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: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Batman 7 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: What EAR/ONS teaches us about JtR - by Batman 14 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - by Busy Beaver 53 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Bridewell 53 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Bridewell 60 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - by Bridewell 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: And This Is Factual! - (24 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (17 posts)
Witnesses: Lechmere graves and tragedy - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: A Very Inky Question - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (2 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
  #211  
Old 12-08-2017, 11:57 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,900
Default

What I don't understand is why someone who thinks the diary is an obvious forgery is so agitated by the possibility that Mike and Anne Barrett might have been involved in forging it and spends so much time and energy trying to argue (in such an adversarial fashion) that it was forged by someone else. I mean, to what real purpose?

Great, so Person A didn't forge the diary it was Person B. Hallelujah. It's soooo important to know it wasn't Person A but Person B isn't it?

Even more odd is that when I wrote a post saying that one reason why James Maybrick would not have written the expression "one off instance" in 1889 was because no-one else would have understood it, this was challenged by that same person and the point was made that it would have been understood from the context. Perhaps that person was playing Devil's Advocate but when they make points like that it's no wonder that people are confused as to what they are actually trying to say.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 12-12-2017, 12:04 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
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
Hi Caz

But there are people who do believe the diary is genuine. The diary needs to be proven a fake which I believe has now been done to clear Maybrick once and for all. Also threads on the diary don't tend to be the first threads I read or post on.

Cheers John
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 12-15-2017, 10:33 AM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
Hi Caz

But there are people who do believe the diary is genuine. The diary needs to be proven a fake which I believe has now been done to clear Maybrick once and for all. Also threads on the diary don't tend to be the first threads I read or post on.

Cheers John

The only person (on these boards) who was convinced the diary to be 100% genuine was Iconoclast, and he's not posted since early Sept.

Theres more of us who remain open minded. Lets just hope some little nugget of information puts it to bed for good. I'm quite optimistic its out there....somewhere.
__________________
Tempus omnia revelat

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 12-15-2017, 11:05 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
That’s an odd expression there James. “I think it is reasonable for me to conclude that the electricians are associated”. What does “associated” mean? Is it supposed to be a synonym for “involved”? And if you are saying that it is reasonable to conclude that the electricians were involved in finding the diary simply because they were interviewed by police officers from Scotland Yard then I’m afraid to say that, no, that is not a reasonable conclusion.
Hi David,

I know you were addressing James, but I'm sure he won't mind me adding a few observations. As I'm sure you know, the Scotland Yard investigation was concerned with whether or not Robert Smith was knowingly involved in fraud, namely if he knew the diary was a modern fake. The electricians would have been questioned [in October 1993] in connection with the possibility that the diary was found in Battlecrease House. If the rumours began and ended with Feldman earlier that year, and the story simply wasn't true, one might expect all their police statements to reflect this. But do they? If Brian Rawes, for instance, gives an account of the day he arrived at the house one Friday morning in July 1992, to be told by Eddie Lyons that he had found a diary under the floorboards which could be important and didn't know what to do about it, that is - interesting, to say the least.

It would fit neatly with the timesheet for Friday 17th July, which we know fits neatly with the story Rawes told Robert Smith in 1997. Graham Rhodes and Eddie Lyons were indeed working at the house that day, on the ground floor wiring, which, according to Paul Dodd, was run along the cellar ceiling without the need to lift any floorboards. Arthur Rigby and Rawes had a roofing job that day at a police station near Widnes. The two drove there via Battlecrease, where Rawes was to collect the firm's van and some equipment, while Rigby continued on to the roofing job in his own car. If Rawes was misremembering, or making up such an incident, his timing was spot on when talking to Robert some five years later. But what about when he was talking to the police in 1993? One would expect the story to be left out entirely unless Rawes was telling the truth to the best of his recollection, which was apparently pretty accurate.

As we know, the investigation against Robert was dropped, which might suggest the police got something out of their Battlecrease enquiries to support the floorboard stories. The diary had to come from somewhere.

Quote:
But if the diary is a modern forgery by Mike and Anne (and/or others) there isn’t a great deal to research is there? At least not without having police powers of search, arrest and interview under caution.
Well Scotland Yard did interview Mike while investigating Robert Smith, which tells its own story. Presumably they could not touch Robert if they found no evidence that Mike was knowingly involved in fraud. Anyway, nothing came of it, even when Mike confessed to fraud the following June and again in January 1995.

Quote:
Do you accept that it is possible that Eddie told Brian that he had found “something” under the floorboards and then after being questioned by Feldman about a diary, Brian’s memory became affected and the notion of a book or diary was placed into his mind? Perhaps Brian’s memory actually became clearer in 1997 when he toned it down from a "diary" to "something" when speaking to Robert Smith.
Where is your evidence that Feldman had ever heard of Brian Rawes, let alone questioned him before the police did? It was Alan Davies who advised Robert Smith to speak to Rawes in 1997. Even if his memory became affected by rumours from workmates, why tell the police anything at all unless he felt obliged to say what he knew about it? Eddie had either been lying to him or he really had found something which could have been the diary and taken it without permission. It's a strange thing to volunteer to the police if only based on a vague memory of Eddie claiming something or other the previous summer.

Quote:
Regarding the Anderson article, in a nutshell, as you ask, the focus on Diamine ink is understandable but what should not be overlooked is that, if Barrett did purchase ink to forge the diary from the Bluecoat Chambers art shop, it might not have been Diamine ink.
Might not? Nobody has ever produced any good evidence that it could be, and all the evidence that has been produced indicates that it isn't.

Quote:
The owner of the shop, when asked in June 1994, said Barrett would “probably” have bought Diamine ink and then Barrett quite possibly simply parroted this in his Jan 1995 affidavit.
IIRC it was the only possibility the owner could come up with.

Quote:
I certainly wouldn’t expect Barrett to necessarily know what exact type of ink he bought.
I'm frankly astonished by this. Would you also not expect the art shop owner to know what ink he would have sold to anyone asking, if not Diamine? Or did Mike not even hint at the type of ink he was looking for, and then trust to luck that the one he was sold might be able to mimic a Victorian ink under expert scrutiny of the kind which quickly put the Hitler Diaries to rest?

All for now. Have a great weekend, David and everyone.

I'll be back!

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-15-2017 at 11:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 12-16-2017, 03:46 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaz View Post
The only person (on these boards) who was convinced the diary to be 100% genuine was Iconoclast, and he's not posted since early Sept.

Theres more of us who remain open minded. Lets just hope some little nugget of information puts it to bed for good. I'm quite optimistic its out there....somewhere.
My view is that David's research has put it to bed for good.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 12-16-2017, 09:05 AM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
My view is that David's research has put it to bed for good.


David's conclusion that Mike concocted it holds no water, he never met the guy.
Just as he's never met anyone else and has no intention of doing so.


If caz says mike didn't/couldn't...trust me, he didn't/couldn't.
__________________
Tempus omnia revelat

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 12-16-2017, 12:34 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 266
Default

They must have enormous biscuit tins in the UK. Should I feel cheated?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 12-16-2017, 02:08 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaz View Post


David's conclusion that Mike concocted it holds no water, he never met the guy.
Just as he's never met anyone else and has no intention of doing so.


If caz says mike didn't/couldn't...trust me, he didn't/couldn't.
I really only got interested in the whole Diary hoo-ha when I bought Feldman's book. As I've said before, it was an enjoyable read, but no more than that - it was almost as fictional as David Copperfield. After reading further works, and posting on these boards for a good few years, I don't think I've changed my tune. Mike Barrett on his own could never have written it; Anne Barratt very likely could have (Martin Fido said she could have composed it with one hand tied behind her back). But as she seems to have vanished into the evening mist we'll probably never know from her precisely what her input, if any, was. And if we did, who would believe her any more than anyone has ever believed Mike?

Another possibility is something that I know Caz has had some sympathy with: that the Diary is old, maybe was found in Battlecrease, but was not written by James Maybrick. I wouldn't lightly dismiss this possibility.

James Maybrick died on 11 May 1889; he had been ill for some time. The final entry in the Diary was claimed to be 3 May 1889, just over one week before James died. Can someone explain to me how a dying man could, just days before his death, raise the heavy oak floorboards of his bedroom in order to conceal something beneath them? Nah. Never. So if the Diary was indeed completed within days of James Maybrick's death, it was almost certainly not he who placed it under the floorboards. And not he, as handwriting comparisons have dismissed, to my satisfaction at least, who wrote it anyway. So who did? Mike Barrett? Anne Barrett? Someone known to either one or both of them? The 'Nest Of Forgers' so beloved of Melvin Harris and who he threatened to name but never did? Obviously Mike Barrett got his hands on it one way or the other, but I seriously doubt if we will ever know precisely who passed it on to him....or if he nicked it.

The longer this debate goes on the more I incline towards the Diary's production many years ago, and certainly not in modern, i.e., late 20th century, times. Proof? I have none.

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
  #219  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:24 AM
StevenOwl StevenOwl is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 88
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham View Post
I really only got interested in the whole Diary hoo-ha when I bought Feldman's book. As I've said before, it was an enjoyable read, but no more than that - it was almost as fictional as David Copperfield. After reading further works, and posting on these boards for a good few years, I don't think I've changed my tune. Mike Barrett on his own could never have written it; Anne Barratt very likely could have (Martin Fido said she could have composed it with one hand tied behind her back). But as she seems to have vanished into the evening mist we'll probably never know from her precisely what her input, if any, was. And if we did, who would believe her any more than anyone has ever believed Mike?

Another possibility is something that I know Caz has had some sympathy with: that the Diary is old, maybe was found in Battlecrease, but was not written by James Maybrick. I wouldn't lightly dismiss this possibility.

James Maybrick died on 11 May 1889; he had been ill for some time. The final entry in the Diary was claimed to be 3 May 1889, just over one week before James died. Can someone explain to me how a dying man could, just days before his death, raise the heavy oak floorboards of his bedroom in order to conceal something beneath them? Nah. Never. So if the Diary was indeed completed within days of James Maybrick's death, it was almost certainly not he who placed it under the floorboards. And not he, as handwriting comparisons have dismissed, to my satisfaction at least, who wrote it anyway. So who did? Mike Barrett? Anne Barrett? Someone known to either one or both of them? The 'Nest Of Forgers' so beloved of Melvin Harris and who he threatened to name but never did? Obviously Mike Barrett got his hands on it one way or the other, but I seriously doubt if we will ever know precisely who passed it on to him....or if he nicked it.

The longer this debate goes on the more I incline towards the Diary's production many years ago, and certainly not in modern, i.e., late 20th century, times. Proof? I have none.

Graham
FWIW, I completely believe Mike Barrett's original story of how he came by the Diary; the story that he stood by from 1993 until his death, apart from the couple of sworn statements which he later retracted. It's nothing more than a gut feeling, I admit. So for me the question has never been where did Mike get the Diary from, but how did Tony Devereaux come by it?. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever know the truth, but if we could ascertain that one fact then I think we could start getting closer to the truth about the Diary's origins.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:42 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenOwl View Post
FWIW, I completely believe Mike Barrett's original story of how he came by the Diary; the story that he stood by from 1993 until his death, apart from the couple of sworn statements which he later retracted. It's nothing more than a gut feeling, I admit. So for me the question has never been where did Mike get the Diary from, but how did Tony Devereaux come by it?. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever know the truth, but if we could ascertain that one fact then I think we could start getting closer to the truth about the Diary's origins.
But even Tony seems to have been dropped from the story.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
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 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.