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: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Yabs 14 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Henry Flower 24 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Mike J. G. 24 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by John G 26 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Jacob Schikaneder - Murder in the house (1890) - by SirJohnFalstaff 27 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Mike J. G. 31 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (100 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (56 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (2 posts)
General Discussion: General Victoriana - (2 posts)
General Discussion: Jacob Schikaneder - Murder in the house (1890) - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Were Belle Elmore’s remains that proved she wasn’t related to her living relatives an - (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
  #431  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:26 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Caz, any idea about braggadocio either?

LOL.
I don't eat salad leaves, Ike. I'm not a masochist, contrary to popular opinion.

LOL

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:28 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
Hey, quoting myself - I like it!

Just looked up 'braggadocio' (come on, admit it, you lot didn't know what it was either!). Apparently, it means to look up clever sounding words and then find contrived ways to get them into posts on the internet to look as though they are part of your natural vocabulary.

In my day, we did it in angst-filled teenage poetry, but clearly that world has rather moved on a tad.

LOL.
Well I'm quite discombobulated by that, Ike.

LOL

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:31 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
And by the way, using the word braggadocio with reference to YOU, Ike, is the least 'contrived' usage for it I can think of. It was coined for you.
A bit like if you look up the words 'infallible' and 'frustrated' they will be accompanied by a photo of David Orsam?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:52 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,873
Default

Hi All
my big word of the day concerning the diary is unsupercalifragilisticexpialidocious
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:58 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I want to repeat and emphasise this point. As far as I can make out, a transcript was NOT prepared.

A transcript by definition is an exact replica of an original. The purpose of transcribing handwritten notes is to make them easier to read. The transcript must not have words added to it that were not in the original or words removed.

If, when being "tidied up", the "re-typed" version of the notes were altered in any way, to make them more coherent or for any other reason, then this version is not a transcript.

What should have happened is a transcript was first prepared THEN a coherent version of the notes produced, if that was felt necessary.

But if the typed version contains elements from both Mike and Anne then we have lost Mike's research notes. There is no way of knowing what Mike wrote contemporaneously and what was added by Anne later.

Given that there is a suggestion that these notes might have been faked to make it appear that the research was carried out over a longer period of time than it actually was, the importance of seeing the full version of these notes cannot be overstated.
Oh for feck's sake David. As you acknowledge, we can't know that Anne did any more than add some punctuation, address Mike's terrible muddling of upper and lower case letters or correct obvious sPEliNg MissTakEs, assuming no original notes survived. I don't even know that to be the case. I wasn't there when the notes were last seen.

But do you honestly think the version handed to Shirley is likely to contain anything suggesting that the original notes were written with forgery in mind, if you also think the sole purpose of tidying up and re-typing them was to get rid of any such suggestion?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 08-23-2017, 07:10 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
A bit like if you look up the words 'infallible' and 'frustrated' they will be accompanied by a photo of David Orsam?

Love,

Caz
X
In the words of a master of big words Caz-methinks thou dost protest too much.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 08-23-2017, 07:37 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
1. She says that Anne "collated" Mike's notes. Is this supposed to be the same as "tidied up"? For me they convey different impressions. Collated gives the impression of the notes merely being organised whereas "tided up" suggests that they have been changed and improved.

2. She says the notes were "typed", not "re-typed". Why did she use the word "re-typed" in her 2003 book? Just a mistake or is there some significance to it?
If the original notes were made by hand, possibly on undated scraps of paper collected and kept in no particular order [and were possibly typed up first by Mike in an equally random fashion, but not necessarily - Shirley would have depended on Mike or Anne to tell her], I would suggest that Anne put his information, with appropriate punctuation and corrected spelling, in the order it appears in the final version, along with Shirley's own notes, to form a coherent document.

Quote:
3. She says (as she says in her book) that the notes were created before Mike brought the Diary to London. If it is now being said that the notes were probably created AFTER he brought the Diary to London how did she get it so badly wrong both in her response to Harris and in her book which appear to have been written about six years apart?
Christ on a bike, how hard can this be? They were not 'probably' created after April 13th; they must all have been created after March 8th, when Mike could not yet have known that the diary would soon be landed in his lap.

Shirley would have been working from Mike's claim to have been "doing something with it" since Devereux advised him to do just that in the summer of the previous year.

Quote:
What is essential, if we are shortly to be told that the Diary came from Battlecrease on 9 March 1992, is that the full version of Mike's research notes MUST be produced in full so that everyone can examine them. This is especially true if the notes in any way contradict the notion that Mike received the Diary on 9 March 1992. They cannot any longer reasonably be withheld.
You are in touch with Keith Skinner by email, David. He will be on the diary panel with Shirley next month. I'm sure you can work out how best to go about this new campaign of yours, and it's not bleating on a message board about your considerable frustration that these notes have not yet been made available for all eyes to see.

I have a copy, but if you think I'd give you the drippings from my nose after the condescending way you treat any information I have provided, you can take a long walk off a short pier.

Besides, I would need permission as it is not mine to broadcast, and I'm not about to ask for it when that is something you could easily have done yourself by now [and got the kudos for it] if you could have dragged yourself away from this place for all of five minutes.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
If, as Robert Smith and the "Diary Team" are going to tell us in this new book, the Diary came from Battlecrease on 9 March 1992, it means that the inept, incompetent and unimaginative Mike Barrett was telling a highly sophisticated lie to Howells here, cleverly hiding from him the fact that he knew from DAY ONE that the Diary was from Battlecrease (although he also couldn't keep a secret!).
Not quite sure I follow this one. Does anyone know if Mike was told on DAY ONE that the diary was from Battlecrease? Did any of those involved even know the name Battlecrease then, or that this used to be the name of the house the diary came from, or that this house belonged to James Maybrick in Jack the Ripper's time? Why would they have told Mike any of this anyway, if they just wanted to offload a bit of stolen property onto him for a small amount of dosh? He'd have been left to work it out for himself, just as he was left to work out what the diary was all about. Even when he must have suspected where it had really come from, he wasn't going to talk and lose any claim he otherwise had to a potentially priceless document.

Quote:
And not only does he tell this sophisticated lie, but lo and behold he produces some research notes which show that he has been researching the Diary since August 1991, about seven months before anyone knew it even existed, without a single clue for ages that it had anything to do with Battlecrease and James Maybrick!!
Which 'show' or which 'prove', David? This is rather an important distinction when we are talking about Mike. It's hardly the equivalent of Dr Shipman's computer time and date-stamped tamperings with his victims' medical records, is it?

No documented evidence of any research going on during those seven months is not all that different from no documented evidence that no research was going on, in terms of how sophisticated a lie this would have had to be for Mike to maintain. How does one show, or prove, that Mike did not go to the library and make all sorts of notes before March 1992? Yet it ought to have been easy enough to find some witness evidence if he spent more than a few days doing just that.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #439  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:58 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
And you want irony? Surely the irony here is that, for years, the Diary’s detractors have been suggesting that Mike's research notes were fake and that Anne's story, and her father's story, about the Diary being her family for years and her giving it to Tony Devereux is false. Such claims have been vigorously resisted by the 'Diary Team' but now we are presumably to be told, oh well, actually the detractors were right, the research notes are faked and Anne's story is all rubbish. But, hey, it's okay, we've found a timesheet.
I don't know who you include in your 'Diary Team' or what your definition of 'for years' is, but certainly you won't find me, Robert Smith or Keith Skinner 'vigorously resisting' at any time over the last thirteen years the suggestion that Devereux never had the diary.

Why don't you wait for next month, instead of making sarcastic remarks which, if there is any justice, will come back to bite you in the bum?

There is no 'team'; just individual researchers with varying beliefs, who have mostly been beavering away independently of one another behind the scenes for many, many years, in their efforts to uncover the truth, whatever that may prove to be. You can sneer your head off, but I have known most of these people personally for years and you do them - and ultimately yourself - a grave disservice with your smart remarks and dismissive attitude.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 08-23-2017, 09:01 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
Interested to read Caz's response.
Are you, Henry? Are you really?

You got it.

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 02:02 PM.


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