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 Sam Flynn 1 minute ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Trevor Marriott 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (29 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (14 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (1 posts)
Neil, P.C. John: Running towards me without a hat, which raised my suspicions!!! - (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
  #1401  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:15 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
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.
Thanks, Steven. So my choice is an improbable timeline versus an implausible sequence of events. Besides, I still cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to get rid of such an interesting find so quickly; if it had been me, I wouldn't have wanted to get rid of such a curio at all.

I think I'll stick with the Devereux Provenance story
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1402  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:22 PM
Pcdunn Pcdunn is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,493
Default

I read the first few chapters of Smith's book last night, and am still figuring them out. He seems to have talked to another witness, who indicates it was fairly common knowledge among the electricians (prior to any news story!) that "something" had come out of Battlecrease.

The time-sheets prove Rigby was the only man working the week ending March 10 (on the company's work schedule, apparently, not by calendar), who had been largely alone in the room which had been Maybrick's bedroom.

Smith also thinks the time-sheets prove the other named electricians were present. He suggests a "courier" (possibly the apprentice who worked only two hours in the morning, or a friend who was not working the same job) took the book to the university during the day. He says the university does agree two men brought in something to be looked at, but they didn't have details as to what or to whom. He also offers the detail that the book was in a "biscuit tin, with a gold wedding ring", but as the involved electricians deny seeing such a thing (and neither the tin nor the ring has turned up), he can't pursue it further.

I think I'll need to re-read that chapter later...
__________________
Pat D.
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:25 PM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I think I'll stick with the Devereux Provenance story
Ha ha, that's exactly the conclusion I've reached since finishing Smith's new book.

If we move on from the highly dubious electricians story, and if we discount the notion that Barrett forged it (which is more risible than Maybrick being JTR IMHO) then what are we left with? Barrett's original story (which, apart from when he was at his lowest booze-fuelled ebb, he stuck to rigidly from 1992 until his death last year), and Anne's 'been in my family for decades' revelation. The funny thing is, Mike's story and Anne's story actually work together perfectly, which is very rare in this crazy saga!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 09-19-2017, 01:27 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Thanks, Steven. So my choice is an improbable timeline versus an implausible sequence of events. Besides, I still cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to get rid of such an interesting find so quickly; if it had been me, I wouldn't have wanted to get rid of such a curio at all.

I think I'll stick with the Devereux Provenance story
Hi Sam,

is that the Devereux Provenance with or without the smilie...??

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1405  
Old 09-19-2017, 02:10 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
Hi Sam,

is that the Devereux Provenance with or without the smilie...??
Definitely "with", Graham. There's a strong chance that the Devereux Provenance was made up as well, but at least it's more plausible than the alternative.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 09-19-2017, 02:34 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Definitely "with", Graham. There's a strong chance that the Devereux Provenance was made up as well, but at least it's more plausible than the alternative.
Thought so, Sam.

Graham
__________________
We are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1407  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:14 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pcdunn View Post
I read the first few chapters of Smith's book last night, and am still figuring them out. He seems to have talked to another witness, who indicates it was fairly common knowledge among the electricians (prior to any news story!) that "something" had come out of Battlecrease.

The time-sheets prove Rigby was the only man working the week ending March 10 (on the company's work schedule, apparently, not by calendar), who had been largely alone in the room which had been Maybrick's bedroom.

Smith also thinks the time-sheets prove the other named electricians were present. He suggests a "courier" (possibly the apprentice who worked only two hours in the morning, or a friend who was not working the same job) took the book to the university during the day. He says the university does agree two men brought in something to be looked at, but they didn't have details as to what or to whom. He also offers the detail that the book was in a "biscuit tin, with a gold wedding ring", but as the involved electricians deny seeing such a thing (and neither the tin nor the ring has turned up), he can't pursue it further.

I think I'll need to re-read that chapter later...
Okay, it just gets better. So the electricians find the diary and for some bizarre reason decide they have to send it, via courier, to Liverpool University without delay.

Presumably some time after his escapade one of the electricians then decides to dispatch it to the local drunk, a man he met in a pub, and dispatches a search party. Barrett then sets off to the library to find the number of a random London publicist before close of business.

Or maybe one of the electricians bunks off work and goes in search of a phone box and they just happen to find Barrett in. Barrett then heads off to the library to obtain the number of a random London publicist based on a phone call from a man he may have met in a pub, and who he subsequently denies knowing, in respect of a diary he hasn't even seen. Wow!

Not that the university scenario makes sense anyway. Feldman's electrician contact made it quite clear that the three electricians made the trip to the university together; and I see no reason why he would lie about this having admitted the visit.

To top it all, Barrett then steals the diary- or obtains it via a trick- despite the fact that the electricians previously regarded this document as being so valuable that they took extraordinary steps to get it to Barrett and the university on the same day.

And why would they then pathetically allow Barrett to assert ownership, claiming all the plaudits and financial reward, without challenge? In fact, they don't even challenge him when he visits one of the electricians and accuses him of lying about the Battlecrease find.

It certainly can't be because they were afraid of being accused of theft. Feldman established that the owner of Battlecrease was prepared to be pragmatic about the affair, telling Feldman that "possession is nine-tenths of the law" and that he would be prepared to waive ownership in return for a modest 5% share of royalties.

I'm afraid this is what happens when pseudo-historians, such as film directors, and guns for hire, like Keith Skinner, decide to right a book about what should be a serious historical subject.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1408  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:56 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
Give her a call
One-off instance
Top myself
Spreads mayhem

I make that four eyebrow-raising potential anachronisms occurring within the same, short document. Attempts have been made to explain one or two of these on an individual basis but, taken together, they - surely? - point to the diary's having been composed in the latter part of the twentieth century.
Hi Gareth,

I appreciate your use of the word 'potential'. Shows you are still in the real world.

Give her a call - extensive written usage from at least as early as 1860, as an alternative to 'pay her a call/visit'. [Gary Barnett]
Top myself - slang term in conversation, to mean 'hang myself', from at least as early as 1877. [Gary Barnett]
Spreads mayhem - either as in using a knife to spread 'mangled' or 'mutilated' bodies around town, or causing 'chaos' - the latter according to two dictionaries from 1880 and 1890. [Robert Smith]

You were saying?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:12 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
The diarist also misspells the word "rendezvous", as "rondaveau". Would an educated man like James Maybrick make such a basic error? No, but Michael Barrett might well have done!
Actually, John, the diary author appears to have spelled it 'rondavous' [or possibly even 'rondevous'], but when the Barretts did the original transcript for Shirley's book, it was rendered 'rondaveau', probably because it's quite difficult to make out.

We don't of course know that much about Maybrick's spelling abilities but I'd say they were average for a merchant who had no higher schooling, and on a par with many more educated posters I've seen here over the years. The diary author, to my mind, was not aiming to portray him as anything but a mister average who likes to think he is smarter than the average bore.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1410  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:38 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
I would say there is more than a fair chance that we will see in the not very distant future a book being devoted to the Diary being an "old hoax". Buyer's beware.
What's a buyer's beware when it's at home?

Anyway, you make a brilliantly perceptive observation here, because I've been keeping this very book under wraps for at least the last ten years, in readiness for this happy day. And I will now post the entire volume here for everyone to read and digest - for free.

Are you sitting comfortably, children? Then I'll begin.

The diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting.
[Source - see facsimile first published in 1993]

The diary is not in Michael or Anne Barrett's handwriting.
[Source - see Observer's post reproduced as an appendix]

The End.

Appendix:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
If it was possible to completely disguise one's hand writing over a 60 plus page document, wouldn't this mean that hand writing analysis would be obsolete?

Phew! That was quite exhausting and took all my creative juices.

Coming here sometimes feels like being surrounded by angry wasps - but without the charisma. But if any arsehole would like to spit venom at me in my absence for shamelessly promoting this book, or whinge when I don't immediately answer all their questions about how I arrived at such absurd, credulity-stretching conclusions, would they please form a disorderly queue.

I won't be here. I'll be 'resting'.

Actually, I'm escaping to The Village for some fresh air, sanity and peace and quiet. If you're lucky, and if I'm even luckier, they'll make me stay.

Be seein' you.
__________________
"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 09:51 AM.


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