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 10 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (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
  #201  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:30 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

The fact that the Diary is not in Mike Barrett's handwriting probably doesn't bother people for two reasons, namely (1) any forger who managed to produce the Diary of the Jack the Ripper is not very likely to have written it in his or her own undisguised handwriting (durr!) and (2) Mike's stated position in his Jan 1995 affidavit was that his wife wrote the text.

As for the point that the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting, I don't recall ever doing any research into this issue or telling anyone anything about it. But, yes, of course the fact that the handwriting is not Maybrick's is important but we have been told that psychopaths or sociopaths or whatever can have multiple styles of handwriting. I don’t have sufficient knowledge of graphology to contradict such a statement and feel I have to accept it as true. That being so, the handwriting can hardly be the clincher that the Diary was not written by Maybrick.

What I did do was look into the origins and development of the expression "one off" and I concluded that it is a historical impossibility that it could have been written down by James Maybrick in 1889 which is the reason why I don't believe that he was the author of the diary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:37 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

I suppose I must repeat, in the hope that it sinks in, that what I regard as literally beyond belief is that the diary was written after Maybrick's death and placed under the floorboards in the hope that someone would find it one hundred years later, or whenever, so that they could have a good chuckle.

We are still 25 years on, and now one extra day, and still no plausible scenario has been presented as to who would possibly have forged such a diary (and why) let alone how it would end up under the floorboards of Battlecrease where it would not be seen by anyone. What kind of crazy "hoax" would produce such a result?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:45 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Maybe we are all thought of as stupid by the Great Misunderstander but it is perfectly obvious that the idea that Eddie Lyons said to Mike Barrett in the Saddle "Here you are, pal. Do something with it, but you didn't gerrit from me, right?" was specifically designed to incorporate young Caroline’s recollection that Tony Devereux said pretty much exactly those same words to her father when supposedly handing over the diary to him. The point is that Mike is supposed to have done no more than exchange Tony for Eddie in his story with pretty much everything else happening the way he said it did, except for a much shorter timeline between the handing over of the diary and the call to London.

The problem with the theory is that Caroline was very clear it was Tony who gave her father the diary. Thus, Harrison tells us:

The next day, Caroline remembers, her Dad went down to Tony’s house and pestered him about the origins of the Diary. How long had he had it? All Tony would say was "You are getting on my Fvcking nerves. I have given it to you because I know it is real and I know you will do something with it.""

AND

"Caroline remembers clearly how her Dad continued to pester Tony for information on the telephone."

You see, Caroline says she specifically recalls what Tony actually said. And he said he had given it to her father.

So it’s just not possible to swap Eddie for Tony in the story and it all works out.

But what was the reason for so badly wanting to swap Eddie for Tony in the first place? Obviously it was so Caroline was not labelled as a liar. Her recollection was supposed to be genuine and it was supposed to actually support the Battlecrease provenance!

But I think we are now being told that Caroline simply muddled up the names of Eddie and Tony. I guess she also must have heard Eddie say that the reason he gave the diary to Tony was because he knew it was real and wanted him to do something with it but otherwise he should leave him alone and stop pestering him.

But hold on we are not supposed to take what we are being told "literally". Well of course not. We will probably have another twenty different imaginary and contradictory scenarios presented to us over the course of the next few days.

I mean honestly, a gentleman’s agreement! Yeah right.

Of course, it was only a few days ago that we were being told that the diary was sold in an Anfield pub for £20 based on a valuation derived from Mike’s payment of £25 for a genuine Victorian diary. Now we can forget all that because, we are now told, there was no sale. Mike was acting in his capacity as an honest middleman and Eddie just handed the item over because he had absolute faith in Mike’s capacity to make him rich. This is Mike Barrett, the same man we have been told over and over was a complete idiot who no-one in their right minds would even trust to make a cup of tea.

One thing is clear: you cannot create a sensible scenario which replicates the actions of Tony Devereux by which an electrician approaches Mike, hands over the diary to him and tells him to do something with it!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:49 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

I see that the Great Misunderstander is back to her best form, as her alter ego of the Great Misrepresenter, in misrepresenting my posts.

The idea that I have “openly admitted” to my own “complete inability to appreciate” that there may be another answer as to why Mike tried to obtain a diary from 1880-1890 with a minimum of 20 blank pages is purest nonsense. What I have said quite clearly, more than once, is that I cannot think of another sensible and coherent explanation as to why Mike did try to obtain such a diary other than to create a forged Victorian diary. And from the attempts others have made, it’s perfectly clear that no-one else can come up with a sensible explanation either! We’ve had various suggestions offered, all of them ridiculous, and one by one they seem to have been abandoned. Ironically, after months of resistance, just this week we have had an acceptance that perhaps the explanation of Mike wanting to forge a diary was the correct one after all!

The idea that I have ever “openly admitted” an inability to appreciate why Mike was never able to prove his forgery claims can only be considered to be a complete lie. So I look forward to either reading an apology or a quote of me making such an admission. Clue for anyone looking: It doesn’t exist!

It’s perfectly clear to me that someone has created a fictional characterisation of me in their head, probably thinking that I am the reincarnation of Melvin Harris, and is barking out aggressive nonsense accordingly. Frankly James’ arrival in this thread is a breath of fresh air and he genuinely seems to want to engage in the discussion and has posted more helpful information in the past few days regarding the Battlecrease provenance than I have read in the past three months.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 12-07-2017, 02:20 PM
James_J James_J is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 34
Default

Evening David,

Thank you for the kind words. Just to pick up on a couple of your questions...

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But if the timesheets do not accurately record who was working at Battlecrease, both Rigby and Coufopolous could have been working in Battlecrease during week ending 21st July couldn't they? And if that is the case then is it possible that this was the week that Eddie found something which he threw into a skip (as recalled by Rigby)?

And Lyons, Rigby, Coupofoulos, Rhodes and Bowling could all have been in Battlecrease on 9 June 1992 when the timesheets supposedly show the night storage heater being installed in the first floor flat (although this particular timesheet remains unpublished)? Can I ask how you know what is in the 9 June 1992 timesheet? Have you seen it? I thought you had only seen what was in Robert Smith's book or have I got that wrong?
You do have a point here David. Supposing that the electricians were occasionally sent to Riversdale Road - and depending on the duration of their stay, may not have been recorded on the corresponding timesheets - then Rigby and/or Coufoplous could have been working at the house on 9.6.92, or during the week ending 21.7.92... however...neither of those dates tally with Eddie's description of the work carried out.

Let's rexamine what Eddie told me (and the detectives from SY):

JJ: Ok. I don’t know if you can remember, but what did Scotland Yard ask of you?
EL: They just asked my story.
JJ: Ok...
EL: You know, ‘what you done there’? And I said; ‘well we had the floorboards up'


JJ: Ok.
EL: I think we had floorboards up, on maybe the first floor.


JJ: Ok. I think it was ‘overnight storage heaters’?
EL: Yeah could have been. Yeah, could have been.
JJ: Ok, and would that involve taking the floorboards up?
EL: I think it would have done yeah. Yeah, probably would have done.

On the basis of this information, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Eddie was present at Battlecrease when floorboards were lifted on the first floor of the house. According to the timesheets, the only date on which floorboards were lifted on the first floor was 9.3.92.

The timesheet for 9.6.92 provides no indication that any floorboards were raised in Battlecrease House. Similarly - the timesheets for week ending 21.7.92 do not indicate that any floorboards were lifted in the house - nor were the electricians recorded as having conducted any work on the first floor. There are no 'floorboard protectors' listed in the 'materials' column of the timesheets - unlike the timesheet for 9.3.92. To assume that floorboards were lifted in the first floor of the house, at any time on either the 9.6.92, or the week ending 21.7.92, is not supported by the timesheets. It is pure speculation, and does not explain why Eddie clearly remembered (on more than one occassion) that he was present at Battlecrease House when the floorboards were lifted on the first floor.


** Just to clarify - at the time of writing my chapter, the only timesheets I had access to were those presented in Robert Smith's book. Since the Liverpool Conference, I have had the opportunity to study the remaining timesheets. It was only after reviewing these remaining timesheets that I was able to contextualise Eddie's account - which brought me back to the timesheet for 9.3.92.


Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
If he didn't complete a timesheet how did anyone at Portus & Rhodes know how many hours he had worked on the job? Or was that not important?
As far as I am aware, it was up to the electricians to fill out the timesheets, so if Eddie was present at Battlecrease on 9.3.92, one has to wonder why he did not fill out a timesheet accounting for that particular day. It was his responsiblity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Can I ask this. Have you transcribed the entire interview or interviews with Eddie? If so, can you post the whole thing? If not, are you planning to do so?
Yes - I have several interviews transcribed and digitised. I would be keen to share these were it not for the fact that Eddie told me much of the information in confidence. The conversations range from personal circumstances to private financial details, which unfortunately, are not suitable for me to share on this forum. It is a frustration, but as an aspiring researcher I do not wish to compromise a trust which has been placed in me. I have honestly shared as much as I am able. I'm sure that you will understand my position.

Having said that - I am confident that more details will be forth coming in the near future. Until then, I think that shall conclude my brief spell posting on these forums...

Onwards & upwards.

Best, James.
__________________
Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it. Because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

Last edited by James_J : 12-07-2017 at 02:32 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 12-07-2017, 03:29 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Hi James,

It is of course disappointing that you are going to cut and run now.

I'm going to reply to your post, however, as if you hadn't said that, in order to give you the opportunity to respond, should you wish to do so.

My first response to your post is in respect of this statement:

"According to the timesheets, the only date on which floorboards were lifted on the first floor was 9.3.92."

I don't think that can be quite right on any level, even if what you really mean is only that the timesheets indicate that the floorboards were lifted was 9 March 1992. For how do we know that floorboards were not lifted on 10 March 1992?

Forgive me for being pedantic but to say they were definitely only lifted on the 9th and not the 10th - while possibly something that could be argued - strikes me as going further than what the evidence actually shows.

Secondly, you say that the timesheet for 9th June provides no indication that any floorboards were lifted. Not having seen that timesheet it's difficult for me to comment but is it fair to say that the only actual indication in the timesheet of 9/10 March that the floorboards were lifted is the mention of the floorboard protectors (the purpose of which you have very helpfully explained to us)? So what you are saying about the 9th June timesheet (as well as all the other timesheets) is that there is no mention of floorboard protectors, is that right? And from this you conclude that no floorboards were lifted, right?

Regarding the accuracy of the timesheets, I am sensing that you may be suggesting that Eddie didn't complete a timesheet on 9 March because he didn't want his presence on Battlecrease on that day to be known. If that is the suggestion (and I appreciate it may not be) it strikes me as curious that Eddie then gives you information to suggest he was in Battlecrease on that day. Also, if that is the suggestion, would it be fair to say that is very unusual and irregular that a Portus & Rhodes timesheet does not show all the people who worked in a property on a particular day?

On the subject of Eddie, I am wondering about his motivation in speaking to you. Do you have any thoughts about this? I mean he has obviously agreed on at least two occasions to answer your questions about his work at Battlecrease. You seem to think that he is telling you the truth in his answers yet you must also think that his primary purpose in speaking to you was to lie to you and try to falsely convince you that he didn't find the Diary under the floorboards. Is that right, would you say?

Why do you think Eddie didn't just refuse to speak to you? Why do you think he would give you a truthful account of his work at Battlecrease, including the lifting of floorboards, while, at the same time, telling you a blatant lie about finding something under those same floorboards, despite having told Robert Smith that he did find something? Or did he also tell you that he found something, just not the diary?

On the issue of the transcripts, of course I would not expect you to reveal any personal or private information about anyone. But would it not be a simple matter to simply redact any such information while still posting the rest of the transcript?

I am troubled by the fact that we have not seen Eddie's answer to your question asking him if he found the Diary. You might not think that is important because you don't think he would tell you the truth but others might not share that opinion and might think it extremely important to see the way he responded to it and exactly what he said.

Something else I would like to know is: what did Eddie say when you asked him about whether he found a book under the floorboards which he threw into a skip? And did he agree that he said he had done this when speaking to Robert Smith in June 1993? Was he asked to comment on what Brian Rawes claimed he had said to him in July 1992?

Are you planning to go back to Eddie to show him the timesheets and ask whether he can help to reconstruct the days he worked at Battlecrease?

I note that Eddie repeatedly refers to storage heaters or heaters in the plural. How many storage heaters were installed in Battlecrease by Portus & Rhodes electricians? The timesheet of 9/10 March only seems to refer to a single storage heater.

Regarding the helpful information about the floorboard protectors being used to protect raised floorboards, can I ask this. When did you speak to Colin Rhodes to ask him about the floorboard protectors? Did you also ask him at the same time why Eddie Lyons does not appear on the timesheet for 9 March 1992, if you think he was working there on that day?

A final question for you, if you don't mind, as you seem to be familiar with the electricians. Who is Vinny Dring?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 12-08-2017, 04:19 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Where have I said I thought it was genuine, John?

I 'faced' the fact years ago that the handwriting is not James Maybrick's. No research by David was needed to tell me that. I worked it out all by myself.

The fact that the handwriting is not Mike Barrett's either doesn't seem to bother people nearly as much for some reason. The argument is always the same: "We don't need to know who penned the diary for Mike. It's obvious that someone did".

Well that's about as obvious to me as a white cat hiding in a snowstorm.

Love,

Caz
X
If you're not even convinced the diary is genuine then who is? The diary is clearly a fake as I've stated previously. The evidence is all there that it's a fake. Mike himself has previously stated his wife penned the diary there is nothing to say this isn't the case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 12-08-2017, 05:10 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I’m not saying that interviews are useless. But perhaps someone might want to spend their time interviewing the now grown up Caroline Barrett. Perhaps she holds the key.
We tried, David, circa 2002, when we arranged to interview her and Anne for Ripper Diary. Anne duly turned up for her interview [and said it was the last one she would give] but Caroline was a no show. Anne made some excuse about her daughter having somewhere else to go, which was a great shame if she could have helped support her mother's version of the story by recalling, for instance, the day her father brought home the diary saying Tony had given it to him but refused to say another word about it. But Caroline was probably at an age when social functions with friends would have been far more important to her, so the opportunity was lost.

I'm not sure what Caroline would recall of those events today, but who could blame her if she'd wanted to blot it all out, given the marital problems she must have witnessed her parents going through in the early to mid 1990s.

Have a great weekend, David, everyone. I'm off to The Cary Arms on Babbacombe Beach shortly for a couple of days. I think I'll need my fur lined undies!

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 12-08-2017, 05:19 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,455
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
If you're not even convinced the diary is genuine then who is? The diary is clearly a fake as I've stated previously. The evidence is all there that it's a fake. Mike himself has previously stated his wife penned the diary there is nothing to say this isn't the case.
That's fine, John. We're all entitled to our views, and I'm not remotely 'convinced' the diary can help us solve the ripper case.

I do find it odd that people who believe as you do continue to spend their time reading and posting on diary threads, as if there are scores of rabid diary believers who need to be shown the error of their ways. I haven't seen more than one or two at most on the boards for as long as I can remember.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 12-08-2017, 11:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

It occurs to me that Caroline might not recall events from 1992. But, then again, she might have perfect recollection of those events. What's the point of even speculating about it? None.

Clearly the grown up Caroline has never been interviewed so perhaps someone might want to spend their time interviewing her because she might hold the key. Until someone actually does it we won't know.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
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 08:24 PM.


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