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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 22 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (38 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
  #91  
Old 11-21-2017, 03:39 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Nothing unusual or remarkable about it at all.
Thanks for providing that example, David, and I do take your point. However, whilst it's no doubt the case that adverts for Ripper books weren't particularly unusual, that's not what's been remarked upon in the case of the Diary. It is, rather, the very close proximity of the notorious advert for a blank Victorian diary to a request for three specific, and somewhat specialist, books about the Ripper. I still find this an interesting coincidence, although whether it is a significant one is another matter entirely. The only way we could know for sure would be if there were some record of who placed those advertisements; in the absence of such evidence, the most one can say is that this is an amusing oddity.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 11-21-2017, 04:30 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Thanks for providing that example, David, and I do take your point. However, whilst it's no doubt the case that adverts for Ripper books weren't particularly unusual, that's not what's been remarked upon in the case of the Diary.
With respect Sam, I think that's exactly what is being remarked upon. Within a list of over 80 books there are three requests for rare Jack the Ripper books (and not even next to the request for the Victorian diary). My point is that it's not at all surprising or unusual or unexpected (and, by definition, all book requests in that specialist magazine are going to be for rare or specialist books).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I still find this an interesting coincidence, although whether it is a significant one is another matter entirely.
That's fine. What I was reacting to was the remarkable statement made above about the three JTR books that:

"These were also enquired about by Mike at the same time"

That was made as a statement of fact, with the only caveat being "unless you fancy another curious coincidence to explain away." Then it was said: "They would seem to indicate his earliest efforts to research the subject of Jack the Ripper".

I have difficulty understanding what goes through the mind of someone who makes such extraordinarily positive but highly dubious assertions - and assertions which are inconsistent with what is stated in their own book to boot!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-21-2017, 04:44 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

As for the story about the diary being sold for £20 or £25, I can't help wondering if someone is getting themselves terribly confused about a story told by Robert Smith that Alan Davies suggested to the manager of the newly opened APS store in Bootle, Alan Dodgson, that "the diary could be acquired for about £25". However, as Alan Davies told Smith when he later tried to locate the diary: "the book had been sold in a pub in Anfield".

No price was stated for the sale and it's rather hard to fit this story into the new narrative. According to both Harrison and Johnston, the conversation between Davies and Dodgson occurred in late 1991. A small problem for the Diary faithful considering that the Diary was still supposed to be under the floorboards at this date.

Smith, however, dates the conversation to late 1992 at the earliest. This is equally problematic because the new narrative surely requires Eddie to have sold the Diary to Mike in March or April 1992 so it is inexplicable that Davies could be suggesting many months later that it still could be purchased for "about" £25.

So when did this conversation take place and when did the APS shop in Bootle open? Was it November 1991 or November 1992? I think this question needs to be definitively answered before anyone can even start thinking about what it all means.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:27 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
When I said that Rigby could easily have convinced himself that Lyons had been involved in finding something and had passed it on to Devereux and Barrett this in no way assumes that Rigby knew anything about Devereux or Barrett. It’s simple comprehension.
Not if Rigby was a witness to two fellow electricians acting furtively and trying to conceal something from him, which he suspected one or other had just taken from the house. He claimed to have been in the car with them for the trip to Liverpool University, and spotted a parcel wrapped in brown paper under a seat. This led to his conviction that the parcel contained the diary, which had been passed on to Mike, which he knew had to be no sooner than March 1992 when he worked in the house.

Quote:
He didn’t need to know who Devereux and Barrett were at all.
No, and he probably didn't, but he did know it had to be in 1992, and everyone involved with Mike's account knew Tony D had died in 1991.

Quote:
The point is that Eddie Lyons was NOT a random coincidence. He probably only exists in the story because he happened to be one of nine Liverpool electricians who drank in the Saddle. It’s not a random coincidence, in other words, it’s a manufactured story created to please the big film producer, Paul Feldman, and give him exactly what he wanted.
But 'probably' isn't good enough for you when anyone else tries it on. How is it good enough when you do it? Why would Eddie effectively be denying finding or stealing 'the' diary, when talking to Robert Smith in June 1993, if he was trying to con Feldman with the opposite story? What was the point of Eddie agreeing to talk to Robert at all?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 11-22-2017 at 01:31 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:34 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
What about the idea that someone forged the diary in the 20th century and placed it under the floorboards in Battlecrease? Well, perhaps that is something that can be discussed at the next Mad Hatter’s Tea Party but not worth my time on this forum.
So why are you still here? And why so rude?

You do sound very cross about something.

Take a chill pill.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:53 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Why did Mike contact Doreen on 9 March 1992? Well if he was going to contact Doreen it had to be on one day out of 365 in any one year, or indeed 366 in the leap year. You could ask the same question about any day. But was he ever asked that question? I have no idea. Personally I very much doubt that his contacting Doreen had anything to do with the electrical work taking place in Battlecrease. I thought this new evidence was supposed to prove me wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. It's certainly failed to do that.
And personally I don't care what you 'personally' very much doubt.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Mike did not get his diary penned between the end of March 1992 and April 13, but if you seriously think he did, then you may as well think the moon is made of cream cheese, for what good your opinions are to anyone.

What on earth makes you think Keith and others have been investigating this to prove you wrong about anything?

Apart from the fact that they'd have to be mad to think they could ever do so, you and your relatively recent thoughts on the subject are really not as vital as you fondly imagine.

Yes, if it had been a matter of pure chance, Mike could have been dreaming of creating a ripper diary since he was ten, and could have called Doreen, or her equivalent, to see what interest there was, on any number of days between then and when he died in 2016.

And the floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom could have been lifted at the whim of whoever was living there on any number of days - or indeed never - between May 1889 and today.

But no. You have two one-off instances, with the clearest possible connection to Maybrick and his place of death, not only in the same century, decade, year, month or week, but on the one day in March 1992.

You deal with that your way, and others will deal with it their way.

Good luck.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-22-2017, 02:31 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Just to round off this string of posts with a brief anecdote. This very week - on Tuesday in fact - I happened to mention, over the lunch period, to a colleague at work, someone who I used to work with in the office about three years ago. I hadn't seen this guy (or even thought about him) for the past two years and wasn't even sure if he still worked at my firm. Can you imagine my astonishment when about two or three hours later, at shortly after 3pm, when I was returning to the office from another building to which I had paid a short business visit, I walked past this very chap in the street at a location about a mile from my office? Checking his LinkedIn page when I returned to the office I discovered he had left my firm and moved to another firm which is based close to where I walked past him (thus explaining why he was there).

Now I thought that was quite freaky. So did my colleague to whom I told the story. And funnily enough even today when I was writing an email to someone within my firm who I hardly ever see or communicate with in any way, she walked into my office just as I was about to press send. I told her the above story and that it was clearly a week of coincidence!

That one is obviously less freaky than walking past someone in the street who I hadn't seen or spoken about or thought about for over two years when I had just been speaking about him earlier that day. But, hey, it's just one of those unlikely coincidences. We've all experienced them.
I know all about such things, David. When I was twelve I went on holiday to Cattolica on the Adriatic coast - my first ever flight and my first trip abroad. The beach was absolutely packed, you could hardly see the sand for all the sunbathers. On my first day I happened to look round as I arranged my towel and immediately behind me was a girl from the next class up at my school! That's when I knew what a small world it really is.

Then, in 1998, on a holiday in Vilamoura on the Algarve, we went to a Chinese restaurant one evening and my daughter's school teacher was sitting at a corner table. I was used to it by then.

Quote:
But based on a similar type of coincidence I am effectively supposed to believe that James Maybrick was Jack the Ripper! For make no mistake. If that diary was retrieved from under the floorboards of Battlecrease then it was surely written by James Maybrick and if it was written by James Maybrick then he was surely Jack the Ripper.
Blimey, that's a leap! Robert may well believe that, but he hasn't tried to make me believe it in all the years I've known him, and he knows he never will. So why not treat his book as something akin to one claiming the moon landings were hoaxed, and you might not get so stressed about it all.

Quote:
But, really, I need more than a mundane timesheet if I am going to even start to think that the diary was ever under a single floorboard in Battlecrease. I rather suspect the same is true for most people.
I rather suspect the whole story, warts and all, is yet to be told, so it's not something to get too worried about. I'm certainly not sure of your confidence that 'most people' think like you do, but that's not something to boast about, considering most people voted for Trump and Brexit.

For a similar type of coincidence, you need to figure in the rumours going round the electricians from 1992, when they apparently would have known nothing about Mike calling Doreen about any diary, and when Mike would apparently have known nothing about any floorboards in Maybrick's old bedroom coming up. There's the small fact that the two events happened at all to consider, before you even get to them both happening on the same day, thus allowing for the rumours to have been true.

I heard you had tried to calculate the chances and downplay them and I did wonder where you learned the craft. Have you learned to turn base metal into gold yet? Or add sugar to ink to break down the molecules?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-22-2017, 06:41 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
This can only emerge from the mind of someone who cannot distinguish fact from wild speculation.
You don't even realise it when you do exactly the same thing, do you? Look at the post you wrote immediately before the above and watch yourself in action.

Quote:
In the first place, we are told in Inside Story (p.237) that Keith Skinner investigated the purchase of the Victorian diary and discovered that HP Bookfinders "had received a telephone enquiry from a Mr Barrett asking them to locate a Victorian diary, which struck them as an unusual request". Nothing said there about any further enquiries for Jack the Ripper books. So unless it is being said that Keith Skinner's investigation was faulty that's a dead end right there.
Oh don't talk such crap. You were told that Keith was investigating the purchase of the Victorian diary [which Mike himself had revealed and Anne had supplied the details], not investigating whether Mike may also have used the same firm to advertise at any point for Jack the Ripper books [which Mike never claimed as far as I'm aware], or books on How to Obtain Victorian Ink, Pens or Cheap Scotch to get him through a future confession session for that matter.

Quote:
Furthermore, Martin E. Earl's advertisement contains requests for over 80 books on all sorts of subjects. Is it being said that Mike Barrett was the person who wanted all these books????? It's absurd.
It would be absurd, if anyone was saying Mike wanted 80+ books on all sorts of subjects, from Forgery For Dummies to How to Make a Convincing Confession Under the Influence. I now have the three JtR items in question at the bottom of my list of coincidences which may not be - and nobody has been hurt in the process. Do get over yourself.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 11-22-2017 at 06:46 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:13 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
And surely that disposes of that barmy and laughable suggestion. I mean, perhaps people are in denial but the clear and obvious reason for Mike Barrett to have gone on the hunt for a Victorian diary with a MINIMUM of 20 blank pages – I repeat a MINIMUM of 20 blank pages - was to obtain a volume in which the text of a "Victorian" diary could be written. (And we may note in passing that the transcript of the JTR Diary in Shirley Harrison's 2003 book is exactly 20 pages.) This notion perfectly fits in with Mike making the telephone call to Doreen on 9 March 1992, having in his possession an already written or typed up draft of the text of the diary, establishing from Doreen that such a diary would be valuable and realising that he now needed to obtain a bound volume containing paper from the period which, by random coincidence, is exactly what he said he was doing in his January 1995 affidavit. It certainly explains why he didn't rush down to London with the diary but waited over a month to meet Doreen. Realising the Victorian diary was too small he then managed to obtain the scrapbook (quite possibly at an O&L auction held on 31 March) and this would literally have given him just sufficient time, as stated in his affidavit, for the text of the diary to be written by hand into the scrapbook (i.e. 11 days) before being presented to Doreen in London on 13 April 1992.
Do you see what you did there? You went seamlessly from a barmy and laughable suggestion of your own to a statement of fact that Mike obtained the scrapbook after realising the one for 1891 was too small [just too small? ] for the text of his faked diary.

Everyone was capable of working out that you were merely speculating and describing what you considered to be a possible scenario, so it might be wise not to insult their intelligence by warning them that when I do the same I am claiming my scenario as established fact, when it's blindingly obvious that I'm doing no such thing, but just going with a particular thought process. You may see it as weakness to explore alternative options openly, if you find your strength from clinging to the Barrett forgery wreckage, but that is your problem, not mine.

Quote:
The notion of a modern forgery (in 1992) is the only one that sensibly fits the fact of the purchase of the Victorian diary - indeed it fits all the facts - and, even after all this time, I really have no idea why there is such fanatical resistance to this simple and obvious explanation.
Yes, you rightly call it a 'notion', but no, it most certainly doesn't fit all the facts, and what may be simple and obvious to you is anything but simple or obvious to the people who have been at the heart of the investigation since 1992, while you sit there sneering, a million miles from the reality, moving the personalities involved around like pieces on a chess board. This might explain why you 'have no idea' and probably never will.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 11-22-2017 at 07:17 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I see that some people are now reduced to reproducing unsubstantiated rumours in support of the Battlecrease provenance. This must surely show how desperate these Diary believers are. The timesheets were supposed to prove the provenance but that turned out to be damp squib. So now we are told that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £20. Forgive me, but where is the evidence for this assertion? What is the source of it?

All I keep reading in this thread are unsubstantiated and unsupported statements. Like: the 9 electricians were never in Battlecrease before 1992, the floorboards in Maybrick's room had never been dug up before, Arthur Rigby and Coufopolous were working in the morning in Battlecrease on 9 March 1992, they definitely lifted the floorboards on 9 March, the Portus & Rhodes working day was between x and y etc. etc. Is it not possible to stick with the actual evidence in this case? And if there is evidence in support of any such statements it should be provided so that we can see it.

Certainly the claim that the floorboards were lifted remains an assumption and all the argument in the world won't change that. Maybe they were lifted but how do we know for sure? Are we simply supposed to assume they were?
Seems to have got you rattled though, eh?

If you will keep speculating about things you admit to knowing nothing about, you can expect others to come back with their own observations, based on evidence that is already out there, regardless of whether you have seen or heard it or not.

What is your evidence that the diary was not sold in an Anfield pub for £25? That the 1992 electricians did work in Battlecrease before 1992? That the floorboards in that room had been lifted before, but not on March 9, when Rigby completed a timesheet for 8 hours' work on the underfloor wiring in that room? That Colin Rhodes gave Keith incorrect information about who did what and when, or the hours worked on a typical day?

You are the one working unashamedly on pure assumption here, in the hope that there was never anything but assumption beneath those floorboards; in the hope that Rigby got under the floor to install the wiring using only the power of his mind perhaps; or was he like the gynaecologist who papered his hall through the letter box?

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 05:17 PM.


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