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:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by GUT 5 hours ago.
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - by jmenges 6 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 7 hours ago.
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - by Hercule Poirot 7 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Scott Nelson 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (1 posts)
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - (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
  #1691  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:25 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Still no explanation from David, for why - within 24 hours of Mike's simple but effective reply - he had found out where Eddie lived [and there's no evidence that Feldman knew the address or gave it to Mike - why would he?] and chosen to complicate things himself by going round there to introduce himself as the diary's owner, accuse Eddie of lying and saying he would never do a deal [with Paul Dodd].
Could someone translate this? I slept through my college grammar course and can't quite work out who knocked on Eddie's door and in what tense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1692  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:41 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 268
Default

In regards to the scratches on the watch:

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/10272.html

See especially Chris Phillips' post, March 17, 2004, 6:21 a.m. and those leading up to it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1693  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:42 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Could someone translate this? I slept through my college grammar course and can't quite work out who knocked on Eddie's door and in what tense.
"Still no explanation from David, for why - within 24 hours of Mike's simple but effective reply - he had found out where Eddie lived....and chosen to complicate things himself by going round there...."

Yes, it sounds like it was me who went round to Eddie's house.

I deny it entirely!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1694  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:50 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

There is an obvious answer, incidentally, as to how Mike located Eddie. Although we are told that "there's no evidence that Feldman knew the address", James Johnston told me earlier in this thread that: "Colin Rhodes faxed Feldman the contact details for the electricians in April 1993." There was some uncertainty about the date of the fax, for which James was supposed to be going to check (although like virtually everything he told me was going to happen, it hasn't happened), but this was presumably how Feldman made contact with Eddie in the first place. So if Feldman knew how to contact Eddie he could easily have passed this information to Mike. This possibility alone renders any discussion about how Mike contacted Eddie completely redundant. What we do know is that, in his book, Feldman expressed no surprise whatsoever that Mike went to Eddie's house so that alone makes it likely that he was the source.

However, if, on the contrary, all Mike was told that the electrician who drank in the Saddle was called Eddie that would probably have been enough for Mike to make enquiries in the Saddle and if he knew his surname even better and if he knew his nickname ditto. Given that Eddie only lived as short distance from the Saddle it hardly needed Sherlock Holmes on the case. But if it was more complicated than that then, if Eddie Lyons was in the telephone directory (as to which no evidence has been provided that he was not), a quick call to that number would have quite likely established where Eddie was then living in Fountains Road even if that telephone number was not for the Fountains Road address

There is really no mystery here other than one built up by over-excitable members of an internet forum many years later.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1695  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

We are told (again) that Mike threatened Eddie with solicitors although no evidence has ever been produced of this. Perhaps the world’s leading expert on the subject was in Eddie’s house at the time. What Feldman said about the meeting was this: “Within twenty-four hours Mike Barrett had knocked on the door of the said electrician; he accused him of lying and told him he would never do a deal.” That’s it. Where do the solicitors come from?

I asked the above question and was not given an answer to it. If I am asked where I personally think "solicitors" have come from, I would say they have come from the overactive imagination of a member of this forum. And I'm sure I will continue to say that until shown any evidence to the contrary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1696  
Old 04-19-2018, 10:59 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

In the most recent telling of the story of Mike's meeting with Eddie in Eddie's house, the solicitors are absent (surprise surprise) although we are being told that Mike threatened some complete stranger, something else for which no evidence has been provided. The account by Feldman is that he accused him of lying and said he would never do a deal. That's it. No threatening of anyone involved in that account.

If Eddie really did find the Diary in Battlecrease, why did Mike go round to his house and accuse him of lying about finding the Diary in Battlecrease? Because surely what Eddie would have said in reply was: "I'm not lying, I did find the Diary in Battlecrease as you well know because I fvcking gave it to you". So surely, for a Diary Defender, the question to ask is why was Mike LYING to Feldman about what happened in his conversation with Eddie? Because, if the Battlecrease provenance is true, he clearly didn't go round to accuse him of lying, regardless of whether the Diary was supposed to have been found in 1989 or 1992. He went round to ask him why he was telling the truth!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1697  
Old 04-19-2018, 11:01 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

I can offer a very simple reason for Mike going round to Fat Eddie AND then telling Feldman about it.

At this stage, in early 1993, Mike was pretending that the Diary had been given to him by Tony Devereux in which case, had that story been true, he could not have known its origin prior to 1990 (and Feldman was saying that the Diary had been found in Battlecrease in 1989). So in order to KEEP UP THE PRETENCE, but knowing the Diary was a recent forgery, Mike might have felt the need to put on a performance for Feldman's benefit of going round to see the electrician to check out his story, just as he would have done had he really not known where Tony had got it from.

This explanation would be consistent with both the Diary having been forged by Mike (and Anne) and with a discovery in Battlecrease in March 1992, save that with the forgery explanation it would mean that Mike MIGHT WELL have accused Eddie of lying (which is what is supposed to have happened) whereas this would make no sense with the Battlecrease provenance story in which case Mike would have been asking Eddie why he was telling the truth!!!
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1698  
Old 04-19-2018, 11:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

So the answer as to why one of Eddie or Mike told Feldman about their private meeting is because they were "loose lipped". Really? If the Diary Defenders are right, Mike managed to keep the secret of his receipt of the Diary from Eddie his entire life, until the very day he died! And despite more than one interview by James Johnston, Eddie stubbornly refuses to admit to having found the diary and of having given it to Mike, someone who, he says, he didn’t even know in March 1992.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1699  
Old 04-19-2018, 11:08 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

The person recalling that Eddie told Robert Smith at a meeting in June 1993 that he found a book under the floorboards of Battlecrease has, no doubt accidentally, omitted an important part of the story, namely that Eddie also told Robert Smith at this meeting that this book had been "thrown into a skip".

Electricians and builders no doubt find loads of old rubbish in old houses and I have no doubt that old houses might contain plenty of tatty old books. Vinny Dring says he found two old books himself in Battlecrease! A Diary or Journal (especially one in a biscuit tin with a gold ring) is unlikely to have been described as "a book". If Eddie did find a book under the floorboards and threw it into a skip, so what? It's not the Diary! And if he did find something it would surely have been during July 1992 when records show him working in Battlecrease, consistent with what he is supposed to have said to Brian Rawes in that month.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1700  
Old 04-19-2018, 11:09 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

"harmless as evidence of anything, but safer in her hands than his."

Uh huh, uh huh

Makes sense (not).
__________________
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 10:12 PM.


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