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:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 3 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 8 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 12 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 16 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 18 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by David Orsam 19 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (33 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (14 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (7 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (5 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
  #341  
Old 08-17-2017, 08:48 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,961
Default

Here's the thing. My only knowledge of Mike's purported research notes is what Shirley Harrison said about them in her 2003 book. And this is what she said (bold and underlining added):

"In 1992 Michael had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne from his researches. They are a record of his forays to Liverpool Library before he brought the Diary to London when he was desperately trying to make sense of it all."


If anyone now says they include a record of his forays to Liverpool Library after he brought the Diary to London it makes me wonder why the story is changing.

I can't see anywhere in the book where Shirley says that she provided some information and input into Mike's research notes but perhaps she wasn't telling the full story, I have no idea.

If the notes needed to be 'tidied up' by Anne, does this show that the Barretts prepared other written work in this way, with Mike having a first crack and Anne tidying it up?

More than ever I question why the original notes were not produced. If they were hard to read then a transcript should have been prepared. If they were destroyed then that is destruction of original evidence pure and simple.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 08-17-2017, 08:56 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaz View Post
And yet you're prepared to take mikes word over the scientists who claim the inks been dry since 1970...

Are they all incompetent aswell? Or are they lying to you like the rest behind the diary... apart from mike...obviously..
The first document examiner to examine the Diary was the experienced Dr David Baxendale:

From the Sunday Times of 19 September 1993:

"One test used commonly to date documents such as this is, the solubility test... For a document purportedly more than 100 years old, Baxendale would have expected the ink to take several minutes to begin to dissolve. In this case, says Baxendale, "it began to dissolve in just a few seconds." Baxendale concluded it had probably been written recently, in the past two or three years."
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 08-17-2017, 09:17 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,961
Default

Let's remind ourselves about what Feldman said of his miraculous Grand National discovery:

"But what of the race, 'the fastest....?' The newspapers had certainly described the race as exciting and even surprising, but we could not find detail to confirm the diarist's use of those words. My Liverpool researcher, Carol Emmas, visited Aintree. They were not able to help. Carol, like all my team, was resolute. She scoured magazines and newspapers for days on end. Her efforts were not unrewarded.

In an obscure magazine entitled the Liverpolitan, in an issue dated March 1939, page 27 carried the headline A STATISTICAL GUIDE TO THE WORLD'S GREATEST STEEPLECHASE. Every result since 1837 was listed. So were details of the owner, age and weight of the horse, number of horses in the race, jockey and time. The Grand National of 1889 was won by a horse called Frigate. It was the fastest Grand National run for eighteen years!"


Here is the page of that very same Liverpolitan that Feldman's researcher had miraculously found. It's just a list of owners, winners, weights, riders and times etc.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 08-17-2017, 09:28 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,961
Default

And what's this from a 1972 book entitled "The Grand National: An Illustrated History of the Greatest Steeplechase in the World" by Clive Graham and Bill Curling?

Oh the very same thing:
Attached Images
 
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 08-18-2017, 02:10 AM
Iconoclast Iconoclast is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 631
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaz View Post
Erm, David, you have a warped view of what I said...

I SAID "dear life". it was you who said "real life".
Somewhat disappointed to find that the great man failed to acknowledge his mistake or offer a simple apology. You might read into this a difficulty admitting to any possibility of error.

Come on David, man up and apologise.

Honest Ike
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:16 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Here's the thing. My only knowledge of Mike's purported research notes is what Shirley Harrison said about them in her 2003 book. And this is what she said (bold and underlining added):

"In 1992 Michael had given me all his notes, re-typed and 'tidied up' by Anne from his researches. They are a record of his forays to Liverpool Library before he brought the Diary to London when he was desperately trying to make sense of it all."


If anyone now says they include a record of his forays to Liverpool Library after he brought the Diary to London it makes me wonder why the story is changing.
Is anyone now saying that? I merely observed that Shirley did not see that record until the July or August, so I'm not quite sure how she would have known when such forays began and ended, although I can see how she would have made the assumption they were in the months preceding the diary's arrival in London, given her belief in Mike's account of Devereux giving it to him back in the summer of 1991 and letting him get on with it. Clearly whatever Shirley contributed to Mike's notes came after April 13th, so they are not confined to a record of his own forays, or a record that was done and dusted by that date.

Quote:
I can't see anywhere in the book where Shirley says that she provided some information and input into Mike's research notes but perhaps she wasn't telling the full story, I have no idea.
I'm telling that bit to you now, David, so you do have an idea. Perhaps Shirley didn't think it would be of any particular interest or relevance to anyone at the time, any more than including Mike's inside leg measurement or her own bra size.

Quote:
If the notes needed to be 'tidied up' by Anne, does this show that the Barretts prepared other written work in this way, with Mike having a first crack and Anne tidying it up?
I don't know. A typed transcript of the diary itself was also prepared, but I thought Anne probably took on that task without Mike having a first crack at it. That would have been the more sensible option.

Quote:
More than ever I question why the original notes were not produced. If they were hard to read then a transcript should have been prepared. If they were destroyed then that is destruction of original evidence pure and simple.
A transcript of the original notes was prepared! Blimey, how hard can this be? I don't know if any of Mike's original notes were kept by either Barrett, but I don't see why if they were scribbled on bits of scrap paper. Why would Mike or Anne think they needed to be preserved as evidence of anything, once the notes had been typed up? From their point of view Mike was simply researching this diary he had acquired and the typed up record of that research, along with Shirley's input, was to help with the preparations to publish their book.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 08-18-2017 at 08:18 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:26 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
I'm telling that bit to you now, David, so you do have an idea. Perhaps Shirley didn't think it would be of any particular interest or relevance to anyone at the time, any more than including Mike's inside leg measurement or her own bra size.
Or Maybrick's star sign? She's never shied away from the uninteresting or the irrelevant as far as I remember
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:30 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Somewhat disappointed to find that the great man failed to acknowledge his mistake or offer a simple apology. You might read into this a difficulty admitting to any possibility of error.

Come on David, man up and apologise.
There wasn’t anything in Kaz’s post for me to respond to because she ignored the substantive point in my post to focus on a minor and obvious slip that I made (in parentheses). It didn't need for me to post in reply to agree it was an error but I am very happy to apologise to her and all the members of the forum for this or any minor or typographical error or spelling mistake made by me either in the past or any time in the future.

As you might have seen, however, I was more focused on the important points such as what has happened to Mike Barrett’s research notes, when were they created, what did Anne do to "tidy" them up and how and why did Shirley Harrison manage to incorporate information into them, further focused on the fact that the Grand National information was not difficult to obtain contrary to the OP claim in the supposedly greatest thread ever that "The knowledge that the 1889 Grand National could well have been the fastest James Maybrick had ever seen" shows that the hoaxers went to "considerable effort".
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:39 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,381
Default

Actually, I don't know why I bother to add to David's knowledge.

He thinks he knows it all anyway and if I give him something new to consider, or try to resolve something he has queried, he throws it back in my face and wonders why 'the story is changing' or suggests that perhaps 'the full story' wasn't being told, for all the world as though something incriminating is being, or has been, deliberately suppressed, that would show the diary to have been the April 1992 Barrett production that he evidently still suspects it was.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:46 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Or Maybrick's star sign? She's never shied away from the uninteresting or the irrelevant as far as I remember
Fair point, Henry. We Aquarians don't find anything remotely interesting or relevant about the star signs of philandering cotton merchants.

But one person's idea of interesting and relevant is not going to the next person's, is it, if they don't share the same star sign.

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 01:16 PM.


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