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:
Annie Chapman: Can someone explain to me 'shabby gentile?' - by Robert St Devil 4 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by Hercule Poirot 5 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 5 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - by Pcdunn 9 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - by Pcdunn 9 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Scott Nelson 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (20 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Cecil Hotel, Richard Raminez, Jack Unterweger - (5 posts)
Annie Chapman: Can someone explain to me 'shabby gentile?' - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (3 posts)
Bury, W.H.: Mock trial for Bury Feb 3 - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #221  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:08 AM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,593
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.
That is absolute garbage. Someone acquiring a Victorian diary, either buying or borrowing a load of books on James Maybrick and then suddenly having a diary allegedly by James Maybrick purporting to be The Ripper has either forged it themselves or someone close to them has forged it. Anyone who thinks different is a complete idiot.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:36 AM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,124
Default

Quote:
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.
Yes, but the two contradictory sworn statements, whether retracted or not, would surely have severely dented his credibility. It would in my eyes, at any rate.

Tony Devereux's daughters were all totally adamant that they had never seen the Diary in their house, nor had their father ever referred to it. Not that this proves that Tony didn't receive the Diary and pass it on to Mike, but it's part of the story I have never quite been able to accept. Anne claimed that the Diary had been in her family for decades, that she hid it in her house, and eventually passed it on to Mike via Tony to 'give him something to do' to get over his general depression. Dunno about this, either.......

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
  #223  
Old 12-18-2017, 07:34 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I fully appreciate that someone is agitated by any mention of the June 1993 meeting and just keeps on returning to it, only serving to show that the lady doth protest too much. Someone clearly knows they have made an error but yet simply cannot admit to it.
Why would I return to this subject if I were 'agitated by any mention' of it? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Quote:
Here is what was said in post #49

"We know Mike and Eddie Lyons knew each other by June 1993 because he actually came into the Saddle one night when Robert Smith was there with Mike."

That is such a simple and easy to understand sentence. It is being said that we know Mike and Eddie knew each other by June 1993 BECAUSE he came into the Saddle one night when Robert Smith was there with Mike.

But that is a false statement.
Why is it? It's a simple enough fact, David. We can only know for sure that Mike and Eddie knew each other by June 1993, when they sat in the pub with Robert and Eddie told him his little story.

Quote:
It is not the reason we know Mike and Eddie knew each other by June 1993. We know that they must have already known each other before this because Mike confronted Eddie at his home.
Aside from your difficulty in understanding what 'by' means [that they had met previously], do you know when this confrontation happened, and how do you know it happened? Who is your source? Hmmm?

I was assuming that 'we' would consider Robert Smith the more reliable source for anything said or done by either Mike Barrett or Eddie Lyons. I certainly do. But if I assumed wrong, then I fully admit that was an error on my part. But let's assume Mike did confront Eddie at his home, and this was prior to June 1993. Did they know each other by then, or did Mike only know of Eddie from Feldman, which led to him obtaining his address and confronting him in anger on his doorstep? Had they ever met before at that point? Do 'we' know or not? Because it seems they got to know each other a bit better between that first angry meeting and the one in June, where they were perfectly civil towards each other in front of Robert.

Quote:
The latest excuse for mentioning the June 1993 meeting...
I'm so sorry, David, I didn't realise I needed an 'excuse' to mention anything at all related to the diary saga. I am often going to see more than one good reason for doing so, and I will continue to do so, even when you see no good reason and no 'excuse'. I suggest you get used to it before it gives you an ulcer.

Quote:
So the story has changed again.
No, David, the story hasn't changed. All the events happened years ago and I wasn't there. The June 1993 meeting does demonstrate that Mike and Eddie knew each other by then, regardless of who chooses to mention it. Your nit-picking here is ridiculous. But why you should think Eddie would meekly agree to sit down over a pint with Mike and Robert just because the latter had 'expressly requested' it via the former, I haven't a clue. Eddie didn't know Robert Smith from Adam, so it was entirely his choice to do the honours and co-operate with both. What happened between the doorstep confrontation and their 'entente cordiale' in June? I don't know and neither, I suspect, do you.

Quote:
And all these pointless posts because one individual physically cannot admit to making an error in posting a false point but instead has to go and on in a futile attempt to try and justify the unjustifiable.
A false point? Were you at the Christmas sherry when you wrote this?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-18-2017 at 07:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 12-18-2017, 08:43 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Now let's just pause a moment and think about the amazing coincidence of a book being found by Eddie (if he really did find a book) which he threw into a skip.

One of the things we know as a fact (or as close to a fact as we can get) is that an old newspaper was also found in Battlecrease by an electrician, although we don't know when it was found or by whom. This information came from Colin Rhodes.

So, if the JTR Diary was also found in Battlecrease, we have the coincidence of another old item being found in the same property (probably on a different date by a different electrician).

If two old items could be found in Battlecrease then why not three? What would be so amazing about it?

And if three old items could be found, then - if we assume the diary was a modern forgery which did not come out of Battlecrease - why would it be so surprising that just two old items were found, namely an old newspaper and an old book?
Not sure I follow your drift, David. It wouldn't be so surprising if ten old items were found in an old house on different occasions by different workmen and 'liberated', no matter where the diary came from or when it was written.

Quote:
An old book that was found by Eddie and thrown into a skip. Something that he paid no attention to at the time but was built up into a massive discovery after Feldman started making his enquiries.

I don't see this as anything remarkable.
I'm sure you don't. But if you are open to Eddie telling the truth about finding an old book, which version do you accept and why? Has he ever said he found this old book anywhere other than "under the floorboards"? If he said he found it in 1989 he lied. He wasn't employed by Colin Rhodes until November 1991. No source has any floorboards being lifted while Eddie was with Portus & Rhodes except for those on the first floor on March 9th, 1992. So if he found it on any other date he lied about it being under floorboards.

Quote:
It would certainly explain a lot of the stories.
Good to see you exploring a possible explanation which would have begun life before Feldman came on the scene. But clearly if Eddie did find an old book under the floorboards, and mentioned the fact to Brian Rawes in July 1992, the 'scam', which Feldman suspected the following year, was not quite as it seemed, but based on a real find on March 9th, 1992. So some other old book then - same time, same place - just not the diary. Too close for comfort yet?

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 12-18-2017 at 08:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 12-19-2017, 09:32 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Has a miracle occurred on this thread today?

After months and months of me banging on to no effect that the only sensible explanation for Mike Barrett trying to acquire a Victorian diary with blank pages is that he wanted to forge a Victorian Diary, and being told in response that there were a number of other (barking mad) explanations for his actions, we finally have an agreement that well, yes, actually, this does seem to be a sensible explanation after all.

It tells us everything that this is only admitted now that a light bulb has gone off and there is seen to be a way that Mike could have wanted to forge a Victorian Diary without actually being involved in forging the JTR Diary! Just shows how objective some people are.
And of course I never saw that response coming a mile off.

Quote:
But I entirely agree with that as a possibility. Someone could have offered to sell Mike the Diary of Jack the Ripper - or asked Mike to sell the Diary on their behalf - and Mike, knowing or suspecting the Diary to be a forgery, could have thought that he could do a better job himself. That could explain why he tried to acquire a Victorian Diary in order to create his own Diary of Jack the Ripper but eventually realised he wasn't up to the task.
I really didn't see that one coming. It's a terrific concession and I consider it a breakthrough of sorts.

Quote:
The weakness of this theory is that it fails to explain why Mike said in his affidavit that it only took 11 days to write out the Diary when most people would have said this task would have taken much longer, yet 11 days is just about the optimum time between the arrival of the red Victorian diary and the journey to London with the JTR Diary.
It's also the only window Mike knew would have been available to him, in which to obtain a more user friendly book and get his masterpiece penned in time for its debut in London. If his acquisition of the little red diary was going to be any use to him in supporting his forgery claims, the window was already in its frame and couldn't be expanded.

Your previous objection IIRC relied on Mike having had no clear recollection, by January 1995, of when the little red diary had arrived or how much later he had taken 'the' diary to London, and therefore, like 'most people', he'd have said the task had taken much longer if he was simply making it up. In short, the fact that his 11 days claim fit so snugly within the actual time frame was, for you, beyond coincidence. Delicious, isn't it?

But let's look at this again, factoring in the possibility that Mike was shown 'the' diary on the same day he called Doreen, and almost immediately began wondering how hard it could be to write one's own ripper diary, resulting in his acquisition of the little red diary for the year 1891 and his answer: "apparently quite hard". So instead of having a diary project on the go from as early as 1990 and getting muddled with his dates five years later, it all began one fateful day in March 1992, followed by a brief but intense and exciting period in which he managed to acquire two old books - the Little and Large of diaries - and get the rapt attention of a London literary agent. I seriously doubt he'd have forgotten that in a hurry, or how quickly it had all gone down.

Quote:
Now, in the past I would have expected an objection that no-one in their right mind would have used Mike Barrett as a front man to sell the Diary but I don't expect to see any such objection today now that we are told that Mike was the first choice person to be given the Diary because of his perceived literary and publishing connections (alternatively because he was a master fence of stolen goods, they can't make up their minds). In fact, he was so much the first choice that the sun had not even set following the Diary's discovery before Mike had been contacted and shown the Diary.
Of course, 'I would have expected' is not quite as powerful as 'I have found endless examples of', but never mind.

With Mike Barrett's cheeky chappy persona and gift of the gab, I can see how he might have persuaded Eddie Lyons that he was the one to "do something" with an old book signed Jack the Ripper.

The answer to why Mike wanted to acquire his own Victorian diary with blank pages must surely be tied up with the thoughts buzzing round his head if he first saw 'the' diary on March 9th 1992. I often wonder how any of us would have reacted. He gave Keith Skinner the impression in 1994 that he couldn't believe his eyes and thought nobody else would either. How did he feel if he returned home that night without it, not knowing if he'd ever see it again? Might his thoughts have turned to how hard it would be for anyone to come up with something like that? How hard could it be to do one of his own? How many of us over the years have pondered the same question? How hard was it to create, if not the work of Jack the Ripper? After all, only two years on Mike was trying to convince the world that he had done just that.

Does the little 1891 diary not stand as testimony to just how hard Mike would have found it, falling at the first hurdle? How does that fill anyone with confidence that he could have become a main player in a forgery conspiracy? Nobody since has been able to show how easy it would have been, by picking their own ripper, obtaining all the necessary materials and producing one of their own over that legendary wet weekend, which would quickly resist all scientific efforts to prove the ink had been applied within the previous few weeks. People make all kinds of fatuous empty claims, but they never try it for themselves - or if they do, we don't hear about it.

Once Mike had 'the' diary in his hands, it quickly took over his world. His days and nights were filled to the brim with it. He "ate, drank and slept that diary". The excitement he felt when it all began to kick off must have been incredible. And we know that when Professor Canter invited him, along with a couple of his own students, to recreate the missing pages, he set about the task with relish, but unsurprisingly made a poor attempt to imitate the diarist's language, despite having lived with it for years by then.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 12-19-2017, 10:38 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wheat View Post
That is absolute garbage. Someone acquiring a Victorian diary, either buying or borrowing a load of books on James Maybrick and then suddenly having a diary allegedly by James Maybrick purporting to be The Ripper has either forged it themselves or someone close to them has forged it. Anyone who thinks different is a complete idiot.
Not surprising, really. People are fooled easily, by many silly things, and they're fooled because they generally choose to be.

So much for that big reveal in Liverpool, eh?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 12-19-2017, 10:48 AM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 573
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
Although I don't come across many sane people who think the diary is "genuine," I do come across people who think it's an old artifact, generally from or around the period in question. For me, considering the fact that all common-sense signs point towards it being more modern, and not much in the way to prove it as being older, I'm as satisfied as I've always been that it's a modern hoax.

Hopefully, those who regard it as being an older hoax, can find something to pin it to the past, otherwise my thoughts about this diary will remain the same as ever.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-19-2017, 02:58 PM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike J. G. View Post
Not surprising, really. People are fooled easily, by many silly things, and they're fooled because they generally choose to be.

So much for that big reveal in Liverpool, eh?

MIKE, YOU UGLY OLE BRUT!!!


How did the detective work with the cricket club go???
__________________
Tempus omnia revelat

Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 12-19-2017, 07:50 PM
Mike J. G. Mike J. G. is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Aigburth, Liverpool, UK.
Posts: 573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaz View Post
MIKE, YOU UGLY OLE BRUT!!!


How did the detective work with the cricket club go???
Tbh, I'd completely forgotten about it, lol. I've been a bit busy these last few months with renewing my licenses for work and starting with a new company so I've not been on here at all, but I did miss you silly sausages!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 12-20-2017, 12:37 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,034
Default

You were missed as well, Mike. Some us were even wondering if revelations at the Liverpool conference had converted you to the pro-diary cause
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
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 02:02 AM.


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