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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (65 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Bucks Row Project - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (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
  #1361  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:03 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Mike, I've been posting on this Forum almost from when it began, and I can assure you that I've always found Caz to be one of the more reliable posters one least prone to imagination and speculation
Seconded, in every detail.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1362  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:08 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Mike, I've been posting on this Forum almost from when it began, and I can assure you that I've always found Caz to be one of the more reliable posters one least prone to imagination and speculation over the years. However, nobody can 'get it right' all the time, that's for sure. And it's not just Ripper threads which are prone: you should have been on the A6 thread when it was really hot!

Graham
My sole problem with some people, including Caz, is an odd insistence that these errors don't matter, and can be explained away by making up vague facts, like how the Post Office Tavern was known as the Poste House, when I can assure you that it wasn't, and that no such evidence for that claim exists on this earth.

I think the fact that some people want to believe Maybrick to be the Ripper is clouding their judgement, and with Caz, her belief in an old hoax is causing her to make a pass for odd timelines, inconsistencies, out-of-date phrases and non-existent pubs.

I find it hard to believe that a person is being reliable when they so brazenly shun glaring errors such as those.

I've nothing against anyone, after all, it's just a discussion about a mystery, but I do have to wonder why some people are overly willing to ignore common sense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1363  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:10 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
Hey Caz.

Your accusation of pot stirring amuses. I mean really? You are in no position to throw stones on that subject.
Point made, Monty old chap.

But at least when I act like a queen mixer I try to make it clear what it is I'm stirring and why. I don't pop up on threads as if at random with cryptic little hints and digs that mean nothing unless one is in 'the know'.

Quote:
You stated, quite clearly that these notes would be available to the public, and that Casebook were offered them. This is an untruth isn't it? It's fine, just don't dress something up to be what it isn't.
And don't think you can take the moral high ground, Monty. Maybe you were deliberately misrepresenting me or you just didn't bother to read all my posts on the subject. I reported that Keith was handing over the notes for publication here and at the 'other place'. That was his understanding at that time and I was given no reason to question it. His 'offer', if you insist on using a word I don't recall using myself, was to make the notes available to anyone willing or able to post them on both sites. So as far as we were aware there was nothing to be 'dressed up'. It took a bit of fishing on my part to ascertain there was no actual 'flunkie' who was going to put them up here for Keith.

I'm not quoting from the rest of your post because none of it had anything to do with me and I had no knowledge of it.

Why you keep saying ignorance is no defence is beyond me. We're not in a police station or court of law, are we? But if ignorance really is no defence, what is your defence for not knowing this was all going to 'kick off'? When I put out that general request on both boards for anyone willing to help Keith get the notes published, I didn't notice you stepping in at that juncture to warn us not to let them fall inadvertently into the wrong hands. You either knew this was a distinct possibility but chose to wait until the damage was done before passing comment, or you didn't know, which puts us in the same position.

Which is it, Monty? In my world, knowing but saying nothing is no better than not knowing.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1364  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:10 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
It isn't Maybrick who is the enigma: it's the people who without concrete proof claim that he wrote the Diary and was Jack The Ripper. They're the enigma. Maybrick was what he was: a drug-addicted yet reasonably successful businessman who made a big mistake the day he got married.

Graham
I agree, Graham. My point re: Maybrick was in jest, as we're being led to believe that this man was beyond any normal capabilities, and did the kinds of things that even the most truly fantastical people cannot do.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1365  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:18 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
The blurb in the OP has the following statements/questions about this book-


We can finally answer the following questions:
When was it written?
Where was it found?
Why did it come to light on 9th March 1992?
Where has it been for over 125 years?
And we must ask one further and crucially linked question. Is Albert Johnson’s watch a genuine artefact from 1888?


It is time to make public why the diary team is confident it is a genuine Victorian document.


whats the answer to these questions and crucially why is the "diary team" so confident its a "genuine Victorian document" ??
guess not.

Ive seen a lot of valid arguments, evidence and rebuttal that its NOT a "genuine Victorian document". but nothing, from posters defending on here nor from the "diary team" that there is anything really new in the book, or anything for that matter explaining why its the real deal or any evidence backing it up.

Id really like to see something... anything-whats new? whats the evidence?

cmon at least something.

why is it a "genuine Victorian document" ?
__________________
"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
  #1366  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:24 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
guess not.

Ive seen a lot of valid arguments, evidence and rebuttal that its NOT a "genuine Victorian document". but nothing, from posters defending on here nor from the "diary team" that there is anything really new in the book, or anything for that matter explaining why its the real deal or any evidence backing it up.

Id really like to see something... anything-whats new? whats the evidence?

cmon at least something.

why is it a "genuine Victorian document" ?
As you've said, Abby, I think what this book does is just speculate further, which is pretty much all there is in favour of it to begin with.

If there was anything concrete in terms of evidence for it being genuine, and without doubt, Maybrick being the Ripper, we'd have already heard it by now.

This conference coming up is entirely intended to sell the book and to further the speculation. If they had anything truly valid to offer, they'd be holding a press conference.

Expect more books to come.

Maybe they can write one on the history of the Post Office Tavern and how it got its obscure, unknown nickname that oddly and exactly matches another pub by that name not far away. I'd love to read that one.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1367  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:37 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Something I found interesting was that Florence returned to Liverpool in 1927, attending the National, but this time in a rather less grand manner than she had in 1889.

This is a woman who died in a mere shack, filled with rubbish and cats, and buried quietly and without fanfare.

If she'd had any indication that her late husband was the Ripper, and that there'd been a diary containing a confession of such, it's a wonder why she "chose" to live out the rest of her days in near poverty, isn't it?

Last edited by Mike J. G. : 09-19-2017 at 07:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1368  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:40 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
It still stretches credulity to breaking point, Caz
Why, Gareth?

X and Y use the same pub in Anfield.

X knows an old book has just been found beneath floorboards at 7 Riversdale Road, Aigburth, because two of his mates have been working there. He figures Y will be interested and might have a good idea what to do with it.

X goes to the pub that lunchtime, where Y is having a beer before picking up his daughter from school, has a word in his shell-like and a couple of phone calls later the charm is wound up.

How is that stretching credulity to breaking point, unless your preconception is that Y wrote the book himself?

But then, isn't it stretching credulity beyond breaking point to have Y creating the diary text at some point prior to March 1992, then finally making those same phone calls on 9 March with no knowledge that X's mates had been lifting the floorboards in James Maybrick's bedroom that very morning?

And if Y did have that knowledge, how did he acquire it, if not from X or his mates?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1369  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:46 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Why, Gareth?

X and Y use the same pub in Anfield.

X knows an old book has just been found beneath floorboards at 7 Riversdale Road, Aigburth, because two of his mates have been working there. He figures Y will be interested and might have a good idea what to do with it.

X goes to the pub that lunchtime, where Y is having a beer before picking up his daughter from school, has a word in his shell-like and a couple of phone calls later the charm is wound up.

How is that stretching credulity to breaking point, unless your preconception is that Y wrote the book himself?

But then, isn't it stretching credulity beyond breaking point to have Y creating the diary text at some point prior to March 1992, then finally making those same phone calls on 9 March with no knowledge that X's mates had been lifting the floorboards in James Maybrick's bedroom that very morning?

And if Y did have that knowledge, how did he acquire it, if not from X or his mates?

Love,

Caz
X
1) Who is supposed to have told X that a book had been found?

2) How does X know where to find Y?

Can you use names, rather than X and Y?

You're basically saying that Rigby called someone, that someone called Barrett and told him about the diary?

Rigby certainly didn't go to any pub at lunchtime in Anfield, Caz, not from Aigburth.

And when did they go to the University with the book?

It does stretch credulity when you have to make this account up just to fit, when so far as we know, this isn't how the account was described.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1370  
Old 09-19-2017, 07:54 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
guess not.

Ive seen a lot of valid arguments, evidence and rebuttal that its NOT a "genuine Victorian document". but nothing, from posters defending on here nor from the "diary team" that there is anything really new in the book, or anything for that matter explaining why its the real deal or any evidence backing it up.

Id really like to see something... anything-whats new? whats the evidence?

cmon at least something.

why is it a "genuine Victorian document" ?
You'd have to ask Robert, Abby, and if you hadn't noticed he doesn't post on here and, even if he did, why would he just come on here and repeat word for word what's in his book? I don't know any more than you do about this 'diary team', although it presumably consists of people who do believe the diary is a genuine Victorian document and possibly even the 'real deal'. Is anyone fitting that description posting here currently? I have yet to catch up, but I don't personally know how old the diary is and I haven't 'defended' it here as genuinely Victorian, let alone the 'real deal' - despite what others may have tried to imply.

I just don't personally think it's modern enough to be a Barrett production, but everyone is free to have an opinion, including myself, and it's not as if I haven't tried to defend my own opinion over the years, is 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 05:06 PM.


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