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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Graham 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (14 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (4 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (1 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
  #2781  
Old 01-12-2017, 04:30 AM
Hannibal Hayes Hannibal Hayes is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 41
Default

Caz,
Do you know if it was just Mike who made substantial sums of money or whether it was him & Anne?

Thanks.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2782  
Old 01-12-2017, 04:37 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Let's remind ourselves of the question:

""I worked on the story and then I dictated it to Anne who wrote it down in the Photograph Album and thus we produced the Diary of Jack the Ripper."

Why did that not happen?"


Your first answer - "Because Mike's original claim, that he wrote it himself, was not considered credible, so he had to come up with another idea?" - That is not an answer to my question. Had I asked you why Barrett said that he worked on the story and dictated it to Anne your answer would have been reasonable. But I did not ask that. I asked you why Barrett's account did not happen.
What I meant was that Mike had a potential motive after his first attempt at confessing to incriminate Anne and make his next attempt more credible. Obviously your question was redundant if you were seriously expecting proof of a negative - that something did not happen. That would involve constant cctv in the Barrett home from, say, 1987 to 1992, to cover all eventualities, would it not? I assumed you just wanted to hear the reasoning behind other people's convictions that it did not happen as Mike claimed.

Quote:
So let's have a look at your other answers:

"Because it's not in Anne's handwriting and there is no evidence that she'd have been able to disguise it well enough and thoroughly enough to fool experts like Sue Iremonger?" - Equally, there is no evidence that Anne could not have disguised her handwriting is there?
Another negative you are asking people to prove? Tut tut, this won't do. If you can keep wheeling Baxendale out because he considered it 'likely' that the diary was not penned before 1945, I can repeat that Sue Iremonger did not see Anne's disguised hand in the diary any more than she saw Maybrick's disguised hand there.

Quote:
"Because (whisper whisper) the diary didn't need 'working on', having come out of Battlecrease and found its weary - wary - way to Mike, ready written and raring to go public?" There is no known evidence that the diary came out of Battlecrease.
Not known to you, David. Not known to the general public yet either. But known to me and to enough other people to make all the difference to my reasoning and responses. You really need to get over this, David. Clearly, those who know the thing was in Battlecrease before Mike ever got his paws on it would say this was proof that Anne did not write the thing to Mike's dictation. You are free to scrub this from your personal record until the evidence is out there.

Quote:
"Because had Mike 'worked on the story' himself he'd have had Mary Kelly killed on September 11th (9/11), between Chapman and the double event?" - Well apart from your statement that Mike thought that MJK was killed on September 11th being a guess (with the most likely explanation is that he believed 9/11 to be 9th of November, which it is in England), Mike's account of how the Diary was written would have ensured that Anne picked up on any such errors before writing them down.
Of course, because Anne could have checked the sources Mike used - that small handful of books Melvin Harris claimed would have given all the information (and misinformation) needed to complete the diary. Do you know which books Mike consulted when making his 'research' notes? Do you know if they matched Melvin's selection, or would have provided the Barretts with every piece of information that appears in the diary?

Quote:
"Because he'd have produced something even the most loyal wife would have been too embarrassed to write down?" That is unfounded speculation. If his wife would have been too embarrassed to write any parts of it down she could simply have not done so.
Did I say it wasn't unfounded speculation? At least I have met Anne on a few occasions, and she isn't known to have had a drink problem. So my reasoning is based on personal experience of her character, and my conclusion is that it would be 100% unfounded speculation to suggest that Anne would not have been too embarrassed, too intelligent and too sane to touch such a marital project, involving 63 pages of Mike's 'creative' writing, with a barge pole.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2783  
Old 01-12-2017, 04:42 AM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Hayes View Post
Caz,
Do you know if it was just Mike who made substantial sums of money or whether it was him & Anne?

Thanks.
I'm sure Caz will reply in due course, but seeing as I'm in the middle of 'The Inside Story' - I believe that Mike received around 40k but it was gone within a couple of years with nothing to show for it. Who knows how much Anne took for herself. It seems as though further payments to Mike were largely offset against legal fees incurred by the publisher, brought about due to his own dubious confessions. Hopefully Caz can enlighten us further...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2784  
Old 01-12-2017, 04:45 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Hayes View Post
Caz,
Do you know if it was just Mike who made substantial sums of money or whether it was him & Anne?

Thanks.
Hi HH,

As I'm really struggling to catch up with all the posts here, could I suggest you read Ripper Diary - The Inside Story [1 penny from Amazon last time I looked], which goes into much more detail about who made how much and when.

From memory, Anne wanted no share of the spoils to begin with, but when she left Mike in January 1994, taking her daughter with her, it was the Barretts' agent Doreen Montgomery who insisted she should have her rightful share for her daughter's sake.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2785  
Old 01-12-2017, 05:02 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I take it as meaning what it says:

"a one off instance, I said..."

And as I've already explained in great detail, it's not an expression that Maybrick himself would or could have formulated in 1888, let alone have expected to be understood.
But your point was that his wife would not have understood what he was talking about, which is why I quoted the rest of the passage in question, which demonstrates beyond all doubt that our diarist had 'Sir Jim' immediately explain to Bunny precisely what was meant by the expression. Even a backward earwig would have got it.

If your failure to quote me fully was not a careless oversight but an attempt at sleight of hand, David, it didn't become you and you underestimated me if you thought you'd get away with it. I hope you can see that playing fair is likely to do you more favours.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2786  
Old 01-12-2017, 05:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
In the very next paragraph in Ripper Diary, we get "According to Barrett's statement, while he and Anne were writing the diary, Tony Devereux was housebound and very ill: 'In fact after we completed the Diary we left it for a while with Tony Devereux severely ill and in fact he died late May early June 1990'.
You've done it now, Ike. Odd that David has chosen not to ask anyone why this did not happen.

Perhaps we could ask David how this could have happened, if the diary - faked by the Barretts of Goldie Street with Tony's help - was completed in late March/April 1992, as he seems to be pinning his hopes on. I mean, you can't get more severely ill than Tony was by then, can you?

I'm beginning to wonder why Mike's confession claims have any more place on this thread than the watch. If anyone sane is still posting on topic, do they seriously imagine there is a single incontrovertible, unequivocal or undeniable fact to be found among Mike's creative thinking and writing which demonstrates his knowledge that the diary was a fake when he took it to London?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2787  
Old 01-12-2017, 06:06 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Can I suggest, Iconoclast, that the entire puzzle is solved if what Mike Barrett was remembering in 1995 was that Devereux was ill while he was drafting the Diary during 1990. In other words, I am suggesting that there was a draft in existence (in typed format) prior to Mike phoning Doreen and acquiring the scrapbook.

When Mike says that there was a pause after Devereux's death, what I suggest he is thinking of is the period between August 1991 and March 1992.

According to Mike, the Diary was written "from my typed notes" and only on occasions "at my dictation".

His memory (through his drunken haze) of Devereux being ill while he was drafting (as opposed to dictating) the Diary may indeed be what has caused him to mess up the chronology in his mind.
Nice mental gymnastics going on here, David, but how do Mike's abysmal memory for dates and chronic chronology problems help to demonstrate that he had any knowledge that the diary was a fake when he took it to London? We can put it all down to the demon drink causing him merely to be very forgetful and confused over what happened and when (while presumably remembering enough of the 'what' and not being dishonest or mistaken about it), but since alcohol misuse can also be associated with certain mental health issues, such as confabulation, no responsible, objective investigator would surely be expected to take his claims as gospel without the belt and braces of solid evidence, would they?

By the way, do you accept Mike's claim that Tony Devereux was actually a co-conspirator in the diary project, or could he have been confused about who was and who wasn't involved? Was it a false memory perhaps? He also claimed that Anne's father donated the 50 needed to buy the guard book, and of course that its kidney shaped stain was caused when Anne dropped an actual kidney on it. Confusion? Delusion? False memories? Inventiveness? Or honest attempts to describe events that really happened? If you can't get inside Mike's mind when he was coming out with all manner of contradictory stories, how do you begin to assess what is a truth or an untruth where the evidence doesn't tell us either way?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-12-2017 at 06:21 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2788  
Old 01-12-2017, 06:44 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
If you are asking me why he would seek an 1890-91 diary, he wasn't seeking such a diary at all. He was seeking one from around 1888.
And you know this how, David? Because Mike said so? If he did say so, that doesn't make it true, does it? 'The' diary is signed off in May 1889. I would be surprised if Mike was aware, at the time of placing that order, whether the undated 63 pages related to events going back days, weeks, months or even years, in the life and times of Jack the Ripper. If you can bear to consider the shocking possibility that he got the thing ready written, it could have taken him some time and effort to work his way through the entries and work out a likely starting date.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-12-2017 at 06:48 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2789  
Old 01-12-2017, 07:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I'm not Mike Barrett but I can see that a person who is about to forge an LVP diary might find it useful to acquire a genuine LVP diary containing some blank pages.
How many blank pages did the order specify? Twenty, wasn't it? Two sides to each page would have given forty (assuming it wasn't interpreted as twenty sides). If the diary draft had already been completed and typed up before Devereux became poorly in mid-1991, and was good to go, would the Barretts not have realised that much of their hard work might go to waste if it could not be squeezed into a diary of any size with as few blank pages as that? Or was the original plan for Anne to use much tinier writing? Surely she had sensibly practised by March 1992 and was aware that the handwriting would take up considerably more space than the typed version?

Also, have you any thoughts as to why anyone 'about to forge an LVP diary' would a) alert a literary agent before they had even found a suitable book with enough blank pages for their creation, or b) not give it a sensible interval between putting ink to paper and allowing anyone to see it - unless of course they needed a check up from the neck up? Why the indecent haste, if the plan had been taking shape nicely since before Tony went downhill?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-12-2017 at 07:39 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2790  
Old 01-12-2017, 07:47 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
What we know is that Barrett advertised for an LVP diary with blank pages in March 1992 so I have adjusted the chronology to fit in with that known date.
And therein lies your problem, David, if I may be so bold. You have adjusted Mike's impossible chronology to fit and you have limited yourself to an illogically, if not impossibly tight time frame, which would make Mike and his sensible, sober wife Anne the daftest pair of forgers ever not to be exposed as the creators of their own forgery.

I am often reminded on this thread of the arguments made by Lechmere theorists, who rely on the lack of knowledge about their suspect and his character to put the most sinister interpretation on the few known facts about him. It's lazy.

So again, why the indecent haste to announce you have Jack the Ripper's diary before you even have something to write it in? Were Mike and Anne afraid the dog would eat their homework if they didn't get a move on?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 01-12-2017 at 07:57 AM.
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 09:01 PM.


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