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:
Scene of the Crimes: Just where was 29 Hanbury Street............. - by The Station Cat 36 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by The Station Cat 40 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by The Station Cat 41 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by barnflatwyngarde 41 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Fisherman 42 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - by Pcdunn 45 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (27 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
Torso Killings: autopsy notes - (11 posts)
Non-Fiction: New Jack the Ripper Book - (10 posts)
Visual Media: Dutfield's yard victim in situ - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Bank Holiday Murders by Tom Wescott (2014) - (4 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
  #2771  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:24 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Well yes, it was 'supposed' to be, but only according to Mike, because his first attempt, in June 1994, to claim the diary as his own work went down so well that he knew he had to come up with something just a tad more credible next time.
Yes, I'm aware he has said different things at other times but I'm concentrating on what he said in his affidavit.

If you can demonstrate to me untruths in his affidavit then that's great - please go ahead - but let's stick to his affidavit and not worry about what he has said at times other than when swearing his affidavit.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2772  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:27 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
I readily agreed that most of the definitions imply knowingly stating an untruth. That's just one more definition. Errors and delusions are hardly in the same category as deliberate deceptions, are they?
As I said earlier, you are confusing definitions with synonyms.

And if all you have been intending to show is that Barrett made an error of dating in his affidavit then that was precisely what I said before we even started this discussion.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2773  
Old 01-11-2017, 02:39 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
We don't need to know if he was in error, deluded, confused or lying about every tiny detail of his supposed involvement, to know that he got stuff wrong at the time of his most formally made 'confession'. This was his best shot and he fluffed it.
Yes, but one of the things he said in his affidavit was that the 1891 diary was purchased before the attempt at forging the Diary.

Now that we know that 1891 diary was acquired on 26 March 1992, we cannot ignore this fact which suggests that, had Barrett been aware it when drafting his affidavit, he would presumably have been able to state that the Maybrick Diary was forged at some point between 26 March and 13 April 1992.

As I have already said to you (but you have ignored), Barrett also told us that it took only 11 days for the Diary's text to be written out. He could have said two months, or six months but he just happened to give us a time period which fits in perfectly with the time period between acquiring the 1891 diary and presenting the Maybrick Diary to Doreen.

Bear in mind that some people in this forum couldn't believe that the Diary could possibly have been written out in only 11 days. So why didn't Barrett select a much longer period of time?

I also have to bear in mind that Barrett's plan with the 1891 diary would have necessarily involved him in ripping out the early pages of that diary with writing on, in circumstances where a few days later he presented Doreen with a diary that had its first 64 pages ripped out.

I also cannot ignore the fact that there is no sensible or rational reason why Mike Barrett would have attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages other than to create a forged Victorian diary.
__________________
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2774  
Old 01-11-2017, 03:04 PM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.
To protect his daughter, GUT.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2775  
Old 01-11-2017, 03:08 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
To protect his daughter, GUT.
How? Does it protect her.
__________________
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
  #2776  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:25 PM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is online now
Cadet
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
What no one has to date, satisfactorily, explained is why he'd make a false confession.
Mike already explained that himself in a taped meeting with Harrison, Skinner and others. It was to get back at Anne for leaving him and denying him access to his daughter for a year.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2777  
Old 01-11-2017, 11:46 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,621
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
Mike already explained that himself in a taped meeting with Harrison, Skinner and others. It was to get back at Anne for leaving him and denying him access to his daughter for a year.
Two questions

1. How did that get back at Anne?

2. How come so many believe some things he says and not others, and how do they decide which is which.
__________________
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
  #2778  
Old 01-12-2017, 01:14 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Yes, but one of the things he said in his affidavit was that the 1891 diary was purchased before the attempt at forging the Diary.

Now that we know that 1891 diary was acquired on 26 March 1992, we cannot ignore this fact which suggests that, had Barrett been aware it when drafting his affidavit, he would presumably have been able to state that the Maybrick Diary was forged at some point between 26 March and 13 April 1992.

As I have already said to you (but you have ignored), Barrett also told us that it took only 11 days for the Diary's text to be written out. He could have said two months, or six months but he just happened to give us a time period which fits in perfectly with the time period between acquiring the 1891 diary and presenting the Maybrick Diary to Doreen.

Bear in mind that some people in this forum couldn't believe that the Diary could possibly have been written out in only 11 days. So why didn't Barrett select a much longer period of time?

I also have to bear in mind that Barrett's plan with the 1891 diary would have necessarily involved him in ripping out the early pages of that diary with writing on, in circumstances where a few days later he presented Doreen with a diary that had its first 64 pages ripped out.

I also cannot ignore the fact that there is no sensible or rational reason why Mike Barrett would have attempted to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages other than to create a forged Victorian diary.
But that doesn't exclude the possibility that Barrett acquired the diary on behalf of somebody else, i.e. as part of a conspiracy in which his role was fairly minor.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2779  
Old 01-12-2017, 01:17 AM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is online now
Cadet
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Two questions

1. How did that get back at Anne?
Only Mike could possibly answer that one, alas...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
2. How come so many believe some things he says and not others, and how do they decide which is which.
That's a very good question. Personally, I tend to believe that a relatively sober Mike Barrett, whilst living with Anne and Caroline, was for the most part an honest man. However, once his wife had left him, he was denied access to his daughter, he was knocking back a bottle of Scotch a day, and whiling away the small hours filling up the answer machine tapes of everyone he knew who was connected to the Diary with incoherent drivel and bile - well let's just say that I put far less stock in anything he said during that period.

From what I can gather, during the taped meeting I referred to (where he says he made up for the forgery story to get back at Anne) Mike was sober and relatively together. I believe during that meeting he tried to bargain for a bottle of Scotch at one point, which certainly suggests he hadn't had a drink for a day. Because I never knew Mike I listen very closely to the opinions of those who did; if they say they believed he was being truthful or not with any given statement, then I think it's very hard for those of us who didn't know Mike to argue.

I believe 100% that Tony Devereaux gave the Diary to Mike and told him to "do something with it", as told by sober Mike. I also believe 100% that all of drunk Mike's claims of forgery are untrue, although the affidavit of Jan 1995 possibly contains some true facts.

Last edited by StevenOwl : 01-12-2017 at 01:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2780  
Old 01-12-2017, 03:42 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 4,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
No, of course I don't think it was "a little bit insane".

People confess to crimes all the time, for various reasons which have nothing to do with insanity.
Fair enough, so you don't think Mike was in a disturbed state of mind whenever he confessed. His solicitor did after his first attempt, and the police were never willing or able to charge him with fraud even after he made substantial sums of money from the book buying public. What made Mike and Anne immune, when Kujau had been quickly convicted and slung in jail for what you believe was much the same crime?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


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 11:41 AM.


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