: Jo Vigor-Mungovin & 'Joseph:The Life, Times & Places of the Elephant Man - by jmenges 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (19 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (10 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Why Did They Lower Their Guard? - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Residents of Bucks Row - (5 posts)
Rippercast: Jo Vigor-Mungovin & 'Joseph:The Life, Times & Places of the Elephant Man - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Maybrick, James

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2761  
Old 01-11-2017, 01:55 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Hold on! Two minutes ago you were telling me those diaries didn't have dates in or on them!

Come on, David, you are trying to have it both ways here, surely?
Ha ha. I knew you would misunderstand.

No, I didn't say that at all.

Of course diaries have dates in them. That's the whole point of a diary! What I said was that the blank pages would not necessarily have dates on them (nor the cover).

This was based on Mike ripping out the pages of the diary with the giveaway 1891 dates - i.e. those on which the author of the diary had written the 1891 dates when making diary entries - and/or removing any other signs of it being an 1891 diary before creating his forged Maybrick Diary.

But Caz, as I understand her, is trying to say that Mike Barrett would not have removed any traces of the year 1891 in the diary when he wrote the text in it and took it down to Doreen. That's the baffling part of her theory that I can't understand. Or, rather, one of the baffling parts.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2762  
Old 01-11-2017, 01:58 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
They can shift whichever way they want, but if that day ever comes it's game over - if that journal was ever in the four walls of Battlecrease House, it's authentic.
And so far that's far from proven.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2763  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:00 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I agree it would have been an utterly futile response if I had written this pile of crap, David, but I didn't. Is this why you only put speech marks at the end, because at the beginning you knew you were misquoting me but got confused as you went along and actually thought I'd written this?
You are the one confused Caz. I explained that I was trying to avoid you saying: because O&L searched their records for 1990, Barrett couldn't have acquired the scrapbook in 1990. That means that I knew you hadn't said it. Otherwise I would have put quotation marks around it.

So of course I wasn't quoting you - but "demonstrable untruth" was your expression which is why that is wrapped in quotation marks.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2764  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I don't know if O&L only searched their records for 1990, but I don't recall claiming it was the search that demonstrated an untruth in Mike's statement. I can only repeat that Mike could not have got the guard book in 1990, as he claimed, if he didn't get it until after he acquired the 1891 diary, as he claimed in the same statement. Conversely, he could not have acquired the 1891 diary before the guard book, as he claimed, if he got the guard book in 1990, as he claimed in the same statement.
If you don't know whether O&L only searched their records for 1992 then you can't demonstrate that Barrett didn't acquire the diary in 1992 can you?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2765  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:04 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
An untruth can be a delusion or an error, as I have demonstrated previously with this link (you don't need to search beyond the very first two definitions):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/untruth
Can I first say that a synonym is not a "definition". To avoid any argument over this, here is Webster's definition of the word "synonym".

"one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses".

Secondly, can I once again draw your attention to the second definition of "untruth" in Websters at the link you provided:

"a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive"

I'm glad to see that you have noted this in a subsequent post.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2766  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:08 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
And yes, I have no doubt whatsoever that 1990 was just another of Mike's dating errors, while trying to figure out how to make at least one of his various and varied forgery confessions credible when compared to facts that could be established.
Aha! So now we finally have it. You ARE saying that Barrett was telling a lie - because he must have known that he never purchased the diary at any time. It's not a delusion or an error, it's a deliberate falsehood. A statement known by Barrett to be untrue and made in order to deceive. That is precisely what you have not demonstrated.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2767  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:10 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,674
Default

What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2768  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:10 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Buggered if I know, David. Maybe Mike locked himself away until 1992 so nobody could get to know him well enough to comment. Doesn't stop people commenting here today, when they didn't know him from Adam, so I just wondered why we don't hear about his sufficient qualifications from anyone who would have been sufficiently qualified to judge back in 1992.
But it works both ways doesn't it?

Earlier you were asking me why there were no examples of people coming forward to say that Mike had sufficient qualifications to forge the diary. Well, in case I am accused of misunderstanding or misquoting you, let me quote your exact words:

"How many out of all the people who would have known Mike long before, shortly before and after 1992 have ever come forward to express the opinion that he had 'sufficient qualifications' to produce the diary - in any other sense than to hand it over for inspection?

I can't recall a single person, can you? Was he so popular that nobody who knew him was disloyal enough to say he would have been capable? Or did he use his royalties to bribe them to keep it buttoned or pretend he couldn't have forged a sick note?"


But if we don't know of anyone who knew Mike prior to 1992 who has come forward to say that he had no qualifications to forge the diary, then not being able to identify anyone who has said he did have such qualifications gets us nowhere doesn't it?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2769  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:17 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Absolutely, David. But there's a world of difference between thinking oneself capable of something and actually doing it and getting away with it. Remember, it was Robert Smith who published the diary and Robert Smith who chuckled with me over Mike's various attempts at 'creative' anything but unholy messes.
Wouldn't Robert Smith have wanted to convince himself that Mike was not capable of forging the diary? If so, his opinion doesn't seem to count for much.

I don't think there is a "world of difference" here actually. The fact that Mike thought himself to be a creative person would explain why he thought himself capable of creating the diary in the first place.

I don't want to labour the point but I keep having to repeat that Mike claims to have had the assistance of his wife. A lot of people don't believe that Jeffrey Archer wrote all those novels on his own and that his wife must have helped him. Lots of creative people need really good editors to make their work readable.

The very fact that Mike thought he could write a novel is, I believe, a good clue as to the author of the 'Maybrick' Diary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2770  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:20 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
She made an unholy mess of spelling the word rendezvous then, for a sensible woman. No dictionaries available in March/April 1992?
How does the word "sensible" translate to "incapable of making a spelling mistake"?

The thing about dictionaries is you only use them if you think you can't spell a certain word. If you think you know how to spell that word then having all the dictionaries in the word isn't going to help you.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.