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:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Harry D 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by richardnunweek 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by John Savage 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (30 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (10 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (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
  #1091  
Old 02-17-2018, 09:28 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,555
Default

Thanks James, yes that answers my questions in full

I have only two books dealing with the Maybrick Diary affair, Paul Feldman's book, and the original "The Diary Of Jack The Ripper",hence my questions. Perhaps i should try and obtain the other books dealing with the subject.

Colin Rhodes, like so many participants in the Maybrick saga has now passed on I believe. Is that the case? If he did indeed make out the timesheet, is there any way which this can be authenticated? Forgery, there's a lot of it about you know.

Might I add if all of the above can be authenticated 100 per cent, then I must draw the conclusion that, yes, in my opinion, it's down to coincidence.

Regards Observer
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1092  
Old 02-17-2018, 09:43 AM
James_J James_J is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Default

Thank you Observer,

I'm very glad to have been of help.

Paul Feldman's book was the first in my collection, and still makes for an interesting read. I would definitely recommend getting your hands on Ripper Diary: The Inside Story (Sutton Publishing, 2003) - which, for me, was by far the most helpful and objective.

Colin Rhodes sadly passed away just before Christmas. I was informed by his son Graham only a few weeks ago. I have no reason to suspect that the timesheets have been tinkered with. Both Colin and Graham were and have been tremendously generous and helpful over the years.

Thanks again for the questions.

Best wishes, 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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1093  
Old 02-17-2018, 10:03 AM
Observer Observer is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,555
Default

Ok, Thanks for that James.

Forgive my scepticism. Paul Feldman believed that the Electricians were trying to work a flanker. In my opinion he was probably correct in that assumption.

I believe Mike Barrett left behind more smoking guns than the Jesse James gang in full flight. In my opinion he was a major player in the production of the Diary.

Regards Observer
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1094  
Old 02-17-2018, 11:23 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 272
Default

Hi Keith. Much appreciated. I think we now have it sorted.

When the Barretts first came to London with the Maybrick Diary on April 13, 1992, they also brought with them a 29 page typescript (transcript) of the diary's text. (A4 paper to my fellow dumb Yanks is roughly similar to our 8 1/2 by 11). When or why this was produced we don't precisely know; Barrett claimed it was for his own research, while Graham claimed it was to make a more "professional" presentation to the literary agency. The contradiction is perhaps not all that important. What we do know is that this typescript was not made at the request of the agents or the publishers; the contract was not draw up until approximately two weeks later, April 30, 1992:

"IT IS AGREED that the Owner will make available to the Author with mutually agreed safeguards for research purposes the Diary and his own research notes...."

No mention of a typescript, but why would there be? It was already presented two weeks earlier. The idea that this was created at the request of the publishers or the literary agents was just a mistaken assumption, later corrected. Got it. Many thanks, RP.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1095  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:01 PM
pinkmoon pinkmoon is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: north west of england
Posts: 1,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
To anyone who thinks MB pinched the diary from someone.

If this is the case, isnít strange we hear no outcry from anyone who he stole it from?? Especially considering itís fame and worth?
Not if they pinched it themselves
__________________
Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1096  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:01 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James_J View Post
Thank you for this David.

I'm afriad there may be a slight misunderstanding here - and I would not want to give the impression that I'm being selective in which issues or questions I seek to investigate. I share Keith's position on this - and it does not really matter to me where this diary came from - so long as we can establish the truth.

I've talked to Pinkmoon about the word processor on several occassions - and I'm keen that Pinkmoon should also discuss that on the boards. However - Pinkmoon's account still rests upon Barrett pinching or taking the physical document from the workmen who (possibly) attended Battlecrease House. For me that has to be the starting point for us with respect to Pinkmoon's account - hence I am asking him to address that specific area with as much detail as possible.
I don't follow this at all I'm afraid James. Are you saying that Pinkmoon's understanding, as explained to you, is that Mike Barrett was in a room while the diary was forged on his Amstrad Word Processor, that the diary then ended up in the hands of workmen (possibly, as you say, but by no means necessarily from Battlecrease) from whom Mike Barrett then pinched it?

Because, if so, that makes no sense whatsoever. But if that is what you are saying I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned in your post #1101. And surely the starting point is the creation of the diary. So that's the very first thing I would have expected you to address. Your keenness for pinkmoon to discuss the issue of the word processor has not so far extended to you asking him directly to do so, in contrast to the issue of the pinching of the diary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1097  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:08 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
When or why this was produced we don't precisely know; Barrett claimed it was for his own research, while Graham claimed it was to make a more "professional" presentation to the literary agency.
Let's not forget that in Inside Story, Barrett's purported reason for creating the transcript (in March 1992) was said to be to make it "easier to read", not for his own research but for providing to Doreen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
What we do know is that this typescript was not made at the request of the agents or the publishers; the contract was not draw up until approximately two weeks later, April 30, 1992
But, in theory, couldn't Doreen have asked him on the telephone on 9 or 10 March 1992 to bring the Diary to London and, if possible, a transcript of it?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1098  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:33 PM
James_J James_J is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Default

Evening David. Thank you for the observations and apologies for any confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I don't follow this at all I'm afraid James. Are you saying that Pinkmoon's understanding, as explained to you, is that Mike Barrett was in a room while the diary was forged on his Amstrad Word Processor, that the diary then ended up in the hands of workmen (possibly, as you say, but by no means necessarily from Battlecrease) from whom Mike Barrett then pinched it?
Just to clarify - my understanding of Pinkmoon's position is that Mike pinched the physical document (then a photograph album/scrapbook?) from workmen and was then present when the content of the diary was written into that stolen document. It is for this reason that I am keen for Pinkmoon to discuss Mike's supposed aquisition of the physical document from the workmen, before moving onto the word processor etc.

Apologies for any confusion. Given that Pinkmoon has spoken to Mike about the provenance of the diary, I'm keen that he should be given ample opportunity to discuss his recollections.

** Also - I think that I should probably clarify that Keith's post was sent last night and was not posted by me until this evening. That explains the one liner reference to it being left at the sorting office!

Best wishes, 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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1099  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:40 PM
James_J James_J is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Ok, Thanks for that James.

Forgive my scepticism. Paul Feldman believed that the Electricians were trying to work a flanker. In my opinion he was probably correct in that assumption.

I believe Mike Barrett left behind more smoking guns than the Jesse James gang in full flight. In my opinion he was a major player in the production of the Diary.

Regards Observer

Many thanks Observer.

I just want to let you know that Keith will supplement my own answers to these questions.

In the meantime, could I possibly put the following question to you?

* In view of your suggestion about the timesheet being possibly falsified or doctored, whether we should check with the late Colin Rhodes' son (Graham) whether this would have been likely, when and by whom? Also, would this suspicion extend to all of the other timesheets which Keith was given? i.e. - for Skelmersdale?

We're happy to do this in pursuit of the truth, but would obviously need to give some reason to Graham Rhodes for our enquiry. Or we can, presumably, put you in touch with Graham directly? Or pass on a message to him on your behalf?

Best wishes, 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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1100  
Old 02-17-2018, 12:42 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But, in theory, couldn't Doreen have asked him on the telephone on 9 or 10 March 1992 to bring the Diary to London and, if possible, a transcript of it?
Hi David. Well, to be a little nit-picky, my understanding is that Doreen never actually talked to Mike alias Williams on March 9th. She wasn't in, and "Williams" did not leave his phone number (!) "Williams" called back the next day. This was her own account, later reposted on the old archives. I wish Doreen would have left some indication of why she wasn't in. A 9 a.m. dental appointment would have been interesting.

But yes, it is theoretically possible that she requested a transcript on the 10th, but, if such was the case, what do we do with the letter she later wrote to Nick Warren?

Doreen Montgomery to Nick Warren, 8 May, 1994:

“Of course we know what the SFS found--a transcript of the Diary! There’s nothing sinister in that. "Right from the word go, everyone knew that Mike had bought a WP precisely to transcribe the Diary, in order to study its contents more easily.”

Doreen herself is claiming that Mike created the typescript for his own use.

From Paul Begg's 2001 statement, it seems to me that everyone assumed this was some transcript made for the use of the research team, and only later was it learned that it was actually something Anne and Mike created sometime prior to April 13th, 1992.
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 09:14 AM.


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