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:
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - by The Station Cat 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - by The Station Cat 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Michael W Richards 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (32 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (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
  #1391  
Old 09-19-2017, 09:52 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 John G View Post
And why on earth would Barrett head off to a library, to obtain a telephone number of a random London publisher, on the flimsy pretext that he's been informed through a third party that Jack the Ripper's diary has been found? And this is a document that he's had no opportunity to examine himself, let alone authrnticate. And anyway, why on earth was Barrett getting involved if the diary was in someone else's possession? Why did he subsequently accuse the electrician of being a liar in respect of the diary being found at Battlecrease? Why would Rigby give the diary to Barrett if he believed it to be valuable, I.e Jack the Ripper's diary?
There seems to be no fitting answer, even from the people who're claiming this provenance to be the likely one.

What I want to know, is if we go with Caz's questionable version, why did Rigby(?), or the vague and mysterious Mr. X, decide to tell Barrett about it?

Why is Barrett suddenly a man whom you'd think of when finding a supposedly interesting old diary?

We're being told Barrett was a simple man, partial to the ale, who couldn't possibly have anything to do with a hoax, and yet here we are being told that when you find a potentially important document from the past, he's the likeliest bloke to get in touch with.

So, Rigby finds diary, informs Mr. X, Mr. X seeks out Barrett, due to Barrett being an apparently distinguished resource on old documents, and Barrett contacts London, apparently making good on his presumed "connections."

Very odd.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 09-19-2017, 09:56 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 John G View Post
It's a hardly scientific approach is it? I'm afraid this is what gets the subject of Ripperology a bad name, I.e. I know the pub was called the Poste House because some random bloke in a pub told me so!
Pretty much, this is what passes for evidence, John.

This is my entire point regarding people just making things up to explain away errors and problems. In reality, you can only go with what you actually have evidence for, otherwise, we could simply reason away lots of things to accommodate such problems, which ultimately leads us nowhere except down the rabbit hole.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:06 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 546
Default

In 1891, we have more mutilation-style murders in Liverpool and in the North, the likes of which match the murder of John Gill, which in turn matches the Whitechapel and Thames murders.

Yet, Jim was dead. Odd that we have such similar murders from before and after Jim's dubious reign of terror.

Is this suggestive of a different killer? More than one killer per murder? Copycat murders? Or evidence that such murders were not as rare as is commonly thought?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:28 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
There seems to be no fitting answer, even from the people who're claiming this provenance to be the likely one.

What I want to know, is if we go with Caz's questionable version, why did Rigby(?), or the vague and mysterious Mr. X, decide to tell Barrett about it?

Why is Barrett suddenly a man whom you'd think of when finding a supposedly interesting old diary?

We're being told Barrett was a simple man, partial to the ale, who couldn't possibly have anything to do with a hoax, and yet here we are being told that when you find a potentially important document from the past, he's the likeliest bloke to get in touch with.

So, Rigby finds diary, informs Mr. X, Mr. X seeks out Barrett, due to Barrett being an apparently distinguished resource on old documents, and Barrett contacts London, apparently making good on his presumed "connections."

Very odd.
I think some people are starting to enter the realms of fantasy. So, Rigby finds the diary and, after what could only have been a cursory look, goes off in search of Mr X, during a period when he's supposed to be working, and asks him to locate Barrett, the local drunk, urgently.

Mr X carries out an exhaustive search eventually finding Barrett where he informs him that Rigby -a man he subsequently denied knowing, and Rigby's never claimed to know Barrett either-has just made the find of the century.

Now, does he do what any sane person would do at this stage, i.e. by asking Mr X if he's drunk or whether he's been smoking something he shouldn't? No, Barrett immediately bombs off to the library in order to obtain the telephone number of a random London literary agent in order to triumphantly inform them that Jack the Ripper's diary has been found, a document he's not seen, let alone authenticated.

And how did the diary subsequently get into Barrett's possession? If Rigby gave it to Mr X to give to Barrett, why would he trust someone who he has no proven connection to with what he regards as a valuable find? Why did Barrett phone the publisher before he's made even the most rudimentary attempts to authenticate the document?

Why did Barrett subsequently accuse the electrician of lying about finding the diary at Battlecrease? Why didn't Rigby beat the hell out of Barrett at this point for "stealing" the diary from him? How did the electricians subsequently get the diary back into their possession in order to take it to Liverpool University? Why did they give it back to Barrett?

Last edited by John G : 09-19-2017 at 10:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:35 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
Pretty much, this is what passes for evidence, John.

This is my entire point regarding people just making things up to explain away errors and problems. In reality, you can only go with what you actually have evidence for, otherwise, we could simply reason away lots of things to accommodate such problems, which ultimately leads us nowhere except down the rabbit hole.
If someone was to refer to this in a book, how would they go about referencing it, Mike? "The pub was definitely known locally as the Poste House" (reference). You then look up the reference at the back of the book and it states, "Some random bloke I met in a pub." Oh dear!

Last edited by John G : 09-19-2017 at 10:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:45 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 John G View Post
I think some people are starting to enter the realms of fantasy. So, Rigby finds the diary and, after what could only have been a cursory look, goes off in search of Mr X, during a period when he's supposed to be working, and asks him to locate Barrett, the local drunk, urgently.

Mr X carries out an exhaustive search eventually finding Barrett where he informs him that Rigby -a man he subsequently denied knowing, and Rigby's never claimed to know Barrett either-has just made the find of the century.

Now, does he do what any sane person would do at this stage, i.e. asking Mr X if he's drunk or whether he's been smoking something he shouldn't? No, Barrett immediately bombs off to the library in order to obtain the telephone number of a random London literary agent in order to triumphantly inform them that Jack the Ripper's diary has been found, a document he's not seen, let alone authenticated.

And how did the diary subsequently get into Barrett's possession? If Rigby gave it to Mr X to give to Barrett, why would he trust someone who he has no proven connection to with what he regards as a valuable find? Why did Barrett phone the publisher before he's made even the most rudimentary attempts to authenticate the document?

Why did Barrett subsequently accuse the electrician of lying about finding the diary at Battlecrease? Why didn't Rigby beat the hell out of Barrett at this point for "stealing" the diary from him? How did the electricians subsequently get the diary back into their possession in order to take it to Liverpool University? Why did they give it back to Barrett?
From what I can gather, it seems like Caz is saying that she believes that version, rather than the version that has Barrett writing a diary and having it come out of the house on the 9th/12th(?) when I don't think that that version has to be the true one.

What we know is that P&R had worked at the house before, and Dodd used them a few times due to their close proximity and their probable ability to get a job done well.

If an association is being made between Barrett and one of the electricians, then does that not also allow for a plan to have been set in place to give this diary a provenance and a home at Battlecrease?

Why would the diary need to have been completed in a space of a few days if it was known that work was going to be done on the house in the coming weeks, as it must surely have to have been. It seems likely that the work was booked by Dodd at least a week or so before it was actually initiated, due to the limitations that a small company such as P&R would have, what with their being a limited supply of workers for each job.

People who complain about the likelihood of someone writing the diary and having it done and dusted in time for it to "appear" in Battlecrease during the date in question, seem to have no issues with accepting a similarly awkward timeline for it having been supposedly found beneath the floor, taken to the university and passed over to Barrett in the pub in Anfield, all on the same day.

Last edited by Mike J. G. : 09-19-2017 at 10:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:55 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
From what I can gather, it seems like Caz is saying that she believes that version, rather than the version that has Barrett writing a diary and having it come out of the house on the 9th/12th(?) when I don't think that that version has to be the true one.

What we know is that P&R had worked at the house before, and Dodd used them a few times due to their close proximity and their probable ability to get a job done well.

If an association is being made between Barrett and one of the electricians, then does that not also allow for a plan to have been set in place to give this diary a provenance and a home at Battlecrease?

Why would the diary need to have been completed in a space of a few days if it was known that work was going to be done on the house in the coming weeks, as it must surely have to have been. It seems likely that the work was booked by Dodd at least a week or so before it was actually initiated, due to the limitations that a small company such as P&R would have, what with their being a limited supply of workers for each job.

People who complain about the likelihood of someone writing the diary and having it done and dusted in time for it to "appear" in Battlecrease during the date in question, seem to have no issues with accepting a similarly awkward timeline for it having been supposedly found beneath the floor, taken to the university and passed over to Barrett in the pub in Anfield, all on the same day.
Yes, it's possible Barrett and his wife cooked up a plan years before the diary was made public, possibly involving one or more of the electricians as co-conspirators and the diary being "discovered" at Battlecrease, but for some reason that plan was abandoned. I also would like to know why the dates have now shifted when, previously, the owner of Battlecrease was perfectly willing to accept that the diary was discovered there in 1989, even to the extent of asking for 5% of the royalties in order to waive ownership rights.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:04 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,942
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?
In this context, I'm not worried about who may have written it, but about the timeline. I just can't see how, if the diary was found when Rigby had the floorboards up, someone could have taken it to the University, then returned to the Saddle, just happen to find Mike Barrett and give it to him in time to find the number of, and call them on the same day.

Regardless of the timeline, I find it utterly extraordinary that someone who happened to find such a document in a house as (locally) famous as Battlecrease, would want to get rid of it at all. Even if it transpired to be an early hoax, it would surely still be of interest as a curio, and possibly of some value even in that capacity. Yet they decide to get shot of it to a comparative stranger as quickly as they could? Scarcely believable in its own right.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 09-19-2017 at 11:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:15 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
In this context, I'm not worried about who may have written it, but about the timeline. I just can't see how, if the diary was found when Rigby had the floorboards up, someone could have taken it to the University, then returned to the Saddle, just happen to find Mike Barrett and give it to him in time to find the number of, and call them on the same day.

Regardless of the timeline, I find it utterly extraordinary that someone who happened to find such a document in a house as (locally) famous as Battlecrease, would want to get rid of it at all. Even if it transpired to be an early hoax, it would surely still be of interest as a curio, and possibly of some value even in that capacity. Yet they decide to get shot of it to a comparative stranger as quickly as they could? Scarcely believable in its own right.
Very good post, Gareth. To my mind, these latest revelations only serve to further undermine the credibility of the diary.

And I'm still curious about the fact that a small electrical business, apparently now defunct, still has timesheets going back 25 years.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:33 AM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
In this context, I'm not worried about who may have written it, but about the timeline. I just can't see how, if the diary was found when Rigby had the floorboards up, someone could have taken it to the University, then returned to the Saddle, just happen to find Mike Barrett and give it to him in time to find the number of, and call them on the same day.
Nobody is suggesting that the University visit happened on March 9th, merely that the Diary was found that day, Barrett got wind of it in the Saddle (probably around lunchtime), and then (under the guise of Mr Williams) made his call to Doreen Montgomery before he'd actually got his hands on it. Subsequently, some electricians took something to the Uni for inspection which may or may not have been the Diary. All we know for sure here is that said journal was in Barrett's possession by the time of his first visit to the offices of Rupert Crew on April 13th.

I've actually just checked The Inside Story and it states that Barrett's second call to Doreen was the following day, March 10th, and during that call he related how the discovery of Diary had affected his life and that, following some initial research, he was sure it was genuine. I must say, I really can't buy the story of the Diary coming out of Battlecrease on March 9th.
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 08:39 AM.


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